Perhaps just an acronym. Cyber Command sounds like a cheesy 8-bit console game, or a shadowy governmental organisation found in fan-fiction written by hormone addled teenage boys.
Halt, Doctor Doom! Your attempts to disable the White House SMPT server shall never succeed while Cyber Command exists. Cyber Commandos, type hack password!
it probably ends with the charismatic leader, how happens to share the same name as the author, doing Angelina Jolie on a pile of Xboxes.
Thankfully the "community" comments and ratings are kept separate and are not factored in to the actual rating of the movie.Avoid the "RT Community" tab if you want to avoid reviews authored by spambots and the "omg i lolled and milu jovinich is hot " crowd.
I'd imagine it'd be up to the plaintiff to prove to a reasonable extent that the posts are yours - perhaps including a subpoena or two sent to facebook, and forensic analysis of the computers you use.
Facebook really should close allow an option for people to validate themselves. Right now there's a kind of crude web of trust model, but this doesn't really work unless the people inviting you are already connected and known to people you already know and trust. I think some other companies have validated identities through small charges to credit cards. It's not perfect, but at least it leaves a paper trail if someone is playing silly buggers and it ends in court. Stolen cards could be used, but then the account is only going to be useful until the fraud investigation begins, and people would need a pretty good reason to risk the legal consequence of committing credit card fraud.
I have fond memories of a place of a London video shop I used back in the 90s. Plenty of videos, and a decent selection of co-op games. They also had a pretty decent selection of pirated stuff - i.e. stuff that was in the movies, and banned videos. Unfortunately the place kind of went down the toilet when they decided to add bathroom fittings to their business. For some reason that area was prone to video shops with seemingly random sidelines. The other shop that, in addition to renting videos, sold furniture and carpet.
I would argue that I was agreeing with you. I never said it was a problem, and I agreed that the main thing is that consumers must know what they're buying. If it says "Strawberry Milk" on the box then it must contain some trace of strawberries and milk. The rest of the ingredients are, within reason, whatever the market will accept.
I don't use Android, so I don't really care about it's core features or the standardisation across versions. I was more commenting on the inherent problem of having a brand without clear standardisation. I'm presuming though that Google has licencing in place, and I'd also assume that they'd impose certain limits on how much one could "customise" the system while still selling it under the Android name. That's why I referenced Apache. The code is open, but there's only one Apache.
Whether or not that's a problem for Android I don't know, and personally I don't really care if x handset manufacturer decides to replace inbuilt email with a faint smell of raw sewage.
It's like gathering a group of Daily Mail readers, and on their recommendation, taxing the ethnic minorities they feel to be most responsible for things not being the way they used to be.
Assuming the money is split between the "big three" record companies - and that's ignoring all the smaller ones, then I'm certain that Vivendi's £66 million, when added to their annual revenue of upwards of £20 billion, will encourage them to take their creativity to levels that mortals could previously only dream of.
Sod this. Soon as they introduce this then I begin torrenting content to cover the cost.
Yup, that's the key question - and the answer to this needs to be apparent to consumers. This is where fragmentation of any product causes issues. Windows is controlled by one company. OEMs can "add value" to the installation, but the basic OS and feature-set is going to be pretty consistent with any given line of Windows (Ultimate, starter, etc...) Tailoring, in theory, can be a very good thing - but not if people see "Designed for Windows" on the box, but then on opening realise that their specific version has been "tailored" to block a feature normally found in Windows. Apache is another example. Sure you could hack it around and ship a version that's lacking the code to support the PHP modules, but you couldn't call it Apache. I've no idea how Android is being marketed when phones are sold, but if they say "Android" on the box then it's reasonable for a user of Android on device a to expect a similiar feature-set to that on the friend's Android device.
it's the risk of all open platforms. Compare OpenBSD to FreeBSD. Sure they've a lot in common, but the installation and configuration (last time I did it a couple of years back), is quite different. It's not a show-stopper for BSD users. They're likely to be more technically inclined, and happy enough to research the differences, but it is certainly a problem for devices and computers aimed at a market that wants to power-on and head straight for Facebook.
I'm guessing that the FBI/secret service would be pretty busy if they took this route for all "you suck" emails - so presumably they'd only bother calling across the pond when the content is a little more suggestive or threatening than usual. Kind of difficult to say without seeing the original.
It's fairly easy to ignore if you're looking at the right side of the lid. The trick is to look just below you, and if you see a keyboard then you have your MacBook the right way around. Also makes it easier to use.
Occam's razor isn't about favouring the simplest solution: It's about opting for the solution that requires the least number of assumptions and entities. Supernatural explanations by their very nature tend to multiple assumptions and entities way beyond anything offered by naturalistic solutions.
Which position requires fewer assumptions?
1) There is a divine being who created the universe and takes a personal interest in our lives.
2) Earlier societies, when faced with need to understand how the world works, would use a mixture of superstition and inductive reasoning to arrive at similar outcomes - i.e. guesses.
I deliberately avoid describing earlier societies as being primitive, since we see the same stuff going on today. A large group of people honestly believed Palin to be a great choice, and there's no shortage of people willing to argue against the evidence for 9/11 and the efficacy and safety of vaccines. Occam's razor isn't foolproof but it's certainly easier to test a hypotheses when it requires fewer assumptions and entities. The Sherlock Holmes approach of first eliminating the improbable isn't necessarily the best approach when the improbable is supernatural and prone to being redefined to defeat efforts to challenge or test it.
Like many things in this subject it comes down to definitions. Theism is pretty consistent, in that most people accept it as being belief that a deity exists and is somehow active in this world or the supposed next. Atheism could have two basic meanings - depending on who you're talking to.
1) Denial that god(s) exist This is rarely expressed as absolute certainty, and is a position I personally consider indefensible and problematic in that it shifts the burden of evidence. Also, no-one can say for definite that there are no gods, but one can with a reasonable level of certainty say that the gods described by the major religions are either highly improbable or hideously misunderstood by their followers and biographers. Personally I find it rare to find atheists who'll say with certainty that there are no gods, and most cases it's believers creating straw men that can easily be knocked over. If anyone suggests this to be the norm for atheists then I'd challenge them to show me evidence of well known atheists or atheistic groups that adopt such a line.
2) Non-belief in the existence of god(s) This is the same as agnosticism. The existence of gods is a binary proposition. The best way to clarify this muddle is to ask the question: Do you believe that gods exist? The answers "no" and "I don't know" amount to the same thing. Personally I adopt this line for gods and all other supernatural frippery. An intellectually honest atheist should be willing to accept, given sufficient evidence, that gods could indeed exist.
It becomes slightly annoying when people self-identify as agnostics with the implication, or stated claim, that their reason for this is because they're not certain enough to adopt the position of atheism. Just as Christianity as a label can in some contexts be pretty vague, it's always worth asking someone to clearly state their beliefs. Atheism doesn't require certainty, and certainty only comes in to play when theists make very specific claims that can through naturalistic observation be refuted. Even then it can reach ridiculous levels - such as the argument that the devil planted fossils to confuse us, or the concept of Last Thursdayism. Therein lies madness like solipsism and conversations that'd belong among a bunch a stoned teenagers rather than serious philosophers and theologians.
I tromboned yours, but in hindsight regret how things happened so quickly, and I never really got a chance to know you. Still, I hope that one day you'll realise that I'm not trying to replace your father. I just want us to be friends, for your mother's sake.
Seems that you a collection of non sequiturs there.
1) The computer isn't necessarily purchased solely for coding. 2) Buying a computer doesn't automatically mean that the purchaser has spare few hundred dollars lying around - in fact the opposite could be true.
Heh, true. I'm thinking the case of someone literally saying "lol". There are rumours of people doing this, but thankfully I'm yet to meet one of these people.
Really? You object to being required to be able to prove that what you said is true if it causes someone damage? Personally I think it puts the responsibility in the right place. If you cannot prove that what you are saying is true then why are you presenting it as fact?
I think that most people would agree that having legal recourse in cases of libel or slander is actually a good thing. The problem is more down to the way the law works in the UK. Right or wrong, one could very easily be financially ruined for opting to defend against an allegation.
As a brit who lived in the US for several years you ought to try it before making comments like that. Remember that the freedom to say something does not imply freedom from the consequences of saying it and if those consequences are severe enough to put you off saying what you think do you really have true freedom of speech?
Since when did anyone think that free speech is about protection from all consequences? I have the right to wander around my local town wearing a dress, but the law cannot require people to not giggle or jeer at me. However, I couldn't be excluded from running for office simply because I enjoy wearing a rather fetching flowery gown and a beard. I assume you had this distinction in mind, since without that understanding you're arguing against a straw man.
Dealing with "compulsive clickers" during my time in tech support made me realise why a general anesthetic is probably better than using a local. Leave the patient awake and you'll need to keep one hand free to prevent them from from prodding and pulling out their internal organs.
I'm not personally a fan of the Windows UI, but certainly it's a nice way to ease people in to another OS. Even the most amazing UI requires decent marketing to be accepted, and most people are going to need a decent reason to uproot themselves from the OS that's familiar and probably pre-installed on their machine.
It probably will do at some stage. Mind you, that'll hopefully be far enough in the distant future in which a state of the union address contains the expression "lol". Hmm, maybe 2012.
The cost of seeking classification amounts to de facto censorship. Having to throw down upwards of $470 is not a trivial cost for small-scale developers. I'd imagine as well that there'll be delays in publishing.
Good question. There are definitely differing business models available - in the same way that a shop could either rent electrical appliances or sell them outright. The game industry as it stands relies on IP, but then the same is true of the music industry - yet some people are demonstrating that there are workable business models outside of the traditional set-up. I suppose it'll depend on the type of game being produced, and there will be a learning process with quite a few risks.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps just an acronym. Cyber Command sounds like a cheesy 8-bit console game, or a shadowy governmental organisation found in fan-fiction written by hormone addled teenage boys.
Halt, Doctor Doom! Your attempts to disable the White House SMPT server shall never succeed while Cyber Command exists. Cyber Commandos, type hack password!
it probably ends with the charismatic leader, how happens to share the same name as the author, doing Angelina Jolie on a pile of Xboxes.
Oh dear. It's kind of like those moments when an elderly relative would suggest heading down to the discotheque for some rock and roll.
Dexy's Midnight Runners gave us a glimpse in to the grim future you propose.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oc-P8oDuS0Q
Thankfully the "community" comments and ratings are kept separate and are not factored in to the actual rating of the movie.Avoid the "RT Community" tab if you want to avoid reviews authored by spambots and the "omg i lolled and milu jovinich is hot " crowd.
I'd imagine it'd be up to the plaintiff to prove to a reasonable extent that the posts are yours - perhaps including a subpoena or two sent to facebook, and forensic analysis of the computers you use.
Facebook really should close allow an option for people to validate themselves. Right now there's a kind of crude web of trust model, but this doesn't really work unless the people inviting you are already connected and known to people you already know and trust. I think some other companies have validated identities through small charges to credit cards. It's not perfect, but at least it leaves a paper trail if someone is playing silly buggers and it ends in court. Stolen cards could be used, but then the account is only going to be useful until the fraud investigation begins, and people would need a pretty good reason to risk the legal consequence of committing credit card fraud.
I have fond memories of a place of a London video shop I used back in the 90s. Plenty of videos, and a decent selection of co-op games. They also had a pretty decent selection of pirated stuff - i.e. stuff that was in the movies, and banned videos. Unfortunately the place kind of went down the toilet when they decided to add bathroom fittings to their business. For some reason that area was prone to video shops with seemingly random sidelines. The other shop that, in addition to renting videos, sold furniture and carpet.
Penge was an odd place.
Fair point. My intention would have been clearer if I'd described it as a "concern" as opposed to a problem.
Thanks for the info on the marketing.
I would argue that I was agreeing with you. I never said it was a problem, and I agreed that the main thing is that consumers must know what they're buying. If it says "Strawberry Milk" on the box then it must contain some trace of strawberries and milk. The rest of the ingredients are, within reason, whatever the market will accept.
I don't use Android, so I don't really care about it's core features or the standardisation across versions. I was more commenting on the inherent problem of having a brand without clear standardisation. I'm presuming though that Google has licencing in place, and I'd also assume that they'd impose certain limits on how much one could "customise" the system while still selling it under the Android name. That's why I referenced Apache. The code is open, but there's only one Apache.
Whether or not that's a problem for Android I don't know, and personally I don't really care if x handset manufacturer decides to replace inbuilt email with a faint smell of raw sewage.
It's like gathering a group of Daily Mail readers, and on their recommendation, taxing the ethnic minorities they feel to be most responsible for things not being the way they used to be.
Assuming the money is split between the "big three" record companies - and that's ignoring all the smaller ones, then I'm certain that Vivendi's £66 million, when added to their annual revenue of upwards of £20 billion, will encourage them to take their creativity to levels that mortals could previously only dream of.
Sod this. Soon as they introduce this then I begin torrenting content to cover the cost.
"Does the phone do what I need it to do?"
Yup, that's the key question - and the answer to this needs to be apparent to consumers. This is where fragmentation of any product causes issues. Windows is controlled by one company. OEMs can "add value" to the installation, but the basic OS and feature-set is going to be pretty consistent with any given line of Windows (Ultimate, starter, etc...) Tailoring, in theory, can be a very good thing - but not if people see "Designed for Windows" on the box, but then on opening realise that their specific version has been "tailored" to block a feature normally found in Windows. Apache is another example. Sure you could hack it around and ship a version that's lacking the code to support the PHP modules, but you couldn't call it Apache. I've no idea how Android is being marketed when phones are sold, but if they say "Android" on the box then it's reasonable for a user of Android on device a to expect a similiar feature-set to that on the friend's Android device.
it's the risk of all open platforms. Compare OpenBSD to FreeBSD. Sure they've a lot in common, but the installation and configuration (last time I did it a couple of years back), is quite different. It's not a show-stopper for BSD users. They're likely to be more technically inclined, and happy enough to research the differences, but it is certainly a problem for devices and computers aimed at a market that wants to power-on and head straight for Facebook.
That would be par for the course for the Sun.
Their latest scoop is the amazing "magnetic woman".
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3102005/Iron-mam-Brenda-Allison-a-is-human-magnet.html
I'm guessing that the FBI/secret service would be pretty busy if they took this route for all "you suck" emails - so presumably they'd only bother calling across the pond when the content is a little more suggestive or threatening than usual. Kind of difficult to say without seeing the original.
It's fairly easy to ignore if you're looking at the right side of the lid. The trick is to look just below you, and if you see a keyboard then you have your MacBook the right way around. Also makes it easier to use.
Occam's razor isn't about favouring the simplest solution: It's about opting for the solution that requires the least number of assumptions and entities. Supernatural explanations by their very nature tend to multiple assumptions and entities way beyond anything offered by naturalistic solutions.
Which position requires fewer assumptions?
1) There is a divine being who created the universe and takes a personal interest in our lives.
2) Earlier societies, when faced with need to understand how the world works, would use a mixture of superstition and inductive reasoning to arrive at similar outcomes - i.e. guesses.
I deliberately avoid describing earlier societies as being primitive, since we see the same stuff going on today. A large group of people honestly believed Palin to be a great choice, and there's no shortage of people willing to argue against the evidence for 9/11 and the efficacy and safety of vaccines. Occam's razor isn't foolproof but it's certainly easier to test a hypotheses when it requires fewer assumptions and entities. The Sherlock Holmes approach of first eliminating the improbable isn't necessarily the best approach when the improbable is supernatural and prone to being redefined to defeat efforts to challenge or test it.
Like many things in this subject it comes down to definitions. Theism is pretty consistent, in that most people accept it as being belief that a deity exists and is somehow active in this world or the supposed next. Atheism could have two basic meanings - depending on who you're talking to.
1) Denial that god(s) exist
This is rarely expressed as absolute certainty, and is a position I personally consider indefensible and problematic in that it shifts the burden of evidence. Also, no-one can say for definite that there are no gods, but one can with a reasonable level of certainty say that the gods described by the major religions are either highly improbable or hideously misunderstood by their followers and biographers. Personally I find it rare to find atheists who'll say with certainty that there are no gods, and most cases it's believers creating straw men that can easily be knocked over. If anyone suggests this to be the norm for atheists then I'd challenge them to show me evidence of well known atheists or atheistic groups that adopt such a line.
2) Non-belief in the existence of god(s)
This is the same as agnosticism. The existence of gods is a binary proposition. The best way to clarify this muddle is to ask the question: Do you believe that gods exist? The answers "no" and "I don't know" amount to the same thing. Personally I adopt this line for gods and all other supernatural frippery. An intellectually honest atheist should be willing to accept, given sufficient evidence, that gods could indeed exist.
It becomes slightly annoying when people self-identify as agnostics with the implication, or stated claim, that their reason for this is because they're not certain enough to adopt the position of atheism. Just as Christianity as a label can in some contexts be pretty vague, it's always worth asking someone to clearly state their beliefs. Atheism doesn't require certainty, and certainty only comes in to play when theists make very specific claims that can through naturalistic observation be refuted. Even then it can reach ridiculous levels - such as the argument that the devil planted fossils to confuse us, or the concept of Last Thursdayism. Therein lies madness like solipsism and conversations that'd belong among a bunch a stoned teenagers rather than serious philosophers and theologians.
I tromboned yours, but in hindsight regret how things happened so quickly, and I never really got a chance to know you. Still, I hope that one day you'll realise that I'm not trying to replace your father. I just want us to be friends, for your mother's sake.
This! It seems that few of the people who complain about jobs being lost overseas go to much of an effort to buy things made or supported locally.
Seems that you a collection of non sequiturs there.
1) The computer isn't necessarily purchased solely for coding.
2) Buying a computer doesn't automatically mean that the purchaser has spare few hundred dollars lying around - in fact the opposite could be true.
Nah, you were just being ironic, right? *nudges*
Heh, true. I'm thinking the case of someone literally saying "lol". There are rumours of people doing this, but thankfully I'm yet to meet one of these people.
Really? You object to being required to be able to prove that what you said is true if it causes someone damage? Personally I think it puts the responsibility in the right place. If you cannot prove that what you are saying is true then why are you presenting it as fact?
I think that most people would agree that having legal recourse in cases of libel or slander is actually a good thing. The problem is more down to the way the law works in the UK. Right or wrong, one could very easily be financially ruined for opting to defend against an allegation.
As a brit who lived in the US for several years you ought to try it before making comments like that. Remember that the freedom to say something does not imply freedom from the consequences of saying it and if those consequences are severe enough to put you off saying what you think do you really have true freedom of speech?
Since when did anyone think that free speech is about protection from all consequences? I have the right to wander around my local town wearing a dress, but the law cannot require people to not giggle or jeer at me. However, I couldn't be excluded from running for office simply because I enjoy wearing a rather fetching flowery gown and a beard. I assume you had this distinction in mind, since without that understanding you're arguing against a straw man.
Dealing with "compulsive clickers" during my time in tech support made me realise why a general anesthetic is probably better than using a local. Leave the patient awake and you'll need to keep one hand free to prevent them from from prodding and pulling out their internal organs.
I'm not personally a fan of the Windows UI, but certainly it's a nice way to ease people in to another OS. Even the most amazing UI requires decent marketing to be accepted, and most people are going to need a decent reason to uproot themselves from the OS that's familiar and probably pre-installed on their machine.
It probably will do at some stage. Mind you, that'll hopefully be far enough in the distant future in which a state of the union address contains the expression "lol". Hmm, maybe 2012.
The cost of seeking classification amounts to de facto censorship. Having to throw down upwards of $470 is not a trivial cost for small-scale developers. I'd imagine as well that there'll be delays in publishing.
Akamai isn't everything, but it's certainly a serious chunk of content.
Good question. There are definitely differing business models available - in the same way that a shop could either rent electrical appliances or sell them outright. The game industry as it stands relies on IP, but then the same is true of the music industry - yet some people are demonstrating that there are workable business models outside of the traditional set-up. I suppose it'll depend on the type of game being produced, and there will be a learning process with quite a few risks.