We've seen time and time again, how meta information can be much more revealing than people think.
You don't have to necessarily make any mistakes to have previously thought details about a transaction become obvious. The most obvious way people's personal info is compromised is not through their own mistakes, but the mistake of a friend or business associate who gets compromised.
In fact any digital-realm transaction, whether we're talking about crypto, e-mail or an internet post, is probably one of the least secure things a person can do.
Handling material money is much safer and anonymous. For that reason it's unlikely to go away any time soon
Good. So, you're only worried about that 1% of the population that are psychopaths.
That's a strawman argument as well as a false dichotomy. I said no such thing.
But you illustrate in your misdirected reply, the problem with these studies, as others have pointed out. They provide an answer to a question, a premise that virtually nobody buys into -- an extreme position that suggests merely playing a FPS can turn somebody into a psychopath. I don't know anybody making such claims. Nobody thinks playing GTA is going to make someone run out and car-jack somebody or pistol-whip a hooker.
The real deeper issue is, do these ultra-realistic games de-sensitize people to inhumane and immoral behavior?
And are there some people who are "at risk" being subjected to this media?
I find it amusing that, for example, it's considered inappropriate to say "fuck" on tv or show someone genitals -- because presumably that might influence certain types of people in an anti-social way, but you can shoot someone in the head and spew a catchy one-liner and it's no big deal?
So it's not that if you see boobs on tv, you're going to rape someone, but there is a premise that if sexualization in certain circumstances is presented in an inappropriate way, it can negatively influence certain types of people.
PS - It sounds like you want to criminalize being a psychopath.
There you go again, arguing with a strawman that in no way represents any argument I made.
The truth is, being a psychopath can be a criminal act. It depends upon the nature of the behavior, but generally speaking, if you're doing something psychopathic, it might be criminal. If you have psychopathic tendencies.... I think there needs to be ways for people to ID these traits and give these people some sort of therapy. Psychopathy is a potentially dangerous condition. Don't you agree? This doesn't mean I want to lock psychopaths up. I'm all for civil rights and the law. But we as a society need to do a better job of self-policing and providing therapy for people who need it.
I'm not concerned with video games changing peoples' behavior, turning normal people into psychopaths.
What I would like to see studied, is the potential for video games to make psychopathic and sociopathic people more efficient in their anti-social abilities.
For example, I don't think playing ultra-realistic first person shooters will necessarily make anyone want to go out and shoot someone, but it seems to me, if you're a psychopath and you're into those games, they can train you to be a much more efficient psychopath when it comes time to assaulting a school or public place.
On today's corporate radio, controlled by computers from a central location in New York, with no local programming, no local DJs, ever playing anything even remotely interesting or controversial? You never hear protest music. Bob Dylan or Woody Guthrie would never get airplay now... hell, Bruce Springsteen is considered "controversial" by iHeart and if he wasn't a big star, they wouldn't play him at all. Rage Against the Machine was the last great protest band to get any major airplay. Corporate radio is not interested in making people think -- only making people become better consumers.
Radio can come back if the airwaves are turned over to independent locals who put local artists in rotation and cover issues of interest to people, and not big corporations.
They took over thousands of local, mom-and-pop radio stations that actually served their local communities, and replaced them with homogenous, centrally-controlled corporate radio full of flag waving, auto-tuned crap music and ads for fake viagra and gold investment schemes.
The owner/operator/admins of a web site can do what they want. It is crazy how so many people on Reddit feel so entitled that they can say whatever they want, and nobody should be able to do anything about it.
Personally, I wish Reddit would do away with the up/down voting completely. Or give moderators the ability to determine whose votes count, so we can actually have some defense against the brigades of trolls. We need more control, not less.
This is basically, the crypto version of a default credit swap. Take a bunch of securities that have no real assets backing them up, securitize them into a meta-stock, and sell it so basically just in case there was a way someone could perform due diligence, now it's moot.
Self-hosting is making more and more sense nowadays in the marketplace where cloud based apps offer "free" services at first and then squeeze their customers to death later.
Another reason is, Bank of America is actively patenting crypto currency schemes. The natural progression isn't for traditional banks to become more crypto-like, it's for crypto to become more centralized and they're taking steps to do so, and listings like this notify their shareholders they're going to spend some resources to get their fingers into this market... on their own terms.
Where is the evidence? Besides the circumstantial stuff?
What we know is:
* She was fired for poor performance * Her code was typically not used * She apparently didn't get along well with others
Is there a record of her documenting these things that happened to her to HR? If so, ok, that's an issue.
But if this is all stuff she claims happened but there's nobody to confirm it, and she didn't make reports, it seems like perhaps she thinks this is a great chance to get a significant pay raise.
Ranking people by common criteria produces homogeneity. And when biases creep in, it results in people who look like those making the decisions. That's not likely to lead to breakthroughs. As Astro Teller, CEO of X, the âmoonshoot factoryâ(TM) at Alphabet, Googleâ(TM)s parent company, has said
Google stopped being innovative a long time ago. Whatever they're doing isn't really working. Google now copies everybody else's innovation, from VR to Alexa.
I've run into John many times over the years. He was one of the tech industry's most colorful people. From the alcohol fueled parties at Comdex to the dusty plains of Black Rock City, John has been an iconic presence. He was one of the father's of modern technology. He will be so missed. He had much more to do too... it's really a shame his health got in the way. If you want to learn more about who he was, a great example of his brilliant writing is in his essay, "The Pursuit of Emptiness"
How many phone calls did you make to your elected representatives demanding they do something about this? Oh wait, you expected someone else to solve the problem for you?
Even if you're not in the states, like any citizen, part of your responsibility is to regularly lobby the government to represent your interests. This stuff happens everywhere, in every country where people expect some annointed king-like leader to solve all their problems and read their minds.
It annoys me that "competent programmers" are those that are supposedly always researching newer technologies.
The fact remains that the core of everything software-related is still operating on 40+ year old technology that is time-tested and proven reliable and secure.
Every time someone tosses out a new API, SDK, or programming language, I cringe. Most of the time those systems provide a false sense of security.
There are many reasons why Mozilla still has a chance to become the dominant browser. Google is nowhere near as security-conscious as Mozilla. They will not allow master passwords to protect saved password databases; Google doesn't allow plugins that support downloading of YouTube videos and a host of other things. If Mozilla can improve their performance issues, they are the best choice for a default browser due to Google's sacrificing of user security and flexibility in order to maintain their corporate control.
The "increases in security issues" are not related to Linux. They are related to third-party systems which run on top of Linux. This is in stark contrast to the never ending array of vulnerabilities that are essential parts of the Windows operating system.
This exploit still requires local access to a machine, so it's not as bad as people claim. Unless you're giving random people shell access to your server.
Slashdot Mirror
Which amendment in the Bill of Rights says a company doesn't have the right to refuse to service another company?
We've seen time and time again, how meta information can be much more revealing than people think.
You don't have to necessarily make any mistakes to have previously thought details about a transaction become obvious. The most obvious way people's personal info is compromised is not through their own mistakes, but the mistake of a friend or business associate who gets compromised.
In fact any digital-realm transaction, whether we're talking about crypto, e-mail or an internet post, is probably one of the least secure things a person can do.
Handling material money is much safer and anonymous. For that reason it's unlikely to go away any time soon
This should now be the canned response from the media whenever there's a school shooting:
"This mass murder is not statistically relevant given that so many other kids are not shooting up schools."
That's a strawman argument as well as a false dichotomy. I said no such thing.
But you illustrate in your misdirected reply, the problem with these studies, as others have pointed out. They provide an answer to a question, a premise that virtually nobody buys into -- an extreme position that suggests merely playing a FPS can turn somebody into a psychopath. I don't know anybody making such claims. Nobody thinks playing GTA is going to make someone run out and car-jack somebody or pistol-whip a hooker.
The real deeper issue is, do these ultra-realistic games de-sensitize people to inhumane and immoral behavior?
And are there some people who are "at risk" being subjected to this media?
I find it amusing that, for example, it's considered inappropriate to say "fuck" on tv or show someone genitals -- because presumably that might influence certain types of people in an anti-social way, but you can shoot someone in the head and spew a catchy one-liner and it's no big deal?
So it's not that if you see boobs on tv, you're going to rape someone, but there is a premise that if sexualization in certain circumstances is presented in an inappropriate way, it can negatively influence certain types of people.
There you go again, arguing with a strawman that in no way represents any argument I made.
The truth is, being a psychopath can be a criminal act. It depends upon the nature of the behavior, but generally speaking, if you're doing something psychopathic, it might be criminal. If you have psychopathic tendencies.... I think there needs to be ways for people to ID these traits and give these people some sort of therapy. Psychopathy is a potentially dangerous condition. Don't you agree? This doesn't mean I want to lock psychopaths up. I'm all for civil rights and the law. But we as a society need to do a better job of self-policing and providing therapy for people who need it.
You do realize the military uses FPS games to train soldiers?
I'm not concerned with video games changing peoples' behavior, turning normal people into psychopaths.
What I would like to see studied, is the potential for video games to make psychopathic and sociopathic people more efficient in their anti-social abilities.
For example, I don't think playing ultra-realistic first person shooters will necessarily make anyone want to go out and shoot someone, but it seems to me, if you're a psychopath and you're into those games, they can train you to be a much more efficient psychopath when it comes time to assaulting a school or public place.
There is so much content online radio stations could license podcast content and make out like bandits.
I bet most podcast producers would love to have radio stations run their stuff for free.
Yes.. corporations, specifically Clear Channel/iHeart killed terrestrial radio.
On today's corporate radio, controlled by computers from a central location in New York, with no local programming, no local DJs, ever playing anything even remotely interesting or controversial? You never hear protest music. Bob Dylan or Woody Guthrie would never get airplay now... hell, Bruce Springsteen is considered "controversial" by iHeart and if he wasn't a big star, they wouldn't play him at all. Rage Against the Machine was the last great protest band to get any major airplay. Corporate radio is not interested in making people think -- only making people become better consumers.
Radio can come back if the airwaves are turned over to independent locals who put local artists in rotation and cover issues of interest to people, and not big corporations.
This network didn't die because radio is dead.
iHeart, aka "Clear Channel" killed terrestrial radio.
They took over thousands of local, mom-and-pop radio stations that actually served their local communities, and replaced them with homogenous, centrally-controlled corporate radio full of flag waving, auto-tuned crap music and ads for fake viagra and gold investment schemes.
It could be fixed very quickly if Slashdot did away with ACs.
The owner/operator/admins of a web site can do what they want. It is crazy how so many people on Reddit feel so entitled that they can say whatever they want, and nobody should be able to do anything about it.
Personally, I wish Reddit would do away with the up/down voting completely. Or give moderators the ability to determine whose votes count, so we can actually have some defense against the brigades of trolls. We need more control, not less.
This is basically, the crypto version of a default credit swap. Take a bunch of securities that have no real assets backing them up, securitize them into a meta-stock, and sell it so basically just in case there was a way someone could perform due diligence, now it's moot.
Self-hosting is making more and more sense nowadays in the marketplace where cloud based apps offer "free" services at first and then squeeze their customers to death later.
Another reason is, Bank of America is actively patenting crypto currency schemes. The natural progression isn't for traditional banks to become more crypto-like, it's for crypto to become more centralized and they're taking steps to do so, and listings like this notify their shareholders they're going to spend some resources to get their fingers into this market... on their own terms.
Interesting story.
Where is the evidence? Besides the circumstantial stuff?
What we know is:
* She was fired for poor performance
* Her code was typically not used
* She apparently didn't get along well with others
Is there a record of her documenting these things that happened to her to HR? If so, ok, that's an issue.
But if this is all stuff she claims happened but there's nobody to confirm it, and she didn't make reports, it seems like perhaps she thinks this is a great chance to get a significant pay raise.
Solutions instead of subscriptions
Google stopped being innovative a long time ago. Whatever they're doing isn't really working. Google now copies everybody else's innovation, from VR to Alexa.
I've run into John many times over the years. He was one of the tech industry's most colorful people. From the alcohol fueled parties at Comdex to the dusty plains of Black Rock City, John has been an iconic presence. He was one of the father's of modern technology. He will be so missed. He had much more to do too... it's really a shame his health got in the way. If you want to learn more about who he was, a great example of his brilliant writing is in his essay, "The Pursuit of Emptiness"
How many phone calls did you make to your elected representatives demanding they do something about this? Oh wait, you expected someone else to solve the problem for you?
Even if you're not in the states, like any citizen, part of your responsibility is to regularly lobby the government to represent your interests. This stuff happens everywhere, in every country where people expect some annointed king-like leader to solve all their problems and read their minds.
If you're running an important control system using Windows, you're doing it wrong.
$600 per BTC
If you're paying more than that, you're giving your money to some rich dude or some BOFH.
It annoys me that "competent programmers" are those that are supposedly always researching newer technologies.
The fact remains that the core of everything software-related is still operating on 40+ year old technology that is time-tested and proven reliable and secure.
Every time someone tosses out a new API, SDK, or programming language, I cringe. Most of the time those systems provide a false sense of security.
There are many reasons why Mozilla still has a chance to become the dominant browser. Google is nowhere near as security-conscious as Mozilla. They will not allow master passwords to protect saved password databases; Google doesn't allow plugins that support downloading of YouTube videos and a host of other things. If Mozilla can improve their performance issues, they are the best choice for a default browser due to Google's sacrificing of user security and flexibility in order to maintain their corporate control.
The "increases in security issues" are not related to Linux. They are related to third-party systems which run on top of Linux. This is in stark contrast to the never ending array of vulnerabilities that are essential parts of the Windows operating system.
Apples and Oranges.
This exploit still requires local access to a machine, so it's not as bad as people claim. Unless you're giving random people shell access to your server.