The SEC has all sorts of regulations meant to "protect" the public. Goldman-Sachs is just trying to obey them.
LOL... Having been suckered into too many IPOs I agree. Thanks for looking out for us Goldman!
Seriously people, why would you want to buy this? Zuckerman and friends are multi multi millionaires. They did it pretty much by starting with nothing. This is just their chance to cash out before the thing heads south. If they saw much more upside, would they be selling?
Humans have a long history of throwing things at prey and predators, which is more or less unique to humans. Its a survival skill you never find in other animals.
Is the game tapping into the very thing that makes us different from every other hunter in the world?
Have we something in our brains uniquely tuned to calculating the arc, the throwing speed, angles, etc which this game (and those like it) exercise?
However, the question remains as to whether the US and Isreal, (not to mention the Saudis) were already engaged in military action (covertly), and about to be engaged overtly.
Perhaps there was already military action, just short of lethal weaponry?
The Guardian has a story that suggests there may have already been an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities by this time had it not been for the success of Stuxnet, as well as targeted assassinations of key scientists.
Add to this the Iranian's claim to have shot down more than one US Navy UAV, and various reports (never proven) of special forces missions, and you might be on firm ground to suggest that there is already military involvement.
So while in this case, as you point out, the British researchers' opinions look false on their face, perhaps they are simply working on a different definition of "Military Involvement".
Coffee making is pretty automated as it is... the coffee maker in my office is hooked up to a water source so the only thing we have to do add beans every so often.
And it probably tastes like it too.
A business associate was visiting our office from Brazil, and related that the coffee machines were never seen in office buildings. Instead you step out in the hall and the coffee maker (usually coffee girl) would make you any coffee drink you wanted, and has your preference memorized, usually for free as a company perk. (See what I did there?).
That is what I thought, but according to the summary he was sued for violating the policy not for violating the law. This might be a misunderstandment or this might be a devious attempt to set a precedence by using the wrong violation in an otherwise obvious case.
That's why you should always RTFA instead of trusting the summary.
From TFA:
unauthorised use of a restricted-access computer system. And that is an offence under the Criminal Code (WA). Section 440A(2)
She (not he) was not sued. She was CHARGED with a violation of a statute.
Almost nothing in this article suggests a vendor's AUP is the topic under discussion.
The guy was using a police database for pete sake. These things are always governed by special rules and regulations just like HIPAA.
Unlawful use of a 'restricted-access computer system' is not the same as an AUP issue. Once the system is covered or by a legal "Restricted-Access" designation its not an AUP.
They are/were not that different from other large elephants. You can build a free range park and let them roam.
They were not that dangerous, and were routinely hunted by proto humans using spears. The long standing theory is that they were hunted to extinction, although the darling theory this week is Climate Change did them in.
These are not so big and not so tough that they can't be brought down by your average elephant gun.
Third, for those with some sort of sensitivity to RF (or perceived sensitivity), you're flooding them with, well, light.
Genius!!
Hang some totally non functional blinking lights on the ceiling and tell all the Birkenstock whiners complaining about WiFi sensitivity that you've eliminated the problem just for them.
Quick, does anyone have Ron Popeil's phone number?
So let me repeat the topic of this article for you:
"Wikipedia's chief says models such as the App Store on the iPad are not only a dangerous chokepoint to internet freedom, but that this is a real and immediate problem that's of more concern than the overblown what if's of the net neutrality debate."
And since I know you won't bother to follow the link and read TFA, I'll quote the operative paragraph from there as well:
"iTunes App Store can act as a “chokepoint that is very dangerous.” He said such it was time to ask if the model was “a threat to a diverse and open ecosystem” and made the argument that “we own [a] device, and we should control it.”
Because it's a security violation for any real enterprise. Forget Faraday, you're broadcasting, and accepting lightwave-carrier connections right through the air and the nearest window.
The return of the infra-red access point, even if its not infra red this time around same bad concept.
Well presuming the developers are not total idiots, lets give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they at least encourage WPA2 or something.
In a closed room, at least you can be assured your transmissions aren't seeping thru walls as with regular WiFi.
Even in an windowed room or public space, assuming the use of the above mentioned security, what is the difference in using light as opposed to radio waves?
Other than the slow speed of this early version, and its line of sight restriction, what causes you to call it a "bad concept"?
I’m personally not a fan of the whole “app” thing. Feels like we are going backwards.
You had specialized viewers and clients for various data, then gradually the web became more mature and more and more data was simply put on a website. Now we are gradually going back to the specialized viewer mentality.
This is so very true.
When you look into the app store (or the Android Market) and see extremely large numbers of apps that simply repackage a website its very depressing. Every radio station, TV station, Newspaper has their own app. Usually cookie cutter stamped by the same few sources. All of this could be done with a simple web page custom designed for the handset.
There is a stigma attached to web-apps (what the iPhone was originally intended to run). Now it has to be installed. It has to have a widget, has to bet push notifications, and real time updates.
But worst of all, it it has to pass muster from some self appointed gate keeper.
I have no problems with apps that have to be, or should be local. Games and Music players come to mind.
But I am equally (if not more) depressed with the idea that scarce cellular bandwidth should be chewed up streaming music to a phone that can hold 32 gigabytes of music.
the fact that one of your edits have been shunned does not make it a less valid source.
Actually it does. Wikipedia was supposed to be the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, but it has long since lost its neutrality.
Actually when you start with a patently obvious untenable premise (that anyone can edit an encyclopedia) it should come as no surprise that you will fall short of that goal.
The Abuses within Wikipedia's controlling board are well documented. Challenges to their political views are simply not allowed.
Wiki is a good resource, but it should never be a source. You can start there. Just never end there.
The more controversial the subject, the less trustworthy Wiki is. And the more the gatekeepers abuse their powers.
And don't expect the Wikipedia "Mod Army" to treat your post (or mine) kindly.
Slashdot Mirror
The SEC has all sorts of regulations meant to "protect" the public. Goldman-Sachs is just trying to obey them.
LOL... Having been suckered into too many IPOs I agree. Thanks for looking out for us Goldman!
Seriously people, why would you want to buy this? Zuckerman and friends are multi multi millionaires. They did it pretty much by starting with nothing. This is just their chance to cash out before the thing heads south. If they saw much more upside, would they be selling?
Exactly what I was thinking.
Humans have a long history of throwing things at prey and predators, which is more or less unique to humans. Its a survival skill you never find in other animals.
Is the game tapping into the very thing that makes us different from every other hunter in the world?
Have we something in our brains uniquely tuned to calculating the arc, the throwing speed, angles, etc which this game (and those like it) exercise?
Your point is well made.
However, the question remains as to whether the US and Isreal, (not to mention the Saudis) were already engaged in military action (covertly), and about to be engaged overtly.
Perhaps there was already military action, just short of lethal weaponry?
The Guardian has a story that suggests there may have already been an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities by this time had it not been for the success of Stuxnet, as well as targeted assassinations of key scientists.
Add to this the Iranian's claim to have shot down more than one US Navy UAV, and various reports (never proven) of special forces missions, and you might be on firm ground to suggest that there is already military involvement.
So while in this case, as you point out, the British researchers' opinions look false on their face, perhaps they are simply working on a different definition of "Military Involvement".
This is a violation of an internal policy, not cracking or trespassing.
Can you not READ?
Its a violation of Australian LAW. They even quoted the law for you on TFA. She was found Guilty.
Still you want to argue?
From which college did you get your Australian Law degree?
But all Herbert dreamed up was hooks. Not half as cool as worms with freaking lasers on their heads.
The investors probably hold such a minuscule portion that FB can continue doing what they want.
It will take a couple major stalking cases and a congressional investigation before any of this changes.
If you want to be ex-directory, then you wouldn't put this info on your Facebook profile in the first place.
You might put it there for your friends, especially if you were promised that this info would remain private or shared only with people you authorize.
To then suddenly have the rules change is just unconscionable.
But as long as people like you jump in to defend every privacy violation facebook comes up with we can all pretty much expect it to continue.
Or maybe it will just die when people finally realize the meat market isn't helping them or making them any happier.
I actually thought of adding that, but didn't want it to become a flame fest.
They have a minimum wage in Brazil as well, but it is quite low, and these may be non-qualifying part time jobs.
Many other countries have exemptions for putting low income people to work. In the US we just put them on the street.
Coffee making is pretty automated as it is... the coffee maker in my office is hooked up to a water source so the only thing we have to do add beans every so often.
And it probably tastes like it too.
A business associate was visiting our office from Brazil, and related that the coffee machines were never seen in office buildings. Instead you step out in the hall and the coffee maker (usually coffee girl) would make you any coffee drink you wanted, and has your preference memorized, usually for free as a company perk. (See what I did there?).
I'm not sure a machine ever gets that good.
That is what I thought, but according to the summary he was sued for violating the policy not for violating the law. This might be a misunderstandment or this might be a devious attempt to set a precedence by using the wrong violation in an otherwise obvious case.
That's why you should always RTFA instead of trusting the summary.
From TFA:
unauthorised use of a restricted-access computer system. And that is an offence under the Criminal Code (WA). Section 440A(2)
She (not he) was not sued. She was CHARGED with a violation of a statute.
So far, the courts in the U.S. have ruled against such an idea, because in effect it would let companies define the law for themselves, at whim.
Not germane here.
Break into your local police computer system and see how far the courts protect you.
It wasn't a "policy" that was violated, it was a "LAW". There are similar laws in virtually every state as well as at the federal level.
Exactly.
Almost nothing in this article suggests a vendor's AUP is the topic under discussion.
The guy was using a police database for pete sake. These things are always governed by special rules and regulations just like HIPAA.
Unlawful use of a 'restricted-access computer system' is not the same as an AUP issue. Once the system is covered or by a legal "Restricted-Access" designation its not an AUP.
They are/were not that different from other large elephants. You can build a free range park and let them roam.
They were not that dangerous, and were routinely hunted by proto humans using spears. The long standing theory is that they were hunted to extinction, although the darling theory this week is Climate Change did them in.
These are not so big and not so tough that they can't be brought down by your average elephant gun.
It calls itself a horta!
Dammit Jim, I'm a Doctor not a stonemason!
Not much to flame about since I stopped reading TFA as soon as I saw "James Hansen" mentioned as the source.
Yeah, I'm new here.
I've only been around long enough to learn two things:
1) how to evaluate Slashdot Poster ID numbers.
2) how to detect posers calling themselves a "data center Jesus".
Third, for those with some sort of sensitivity to RF (or perceived sensitivity), you're flooding them with, well, light.
Genius!!
Hang some totally non functional blinking lights on the ceiling and tell all the Birkenstock whiners complaining about WiFi sensitivity that you've eliminated the problem just for them.
Quick, does anyone have Ron Popeil's phone number?
Exactly.
And substituting Light for Radio presents no real problems for competent security staff.
Apparently scrolling up is difficult for you.
So let me repeat the topic of this article for you:
"Wikipedia's chief says models such as the App Store on the iPad are not only a dangerous chokepoint to internet freedom, but that this is a real and immediate problem that's of more concern than the overblown what if's of the net neutrality debate."
And since I know you won't bother to follow the link and read TFA, I'll quote the operative paragraph from there as well:
"iTunes App Store can act as a “chokepoint that is very dangerous.” He said such it was time to ask if the model was “a threat to a diverse and open ecosystem” and made the argument that “we own [a] device, and we should control it.”
Because it's a security violation for any real enterprise. Forget Faraday, you're broadcasting, and accepting lightwave-carrier connections right through the air and the nearest window.
So "Real enterprises" never use WiFi?
The return of the infra-red access point, even if its not infra red this time around same bad concept.
Well presuming the developers are not total idiots, lets give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they at least encourage WPA2 or something.
In a closed room, at least you can be assured your transmissions aren't seeping thru walls as with regular WiFi.
Even in an windowed room or public space, assuming the use of the above mentioned security, what is the difference in using light as opposed to radio waves?
Other than the slow speed of this early version, and its line of sight restriction, what causes you to call it a "bad concept"?
Anything you see in there you can install.
You've totally missed the point. I suspect willfully so.
Here, let me help you out.
But this was never a form of censorship. There was no Steve Jobs dictating that you could not make an RPM available.
It was simply an immature tool.
And you could always compile from source. Even if it took the better part of 18 hours on your 286.
I’m personally not a fan of the whole “app” thing. Feels like we are going backwards.
You had specialized viewers and clients for various data, then gradually the web became more mature and more and more data was simply put on a website. Now we are gradually going back to the specialized viewer mentality.
This is so very true.
When you look into the app store (or the Android Market) and see extremely large numbers of apps that simply repackage a website its very depressing. Every radio station, TV station, Newspaper has their own app. Usually cookie cutter stamped by the same few sources. All of this could be done with a simple web page custom designed for the handset.
There is a stigma attached to web-apps (what the iPhone was originally intended to run). Now it has to be installed. It has to have a widget, has to bet push notifications, and real time updates.
But worst of all, it it has to pass muster from some self appointed gate keeper.
I have no problems with apps that have to be, or should be local. Games and Music players come to mind.
But I am equally (if not more) depressed with the idea that scarce cellular bandwidth should be chewed up streaming music to a phone that can hold 32 gigabytes of music.
the fact that one of your edits have been shunned does not make it a less valid source.
Actually it does. Wikipedia was supposed to be the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, but it has long since lost its neutrality.
Actually when you start with a patently obvious untenable premise (that anyone can edit an encyclopedia) it should come as no surprise that you will fall short of that goal.
The Abuses within Wikipedia's controlling board are well documented. Challenges to their political views are simply not allowed.
Wiki is a good resource, but it should never be a source.
You can start there. Just never end there.
The more controversial the subject, the less trustworthy Wiki is. And the more the gatekeepers abuse their powers.
And don't expect the Wikipedia "Mod Army" to treat your post (or mine) kindly.