The Sci-Fi channel has been dead for years now. Other than the occasional gem like BSG, there is nothing good on that channel. When they started showing professional wrestling and Ghost Hunters, I gave up on it...and that's not even dealing with their Sci-Fi Original Movies. Features with names like "Giant Alligator Attack" showing, essentially, a group of young hipsters being chased by a few badly animated polygons get real old, real fast.
If it's anything like the US, then the kids buying video games are probably not the ones going around stabbing folks. Violent crime tends to correlate with a lower income bracket...whereas a kid who buys lots of violent video games for his next-gen console and HDTV probably comes from a higher-income family.
I wonder if this will have an opposite effect than intended. Now instead of being able to vent their frustration on the Helghast, that knife on the kitchen table looks mightily attractive...
Plus, if you've gotten to the point that you want to stab someone, you have a mental problem...sucks that the UK government is punishing the citizenry for the acts of a few disturbed individuals.
Don't give the "ordinary user" too much credit. The "ordinary user" still uses IE...and the majority of "ordinary users" probably don't know any definition for "cookie" other than chocolate chip.
Ads are different than other services. Advertising is a "push" service rather than a "pull" service. I don't choose to receive advertising...by its very nature, it's thrown at me. Google/DC is so pervasive in this regard that it would be difficult not to use it.
Hahaha....actually I found that out the hard way. I bought something to...enhance...my relationship with a girlfriend (now an ex girlfriend). Every time I sign in I get suggested items for body chocolate, kama sutra tapes, and dildos that look like weapons.
I'm not married (and don't have kids). I was giving that as an example...and no, I don't want to be in a country where my sexual preferences will cost me a job. I also don't want to be put in a position where a company can track my online usage like that...
It's evil because it violates your privacy, and there's really no easy way to opt-out. Thankfully we at Slashdot are most likely gifted with the technological acumen to block these cookies...many others, however, won't. If I choose to browse porn while my kids/wife/whatever are asleep, I don't want Google keeping a record of that (and showing my kids a "targeted" advertisement for Hairy Hardcore Latinas Gone Loco 3.5). If it in any way gets into the wrong hands (or Google decides to switch their business strategy/privacy policy) then I could be seriously screwed if I decide to run for public office.
I think I understand...the LSP would essentially attempt to avoid logic such as if (typeof(pub)==EmailPublisher) { ((EmailPublisher)pub).sendEmail(); }?
where class Publisher contains a void method publish(). You have two subclasses of Publisher: EmailPublisher and SmsPublisher (functionality should be obvious, let's just say that it sends a message to users via email/sms). Would the behavior not be different based on whether I passed either of those two subtypes (assuming publish() was declared as virtual in the superclass and is overridden in both subclasses). Of course, I am probably misunderstanding the entire LSP...
True, he could have phrased his statement differently (and I guess I could have phrased this statement differently as well to avoid the gendered "he"). However, there are slight nuances to the meaning and tone of the statement that don't quite carry over when no pronoun is used.
Not disagreeing with you at all--in a formal situation avoiding a gender-dependent pronoun is a definite best practice ("he or she" can sound ugly sometimes)...I don't think (if this was the implication) that it's indicative of some bias against females (or against librarians, for that matter).
Slashdot Mirror
Vampires? Are you a girl?
The Sci-Fi channel has been dead for years now. Other than the occasional gem like BSG, there is nothing good on that channel. When they started showing professional wrestling and Ghost Hunters, I gave up on it...and that's not even dealing with their Sci-Fi Original Movies. Features with names like "Giant Alligator Attack" showing, essentially, a group of young hipsters being chased by a few badly animated polygons get real old, real fast.
Plus (this being Russia after all) how many of them had connections in the Russian Business Network and, perhaps, a couple of botnets at hand?
There's a goatse joke to be made here. I'm just not quite sure what it is.
Uh oh. Are you saying that they'd stab people with the soldering iron?
I was wrong. Tax the shit out of it. This is dangerous stuff!
Then maybe they should ban knives...
If it's anything like the US, then the kids buying video games are probably not the ones going around stabbing folks. Violent crime tends to correlate with a lower income bracket...whereas a kid who buys lots of violent video games for his next-gen console and HDTV probably comes from a higher-income family.
I wonder if this will have an opposite effect than intended. Now instead of being able to vent their frustration on the Helghast, that knife on the kitchen table looks mightily attractive...
Plus, if you've gotten to the point that you want to stab someone, you have a mental problem...sucks that the UK government is punishing the citizenry for the acts of a few disturbed individuals.
Don't give the "ordinary user" too much credit. The "ordinary user" still uses IE...and the majority of "ordinary users" probably don't know any definition for "cookie" other than chocolate chip.
Ads are different than other services. Advertising is a "push" service rather than a "pull" service. I don't choose to receive advertising...by its very nature, it's thrown at me. Google/DC is so pervasive in this regard that it would be difficult not to use it.
What if I'm on vacation in Paris and want to check my favorite "local" website?
You're right. I didn't RTFA...bye bye, Karma. :'(
I have absolutely no problem with targeted advertising as long as you can opt out (or better yet, opt-in).
The issue here is that you can't opt-out.
When they're doing a report on vegetation in China and they Google "Asian bushes" there might be an issue.
Hahaha....actually I found that out the hard way. I bought something to...enhance...my relationship with a girlfriend (now an ex girlfriend). Every time I sign in I get suggested items for body chocolate, kama sutra tapes, and dildos that look like weapons.
I'm not married (and don't have kids). I was giving that as an example...and no, I don't want to be in a country where my sexual preferences will cost me a job. I also don't want to be put in a position where a company can track my online usage like that...
It's evil because it violates your privacy, and there's really no easy way to opt-out. Thankfully we at Slashdot are most likely gifted with the technological acumen to block these cookies...many others, however, won't. If I choose to browse porn while my kids/wife/whatever are asleep, I don't want Google keeping a record of that (and showing my kids a "targeted" advertisement for Hairy Hardcore Latinas Gone Loco 3.5). If it in any way gets into the wrong hands (or Google decides to switch their business strategy/privacy policy) then I could be seriously screwed if I decide to run for public office.
I think I understand...the LSP would essentially attempt to avoid logic such as if (typeof(pub)==EmailPublisher) { ((EmailPublisher)pub).sendEmail(); }?
Okay, so, stupid question. Wouldn't the very existence of virtual methods violate this principle? For example, if I have a method:
void notifyUsers(Publisher pub) { pub.publish(); }
where class Publisher contains a void method publish(). You have two subclasses of Publisher: EmailPublisher and SmsPublisher (functionality should be obvious, let's just say that it sends a message to users via email/sms). Would the behavior not be different based on whether I passed either of those two subtypes (assuming publish() was declared as virtual in the superclass and is overridden in both subclasses). Of course, I am probably misunderstanding the entire LSP...
Fashion jokes aren't gonna go to far on Slashdot, buddy. Just a word of advice.
Sorry, copied the same link twice. Here's the other:
http://community.norton.com/norton/board/message?board.id=nis_feedback&thread.id=39123
FYI, Norton's official responses:
True, he could have phrased his statement differently (and I guess I could have phrased this statement differently as well to avoid the gendered "he"). However, there are slight nuances to the meaning and tone of the statement that don't quite carry over when no pronoun is used.
Not disagreeing with you at all--in a formal situation avoiding a gender-dependent pronoun is a definite best practice ("he or she" can sound ugly sometimes)...I don't think (if this was the implication) that it's indicative of some bias against females (or against librarians, for that matter).
Kenji, did they hook you to Slashdot again?
Hans Reiser begs to differ.