In the UK, they can sue for libel if it runs their image through the dirt, even if it is true.
Bollocks. They certainly could sue. And then the BBC demonstrates it's true, and the case is dismissed.
Truth is the complete defence to libel. You cannot be found guilty of libel for stating a truth. Even if the BBC deliberately sets out to do a hatchet job. If it's true, it cannot be libel.
So it's ok if Blizztard sells you cheats, but not so if a Chinese entrepreneur does the same thing...?
Yes, because it's their game and in their interests they don't screw it up. A Chinese entrepreneur didn't develop the game and doesn't care. If Blizzard are screwing up, then feel free to go play somewhere else.
This is not just a problem you see in command line or open source software. You find it in the documentation of many niche applications and it's invariably because it was written by one of the developers. Someone who has spent months working on the software, so it doesn't occur to them how someone completely unfamiliar with the software might approach it, or what they might want to know. So you get online documentation that dives right into technical details, scarcely touching on an overview of what it actually does.
And this happens even with software where the developer wants you to buy it. Just how many sales they get when the potential customer has to first puzzle out what it is, I don't know.
A good solution would be to stop calling instances like this "identity theft" (a person has had their identity "stolen") and instead call it what it is; "identity fraud" (a company has been fooled into thinking a thief is someone else and given them money).
Once it's clearer that the victim is the company, and not the person, then they might start taking the process of handing out money a bit more care over ensuring that people are who they claim to be.
Have you ever read or seen an appeal for money from any charity or not-for profit?
They all do this, because if they didn't the donations would be drastically lower. People simply aren't interested in donating to a "long term sustainable investment endowment", they need prompted into action through a suggestion that it's a very immediate need, or indeed emergency.
So what you're really saying is that if you are running a website that is more than a personal website (i.e. others rely on it), then don't run it as a personal website.
This was certainly one of the reasons I didn't use Google+, or indeed 90% of Goggle's offerings. I have no interest in other people being able to track my life over multiple environments. I know that Google can follow me, that's unfortunately unavoidable, but what possible benefit is there to me that everyone else, (particularly total strangers, spammers, companies, work colleagues), can also follow me? Unless I am set on becoming some kind of internet celebratory, why would I want that?
But for most people, the main reason Google+ failed is because they already had Facebook and Google+ was just a me-too product. No reason to switch and too much hassle to operate both.
It's nothing to do with him being "an alleged criminal", it's to do with him being currently a fugitive from justice. And they aren't "simply listening to them". They are attending a conference where he is addressing them.
I can't imagine any circumstances where it's ok for a wanted person to evade capture, while at the same time being given a platform to deliver a lecture to judges.
You are making the mistake of allowing them to dictate the direction of the conversation. The reply for any and all opening questions is "No thanks". Doesn't matter what the question is, doesn't matter if your reply on the surface makes no sense. Your reply is "No thanks (I do not wish to talk with you)" I don't count being this abrupt as rudeness. When you are replying to a devious and manipulative question, or a flat out lie, it's all good.
"Can I interest you in..." (Straight to the point.) "No thanks."
"How has your day been?" (Hi, I want you to think I'm just being friendly.) "No thanks."
"Do you want to save money?" (Particularly devious, who's going to say no to that?) "No thanks."
"I'm doing a survey, I'm not selling.. " (Liar) "No thanks."
You can add a "goodbye" at the end of any of the above, to suit the situation or taste.
This is about as bad as software development can get, never mind software that's supposed to have basic security. It all points really to a package written by rank amateurs who had no idea what they were doing designing software, far less having the beginnings of a clue about hardening their software to attack.
I mean, hard coded passwords? Really? Hard coded passwords that are this obvious? It's staggering incompetence. Was this written by a self-taught hobbyist over the course of a weekend?
You don't know which species had "human-like" intelligence 3.3 million years ago. There were a number of "human-like" species that aren't our ancestors.
It's different because it's like coding with ;
- a dozen smart-asses looking over your shoulder telling you you're doing it wrong.
- another dozen noobs asking dumb questions about the basics because they can't be bothered to RTFM.
If modern technology, medicine, government and religion all "somehow interfere" then they simply become part of the evolutionary process. They don't put an end to it.
Evolution just doesn't pack its suitcase and go home because it's no longer applicable. It's always applicable as long as there's life.
The cynic in me suspects this might just be Microsoft's next step. Implement OPF capability, but make it so awkward to use, with such poor results, that users avoid it.
Slashdot Mirror
The whole thing hinges on the phrase in the first paragraph; "depending on what you mean by a "thing", "faster-than-light", and "travel""
If you want to play around with semantics and definitions, then you've got an article. Otherwise, nothing new here. Speed of light unchallenged.
In the UK, they can sue for libel if it runs their image through the dirt, even if it is true.
Bollocks. They certainly could sue. And then the BBC demonstrates it's true, and the case is dismissed.
Truth is the complete defence to libel. You cannot be found guilty of libel for stating a truth. Even if the BBC deliberately sets out to do a hatchet job. If it's true, it cannot be libel.
The applicable concept in UK law is "fair dealing".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I believe this falls safely under either "Criticism or review" or "Reporting of current events".
But IANAL.
Yeah, because they execute people by stoning! Funny!
Executions in 2014 in USA - 35
Executions in 2014 in UAE - 1 (firing squad, murder conviction)
Executions per 100 million in USA - 11.799
Executions per 100 million in UAE - 4.266
So it's ok if Blizztard sells you cheats, but not so if a Chinese entrepreneur does the same thing...?
Yes, because it's their game and in their interests they don't screw it up. A Chinese entrepreneur didn't develop the game and doesn't care. If Blizzard are screwing up, then feel free to go play somewhere else.
Also..
Blizztard
What are you? Ten years old?
This is not just a problem you see in command line or open source software. You find it in the documentation of many niche applications and it's invariably because it was written by one of the developers. Someone who has spent months working on the software, so it doesn't occur to them how someone completely unfamiliar with the software might approach it, or what they might want to know. So you get online documentation that dives right into technical details, scarcely touching on an overview of what it actually does.
And this happens even with software where the developer wants you to buy it. Just how many sales they get when the potential customer has to first puzzle out what it is, I don't know.
Or maybe it's a policy that says "your email folder is not filespace, keep your 150MB powerpoint presentations somewhere else".
A good solution would be to stop calling instances like this "identity theft" (a person has had their identity "stolen") and instead call it what it is; "identity fraud" (a company has been fooled into thinking a thief is someone else and given them money).
Once it's clearer that the victim is the company, and not the person, then they might start taking the process of handing out money a bit more care over ensuring that people are who they claim to be.
Have you ever read or seen an appeal for money from any charity or not-for profit?
They all do this, because if they didn't the donations would be drastically lower. People simply aren't interested in donating to a "long term sustainable investment endowment", they need prompted into action through a suggestion that it's a very immediate need, or indeed emergency.
So what you're really saying is that if you are running a website that is more than a personal website (i.e. others rely on it), then don't run it as a personal website.
It's quoting TFA.
I'm hoping that's just Google simplifying for the common end user and it is using some kind of encryption. But who knows?
To busy/squeamish for your "complementary" medicine appointment?
Two words: Voodoo acupuncure.
Education is dangerous to the extremists with beards if women started thinking for themselves then how can they have Sharia law?
While the extremists without beards are just fine with education.
Men Without Hats, OTOH, don't care about education, just as long as you dance safely.
This was certainly one of the reasons I didn't use Google+, or indeed 90% of Goggle's offerings. I have no interest in other people being able to track my life over multiple environments. I know that Google can follow me, that's unfortunately unavoidable, but what possible benefit is there to me that everyone else, (particularly total strangers, spammers, companies, work colleagues), can also follow me? Unless I am set on becoming some kind of internet celebratory, why would I want that?
But for most people, the main reason Google+ failed is because they already had Facebook and Google+ was just a me-too product. No reason to switch and too much hassle to operate both.
Our politicians are the only people I am aware of that are anti-Assange.
You lead a very sheltered life and rarely read slashdot. Am I right?
Did you read what the statement said?
It's nothing to do with him being "an alleged criminal", it's to do with him being currently a fugitive from justice. And they aren't "simply listening to them". They are attending a conference where he is addressing them.
I can't imagine any circumstances where it's ok for a wanted person to evade capture, while at the same time being given a platform to deliver a lecture to judges.
You are making the mistake of allowing them to dictate the direction of the conversation. The reply for any and all opening questions is "No thanks". Doesn't matter what the question is, doesn't matter if your reply on the surface makes no sense. Your reply is "No thanks (I do not wish to talk with you)" I don't count being this abrupt as rudeness. When you are replying to a devious and manipulative question, or a flat out lie, it's all good.
"Can I interest you in..." (Straight to the point.)
"No thanks."
"How has your day been?" (Hi, I want you to think I'm just being friendly.)
"No thanks."
"Do you want to save money?" (Particularly devious, who's going to say no to that?)
"No thanks."
"I'm doing a survey, I'm not selling.. " (Liar)
"No thanks."
You can add a "goodbye" at the end of any of the above, to suit the situation or taste.
This is about as bad as software development can get, never mind software that's supposed to have basic security. It all points really to a package written by rank amateurs who had no idea what they were doing designing software, far less having the beginnings of a clue about hardening their software to attack.
I mean, hard coded passwords? Really? Hard coded passwords that are this obvious? It's staggering incompetence. Was this written by a self-taught hobbyist over the course of a weekend?
You don't know which species had "human-like" intelligence 3.3 million years ago. There were a number of "human-like" species that aren't our ancestors.
Yeah. What do IT professionals need recruitment advice for? It's not like they work in a job market, or even need a job or a wage or anything.
It's different because it's like coding with ;
- a dozen smart-asses looking over your shoulder telling you you're doing it wrong.
- another dozen noobs asking dumb questions about the basics because they can't be bothered to RTFM.
Sounds like hell.
If modern technology, medicine, government and religion all "somehow interfere" then they simply become part of the evolutionary process. They don't put an end to it.
Evolution just doesn't pack its suitcase and go home because it's no longer applicable. It's always applicable as long as there's life.
How do you know they aren't US gov managed?
The cynic in me suspects this might just be Microsoft's next step. Implement OPF capability, but make it so awkward to use, with such poor results, that users avoid it.
Contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of the work the NSA does is concerned with foreign intelligence and surveillance.
The rest of the world has no problem believing this. And they don't like it.