It was pretty obvious when a Sony employee called their tech support line and Sony wasn't in their customer database (as was already pointed out). Most likely someone installed the software and then someone else called tech support, not knowing that Sony didn't hold a license (as was also already pointed out).
Of course governments can still point out that Microsoft didn't implement OOXML (DOCX is a similar but slightly incompatible format) and thus Office and its file formats don't qualify. It's not very likely but possible.
The answer clearly is multiple personality disorder. One personality drives, one personality tries to decypher whether or not a woman is coming on to them. One personality is a homicidal maniac.
I admit that my experience with women is rather limited because I'm a textbook geek in that regard, but the one steady girlfriend I did have was very big on this "undefined input causes random output" thing. She essentially reacted to random things in random ways (with the things she reacts to changing permanently), which made the relationship quite stressful. Is that normal?
Quite seriously, being in a relationship is great, but I don't have the time and energy to play behaviourist whenever I get talked to, with zero latency.
And that's why any member of Anonymous is always firstly perceived as a griefer who preys on easy targets for his personal amusement. It doesn't matter what else they do; the Anonymous "brand" was built on griefing and its nondescriptness ensures that that's what's firstly associated with it. Of course this is reinforces by Anonymous usualy living up to that stereotype (actually, even the anti-CoS campaign can be perceived as attacking someone who already is very unpopular).
They don't want to distinguish from other members of Anonymous because it allows them to spread responsibility over the whole group. It's like Tor, only for responsibility.
Yes, well, if they're going to be a group, maybe they should get a name that isn't completely moronic.
There is no other name that fits. Anonymous is a meta-group of people whose only defining characteristic is that they're anonymous. Okay, and that most of them have connections to 4chan and similar boards. The Anonymous that campaigns is not the Anonymous that trolls epilepsy boards, but they're both part of the same Anonymous. You can't identify subsets of the group (which is intended), thus you can only talk about the whole group.
Well, their names are not known, it was on the internet and it was discussed on 4chan/7chan. Seeing as Anonymous is pretty much defined as "any person or group of persons not being easily identifiable nd having some kind of conection to 4chan or similar boards" it's pretty safe to assume that Anonymous is involved. If I steal an old woman's purse and boast about it on 4chan then Anonymous has stolen an old woman's purse. Dosn't mean that anyone but me was involed.
Anonymous is meta-anonymity. Not only does the label obfuscate who someone is but it also obfuscates how many people there are and which opinion (if any) they hold. All you can say is that soneone is there. Everything else is speculation.
There's nothing that says the CoS was involved, but there's also nothing that says it wasn't. My money is on them not making up 100% of the griefers TFA talks about. There's a lot of bored people or questionable morality out there.
It does match the usual *chan/SA sense of humor perfectly. Anonymous are griefers and that's what they do - cause grief. It's supposed to be funny. Of course, Anonymous would never do that but Anonymous has never cared about what Anonymous does. Anonymous, on the other hand, does anything that seems like a good idea, much unlike Anonymous, who tries to actually make a point.
("Anonymous" describes a lot of mostly unrelated people, most of which find some other part of the "group" higly repulsive. They do lots of different, contradicting things all the time. Doesn't matter if some of them are Scientologists; some are just griefers and some don't think about consequences. That's enough for a subset of them to do something stupid like that. In the end Scientology can't label them anything because any label both applies and doesn't apply.)
It gets more interesting when you look at the world outside the USA. Should German businesses use.com or.de? Is the local or the commercial aspect defining? What about.us - shouldn't American websites use that unless they're an international busines/oragnization/network?
Any way you look at it, TLD practices are messy. In the end people get the TLDs they think are the most likely to get hit by visitors (or they want a cheap domain and go with whatever's cheapest), which is why.com is what.us should be and.name is irrelevant.
9th century monks didn't come up with what can be seen as the precursor to modern speech-to-text software. Scott wanted automatic stenography. We still don't have it because it's extremely difficult, but he arguably made the earliest known attempt at it.
Then Edison came up with/appropriated a similar technology that performed a different, much easier task. Because Edison's device worked and Scott's didn't Edison became famous for inventing sound playback - which Scott didn't want to do. In fact, Scott saw audio playback as useless and a misuse of recording technology.
He didn't reach hs goal, but he didn't reach a different goal than you imply he didn't.
Language in evolution. In 100 years, "would of" might end up as an officially recognized phrase.
BTW, these kinds of mistakes can be used to distinguish native speakers from non-native ones... The latter are less prone to them. We're more likely to use weirdly constructed sentences and false friends (eg. the German word for "without" is "ohne", which is similar to "only" - which once prompted my father to order "scrambled eggs only onions").
I have to agree with the sibling. Scott saw his work as the first step towards a speech-to-text device. Audio playback was not intended and not desired.
My -11.0/-10.5 are the prescription of my glasses, too, actually. I probably should have mentioned that. But that's about everything you learn about your eyesight here. (Actually, you get two sets of dipotres and one set of degrees that describes astigmatism; I don't know off the bat what the second set of dioptres means.)
I'm not allowed to drive without glasses, as well - but then again I couldn't even read the speedometer or recognize traffic signs without them! I also have to have regular checkups with my oculist, but I have those anyway in order to track the development of the myopia.
The myopia does have an upside, though; in Germany you have to either do nine months of military service or (if you refuse) nine months of social work. The third option is that the Bundeswehr doesn't want you; in my case the medical exam was over as soon as the doctor saw the prescription for my glasses and I went home with Tauglichkeitsgrad 5, meaning that they wouldn't take me if I begged them. That way I got to start university one year sooner.
I did have to do an interview, though, because I wan't formally unsuitable for service until my oculist confirmed I was her patient. It's weird when they ask you whether you want to join the army, the navy or the air force or whether you'd go on missions abroad and your answer to every question is: "Doesn't matter, I'm T5."
There's one thing I'd lke to know: Americans often describe their eyesight as X/Y with both numbers being distances in feet. Now, as (most of) the rest of the world doesn't use the imperial system of measurements, over here in Germany I've only ever heard of eyesight measurements in dioptres. (For example, I'm highly myopic with -11.0/-10.50 dpt*)
Do you, by chance, know how to convert between dpt and X/Y feet? Wikipedia isn't helpful as the English one uses dpt and doesn't mention feet. It's weird when you hear people talk about how nearly-blind they are and you have no idea how severe their affliction is...
* Even more off-topic than the rest of the post: According to WP, the normal human eye has about 60 dioptres, so I'm more than 1/6th below spec. Essentially, the distance where things go blurry from the myopia is also the distance where things go blurry because they're too close for the lens to focus on.
Once I've got enough money I'm probably going to get eye surgery, but since the compulsory health insurance funds don't cover that and I sure as hell won't make enough for private insurance for quite a while that's still years off.
Whatever they do, I hope they don't make that cat angry. Making irradiated people angry is a bad idea and this might apply to cats as well. It might lead to smashing.
When that cat starts tossing around tank, remember that I called it.
That's unicast. In order to broadcast your message you'd need to go with nuclear weapons - and those have a truly abysmal range/energy ratio compared to radio.
Slashdot Mirror
It was pretty obvious when a Sony employee called their tech support line and Sony wasn't in their customer database (as was already pointed out). Most likely someone installed the software and then someone else called tech support, not knowing that Sony didn't hold a license (as was also already pointed out).
I can't stand hippocrates, too. Damn medical doctors and their damn oath.
Even worse are hypocritical hippocrates.
No, you are wrong. All our comments always agree and we never contradict each other. What you wrote is simply not true.
Of course governments can still point out that Microsoft didn't implement OOXML (DOCX is a similar but slightly incompatible format) and thus Office and its file formats don't qualify. It's not very likely but possible.
The answer clearly is multiple personality disorder. One personality drives, one personality tries to decypher whether or not a woman is coming on to them. One personality is a homicidal maniac.
You know, there's always a downside.
Some people like to kiss, some people like to hug...
I admit that my experience with women is rather limited because I'm a textbook geek in that regard, but the one steady girlfriend I did have was very big on this "undefined input causes random output" thing. She essentially reacted to random things in random ways (with the things she reacts to changing permanently), which made the relationship quite stressful. Is that normal?
Quite seriously, being in a relationship is great, but I don't have the time and energy to play behaviourist whenever I get talked to, with zero latency.
And that's why any member of Anonymous is always firstly perceived as a griefer who preys on easy targets for his personal amusement. It doesn't matter what else they do; the Anonymous "brand" was built on griefing and its nondescriptness ensures that that's what's firstly associated with it. Of course this is reinforces by Anonymous usualy living up to that stereotype (actually, even the anti-CoS campaign can be perceived as attacking someone who already is very unpopular).
They don't want to distinguish from other members of Anonymous because it allows them to spread responsibility over the whole group. It's like Tor, only for responsibility.
They are definitely part of the same group. That group is just completely unpredictable because it's completely anarchic.
Well, their names are not known, it was on the internet and it was discussed on 4chan/7chan. Seeing as Anonymous is pretty much defined as "any person or group of persons not being easily identifiable nd having some kind of conection to 4chan or similar boards" it's pretty safe to assume that Anonymous is involved. If I steal an old woman's purse and boast about it on 4chan then Anonymous has stolen an old woman's purse. Dosn't mean that anyone but me was involed.
Anonymous is meta-anonymity. Not only does the label obfuscate who someone is but it also obfuscates how many people there are and which opinion (if any) they hold. All you can say is that soneone is there. Everything else is speculation.
There's nothing that says the CoS was involved, but there's also nothing that says it wasn't. My money is on them not making up 100% of the griefers TFA talks about. There's a lot of bored people or questionable morality out there.
It does match the usual *chan/SA sense of humor perfectly. Anonymous are griefers and that's what they do - cause grief. It's supposed to be funny. Of course, Anonymous would never do that but Anonymous has never cared about what Anonymous does. Anonymous, on the other hand, does anything that seems like a good idea, much unlike Anonymous, who tries to actually make a point.
("Anonymous" describes a lot of mostly unrelated people, most of which find some other part of the "group" higly repulsive. They do lots of different, contradicting things all the time. Doesn't matter if some of them are Scientologists; some are just griefers and some don't think about consequences. That's enough for a subset of them to do something stupid like that. In the end Scientology can't label them anything because any label both applies and doesn't apply.)
Assembly the demo party or 80x86 assembly? Either way, pouët.net and scene.org might be useful.
Who needs InterNIC? Just pass updated hosts files to all computers connected to the network once the topology changes. It worked and it was good!
It gets more interesting when you look at the world outside the USA. Should German businesses use .com or .de? Is the local or the commercial aspect defining? What about .us - shouldn't American websites use that unless they're an international busines/oragnization/network?
.com is what .us should be and .name is irrelevant.
Any way you look at it, TLD practices are messy. In the end people get the TLDs they think are the most likely to get hit by visitors (or they want a cheap domain and go with whatever's cheapest), which is why
The problem is that you suffer because they are too stupid to understand TLDs.
9th century monks didn't come up with what can be seen as the precursor to modern speech-to-text software. Scott wanted automatic stenography. We still don't have it because it's extremely difficult, but he arguably made the earliest known attempt at it.
Then Edison came up with/appropriated a similar technology that performed a different, much easier task. Because Edison's device worked and Scott's didn't Edison became famous for inventing sound playback - which Scott didn't want to do. In fact, Scott saw audio playback as useless and a misuse of recording technology.
He didn't reach hs goal, but he didn't reach a different goal than you imply he didn't.
Language in evolution. In 100 years, "would of" might end up as an officially recognized phrase.
BTW, these kinds of mistakes can be used to distinguish native speakers from non-native ones... The latter are less prone to them. We're more likely to use weirdly constructed sentences and false friends (eg. the German word for "without" is "ohne", which is similar to "only" - which once prompted my father to order "scrambled eggs only onions").
I have to agree with the sibling. Scott saw his work as the first step towards a speech-to-text device. Audio playback was not intended and not desired.
You're displaying envy paranoia, which was discovered by a Swede, if I'm not mistaken.
My -11.0/-10.5 are the prescription of my glasses, too, actually. I probably should have mentioned that. But that's about everything you learn about your eyesight here. (Actually, you get two sets of dipotres and one set of degrees that describes astigmatism; I don't know off the bat what the second set of dioptres means.)
I'm not allowed to drive without glasses, as well - but then again I couldn't even read the speedometer or recognize traffic signs without them! I also have to have regular checkups with my oculist, but I have those anyway in order to track the development of the myopia.
The myopia does have an upside, though; in Germany you have to either do nine months of military service or (if you refuse) nine months of social work. The third option is that the Bundeswehr doesn't want you; in my case the medical exam was over as soon as the doctor saw the prescription for my glasses and I went home with Tauglichkeitsgrad 5, meaning that they wouldn't take me if I begged them. That way I got to start university one year sooner.
I did have to do an interview, though, because I wan't formally unsuitable for service until my oculist confirmed I was her patient. It's weird when they ask you whether you want to join the army, the navy or the air force or whether you'd go on missions abroad and your answer to every question is: "Doesn't matter, I'm T5."
There's one thing I'd lke to know: Americans often describe their eyesight as X/Y with both numbers being distances in feet. Now, as (most of) the rest of the world doesn't use the imperial system of measurements, over here in Germany I've only ever heard of eyesight measurements in dioptres. (For example, I'm highly myopic with -11.0/-10.50 dpt*)
Do you, by chance, know how to convert between dpt and X/Y feet? Wikipedia isn't helpful as the English one uses dpt and doesn't mention feet. It's weird when you hear people talk about how nearly-blind they are and you have no idea how severe their affliction is...
* Even more off-topic than the rest of the post: According to WP, the normal human eye has about 60 dioptres, so I'm more than 1/6th below spec. Essentially, the distance where things go blurry from the myopia is also the distance where things go blurry because they're too close for the lens to focus on.
Once I've got enough money I'm probably going to get eye surgery, but since the compulsory health insurance funds don't cover that and I sure as hell won't make enough for private insurance for quite a while that's still years off.
And of course c), you can plant a bomb without being next to it when it goes off.
Whatever they do, I hope they don't make that cat angry. Making irradiated people angry is a bad idea and this might apply to cats as well. It might lead to smashing.
When that cat starts tossing around tank, remember that I called it.
That's unicast. In order to broadcast your message you'd need to go with nuclear weapons - and those have a truly abysmal range/energy ratio compared to radio.