Grammar tip: dictionaries contain many useful facts.
Re:How to buy Sealand for free in just 5 steps
on
Sealand Put Up For Sale
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Well, I think that's not all that different from what they did... except step 2 is a little more iffy than you might think.
Last time there was a slashdot story on them, they had the business model of providing
a place where folks could store sensitive data without fear of subpeona -- they wanted to
be, for data storage, what Switzerland used to be for bank accounts. Guess it didn't work.
They don't really have as much independence as they thought... it's tough to hold your ground
when your entire country is one "accident" (or torpedo) from oblivion at worst, or a few weeks
of blockade away from starvation at best.
Given that the link distance between randomly chosen wikipedia articles
is about five (sorry, don't have a link to where I saw this... and it was
a while ago so maybe it's changed...) practically everything is going to
be strongly associated with spam keywords.
I don't see how this is getting us anywhere except moving closer to having
a spam filter that just returns "true" to anything that isn't white-listed.
No matter how good a medical imaging specialist
Peter Gutmann happens to be, I think I'm going
to wait for some security experts to
weigh in on Vista issues before I jump to any
conclusions.
I think it's amazing how many times this
UI has been described as silly and unrealistic,
given that it was actually shipping well before
the movie came out.
Please don't presume to tell me what the future is going
to look like if you don't know what the
past looked like! The only think we safely say about
future UIs is that eventually they'll catch up with
NextStep. Maybe.
Go back and read it again. Afterward, God promised he'd
never do it again. After nuking a few cities of the plain, and
drowning almost everything else, he realized it was time to
chill out and limit himself to a few massacres here and there.
You carefully look at the calling number. And
while you're doing that, they're showing you an advertisement.
All they want you to do is look. They don't care if you
answer the phone, they just care that they got
you to dig it out of your purse to look at it, so they could
show you an ad.
How you use your phone is your business. No insult intended, but
you're living in a different world. When my cell phone rings, it's
important (or sometimes a wrong number). I don't give my
cell phone number to people I don't want to talk to. (why would I?)
However, note that you agree with my point -- when your cell
phone rings, you look at it. You don't need to answer it; it's
cheaper for them if you don't. Congradulations, you're
their target demographic.
Agreed -- I don't understand the accounting here, either.
China at least allows access to a high fraction of the
internet, and doesn't make general limits on who can see
things. North Korea, on the other hand, is essentially
off the net. It goes far beyond censorship -- NK is
trying to pretend the whole thing doesn't exist.
It's relatively easy when the medium is passive, like TV.
The next time your phone rings, however, try not answering. You'll
reflexively pick it up anyway. You've been programmed to.
This has the potential to be astonishingly annoying to people like me,
who use their cell phones for business and are acclimated to the idea that
when the phone rings, it's important.
In order to do that, they'd have to figure out where
all the clocks are -- which, from the sounds of it, is a big
part of the problem.
It all does seem like something that shouldn't be all that
hard to debug, and yet the story keeps coming around. Maybe
it the NASA version of an urban myth.
Indeed. They don't even need to launch the thing in
order to find out. They just need to leave the computer
running. Given the way they test these things, I'm
sure they don't need to actually light the rockets
in order to simulate a launch.
Maybe the hard part is finding a NASA engineer with
nothing better to do on New Years Eve than see whether
some counters roll over or not.
... a chance to be a beta guinea pig for Google again!
To be fair, Google is not the only cuprit, just a high-visibility
repeat offender. Time was, when companies paid people
to be in focus groups and help them market-test new ideas.
Now might be a good time to delete any copies of the Anarchist's Cookbook you once read for amusement and still have floating around on your hard drive.
Don't forget the missing intermediate steps of encrypting it, and then making a backup copy on
secure, durable media.
Someone who has all these files on their hard drives is either a compulsive
packrat or might be up to no good... certainly it might raise a few eyebrows.
But it shouldn't be illegal to possess these things, and isn't, yet. If possessing
certain types of knowledge becomes illegal in and of itself, that's when
we'll need the Anarchist's Cookbook the most.
Slashdot Mirror
Grammar tip: dictionaries contain many useful facts.
Last time there was a slashdot story on them, they had the business model of providing a place where folks could store sensitive data without fear of subpeona -- they wanted to be, for data storage, what Switzerland used to be for bank accounts. Guess it didn't work. They don't really have as much independence as they thought... it's tough to hold your ground when your entire country is one "accident" (or torpedo) from oblivion at worst, or a few weeks of blockade away from starvation at best.
I don't see how this is getting us anywhere except moving closer to having a spam filter that just returns "true" to anything that isn't white-listed.
Oh, well, now I'll be modded to hell.
Please don't presume to tell me what the future is going to look like if you don't know what the past looked like! The only think we safely say about future UIs is that eventually they'll catch up with NextStep. Maybe.
This guy links to stories from Business Week. He doesn't paste them into his blog and pretend he wrote them.
To his credit, Roland has stopped submitting plagarized blog entries, but he's still twice the shill.
p.s., yes, I'm probably going to hell for that.
Not that I necessarily doubt that you're correct, but don't leave us hanging like this. Links, please!
I think you overestimate the magical powers provided by such a shirt, or their exclusivity.
This is adding insult to injury. I suspect that the poster, rather than being a Google employee, is actually a troll.
Neither. It's just about klippoth telling us how cool he is.
But I didn't know it was called "wootz". That's almost too good to be true. Next we'll find out the it's made of pwned ore.
See comment on sibling post...
You carefully look at the calling number. And while you're doing that, they're showing you an advertisement. All they want you to do is look. They don't care if you answer the phone, they just care that they got you to dig it out of your purse to look at it, so they could show you an ad.
How you use your phone is your business. No insult intended, but you're living in a different world. When my cell phone rings, it's important (or sometimes a wrong number). I don't give my cell phone number to people I don't want to talk to. (why would I?)
However, note that you agree with my point -- when your cell phone rings, you look at it. You don't need to answer it; it's cheaper for them if you don't. Congradulations, you're their target demographic.
It's relatively easy when the medium is passive, like TV.
The next time your phone rings, however, try not answering. You'll reflexively pick it up anyway. You've been programmed to.
This has the potential to be astonishingly annoying to people like me, who use their cell phones for business and are acclimated to the idea that when the phone rings, it's important.
It all does seem like something that shouldn't be all that hard to debug, and yet the story keeps coming around. Maybe it the NASA version of an urban myth.
Maybe the hard part is finding a NASA engineer with nothing better to do on New Years Eve than see whether some counters roll over or not.
To be fair, Google is not the only cuprit, just a high-visibility repeat offender. Time was, when companies paid people to be in focus groups and help them market-test new ideas.
Notice the word might in the sentence you quoted.
Don't forget the missing intermediate steps of encrypting it, and then making a backup copy on secure, durable media.
Someone who has all these files on their hard drives is either a compulsive packrat or might be up to no good... certainly it might raise a few eyebrows. But it shouldn't be illegal to possess these things, and isn't, yet. If possessing certain types of knowledge becomes illegal in and of itself, that's when we'll need the Anarchist's Cookbook the most.
Nah, never happen.
I hope that's not where this all ends...
The whole appeal of adsense is that they're (often) reasonably relevant and non-obnoxious. Make the obnoxious, and I make them go away.