There has never been true anonymity on the internet. Anonymity is an illusion. There have always been ways to identify people over the internet.
Yes but as it currently stands, you don't have to worry about your potential employer being put off by something you said 20 years ago under a pseudonym, that they happen to disagree with. Not for most employers, in any case.
determining the RL identities of the bullies likely would reduce bullying, as they could be held socially and legally accountable for what they are doing.
I don't see any reason to think this is true. The RL identities of most bullies are already known to those being bullied, yet the bullying persists.
But is it known to the entire world what the bullies are doing and their real names? (I think it's dangerous for other reasons to [partially!] de-anonimize the internet.)
So why is lying to Congress not a punishable offense?
Lying to Congress when you possess sufficient blackmail to force each of them out of office is not a punishable offense, and there is no law that could be passed to make it so.
What's Occam's Razor got to say about the fact that I didn't vote for Obama*? My comment was about politicians in general, as you may have noticed from the lack of me saying "Obama".
* I wrote in "Ron Paul", though he wasn't running for president, knowing that my state and district would vote for Obama over Romney. If I'm going to waste my vote anyways (it's pretty clear what my district and state were going to vote), I might as well make some kind of statement.
I'm not missing the point -- of course the whole "driver bears responsibility" is nothing but pure scapegoating/functioning with current laws/ameliorate people's fears. (Though not the case with partially assisted driving where the automated system requires constant input.) It still doesn't mean that it won't be better than what we have now.
Way too many people avoid naming names when dealing with race, even in stories that directly cite "black." It's urban black culture that disparages intellect.
No, they are by far not the only ones to disparage intellect. Basically, anyone who is not intellectual, competes with intellectuals, or whose goals are opposed by intellectuals, are likely to disparage intellectuals because it is advantageous to them to do so (odds are, they do this without knowing the reason but rather because that is what their group does). In the case of people who are not intellectual, they have the further reason that they inherently devalue intellectual pursuits as demonstrated by their own choice (or resentment, if it was not their choice).
Just to give a racially biased example, Republicans tend to be rich, white, and to disparage intellectuals. Democrats will disparage intellectuals only on a case-by-case basis of those who's opinions or scientific results are "wrong", while being generally supportive of intellectuals. Groups such as a class where the bottom percentage would fail had the seemingly ironic quality of being extremely viscous and mocking of high achievers, while trying their hardest to be one. And all kinds of other groups of various races are disparaging of intellectuals.
So they split a beam based on the spin, then applied a magnetic field that would shift the spin from down to up, either on the particles that already had spin up or on particles that had spin down... and AMAZINGLY only the latter had any effect on the spin. And they also put a blocking filter either on the particles that had spin up, or on the particles that had spin down... and AMAZINGLY only the former reduced the number of particles with spin up. Truly mind-boggling, this quantum stuff.
Sometimes things that are "known to be safe and effective" end up killing people or having nasty side-effects, or preventing people from receiving proper treatment. Didn't cigarettes used to be a safe and effective way to lose weight?
Look, none of this is common place. It's very rare. Why? Because if this happens, then the multi-million dollar trial you paid for is worthless and would have to be redone.
That's why they'll tell you that they aren't doing any drugs and this is the only clinical trial they're participating in, and maybe throw in a fake name for good measure.
And yet he hasn't stopped it. In fact, he has explicitly defended and expanded the surveillance state. If he was against it, he would've stopped it by vetoing the Patriot Act extension.
On the other hand, the current expansion and disclosures are resulting in the public demanding and end to it. I, for one, am never quite sure what to attribute to a politician for intent: whether his stated intentions, his actions, or the result of his actions.
I mean, why dark matter? Why not, "we don't understand gravity yet"?
Because "we don't understand gravity yet" contains no data and makes no predictions (ie, it may well be true but it is unscientific). I think of dark matter as a list detailing exactly where and how much we don't understand gravity or cosmological particle physics. When someone wants to test a new theory of gravity, they will know where to check for discrepancies with GR by looking at where dark matter is; alternately, when someone wants to test a new theory for cosmological particle physics, they can test whether it produces dark matter in the appropriate places.
Even if the system requires babysitting, it will probably improve the performance of impaired drivers. Think sleepy, drunk, or old people with poor attention, perception, and/or reaction time, narcoleptics, diabetics who got careless about blood sugar, "indestructible" teenage drivers, Mr I-Can't-Leave-My-Cellphone-For-Five-Minutes, parents with cranky kids, Mrs I-Can-Eat-Drink-And-Put-On-Makeup-Whlie-Driving, Mr I-Talk-With-My-Hands-And-Always-Make-Eye-Contact, folks who like to gawk at accidents/scenery/girls, folks having a sneezing fit/heart attack/seizure, and a few others.
The human at the wheel is there to take the blame in case something goes wrong. The requirement of having a human at the wheel will also soothe the fears of passengers of both autonomous* and manually driven automobiles, a measure that should help the adaptation of autonomous vehicles and thus save lives.
* Google, putting the "auto" into "automobile" since 2005.
Why dont these places have malware files spread out in their data files, hide them in a zip file or something.
All malware is data until you tell your computer to run it. If you get hacked by careless people, then I suppose having malware that reports them might work, but they'd have to run it or open it with a compromised program, and on a computer connected to the internet.
Don't the NSA report, directly or indirectly, to the President? So if executive branch support a measure to limit bulk surveillance, couldn't they, of their own initiative, direct the appropriate agencies to cancel or modify the mass surveillance programs?
Doing that would eliminate almost all support for passing a bill to prevent domestic spying. What happens after he leaves office?
Actually, that reminds me... earlier today I read that you can make some interesting stuff by microwaving some graphite. Apparently it's "just like popcorn".
Findings include that... suggesting a bad match is a good match causes people to converse nearly as much as ideal matches would.
All this means is that OKC's match algorithms suck: there's only a weak correlation between match scores and real-world compatibility (like with every other dating site).
No, it means that: 1) People trust OKCupid's rating system enough to try harder when it suggests a good match 2) OKCupid has to take into account their stated match rating, not just length of conversation, when trying to use conversation length as data to improve their algorithm.
Except for when it comes to actually building stuff with it.
The potential is there, obviously... but compare to how long it took to roll some up into simple tubes in an economically acceptable manner (ie, nanotubes are only just getting some actual use). I'm sure graphene as a computer component will be totally awesome -- but not until someone finds an *easy* way to build it, at most only 100X the cost of the equivalent in silicon.
The laws should be identical to the extent possible, between different forms of currency.
So, your average C-Store should be required by law to accept Japanese Yen or the Sudanese Pound?
I don't really think it's the government's business to tell merchants what they must accept in exchange for their goods. For example, they shouldn't be forced to accept the $10,000 US dollar bill, even if it is legal tender, nor whatever flavor of credit card. I'm sure the merchants can figure out for themselves what to accept in payment if they want to have customers.
That aside, doesn't the Federal Government get to decide what's money and what's not? Didn't think it was the business of State governments to be regulating money....
They may think so, but it is people who decide what is money and what is not. People have burnt money as fuel in the past, when it was cheaper than coal or wood.
Why is using idle machines of other people (he's used only machines whose load was under a certain threshold), more unethic than to torment and kill mice in the name of science? I don't think that, when used responsible, latter is unethic, but I wonder why do they put things above biological life?
Well, because now we can cure even the most obscure diseases that afflict mice.
Slashdot Mirror
There has never been true anonymity on the internet. Anonymity is an illusion. There have always been ways to identify people over the internet.
Yes but as it currently stands, you don't have to worry about your potential employer being put off by something you said 20 years ago under a pseudonym, that they happen to disagree with. Not for most employers, in any case.
determining the RL identities of the bullies likely would reduce bullying, as they could be held socially and legally accountable for what they are doing.
I don't see any reason to think this is true. The RL identities of most bullies are already known to those being bullied, yet the bullying persists.
But is it known to the entire world what the bullies are doing and their real names? (I think it's dangerous for other reasons to [partially!] de-anonimize the internet.)
So why is lying to Congress not a punishable offense?
Lying to Congress when you possess sufficient blackmail to force each of them out of office is not a punishable offense, and there is no law that could be passed to make it so.
What's Occam's Razor got to say about the fact that I didn't vote for Obama*? My comment was about politicians in general, as you may have noticed from the lack of me saying "Obama".
* I wrote in "Ron Paul", though he wasn't running for president, knowing that my state and district would vote for Obama over Romney. If I'm going to waste my vote anyways (it's pretty clear what my district and state were going to vote), I might as well make some kind of statement.
I'm not missing the point -- of course the whole "driver bears responsibility" is nothing but pure scapegoating/functioning with current laws/ameliorate people's fears. (Though not the case with partially assisted driving where the automated system requires constant input.) It still doesn't mean that it won't be better than what we have now.
I pray, when they die, the ghost of MLK spends eternity bitch-slapping the both of them day in and day out.
You heard it here first, CanHasDIY is advocating that MLK go to Hell and/or that the devils' jobs be outsourced to black people.
people
Way too many people avoid naming names when dealing with race, even in stories that directly cite "black." It's urban black culture that disparages intellect.
No, they are by far not the only ones to disparage intellect. Basically, anyone who is not intellectual, competes with intellectuals, or whose goals are opposed by intellectuals, are likely to disparage intellectuals because it is advantageous to them to do so (odds are, they do this without knowing the reason but rather because that is what their group does). In the case of people who are not intellectual, they have the further reason that they inherently devalue intellectual pursuits as demonstrated by their own choice (or resentment, if it was not their choice).
Just to give a racially biased example, Republicans tend to be rich, white, and to disparage intellectuals. Democrats will disparage intellectuals only on a case-by-case basis of those who's opinions or scientific results are "wrong", while being generally supportive of intellectuals. Groups such as a class where the bottom percentage would fail had the seemingly ironic quality of being extremely viscous and mocking of high achievers, while trying their hardest to be one. And all kinds of other groups of various races are disparaging of intellectuals.
So they split a beam based on the spin, then applied a magnetic field that would shift the spin from down to up, either on the particles that already had spin up or on particles that had spin down... and AMAZINGLY only the latter had any effect on the spin. And they also put a blocking filter either on the particles that had spin up, or on the particles that had spin down... and AMAZINGLY only the former reduced the number of particles with spin up. Truly mind-boggling, this quantum stuff.
Sometimes things that are "known to be safe and effective" end up killing people or having nasty side-effects, or preventing people from receiving proper treatment. Didn't cigarettes used to be a safe and effective way to lose weight?
Look, none of this is common place. It's very rare. Why? Because if this happens, then the multi-million dollar trial you paid for is worthless and would have to be redone.
That's why they'll tell you that they aren't doing any drugs and this is the only clinical trial they're participating in, and maybe throw in a fake name for good measure.
And yet he hasn't stopped it. In fact, he has explicitly defended and expanded the surveillance state. If he was against it, he would've stopped it by vetoing the Patriot Act extension.
On the other hand, the current expansion and disclosures are resulting in the public demanding and end to it. I, for one, am never quite sure what to attribute to a politician for intent: whether his stated intentions, his actions, or the result of his actions.
I mean, why dark matter? Why not, "we don't understand gravity yet"?
Because "we don't understand gravity yet" contains no data and makes no predictions (ie, it may well be true but it is unscientific). I think of dark matter as a list detailing exactly where and how much we don't understand gravity or cosmological particle physics. When someone wants to test a new theory of gravity, they will know where to check for discrepancies with GR by looking at where dark matter is; alternately, when someone wants to test a new theory for cosmological particle physics, they can test whether it produces dark matter in the appropriate places.
Even if the system requires babysitting, it will probably improve the performance of impaired drivers. Think sleepy, drunk, or old people with poor attention, perception, and/or reaction time, narcoleptics, diabetics who got careless about blood sugar, "indestructible" teenage drivers, Mr I-Can't-Leave-My-Cellphone-For-Five-Minutes, parents with cranky kids, Mrs I-Can-Eat-Drink-And-Put-On-Makeup-Whlie-Driving, Mr I-Talk-With-My-Hands-And-Always-Make-Eye-Contact, folks who like to gawk at accidents/scenery/girls, folks having a sneezing fit/heart attack/seizure, and a few others.
The human at the wheel is there to take the blame in case something goes wrong. The requirement of having a human at the wheel will also soothe the fears of passengers of both autonomous* and manually driven automobiles, a measure that should help the adaptation of autonomous vehicles and thus save lives.
* Google, putting the "auto" into "automobile" since 2005.
Why dont these places have malware files spread out in their data files, hide them in a zip file or something.
All malware is data until you tell your computer to run it. If you get hacked by careless people, then I suppose having malware that reports them might work, but they'd have to run it or open it with a compromised program, and on a computer connected to the internet.
I guess someone didn't know the difference between POS software and POS software.
Don't the NSA report, directly or indirectly, to the President? So if executive branch support a measure to limit bulk surveillance, couldn't they, of their own initiative, direct the appropriate agencies to cancel or modify the mass surveillance programs?
Doing that would eliminate almost all support for passing a bill to prevent domestic spying. What happens after he leaves office?
I use the laptop over 50 hours per week on average, and my most productive day is Tuesday.
Yes, I'm sure that what you measured was productivity.
Maybe an even better measure of productivity would be a measure of how much energy your GPU uses?
Actually, that reminds me... earlier today I read that you can make some interesting stuff by microwaving some graphite. Apparently it's "just like popcorn".
As opposed to just randomly matching people so as to not have to learn things about people in general nor their users in particular?
edit: 1) Users of OKCupid trust OKCupid's rating system enough to try harder when it suggests a good match
Findings include that ... suggesting a bad match is a good match causes people to converse nearly as much as ideal matches would.
All this means is that OKC's match algorithms suck: there's only a weak correlation between match scores and real-world compatibility (like with every other dating site).
No, it means that:
1) People trust OKCupid's rating system enough to try harder when it suggests a good match
2) OKCupid has to take into account their stated match rating, not just length of conversation, when trying to use conversation length as data to improve their algorithm.
Except for when it comes to actually building stuff with it.
The potential is there, obviously... but compare to how long it took to roll some up into simple tubes in an economically acceptable manner (ie, nanotubes are only just getting some actual use). I'm sure graphene as a computer component will be totally awesome -- but not until someone finds an *easy* way to build it, at most only 100X the cost of the equivalent in silicon.
So, your average C-Store should be required by law to accept Japanese Yen or the Sudanese Pound?
I don't really think it's the government's business to tell merchants what they must accept in exchange for their goods. For example, they shouldn't be forced to accept the $10,000 US dollar bill, even if it is legal tender, nor whatever flavor of credit card. I'm sure the merchants can figure out for themselves what to accept in payment if they want to have customers.
That aside, doesn't the Federal Government get to decide what's money and what's not? Didn't think it was the business of State governments to be regulating money....
They may think so, but it is people who decide what is money and what is not. People have burnt money as fuel in the past, when it was cheaper than coal or wood.
Why is using idle machines of other people (he's used only machines whose load was under a certain threshold), more unethic than to torment and kill mice in the name of science? I don't think that, when used responsible, latter is unethic, but I wonder why do they put things above biological life?
Well, because now we can cure even the most obscure diseases that afflict mice.