What Facebook user signed a contract that allowed Facebook to sell all their data to CA for non-research purposes? And don't say "it was in the ToS". It wasn't and they violated a consent agreement from 2011. Hence the lawsuit.
Um, what could be gained? How about making their "business model" illegal? They weren't telling users that they were selling all their data to Cambridge Analytica or third parties.
Yeah, plus SpaceX does it so much cheaper than everyone else, but somehow India has so much money they choose to do it themselves. It is almost as if launching satellites into orbit in 2018 isn't that big a deal.
I also forgot there were eight sensors. We can't handle eight sensors with my approach. Clearly deep-learning neural nets are required here. Possibly blockchains as well.
How is this "AI"? What "complex data"? The sensors are simple. The program would look like if (concentration_of_gas1 > threshold_a && concentration_of_gas2 > threshold_b) {you_stink=true;}
It isn't clear that the same situation applies here. The archive didn't say that they were notified to stop archiving the site, just that the IPs appeared to be blocked. It also could be argued that the intent was different. There is no law against circumventing IP blocks.
What case? No one needs permission to access a publicly accessible website. Good grief. Have people sunk this low to think you need permission from everyone before doing anything?
I have noticed that the younger generation doesn't understand this: if you put it on a public network and don't require authorization, it isn't "unauthorized access". You don't need permission. Oddly the younger generation seems fine with data collection by corporations without any "authorization" at all.
Slashdot Mirror
I work an hour a month and make $50000 a year with Christmas bonus. I go to museum plays and school the rest of the time.
They found a company in New Zealand that does this. And another in Germany. Must be a thing.
That must be a typo.
Obviously not. Hence the lawsuit.
Sorry Zuck, there isn't any language in there.
What Facebook user signed a contract that allowed Facebook to sell all their data to CA for non-research purposes? And don't say "it was in the ToS". It wasn't and they violated a consent agreement from 2011. Hence the lawsuit.
Impossible. Because Musk can land rockets vertically and has "drone ships" and stuff that makes it a lot cheaper. Plus they have cool polo shirts.
What the F is this crap?
My business model is taking your car and stripping it for parts. I don't see why that is a problem.
Um, what could be gained? How about making their "business model" illegal? They weren't telling users that they were selling all their data to Cambridge Analytica or third parties.
Yeah, plus SpaceX does it so much cheaper than everyone else, but somehow India has so much money they choose to do it themselves. It is almost as if launching satellites into orbit in 2018 isn't that big a deal.
That was it! Pair programming works.
Whoosh
Sorcery!
Apology accepted.
I ran my program on myself and I got a stink level of 100. Clearly there is a bug somewhere.
I also forgot there were eight sensors. We can't handle eight sensors with my approach. Clearly deep-learning neural nets are required here. Possibly blockchains as well.
if (concentration_of_gas1 > threshold_a && concentration_of_gas2 > threshold_b) {your_stink_level=1;}
else if (concentration_of_gas1 > threshold_c && concentration_of_gas2 > threshold_d) {your_stink_level=2;}
else if (you_read_slashdot) {stink_level=5;}
How is this "AI"? What "complex data"? The sensors are simple. The program would look like if (concentration_of_gas1 > threshold_a && concentration_of_gas2 > threshold_b) {you_stink=true;}
It isn't clear that the same situation applies here. The archive didn't say that they were notified to stop archiving the site, just that the IPs appeared to be blocked. It also could be argued that the intent was different. There is no law against circumventing IP blocks.
It is only a matter of time before all ISPs switch to carrier NAT or block all incoming connections.
I didn't say anything about the content. Courts make wrong decisions all the time. You don't need permission to access a public website.
What case? No one needs permission to access a publicly accessible website. Good grief. Have people sunk this low to think you need permission from everyone before doing anything?
I have noticed that the younger generation doesn't understand this: if you put it on a public network and don't require authorization, it isn't "unauthorized access". You don't need permission. Oddly the younger generation seems fine with data collection by corporations without any "authorization" at all.
AFAIK classical or quantum physics has never been "rewritten". But that won't stop the space nutters from being all over this "news".