Define "publicly". It's on a facebook page, that's public. What, the account doesn't have any "friends"? Well I'm not a sociable person.
How about when I do "fake" things on my "real" account? How does facebook know if I really like something or not? How does it know whether my latest status update isn't all lies? Would that make my real facebook account also fake?
Facebook have absolutely no idea whether an account is "genuine" by any practical definition, or not. And unless they roll out some kind of IP enabled brain worm that can tell what I'm really thinking, and really doing, they are wasting their time trying to define accounts as "fake". (Don't worry, I'm sure they're working on it.)
I'm disappointed the "Call me Dave" Cameron has time to watch trashy TV crime drama. Doesn't he have a country to run?
Cameron's natural go-to instinct is to seek whatever financial profit can be made for his big-business chums. Screw the voters, you can feed them whatever BS rational you think they'll swallow. And so it is in this case. I bet Cameron doesn't watch TV crime dramas, but he thinks everyone else does.
It's all depressingly familiar, following a predictable pattern.
1/ Invent a threat to excuse a invasion of personal rights 2/ Draft half-assed legal solution 3/ Privatise implementation of legal solution, and harvest data. 4/ PROFIT!
As virtual reality becomes ever closer to reality, in terms of image/sound/immersion quality, the time will come when people die doing things in real life, under the temporary mistaken belief they are in game.
It's not unreasonable to suggest that VR may actually have to be degraded/compromised in order that people can always differentiate between them.
I am not a professional musician, and certainly not a fanboi, but the above confirms everything I've experienced.
As far as music creation is concerned, Apple are easily best. Windows is ok. Linux options range from awkward pains in the asses to unusable nightmares.
The point is that it isn't the mother who wants this money, it's the state. The state previously agreed to nothing about the father's responsibility being removed. The agreement they had between the three of them has no bearing on the state's right to pursue him for the money.
You can totally blame the parents. What is this "$6,000 in assistance"? If these are benefits over and above what all parents are entitled to, why are the parents planning children that they are not financially able to support?
You can't say this was an accidental pregnancy. They effectively devised a plan that said; we'll go to some lengths to create a child, and the state will pay for it because we can't. If this wasn't a donor situation then, of course, the state would go hunting for the father's money. So why should this be different? The state was not party to any legal arrangement they had between themselves. Like it or not, he was complicit in the plan.
The only fault the donor made is in not ensuring the couple wanting the child could support it.
Unfortunately we are quickly approaching the position, if not there already, where you can point a camera everywhere and no-one will ever know. If you can see it, you can record it.
Want to ensure no-one records something? Then don't let them see it.
I fully support the film industry's right to be paid for their work, but they have to face up to the inevitable. In the near future they will not be able to prevent cinema goers recording films. Their only options are to make the recording so degraded in some way, that no one will pay to see it, or make the experience of seeing it in a cinema so much better that people will not chose to watch a recording.
Because its an interesting variation on the usual delusional megalomaniac pattern. Traditionally, after going through the usual inventing new awards and names for himself, he should be designing his own army uniforms and medals by now.
You are making the mistake of thinking that being prosecuted for not revealing the password, and GCHQ not knowing the password, have a causal relationship. They don't necessarily.
Winamp brought skinning, plugins, visualizations and a whole slew of things that most folks never even knew they wanted or needed.
Well exactly. They didn't want them and they didn't need them.
Skinning is a novelty of zero use. No, I do not need to rearrange the UI of my application every month so I can't find anything. No, having my music application look like a tie-in with the latest Batman movie is not a plus.
Plugins are of more use. But really, just provide me with the stuff I need in the application and I won't need these and won't have to spend ages getting them to work together.
Visualisations are fun at first, but I am not a club DJ or a stoner. They are therefore just CPU hogs.
Winamp had it all in its day and I'll remember it fondly. But over time it just became a confused mess.
Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Maybe he wasn't fired but chose to leave. I don't recall EA struggling to make money while he was in charge, and that's the bottom line. Was there anything to suggest he was running out leverage?
The whole "Simcity disaster prompts CEO firing" angle was, and still is, speculation founded on nothing concrete, and no-one remotely involved has even hinted the two events are related. Some gamers just liked the idea that their terrible pain had, eventually, cost someone their job.
If you think that the CEO of EA was fired due to SimCity teething problems, then you are suffering from delusions regarding the nature of the business.
I have G+. I forget how much I was "forced" into setting it up from gmail. I don't really want it and I don't need it.
I resolve the situation by never using it, and having it contain nothing. It therefore does nothing, good or bad, for anyone, other than take up 0.0000000000000000001% of Google's drive space.
But that equally means that other drivers who get into accidents with Ford drivers could sue Ford.
"You knew this guy was a habitual maniac driver and did nothing until he struck me head on. Then you produced the data to cover your own backs. Well here's a $100 million lawsuit that says you were covering for him and are liable for my injuries."
This is completely meaningless as long as any data has to traverse any network in the US.
If I am exchanging data between Canada and any other place but the US, why would it traverse the US? If these companies want to do business with the rest of the world without being spied on by US agencies, being outside the US is a good place to start.
Whether that alone is enough is questionable, but it's a start and certainly not meaningless.
The principal criteria on their use will depend on whether the victim can demonstrate whether they are a citizen of the United States or not. Apparently that's where the line is drawn. Because, you know, votes.
What a radical idea! You need to expand on this "if you don't like it, don't buy it" idea. It could revolutionise modern day consumerism!
Even at a personal level; the number of times I've paid for stuff I didn't want and knew I wouldn't like. If I'd known I had the option of not buying it... well I'd be a rich man without a house full of junk!
And paper and pencils aren't either. Chalk and slate boards do just as well, don't they?
WiFi is a part of modern life, and is only likely to become an even greater part of these children's future. By crippling their access to it at school you are doing nothing to help them prepare for the rest of their life.
I lost a grandfather, and he was a prolific reader. So I want to remove the scourge of books from schools because they must have caused his death. I realise this is nonsense and illogical, but just let me have this one. Another parent I know lost a mother to pencils. Let her have this one. And I heard about a guy whose son died from arithmetic. Let him have this one. Our school now doesn't give much education, but at least us parents feel better.
You can have every sympathy in the world for this father's loss. It's terrible for him. But he has no right to enforce what is nothing more than a manifestation of his grief on everyone else's education.
Slashdot Mirror
Define "publicly". It's on a facebook page, that's public. What, the account doesn't have any "friends"? Well I'm not a sociable person.
How about when I do "fake" things on my "real" account? How does facebook know if I really like something or not? How does it know whether my latest status update isn't all lies? Would that make my real facebook account also fake?
Facebook have absolutely no idea whether an account is "genuine" by any practical definition, or not. And unless they roll out some kind of IP enabled brain worm that can tell what I'm really thinking, and really doing, they are wasting their time trying to define accounts as "fake". (Don't worry, I'm sure they're working on it.)
I'm disappointed the "Call me Dave" Cameron has time to watch trashy TV crime drama. Doesn't he have a country to run?
Cameron's natural go-to instinct is to seek whatever financial profit can be made for his big-business chums. Screw the voters, you can feed them whatever BS rational you think they'll swallow. And so it is in this case. I bet Cameron doesn't watch TV crime dramas, but he thinks everyone else does.
It's all depressingly familiar, following a predictable pattern.
1/ Invent a threat to excuse a invasion of personal rights
2/ Draft half-assed legal solution
3/ Privatise implementation of legal solution, and harvest data.
4/ PROFIT!
Pretty much what I was thinking.
As virtual reality becomes ever closer to reality, in terms of image/sound/immersion quality, the time will come when people die doing things in real life, under the temporary mistaken belief they are in game.
It's not unreasonable to suggest that VR may actually have to be degraded/compromised in order that people can always differentiate between them.
I am not a professional musician, and certainly not a fanboi, but the above confirms everything I've experienced.
As far as music creation is concerned, Apple are easily best. Windows is ok. Linux options range from awkward pains in the asses to unusable nightmares.
If you have the cash, go with a Mac solution.
The point is that it isn't the mother who wants this money, it's the state. The state previously agreed to nothing about the father's responsibility being removed. The agreement they had between the three of them has no bearing on the state's right to pursue him for the money.
You can totally blame the parents. What is this "$6,000 in assistance"? If these are benefits over and above what all parents are entitled to, why are the parents planning children that they are not financially able to support?
You can't say this was an accidental pregnancy. They effectively devised a plan that said; we'll go to some lengths to create a child, and the state will pay for it because we can't. If this wasn't a donor situation then, of course, the state would go hunting for the father's money. So why should this be different? The state was not party to any legal arrangement they had between themselves. Like it or not, he was complicit in the plan.
The only fault the donor made is in not ensuring the couple wanting the child could support it.
Unfortunately we are quickly approaching the position, if not there already, where you can point a camera everywhere and no-one will ever know. If you can see it, you can record it.
Want to ensure no-one records something? Then don't let them see it.
I fully support the film industry's right to be paid for their work, but they have to face up to the inevitable. In the near future they will not be able to prevent cinema goers recording films. Their only options are to make the recording so degraded in some way, that no one will pay to see it, or make the experience of seeing it in a cinema so much better that people will not chose to watch a recording.
Because its an interesting variation on the usual delusional megalomaniac pattern. Traditionally, after going through the usual inventing new awards and names for himself, he should be designing his own army uniforms and medals by now.
But this is a whole new virtual world, I guess.
It came pack and parcel with preaching their nationalist superiority ideals.
The phrase is "part and parcel".
Not criticising, just educating. I'm certain your English is better than my Greek.
Who says they hadn't thought to try it?
You are making the mistake of thinking that being prosecuted for not revealing the password, and GCHQ not knowing the password, have a causal relationship. They don't necessarily.
Not free, not even particularly cheap, but the best one I've encountered; JRiver Media Center. If you want to take digital media on your PC seriously.
http://www.jriver.com/
Winamp brought skinning, plugins, visualizations and a whole slew of things that most folks never even knew they wanted or needed.
Well exactly. They didn't want them and they didn't need them.
Skinning is a novelty of zero use. No, I do not need to rearrange the UI of my application every month so I can't find anything. No, having my music application look like a tie-in with the latest Batman movie is not a plus.
Plugins are of more use. But really, just provide me with the stuff I need in the application and I won't need these and won't have to spend ages getting them to work together.
Visualisations are fun at first, but I am not a club DJ or a stoner. They are therefore just CPU hogs.
Winamp had it all in its day and I'll remember it fondly. But over time it just became a confused mess.
Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Maybe he wasn't fired but chose to leave. I don't recall EA struggling to make money while he was in charge, and that's the bottom line. Was there anything to suggest he was running out leverage?
The whole "Simcity disaster prompts CEO firing" angle was, and still is, speculation founded on nothing concrete, and no-one remotely involved has even hinted the two events are related. Some gamers just liked the idea that their terrible pain had, eventually, cost someone their job.
Are we still on this fantasy?
If you think that the CEO of EA was fired due to SimCity teething problems, then you are suffering from delusions regarding the nature of the business.
Not just the video game business. Any business.
I have G+. I forget how much I was "forced" into setting it up from gmail. I don't really want it and I don't need it.
I resolve the situation by never using it, and having it contain nothing. It therefore does nothing, good or bad, for anyone, other than take up 0.0000000000000000001% of Google's drive space.
But that equally means that other drivers who get into accidents with Ford drivers could sue Ford.
"You knew this guy was a habitual maniac driver and did nothing until he struck me head on. Then you produced the data to cover your own backs. Well here's a $100 million lawsuit that says you were covering for him and are liable for my injuries."
This is completely meaningless as long as any data has to traverse any network in the US.
If I am exchanging data between Canada and any other place but the US, why would it traverse the US? If these companies want to do business with the rest of the world without being spied on by US agencies, being outside the US is a good place to start.
Whether that alone is enough is questionable, but it's a start and certainly not meaningless.
Hasn't this already been decided?
The principal criteria on their use will depend on whether the victim can demonstrate whether they are a citizen of the United States or not. Apparently that's where the line is drawn. Because, you know, votes.
It's not security through obscurity. It's security through secrecy.
What a radical idea! You need to expand on this "if you don't like it, don't buy it" idea. It could revolutionise modern day consumerism!
Even at a personal level; the number of times I've paid for stuff I didn't want and knew I wouldn't like. If I'd known I had the option of not buying it... well I'd be a rich man without a house full of junk!
Isn't the whole point of the OP's question that you don't know you shifted the numbers and characters?
Same applies if you need others to access the password in the event of your death. They need to be in on the secret too.
I have a solution for this scenario, and equally for my sudden death.
Can't tell you what it is, obviously, as that would compromise it. Not much help, I know. But that's how security works.
Which means they've had decades to keep repeating them until they've become true.
Cos that's how things work, isn't it?
And paper and pencils aren't either. Chalk and slate boards do just as well, don't they?
WiFi is a part of modern life, and is only likely to become an even greater part of these children's future. By crippling their access to it at school you are doing nothing to help them prepare for the rest of their life.
I lost a grandfather, and he was a prolific reader. So I want to remove the scourge of books from schools because they must have caused his death. I realise this is nonsense and illogical, but just let me have this one. Another parent I know lost a mother to pencils. Let her have this one. And I heard about a guy whose son died from arithmetic. Let him have this one. Our school now doesn't give much education, but at least us parents feel better.
You can have every sympathy in the world for this father's loss. It's terrible for him. But he has no right to enforce what is nothing more than a manifestation of his grief on everyone else's education.