The summary seems to imply there was something fundamentally wrong with Google+,
The thing that most pissed me off was the aggressive way they pushed it and damn the consequences. For example, deleting functionality from Google search to make way for their Google+ crap. The idiots.
Yeah, I doubt that they could do something like that. More likely they'd be limited to things like beaming images of goatse directly into your brain. It could probably also be used to induce seizures, but they could make a safeguard against that.
You can check that the results are correct; that is even better than proving the method you used to get the results are sufficiently accurate or repeatable.
Everyone KNOWS the NSA can crack this by disassembling the hardware, but that method is not admissible in court.
Why wouldn't it be? Here's a process that should allow any untrustworthy idiot to crack the phone while having no risk of false data: 1) Copy the hard drive, being careful to maintain chain of custody 2) Let random untrustworthy person crack the phone 3) Use decryption key to decrypt copy of hard drive from evidence locker
Yeah, I'd have no problem with data caps either, if data caps were headgear with memory space. As opposed to limits that result in slower connection, no connection, or additional fees.
Yet you're paraphrasing. Do you have a link to the transcript of that comment?
“And the other thing is with the terrorists, you have to take out their families. They, they care about their lives. Don’t kid yourself. But they say they don’t care about their lives. You have to take out their families.” link
Isn't open data (something for nothing), in general, harmful to some group of people or organization, in many cases?
Yes. That is, in fact, usually the objective of government transparency.
It's quite hypocritical to demand other people be open while being very secretive about their own (moderation) systems.
Privacy is necessary for openness. Without anonymity, "speech has consequences" like being sent to Siberia or losing your job or getting rape/death threats. Slashdot has always been a big proponent of privacy. On the other hand, some data like scientific data has no privacy value while having a lot of educational value. It's also generally considered necessary to know what your employees are doing while on the job, as is the case for government agents.
There's disadvantages to de-anonymizing moderation, including exposing the system to new forms of abuse. People might be afraid to mod a controversial point, leading to more hivemind mentality. People might decide to punish those who mod the wrong politics or religion. People might decide to punish those who downmod them, using their alt accounts or friends. And for what benefit? Slashdot could (and probably does) run an analysis of mod abuse, slashdotters could design an algorithm to detect mod abuse without access to the actual data.
Have you heard about the paper-based ransomware that's been going about the USA? It automatically searches for papers containing images of presidents, and locks them up, preventing you from accessing them. It supposedly offers you a way to unlock them again, but in reality that's just a waste of time. It's called the Civil Asset Forfeiture Trojan, and seems to have infested many government agencies.
Hm, you just compressed 230 characters into 9, a 96% lossless compression ratio. Even better, the compressed file is still readable and can in fact be read much faster. If you could write a program to do this automatically, it could save us all so much reading time.
PS: I tried to write a program to compress text to it's bare meaning, but it was buggy. When I tested it on the latest politician's speech, it just outputted "null".
Researchers have found out that the graphite electrodes in the lithium-ion batteries could be replaced with carbon electrodes sourced from atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Why? What's the benefit of getting the carbon from the atmosphere, as opposed to from less energy-intensive sources? Especially since a large proportion of our energy sources put carbon into the atmosphere.
Slashdot Mirror
> Hacking an account is illegal.
Oh, really? Then may I ask for the extradition of the entire NSA staff for hacking the accounts of French, German and Japanese politicians?
Nothing is illegal when you're friends with enough soldiers.
This is probably also a good idea to make sure the supposed carbon fixation projects actually do so at the rate they're supposed to.
The summary seems to imply there was something fundamentally wrong with Google+,
The thing that most pissed me off was the aggressive way they pushed it and damn the consequences. For example, deleting functionality from Google search to make way for their Google+ crap. The idiots.
Yeah, I doubt that they could do something like that. More likely they'd be limited to things like beaming images of goatse directly into your brain. It could probably also be used to induce seizures, but they could make a safeguard against that.
You can check that the results are correct; that is even better than proving the method you used to get the results are sufficiently accurate or repeatable.
a $1.35 million fine [...] data about "supercookies" from its more than 100 million users
1 cent per customer, that will show them.
Space efficient :-p
Also, smaller may additionally imply cheaper, or lighter.
Everyone KNOWS the NSA can crack this by disassembling the hardware, but that method is not admissible in court.
Why wouldn't it be? Here's a process that should allow any untrustworthy idiot to crack the phone while having no risk of false data:
1) Copy the hard drive, being careful to maintain chain of custody
2) Let random untrustworthy person crack the phone
3) Use decryption key to decrypt copy of hard drive from evidence locker
Do the turbines in a hydroelectric plant magically become pumps and non-turbines when run in reverse?
Yeah, I'd have no problem with data caps either, if data caps were headgear with memory space. As opposed to limits that result in slower connection, no connection, or additional fees.
Yet you're paraphrasing. Do you have a link to the transcript of that comment?
“And the other thing is with the terrorists, you have to take out their families. They, they care about their lives. Don’t kid yourself. But they say they don’t care about their lives. You have to take out their families.” link
Asked about it later, he refused to back down
Isn't open data (something for nothing), in general, harmful to some group of people or organization, in many cases?
Yes. That is, in fact, usually the objective of government transparency.
It's quite hypocritical to demand other people be open while being very secretive about their own (moderation) systems.
Privacy is necessary for openness. Without anonymity, "speech has consequences" like being sent to Siberia or losing your job or getting rape/death threats. Slashdot has always been a big proponent of privacy. On the other hand, some data like scientific data has no privacy value while having a lot of educational value. It's also generally considered necessary to know what your employees are doing while on the job, as is the case for government agents.
How will the data be verified? There is so much potential for abuse here.
Seeing as Trump is well on his way to winning the presidency, he might qualify as "politically approved".
There's disadvantages to de-anonymizing moderation, including exposing the system to new forms of abuse. People might be afraid to mod a controversial point, leading to more hivemind mentality. People might decide to punish those who mod the wrong politics or religion. People might decide to punish those who downmod them, using their alt accounts or friends. And for what benefit? Slashdot could (and probably does) run an analysis of mod abuse, slashdotters could design an algorithm to detect mod abuse without access to the actual data.
It's cool when it happens to non-politically approved persons... Right slashdot?
Morons.
It's long been traditional to point and laugh when someone who supports something against others gets upset when that thing happens to him.
Trump Won't Rule Out Warrantless Searches for Muslims in the US
I'll get the pop corn.
I'm not sure how Politifact decides which statements to rate, but I'm pretty sure Trump has told the truth more than that one time.
I rate their "All True statements involving Donald Trump == 1" to be "pants on fire".
may make him seem less sincere than other candidates.
I'm not sure that's possible.
Have you heard about the paper-based ransomware that's been going about the USA? It automatically searches for papers containing images of presidents, and locks them up, preventing you from accessing them. It supposedly offers you a way to unlock them again, but in reality that's just a waste of time. It's called the Civil Asset Forfeiture Trojan, and seems to have infested many government agencies.
Hm, you just compressed 230 characters into 9, a 96% lossless compression ratio. Even better, the compressed file is still readable and can in fact be read much faster. If you could write a program to do this automatically, it could save us all so much reading time.
PS: I tried to write a program to compress text to it's bare meaning, but it was buggy. When I tested it on the latest politician's speech, it just outputted "null".
Stupid efficiency, saving money and resources. I'll show them!
Boom!
No one wants Mozilla to write software that goes on the web, there's no need for that. They should stick to what they're best at.
Researchers have found out that the graphite electrodes in the lithium-ion batteries could be replaced with carbon electrodes sourced from atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Why? What's the benefit of getting the carbon from the atmosphere, as opposed to from less energy-intensive sources? Especially since a large proportion of our energy sources put carbon into the atmosphere.