I don't really want to jump to the defense of facebook here, but your particular complaint seem to stem from being ignorant of its "lists" feature.
Create a list for each of your circles, and when you post something, select only the lists you want. Most of my updates for example, go only to people on my "Friends In Real Life" list.
Being an atheist isn't a choice, either. You are either born with the cognitive wiring to see the world rationally, or you are not, in which case you can believe whatever you like (or more probably, whatever you are told).
I could no more "choose to believe" in an invisible all-powerful sky-wizard than I could choose to believe that 1 equals 2, or that dinosaurs are living happily on the far side of the moon. I can't make myself believe in fairy tales. I could only ever choose to pretend I believe them.
I would mod you up if I could, as you've said just what I wanted to say.
BitCoin is technically interesting, dammit. I don't own any, and I don't think I want to. . . it does seem like a risky, unstable economy to me. But the very idea of it is brilliant, and the implementation details and implications of its existence are profoundly interesting to me. It fits the "New for Nerds, Stuff that Matters" theme far better than most of the other stories posted here.
I'm pretty sure most of these bigwigs are not actually managing their own social network profile, and that the Public Relations drone or Image Consultant who runs it for them is under instructions to accept all friend requests.
They are more like fan pages than personal accounts.
I had a similar experience. Got an email from an out-of-state vineyard I'd never heard of confirming my "order" had been shipped. I had no idea who it was intended for, and I do not have a common name. I was a little worried that somebody may have opened an account in my name, and may be using my credit card number or something.
So I used their "forgot my password" link to have the account password sent to the email address on file, logged in, and made sure that wasn't the case. (I could have grabbed HIS stored credit card info, or at least ordered a shitload of wine to be shipped to randomly selected addresses, but dammit, I'm just not evil enough). Then I changed the email on file to a fake address and logged out.
The odd thing was that the account holder's first and last name weren't even remotely similar to mine. Makes me think maybe that company has a hosting or e-commerce provider in common with some other company that I have done business with, and some account records in a database somewhere got shuffled somehow.
Short answer: No, the term doesn't refer to that. It means the development company has produced the "golden master" copy of the software. That is, the copy that they will send to their manufacturers to be mass-duplicated, producing units for sale.
As an atheist with a layman's interest in neuropsychology, I believe that what I would call my "soul" is an emergent phenomenon arising from the highly complex biochemical and electrochemical reactions in my brain. If my soul is decoupled from my brain it immediately ceases to exist, and my brain quickly gives rise to a new, largely identical, soul.
Consequently, I've sold my soul, dozens of times -- usually for change to use in the soda machine. My brain, however, is not on the market.
Yes I know they are paid (by the sender) to deliver it. And I will pay them additional money to discard it immediately upon delivery. I'll provide a second receptacle to deliver it to.
The junkmail is mostly 3rd class mail, of which I'm pretty sure delivery is not guaranteed anyway, and the many pieces of first class mail that are addressed to parties not residing in my house are not intended for me to start with.
They charged the miners for candles, dynamite, and pretty much every other supply. See, (if I recall correctly from when I took the tour several years ago) the miners were not actually employees -- they were independent contractors. The company sold them supplies, let them into the mine, and then bought whatever ore they hauled out. This was mostly done to screw them. They could spend 18 hours a day hauling iron out of the mine for the company and yet not turn a profit.
Also, incidentally, my group also took a full tour of the lab while we were down there -- I think they are happy to give tours, they just aren't regularly scheduled. We had called a few days before and one of the grad students working there met us and showed us around. Sadly, I was not struck by any super-power-granting science beams.
I would gladly -- nay, eagerly -- pay a small monthly fee to the USPS in exchange for the mail carrier performing one simple service: spam filtering.
Take all the flyers, coupons, and other advertisements, along with all the mail not addressed to me (I very frequently get mail not only for the previous residents who sold us the home 2+ years ago, but for the residents prior to them, and the residents prior to those residents going back at least a decade), and deliver those items straight to the trash.
That's already been done. I would google up a link for you, but I'm at work and don't think I want to be logged typing the necessary search terms into my search box.
If the cracker or identity thief can see the answers then they can easily reset your password to what ever they desire.
On some shitty sites, sure. Most reputable services would not allow a password reset purely based on the security questions. Once the user answers them, the server should still only send a password reset link to the email address on file for the user.
Doesn't help if the attacker also has access to your email, of course, but if you're in that situation not much of anything is going to help.
Yes but after recent events in Japan, it could make a come back. After seeing the massive and ongoing media reaction to that disaster, I actually wondered to myself whether or not Spiderman's origin story would flip back to using a radiated spider.
Yes, my priorities are fucked up. I'm okay with that.
Great! So challenge those assumptions and discuss the flaws in the methodology, and meanwhile, hopefully, people will be seeking evidence for or against all that other "stuff" that would have to be proved to give this paper any weight. That's science and it's beautiful.
It is better to have explored this argument and rejected it as without merit than to have not considered it at all. It doesn't have to be remotely right to be valuable.
You seem uncertain as to whether kudos are truly in order, but I'd say they are. Your are right to put "proving" in quotation marks, but providing meaningful evidence in support of a hypothesis that is so far only "thought likely to be true" is valuable science.
I keep seeing posts that say this, as though providing attribution is just a stupid YouTube user's misguided way of thinking he/she is in the clear. All of them seem to imply that the attribution means nothing and these users are clearly still violating the copyright.
In truth, whether or not the attribution is present is one of the three tests for whether the use of the content constitutes fair use, so saying "I don't own this" really does help considerably in making it more likely to be considered okay.
When a judge or jury rules on whether something is fair use, they are supposed to consider 1) whether or not attribution is given, 2) whether the content has been copied for commercial or non-commercial use, and 3) how much of the content was copied.
Giving the attribution makes the YouTube user safe on one of those points. Most videos posted on YouTube are not posted for outright commercial gain, so the second test will hinge on whether the copyrighted work is used for educational reasons or for the sake or parody or artistic criticism. The third is straightforward.
So its true that saying "I don't own this" may make no difference at all, but if only a portion of the copyrighted work is used, and if some argument can be made that the purpose is sufficiently non-commercial, then it might make all the difference.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't really want to jump to the defense of facebook here, but your particular complaint seem to stem from being ignorant of its "lists" feature.
Create a list for each of your circles, and when you post something, select only the lists you want. Most of my updates for example, go only to people on my "Friends In Real Life" list.
Being an atheist isn't a choice, either. You are either born with the cognitive wiring to see the world rationally, or you are not, in which case you can believe whatever you like (or more probably, whatever you are told).
I could no more "choose to believe" in an invisible all-powerful sky-wizard than I could choose to believe that 1 equals 2, or that dinosaurs are living happily on the far side of the moon. I can't make myself believe in fairy tales. I could only ever choose to pretend I believe them.
in praxis there are, of course, a lot of problems.
No kidding. It was the Klingons' main energy production facility before it exploded.
Barter is not a medium of exchange. It is just exchange. Without the medium. That's what makes it barter.
I would mod you up if I could, as you've said just what I wanted to say.
BitCoin is technically interesting, dammit. I don't own any, and I don't think I want to. . . it does seem like a risky, unstable economy to me. But the very idea of it is brilliant, and the implementation details and implications of its existence are profoundly interesting to me. It fits the "New for Nerds, Stuff that Matters" theme far better than most of the other stories posted here.
I'm pretty sure most of these bigwigs are not actually managing their own social network profile, and that the Public Relations drone or Image Consultant who runs it for them is under instructions to accept all friend requests.
They are more like fan pages than personal accounts.
I had a similar experience. Got an email from an out-of-state vineyard I'd never heard of confirming my "order" had been shipped. I had no idea who it was intended for, and I do not have a common name. I was a little worried that somebody may have opened an account in my name, and may be using my credit card number or something.
So I used their "forgot my password" link to have the account password sent to the email address on file, logged in, and made sure that wasn't the case. (I could have grabbed HIS stored credit card info, or at least ordered a shitload of wine to be shipped to randomly selected addresses, but dammit, I'm just not evil enough). Then I changed the email on file to a fake address and logged out.
The odd thing was that the account holder's first and last name weren't even remotely similar to mine. Makes me think maybe that company has a hosting or e-commerce provider in common with some other company that I have done business with, and some account records in a database somewhere got shuffled somehow.
Short answer: No, the term doesn't refer to that. It means the development company has produced the "golden master" copy of the software. That is, the copy that they will send to their manufacturers to be mass-duplicated, producing units for sale.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_master
As an atheist with a layman's interest in neuropsychology, I believe that what I would call my "soul" is an emergent phenomenon arising from the highly complex biochemical and electrochemical reactions in my brain. If my soul is decoupled from my brain it immediately ceases to exist, and my brain quickly gives rise to a new, largely identical, soul.
Consequently, I've sold my soul, dozens of times -- usually for change to use in the soda machine. My brain, however, is not on the market.
Yes I know they are paid (by the sender) to deliver it. And I will pay them additional money to discard it immediately upon delivery. I'll provide a second receptacle to deliver it to.
The junkmail is mostly 3rd class mail, of which I'm pretty sure delivery is not guaranteed anyway, and the many pieces of first class mail that are addressed to parties not residing in my house are not intended for me to start with.
They charged the miners for candles, dynamite, and pretty much every other supply. See, (if I recall correctly from when I took the tour several years ago) the miners were not actually employees -- they were independent contractors. The company sold them supplies, let them into the mine, and then bought whatever ore they hauled out. This was mostly done to screw them. They could spend 18 hours a day hauling iron out of the mine for the company and yet not turn a profit.
Also, incidentally, my group also took a full tour of the lab while we were down there -- I think they are happy to give tours, they just aren't regularly scheduled. We had called a few days before and one of the grad students working there met us and showed us around. Sadly, I was not struck by any super-power-granting science beams.
I would gladly -- nay, eagerly -- pay a small monthly fee to the USPS in exchange for the mail carrier performing one simple service: spam filtering.
Take all the flyers, coupons, and other advertisements, along with all the mail not addressed to me (I very frequently get mail not only for the previous residents who sold us the home 2+ years ago, but for the residents prior to them, and the residents prior to those residents going back at least a decade), and deliver those items straight to the trash.
That's already been done. I would google up a link for you, but I'm at work and don't think I want to be logged typing the necessary search terms into my search box.
If the cracker or identity thief can see the answers then they can easily reset your password to what ever they desire.
On some shitty sites, sure. Most reputable services would not allow a password reset purely based on the security questions. Once the user answers them, the server should still only send a password reset link to the email address on file for the user.
Doesn't help if the attacker also has access to your email, of course, but if you're in that situation not much of anything is going to help.
That is the thing I was referring to.
-1 Just Flat Wrong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_tracking
The time between autumn of 1976 and spring of 2011 is still less than 35 years. More than 34, sure. But not yet 35.
Yes but after recent events in Japan, it could make a come back. After seeing the massive and ongoing media reaction to that disaster, I actually wondered to myself whether or not Spiderman's origin story would flip back to using a radiated spider.
Yes, my priorities are fucked up. I'm okay with that.
Great! So challenge those assumptions and discuss the flaws in the methodology, and meanwhile, hopefully, people will be seeking evidence for or against all that other "stuff" that would have to be proved to give this paper any weight. That's science and it's beautiful.
It is better to have explored this argument and rejected it as without merit than to have not considered it at all. It doesn't have to be remotely right to be valuable.
You seem uncertain as to whether kudos are truly in order, but I'd say they are. Your are right to put "proving" in quotation marks, but providing meaningful evidence in support of a hypothesis that is so far only "thought likely to be true" is valuable science.
I keep seeing posts that say this, as though providing attribution is just a stupid YouTube user's misguided way of thinking he/she is in the clear. All of them seem to imply that the attribution means nothing and these users are clearly still violating the copyright.
In truth, whether or not the attribution is present is one of the three tests for whether the use of the content constitutes fair use, so saying "I don't own this" really does help considerably in making it more likely to be considered okay.
When a judge or jury rules on whether something is fair use, they are supposed to consider 1) whether or not attribution is given, 2) whether the content has been copied for commercial or non-commercial use, and 3) how much of the content was copied.
Giving the attribution makes the YouTube user safe on one of those points. Most videos posted on YouTube are not posted for outright commercial gain, so the second test will hinge on whether the copyrighted work is used for educational reasons or for the sake or parody or artistic criticism. The third is straightforward.
So its true that saying "I don't own this" may make no difference at all, but if only a portion of the copyrighted work is used, and if some argument can be made that the purpose is sufficiently non-commercial, then it might make all the difference.
Banners? What banners? I saw no banners. They must only exist for you and anyone else who can't be arsed to install AdBlock.
Fortunately, I think the reviewer may be doing something wrong.
(sorry for the self reply, I left off the last part of my comment in a link pasting snafu.)
If the facts stated in this review are accurate, Microsoft should be embarrassed by this level of "support."
http://kotaku.com/#!5792076/kinect-for-netflix-is-a-catastrophe-microsoft-has-no-idea-what-to-do-with-kinect
http://xkcd.com/718/