This analysis relies entirely on Facebook users using "break up" and "broken up" only in the context of romantic relationships. There are obvious and frequent uses for these terms outside this; therefore analysis is fatally compromised from the off.
Perhaps if someone explained this to the David McCandless, he might report how broken up he was about it, but it wouldn't mean his significant other was leaving him.
- no kids have done this, anywhere - no gummy bears were involved, at any time - gummy bears in your pocket would be of zero use to you in defeating these scanners, no matter what temperature they are
No systems are "foolproof" if you are prepared to go far enough to circumvent them. But the only fools here are those who believe the misleading headline in slashdot. This is not just a case of kids pressing their fingers into gummy bears (which would only result in a mirror image of a smudgy fingerprint, if anything). It's a case of researchers using quite sophisticated techniques to replicate a finger in gelatin. Not impossible for a kid to do, but not something their going to produce out of the contents of their lunch box.
You appear to be confusing 'troll' with "someone who disagrees with my perfectly correct opinions and therefore must be silenced".
Trolls are generally not welcome, as they are not interested in discussion, just provoking reaction. They may not even care about the topic discussed one way or another. It's just a way of getting attention for their favorite topic; themselves.
People who disagree, however, are essential for any good discussion forum. Informed and considered opinion rarely forms from people sitting around congratulating each other on how right they all are and how much they are in agreement. I can't imagine why anyone would want to hang out in any forum like that. Ideas need challenged to prove their worth. Calling those who provide the challenge 'trolls' or 'shills' are just ad hominen attacks that avoid the real issues.
He or she is told a certain website published a defamatory statement. How is the judge to know that it's the wrong shady gossip site?
Hmm.. how about we extrapolate that a second? The judge is told a certain person committed murder. How is the judge to know that it's the wrong person?
It's a impossible dilemma isn't it? What is a judge to do?
How about by asking to see the evidence? That's kind of their job.
I get this too. My name is not that common, unfortunately the idiots making the mistake are the same ones again and again. I'm now at the point that I can guess which idiot, as I know enough about their interests from what websites they sign up to.
It's just as bad when they tell their friends or colleagues the wrong email address. It took me a year to convince a certain military outfit that I was not part of their unit and to stop sending me orders about next week's operations. God knows what was happening to the guy who was supposed to be getting them.
I used to forward them on to the correct email address, or reply to the sender. Now I don't bother, automated filter, straight in the trash.
Of course, the websites that sign people up to things without any email confirmation are just as guilty.
Cool. If I announce on a website some place that I'm paying I billion dollars to "buy" New Zealand, on condition that it is renamed Mordor, will I get onto the front page of slashdot?
It'd all be total bollocks, you understand. I don't have a billion dollars, New Zealand isn't for sale and they haven't accepted the offer. But it's all in good fun and the rough and tumble of publicity stunts, isn't it? No-one cares about actual facts and news or stuff, do they?
Yeah, that's all. The exact same location and angle of view in all 3 dimensions. With the exact same focal length. No problem at all that, really easy.
Monochroming the modern picture and making the merge between the two seamless would completely ruin the artistic point of the exercise. If the viewer can't readily see the join, how are they supposed to know where it is?
And the photographer is a she, as her name may suggest.
Unless you think that magnetic fields are not real, this isn't augmented reality. All that is happening is that birds can detect the part of reality that is magnetic fields, and have "chosen" to represent them as shades.
In the same way humans can detect electro-magnetic waves in a variety of wavelengths, and have "chosen" to represent this as 'color'. Neither case involves "augmenting" reality, they only involve choices in how reality is detected and represented.
whole countries rose and fell during that timespan
Well that's your problem there. A primitive planet that is divided into "countries" that are pitted against each others and so "rise and fall" in relation to one another. That's a lot of wasted effort and pathetically parochial in the context of inter-planetary exploration.
Should we ever get beyond this maybe 150 years wouldn't matter so much.
It was just RIAA which was refusing to accept the money, because RIAA though they were entitled to more money.
Of course they refused. You tell me of one other industry where the retailer sells something without the manufacturer's permission, and then tells the manufacturer how much they're prepared to pay for it.
AllOfMP3's pricing was based on a their own interpretation of Russian law that made a loophole to be exploited. Any surprise that the record companies weren't going to legitimize the arrangement by taking the money?
"The idea is not to turn a motorist's vehicle into a mobile billboard, but rather to create a platform for motorists to show their support for existing good working organizations," he said.
If only there was some other platform for people to show their support for organisations that didn't involve their license plate. You'd think that someone could come up with a way of sticking some supporting text onto your vehicle. It could go on your bumper, or even be stuck to the inside of your back window. You could even stick it on a flag and stick it out your side window.
Too bad someone hasn't thought of these obvious ideas. I think they'd really catch on, cos there really is no better way to project your personality and views.
For a country and its people to benefit from that kind or resource they need a good government and structurally sound society right from the start. Otherwise the big corporations and foreign governments are going pitch up in the vacuum and carve up the riches for themselves.
What the Afghans need more than anything is for everyone else to butt out and leave them alone.
Exactly. The quality and enjoyability of the beer is not determined by the percentage of alcohol. If this kind of mindless "mines bigger than yours" appeals to you then why not buy a bottle of 100% distilled medical alcohol and pour it straight down your throat?
Woohoo! It's a hundred percent! You can't get bigger! You win! Now bring over the stomach pumps.
The same macho BS that goes on about curry strengths. People competitively eat the strongest curry they can get hold off, to the point of it knocking your taste buds into a coma. Well done. Now you can't taste anything and you're oozing curry paste from every duct and pore you possess. You win.
Facebook may not be violating the law but that doesn't mean they're not behaving in a most un-American way.
Facebook are behaving in the most American way you can get. Why do you hate America?
The freedoms we have are as much about not being obliged to promote, support, host, relay or otherwise put up with the opinions of others on our property. I do not have to put up with you holding your rally in my house if I feel it is not in my interests. Even if I support your cause, I may believe that your rally is a bad idea, counter-productive, provocative, immature, making a mess of my carpets and likely to annoy the neighbors. So it is my right to tell you to go elsewhere. Why do you want to remove my rights from me?
Like all rights, this applies to everyone, even if you loath the organisation wishing to control what happens on their property.
I'd be more in favour of the US Government blocking those who do not understand what their right to free speech is, so that we are not bothered with the thoughts of those who haven't a clue.
Right to free speech in the United States is as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This says that the government cannot limit freedom of expression. Facebook is not the government. Facebook can decide what it will permit people to say on its website and what it will not. The right to free speech does not extend to obliging others to promote your opinions. There is no free speech violation here.
It is sad to see such an important topic treated like this.
You empathise more with the topic than people? You heartless monster! Personally I feel more for all the students who wasted their time on this.
Otherwise, well done, you are entirely correct. This test is on a par with those personality tests you see in magazines. Good for a laugh, but total nonsense. It doesn't take a genius to spot which answer makes you appear a better person according to usual social standards. Empathy = good, no empathy = bad. We get it.
However, I would argue those scoring highest are likely to be a constant bundle of emotional turmoil that everyone finds irritating. And that includes those being empathised with.
That whoosh you are hearing is something going over your head, how far over you can measure what ever way you wish.
30,000 metres does indeed round up to 100,000 feet, if you are more concerned about clinging to antique US-centric measurements than any kind of accuracy. Which was kind of the whole point.
I think you misunderstand. This balloon is an historical event. So it has a memorial day assigned to it before it's even been launched. We don't know what date that is yet, just that it will be a weekend.
Oh, and it will ascend to 100,000 feet, rounding up the 30,000 Portuguese meters to something more sensible.
The majority of Muslims are not in a fanatic religious groups. The majority of Muslims do not wish harm to anyone. They are not the bullies you speak of. Yet this is still taking a shot at their beliefs.
Just because you feel threatened by a small number of people in a crowd does not mean it's ok to turn the hoses on everyone there. It may not mean you're the bully. It may not make you a worse person than those small number of people. But it does make you an enormous jerk.
We value freedom of speech at least as much as they value Mohammed, and we are willing to stand up for that belief. We are not willing to let their threats silence us.
All very good and patriotic. But first you are going to have to explain how not drawing Mohammed and publishing it on the internet is a threat to any of your freedoms or beliefs.
Nothing's stopping those Muslims from completely fucking ignoring the entire thing
But the campaign's intent is that they should certainly not ignore it. You say yourself that it is to "demonstrate our ideals and our courage". Who is it supposed to be "demonstrating" to, if not Muslims? This campaign's is entirely trolling and about provocation.
If Muslims want to prove they've grown up and are ready to enter the modern world
Why should Muslims have to 'prove' anything? Who are these people who have decided that they determine who and what enters the 'modern world' and what is permissible there?
they'll ignore this, or respond by drawing Jesus.
Yeah, cos drawing rude pictures of people and passing them around is very mature and grown up. If we're lucky this will progress to calling each other poopy-pants and arguments about who started it. Only then can we be assured that all is right in the world and our ideals and beliefs are protected! Or, if we're unlucky, this piece of immature trolling will be just another small contribution to the kind of hatred in the world that causes wars and death.
So you're for free speech as long as everyone's careful not to offend anyone?
This is trolling. Trolling is not free speech because it's sole purpose is to offend.
Slashdot Mirror
Mod parent up.
This analysis relies entirely on Facebook users using "break up" and "broken up" only in the context of romantic relationships. There are obvious and frequent uses for these terms outside this; therefore analysis is fatally compromised from the off.
Perhaps if someone explained this to the David McCandless, he might report how broken up he was about it, but it wouldn't mean his significant other was leaving him.
Except, if you RTFA you will see;
- no kids have done this, anywhere
- no gummy bears were involved, at any time
- gummy bears in your pocket would be of zero use to you in defeating these scanners, no matter what temperature they are
No systems are "foolproof" if you are prepared to go far enough to circumvent them. But the only fools here are those who believe the misleading headline in slashdot. This is not just a case of kids pressing their fingers into gummy bears (which would only result in a mirror image of a smudgy fingerprint, if anything). It's a case of researchers using quite sophisticated techniques to replicate a finger in gelatin. Not impossible for a kid to do, but not something their going to produce out of the contents of their lunch box.
In the ground, which is at an angle in this photograph that would either put it out of sight, or off frame?
You appear to be confusing 'troll' with "someone who disagrees with my perfectly correct opinions and therefore must be silenced".
Trolls are generally not welcome, as they are not interested in discussion, just provoking reaction. They may not even care about the topic discussed one way or another. It's just a way of getting attention for their favorite topic; themselves.
People who disagree, however, are essential for any good discussion forum. Informed and considered opinion rarely forms from people sitting around congratulating each other on how right they all are and how much they are in agreement. I can't imagine why anyone would want to hang out in any forum like that. Ideas need challenged to prove their worth. Calling those who provide the challenge 'trolls' or 'shills' are just ad hominen attacks that avoid the real issues.
He or she is told a certain website published a defamatory statement. How is the judge to know that it's the wrong shady gossip site?
Hmm.. how about we extrapolate that a second? The judge is told a certain person committed murder. How is the judge to know that it's the wrong person?
It's a impossible dilemma isn't it? What is a judge to do?
How about by asking to see the evidence? That's kind of their job.
EU != Europe
I get this too. My name is not that common, unfortunately the idiots making the mistake are the same ones again and again. I'm now at the point that I can guess which idiot, as I know enough about their interests from what websites they sign up to.
It's just as bad when they tell their friends or colleagues the wrong email address. It took me a year to convince a certain military outfit that I was not part of their unit and to stop sending me orders about next week's operations. God knows what was happening to the guy who was supposed to be getting them.
I used to forward them on to the correct email address, or reply to the sender. Now I don't bother, automated filter, straight in the trash.
Of course, the websites that sign people up to things without any email confirmation are just as guilty.
Cool. If I announce on a website some place that I'm paying I billion dollars to "buy" New Zealand, on condition that it is renamed Mordor, will I get onto the front page of slashdot?
It'd all be total bollocks, you understand. I don't have a billion dollars, New Zealand isn't for sale and they haven't accepted the offer. But it's all in good fun and the rough and tumble of publicity stunts, isn't it? No-one cares about actual facts and news or stuff, do they?
All he did was take a photo at the same angle
Yeah, that's all. The exact same location and angle of view in all 3 dimensions. With the exact same focal length. No problem at all that, really easy.
Monochroming the modern picture and making the merge between the two seamless would completely ruin the artistic point of the exercise. If the viewer can't readily see the join, how are they supposed to know where it is?
And the photographer is a she, as her name may suggest.
Unless you think that magnetic fields are not real, this isn't augmented reality. All that is happening is that birds can detect the part of reality that is magnetic fields, and have "chosen" to represent them as shades.
In the same way humans can detect electro-magnetic waves in a variety of wavelengths, and have "chosen" to represent this as 'color'. Neither case involves "augmenting" reality, they only involve choices in how reality is detected and represented.
nor do they have breaks
They do indeed have breaks. If engaged by pirates they sometimes suffer breaks to the mast. Splinters too.
Brakes, however...
whole countries rose and fell during that timespan
Well that's your problem there. A primitive planet that is divided into "countries" that are pitted against each others and so "rise and fall" in relation to one another. That's a lot of wasted effort and pathetically parochial in the context of inter-planetary exploration.
Should we ever get beyond this maybe 150 years wouldn't matter so much.
It was just RIAA which was refusing to accept the money, because RIAA though they were entitled to more money.
Of course they refused. You tell me of one other industry where the retailer sells something without the manufacturer's permission, and then tells the manufacturer how much they're prepared to pay for it.
AllOfMP3's pricing was based on a their own interpretation of Russian law that made a loophole to be exploited. Any surprise that the record companies weren't going to legitimize the arrangement by taking the money?
"The idea is not to turn a motorist's vehicle into a mobile billboard, but rather to create a platform for motorists to show their support for existing good working organizations," he said.
If only there was some other platform for people to show their support for organisations that didn't involve their license plate. You'd think that someone could come up with a way of sticking some supporting text onto your vehicle. It could go on your bumper, or even be stuck to the inside of your back window. You could even stick it on a flag and stick it out your side window.
Too bad someone hasn't thought of these obvious ideas. I think they'd really catch on, cos there really is no better way to project your personality and views.
Yup. Pretty much.
For a country and its people to benefit from that kind or resource they need a good government and structurally sound society right from the start. Otherwise the big corporations and foreign governments are going pitch up in the vacuum and carve up the riches for themselves.
What the Afghans need more than anything is for everyone else to butt out and leave them alone.
Weird Al got his start there, for example
I was indifferent to this radio show's demise until I read this. Now it you've gone and made it seem like a good thing.
The world would be a better place if there were less stupefyingly unfunny parodies.
Exactly. The quality and enjoyability of the beer is not determined by the percentage of alcohol. If this kind of mindless "mines bigger than yours" appeals to you then why not buy a bottle of 100% distilled medical alcohol and pour it straight down your throat?
Woohoo! It's a hundred percent! You can't get bigger! You win! Now bring over the stomach pumps.
The same macho BS that goes on about curry strengths. People competitively eat the strongest curry they can get hold off, to the point of it knocking your taste buds into a coma. Well done. Now you can't taste anything and you're oozing curry paste from every duct and pore you possess. You win.
Facebook may not be violating the law but that doesn't mean they're not behaving in a most un-American way.
Facebook are behaving in the most American way you can get. Why do you hate America?
The freedoms we have are as much about not being obliged to promote, support, host, relay or otherwise put up with the opinions of others on our property. I do not have to put up with you holding your rally in my house if I feel it is not in my interests. Even if I support your cause, I may believe that your rally is a bad idea, counter-productive, provocative, immature, making a mess of my carpets and likely to annoy the neighbors. So it is my right to tell you to go elsewhere. Why do you want to remove my rights from me?
Like all rights, this applies to everyone, even if you loath the organisation wishing to control what happens on their property.
I'd be more in favour of the US Government blocking those who do not understand what their right to free speech is, so that we are not bothered with the thoughts of those who haven't a clue.
Right to free speech in the United States is as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This says that the government cannot limit freedom of expression. Facebook is not the government. Facebook can decide what it will permit people to say on its website and what it will not. The right to free speech does not extend to obliging others to promote your opinions. There is no free speech violation here.
It is sad to see such an important topic treated like this.
You empathise more with the topic than people? You heartless monster! Personally I feel more for all the students who wasted their time on this.
Otherwise, well done, you are entirely correct. This test is on a par with those personality tests you see in magazines. Good for a laugh, but total nonsense. It doesn't take a genius to spot which answer makes you appear a better person according to usual social standards. Empathy = good, no empathy = bad. We get it.
However, I would argue those scoring highest are likely to be a constant bundle of emotional turmoil that everyone finds irritating. And that includes those being empathised with.
And as far as the crack about America not recognizing places outside its borders,
Actually, the crack was about "the USA". But you will already have spotted the glorious irony of your mistake.
That whoosh you are hearing is something going over your head, how far over you can measure what ever way you wish.
30,000 metres does indeed round up to 100,000 feet, if you are more concerned about clinging to antique US-centric measurements than any kind of accuracy. Which was kind of the whole point.
I think you misunderstand. This balloon is an historical event. So it has a memorial day assigned to it before it's even been launched. We don't know what date that is yet, just that it will be a weekend.
Oh, and it will ascend to 100,000 feet, rounding up the 30,000 Portuguese meters to something more sensible.
The majority of Muslims are not in a fanatic religious groups. The majority of Muslims do not wish harm to anyone. They are not the bullies you speak of. Yet this is still taking a shot at their beliefs.
Just because you feel threatened by a small number of people in a crowd does not mean it's ok to turn the hoses on everyone there. It may not mean you're the bully. It may not make you a worse person than those small number of people. But it does make you an enormous jerk.
We value freedom of speech at least as much as they value Mohammed, and we are willing to stand up for that belief. We are not willing to let their threats silence us.
All very good and patriotic. But first you are going to have to explain how not drawing Mohammed and publishing it on the internet is a threat to any of your freedoms or beliefs.
Nothing's stopping those Muslims from completely fucking ignoring the entire thing
But the campaign's intent is that they should certainly not ignore it. You say yourself that it is to "demonstrate our ideals and our courage". Who is it supposed to be "demonstrating" to, if not Muslims? This campaign's is entirely trolling and about provocation.
If Muslims want to prove they've grown up and are ready to enter the modern world
Why should Muslims have to 'prove' anything? Who are these people who have decided that they determine who and what enters the 'modern world' and what is permissible there?
they'll ignore this, or respond by drawing Jesus.
Yeah, cos drawing rude pictures of people and passing them around is very mature and grown up. If we're lucky this will progress to calling each other poopy-pants and arguments about who started it. Only then can we be assured that all is right in the world and our ideals and beliefs are protected! Or, if we're unlucky, this piece of immature trolling will be just another small contribution to the kind of hatred in the world that causes wars and death.
So you're for free speech as long as everyone's careful not to offend anyone?
This is trolling. Trolling is not free speech because it's sole purpose is to offend.