You could take every key but "a" away and websites/services will still be filled with denizens sporting aol email addressees posting:
aaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Or take away the dedicated italic, bold and underline keys!.... Wait we don't have those? Talk about removing choice.
Deciding to drop hard keys isn't removing user choice. If you build it with a caps key you are making a decision for the user, without it, you're making another. Personally, I'm more than happy to save a bit of space for a more functional key, and have caps lock as a meta-key.
Firstly it's 500,000 computers, which send ~61,000,000,000 messages per day (Wikipedia: 183,000,000,000 spam emails a day). 706,019 emails per second.
It's pointless trying to compare crimes like assault to crimes like email spam. Murder is obviously a terrible crime, it deprives someone of a life and causes misery for many others. I don't think anyone wants to make out that it's negligible by comparison. Yet, pretending that sending 22,265,000,000,000 spam emails each year is nothing more than a trivial irritant is equally wrong. In terms of harm to society as a whole I would say the costs were considerably higher than a single murder.
Mario Galaxy 2 is not a bad game (it has some clever level design), but it has a good number of flaws, including a lack of innovation compared to its predecessor, an imprecise control system (in a game that requires a high degree of precision on many occasions) and outdated game-mechanics such as a lives-system.
Your saying the review is wrong because they've not given it the score you would. You're opinion is fine, but perhaps most people disagree with you and more closely align with IGNs opinion. I know I personal tend to use meta-review sites if I want a 'rating'. I use games websites to read about what they like/dislike. To take the example of Fallout. I know Fallout: New Vegas has a lot of glitch/bug issues. Personally this tends not to frustrate me, so I'm much more interested in the quality of the story and game world. If the features a review highlights aren't of interest to me, or the flaws are the types of flaws that I really dislike then it informs my decision far better than a numerical rating.
Google can't complain about this until they stop the ridculous blocking of YouTube content on certain devices.
Of course they can. This is Slashdot, we're all for freedom of choice here. Offering more options is always better/sarcasm. Perhaps we're only for that freedom when we directly benefit. Voltaire would be proud.
This may be a basic question, but is it even legal or enforcable for me to assert that my previous emails to you are confidential and undisclosable, despite the fact that you've read them already and never agreed to any terms or conditions while doing so?
I am not aware of a case where a retrospective claim of confidentiality has been successful in court in the UK. By my understanding on UK contract law (limited admittedly) even the disclaimers at the bottom of emails saying you can't distribute them are unenforceable. Just because I have received your email it does not mean I agree with the terms. It might be possible to have someone agree by responding (effectively the email would state that they will not communicate further without your acceptance of the terms, and that by responding you accept these terms. Even this might not be acceptable as it is not an explicit act of consent).
Crazy isn't it. I got this same email (as a UK resident it has no relevance to me) and find the whole concept so totally distasteful.
Some lawyers received $2,125,000 for suing Google and getting their clients (all american gmail users) no compensation at all. How can people tolerate the idea that a lawyer is profiteering in their name (if you use Gmail and are American you were included in this settlement). Class action lawsuits like this seem to exist as a way for lawyers to extort companies, it certainly had nothing to do with compensating the people who allegedly had their privacy invaded. I doubt if you asked the people who this lawsuit was in the name of they would have thought settling for $0 compensation, $6.275mil privacy group funding and $2.125mil lawyer bonaza was acceptable. In Fact how on earth is it ok for the lawyers to settle without the agreement of the person the suit is in the name of!?
If you let me into your house and I leave a bug, most people wouldn't blame the bug, they'd blame the person who abused your trust.
My only concern would be that (I expect) the app makes itself hard for the owner to find. If the app intentionally removes itself from the app manager list etc then I'd say that was a flaw in the OS design. Otherwise this is simply the risk of letting someone (who you evidently can't trust) have full and unmonitored access to the device.
Maybe I have too little faith in humanity, but I like to think that if businesses could make big money by letting people donate then they'd be doing it already. I expect new sources to provide content that requires greater paid resource to produce than Slashdot.
I didn't intend to defend that position. I was just pointing out that they may not care about losing visitors who use ad-blockers.
In my own case my traffic is almost entirely commercial. It's a niche market so people are willing to 'give up' ad-blocking to get in. Finally, we provide a lot of bandwidth hungry content (data sets, video etc) so the cost per user visit tends to be orders of magnitude higher than on a simple text site. I'm confident that we have benefited from blocking ad-blockers. I'm not confident it would work for everyone in every case.
If a site is too obnoxious, i will just avoid it completely.
They might be perfectly happy with that. A user who uses resources (bandwidth) without providing income (ad/payment) may be one they don't really care about losing.
I've built a couple of websites that block ad-blocking users. They are comparatively low volume, and low profile unless you are working in the specialised area. They are however in fields where advertising is comparatively profitable. It would be much easier to get past my method than a proper captcha system like this, fortunately the low profile has stopped anyone putting a work around out there.
And as long as you didn't fit the CCTV footage, have a record for that type of crime, find it hard to show evidence of the spraying, had a remotely plausible alibi, leave any DNA or fingerprint evidence at the site etc I'm sure you might have a chance with that defence.
I'm very sceptical about DNA evidence being used to convict. I'm a lot less sceptical about evidence like this being used to build a compelling case alongside other evidence, or to narrow enquiries. You can, never, ever, 100% prove someone committed a crime even if they admit it, did it in public and on CCTV. You can however be confident the odds of a false conviction are vanishingly small, requiring any more that isn't plausible.
The whole idea of Open Source is that it's open for anybody to fix it.
And that's a strength. However, selling something to people on the grounds that they can pick who fixes it when it breaks may be shooting yourself in the foot.
I like the idea that an MS campaign against FOSS can be used to show FOSS has become a serious competitor. I don't think it will play out that way. If your client watches an ad by MS pointing out flaws (real or otherwise) with FOSS the most likely impact is they will now be worried about the flaws the ad highlights. They aren't going to simply ignore the content and think "wow FOSS is mainstream, let me in on this".
It's a crime because you're exploiting a weakness in a computer system, and cheating people out of cash
Why does it become a crime when you do this to an algorithm, but it's ok to do it when dealing with people? Someone has allowed a computer algorithm to monitor the market and buy and sell using their money. You're saying that they should get protection when the system doesn't work? It's not like they hacked the machine, they made transactions that the machine misinterpreted.
Trying to role out the hyperbole and compare making transactions with another party that agrees to the trade with stealing money with a computer virus isn't going to give you any credibility.
So if someone were sitting near a ground-based transmitter, able to take control of the drone at a second's notice, that would be OK? How many drones can their transmitter control at once before you start classifying them as driverless?
I expect his answer would be none. The self-driving car has the full control system of a normal car and a driver present in exactly the same way as a normal car. That is very different from having a driver/pilot available to control the vehicle remotely. What Google did was just an extension of cars that can break for themselves, maintain a steady speed, turn wipers on when it rains etc all of which are fine on roads.
I have yet to meet someone IRL who *really* likes it.
Perhaps this is a result of your area of work, or the place work / study etc?
I know some people who don't like the ribbon, the vast majority have a clear preference for it. Obviously neither of our anecdotal observations prove anything on a large scale. I'm surprised that you've managed to avoid fraternising with anyone of a dissenting opinion in, what, 4 years?
If you're spending $5 billion (figure made up) on a cutting edge military vehicle then you give a shit about whether it's everything you need to fight wars. You don't lose sleep about whether replacing toilet sheets won't be quite so cheap in 25 years time.
A key issue of the case was that using IR didn't even need to penetrate the house (it just "recorded" what was being emitted)
Fortunately the court realised the stupidity of the argument. When I look through your window part of my body or conscious doesn't travel within your house, my eyes use the visible light spectrum emissions that travel from the property.
Clearly most people think of private as being unavailable to the human senses of people on public ground. If I phone my neighbour I want that to be private, I don't have the same expectation if I speak to them by shouting over my fence. This issue is only going to become more prevalent. Inventions that enhance our ability to detect are coming thick and fast, home anti-surveillance is virtually non-existent and I'm not sure I want to encourage an arms race.
On the contrary, I like the idea when done right. Mass Effect 2 does a great job.
A game that comes with an achievement you can't get without buying DLC? (The Thief character). Personally I was very disappointed by this, otherwise I had no issue with its DLC.
I'm sorry, but I've never been able to respect a manager who could not have done my job, and has done in previous years.
I've never respected a manager who thought their job was to do the job their staff were employed to do. I've been 'managed' by someone two-three rungs up, based on another continent who I met twice. He had no background experience of my area of expertise. He was extremely good at getting the information he required, involving people as required and committed to decisions he made. I'd much rather be managed by a good manager than by a good worker.
Well then you don't want personalized news. You may like the idea of it, but if you actually wanted it, you would arrange it.
Bollocks. There is nothing contradictory about wanting something and not acting on it. I want a shorter drive to work. I also want the job I have, want my partner to have a shorter drive etc. I weigh up the options, make a value judgement and keep my current drive. None of this makes the fact I want a shorter drive to work false.
Makes about as much sense as the original model, grind 100 hours for blue shirt of +1% health, then buy the expansion and grind 200 hours for grey shirt of 2% health etc.
I don't play any subscription or 'free to play' RPGs (I have a bit in the past). Giving an edge to people who pay isn't inherently less fair than giving it to whoever spends the most time playing. I tend to stick to games which give little if any advantage to either (beyond the increased knowledge of greater play time).
Some politician could easily spin this so that it appears that evil pirates are hacking into systems and exposing the personal data of innocent folks.
Politicians don't need to spin it. People have used the anonymity of the internet (and safety of national borders) to harass someone. If the company used the same tactics against the (alleged) file sharers we'd be screaming bloody murder. Internet vigilantism, regardless of how just,will be part of the reason why further clampdowns on anonymity will happen.
Finally, it was the 'evil pirates' who did most of the damage sharing the personal data. ACS cocked up by making it available, but it wouldn't have spread over the web like wildfire if the DDoSers had the moral fortitude to resist the urge to spread it around. If anyone on that list suffers harm it will be because the attackers shared it so wildly. If I forget to lock your house and someone robs it then I'm to blame for not locking the house. The douche who stole your stuff is still a douche.
I believe it was libraries. I think they took exception to the government asking for records on who was borrowing books under NSLs. Not being from the US (and being too lazy to do proper research) I can't vouch that it actually happens.
I agree, really, Google should let -us- decide what an app can do.
Google won't, and shouldn't, add that. Google doesn't know what an application needs to function, a lot of users will block internet/phone etc access and break the application. Google and the app developer will then get bombarded by complaints and help requests. Android will need to match or beat iOS in user friendliness, options that offer nothing to most users and cause negative user experiences aren't going to help do that.
I would like this functionality, even though I would rarely use it. I just don't think it would benefit Android in general.
Slashdot Mirror
>
You could take every key but "a" away and websites/services will still be filled with denizens sporting aol email addressees posting:
aaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Or take away the dedicated italic, bold and underline keys!.... Wait we don't have those? Talk about removing choice.
Deciding to drop hard keys isn't removing user choice. If you build it with a caps key you are making a decision for the user, without it, you're making another. Personally, I'm more than happy to save a bit of space for a more functional key, and have caps lock as a meta-key.
Firstly it's 500,000 computers, which send ~61,000,000,000 messages per day (Wikipedia: 183,000,000,000 spam emails a day). 706,019 emails per second.
It's pointless trying to compare crimes like assault to crimes like email spam. Murder is obviously a terrible crime, it deprives someone of a life and causes misery for many others. I don't think anyone wants to make out that it's negligible by comparison. Yet, pretending that sending 22,265,000,000,000 spam emails each year is nothing more than a trivial irritant is equally wrong. In terms of harm to society as a whole I would say the costs were considerably higher than a single murder.
Mario Galaxy 2 is not a bad game (it has some clever level design), but it has a good number of flaws, including a lack of innovation compared to its predecessor, an imprecise control system (in a game that requires a high degree of precision on many occasions) and outdated game-mechanics such as a lives-system.
Your saying the review is wrong because they've not given it the score you would. You're opinion is fine, but perhaps most people disagree with you and more closely align with IGNs opinion. I know I personal tend to use meta-review sites if I want a 'rating'. I use games websites to read about what they like/dislike. To take the example of Fallout. I know Fallout: New Vegas has a lot of glitch/bug issues. Personally this tends not to frustrate me, so I'm much more interested in the quality of the story and game world. If the features a review highlights aren't of interest to me, or the flaws are the types of flaws that I really dislike then it informs my decision far better than a numerical rating.
I, for one, welcome our new angry beefed-up super mice overlords.
Google can't complain about this until they stop the ridculous blocking of YouTube content on certain devices.
Of course they can. This is Slashdot, we're all for freedom of choice here. Offering more options is always better /sarcasm. Perhaps we're only for that freedom when we directly benefit. Voltaire would be proud.
This may be a basic question, but is it even legal or enforcable for me to assert that my previous emails to you are confidential and undisclosable, despite the fact that you've read them already and never agreed to any terms or conditions while doing so?
I am not aware of a case where a retrospective claim of confidentiality has been successful in court in the UK. By my understanding on UK contract law (limited admittedly) even the disclaimers at the bottom of emails saying you can't distribute them are unenforceable. Just because I have received your email it does not mean I agree with the terms. It might be possible to have someone agree by responding (effectively the email would state that they will not communicate further without your acceptance of the terms, and that by responding you accept these terms. Even this might not be acceptable as it is not an explicit act of consent).
Crazy isn't it. I got this same email (as a UK resident it has no relevance to me) and find the whole concept so totally distasteful.
Some lawyers received $2,125,000 for suing Google and getting their clients (all american gmail users) no compensation at all. How can people tolerate the idea that a lawyer is profiteering in their name (if you use Gmail and are American you were included in this settlement). Class action lawsuits like this seem to exist as a way for lawyers to extort companies, it certainly had nothing to do with compensating the people who allegedly had their privacy invaded. I doubt if you asked the people who this lawsuit was in the name of they would have thought settling for $0 compensation, $6.275mil privacy group funding and $2.125mil lawyer bonaza was acceptable. In Fact how on earth is it ok for the lawyers to settle without the agreement of the person the suit is in the name of!?
If you let me into your house and I leave a bug, most people wouldn't blame the bug, they'd blame the person who abused your trust.
My only concern would be that (I expect) the app makes itself hard for the owner to find. If the app intentionally removes itself from the app manager list etc then I'd say that was a flaw in the OS design. Otherwise this is simply the risk of letting someone (who you evidently can't trust) have full and unmonitored access to the device.
Maybe I have too little faith in humanity, but I like to think that if businesses could make big money by letting people donate then they'd be doing it already. I expect new sources to provide content that requires greater paid resource to produce than Slashdot.
I didn't intend to defend that position. I was just pointing out that they may not care about losing visitors who use ad-blockers.
In my own case my traffic is almost entirely commercial. It's a niche market so people are willing to 'give up' ad-blocking to get in. Finally, we provide a lot of bandwidth hungry content (data sets, video etc) so the cost per user visit tends to be orders of magnitude higher than on a simple text site. I'm confident that we have benefited from blocking ad-blockers. I'm not confident it would work for everyone in every case.
They might be perfectly happy with that. A user who uses resources (bandwidth) without providing income (ad/payment) may be one they don't really care about losing.
I've built a couple of websites that block ad-blocking users. They are comparatively low volume, and low profile unless you are working in the specialised area. They are however in fields where advertising is comparatively profitable. It would be much easier to get past my method than a proper captcha system like this, fortunately the low profile has stopped anyone putting a work around out there.
And as long as you didn't fit the CCTV footage, have a record for that type of crime, find it hard to show evidence of the spraying, had a remotely plausible alibi, leave any DNA or fingerprint evidence at the site etc I'm sure you might have a chance with that defence.
I'm very sceptical about DNA evidence being used to convict. I'm a lot less sceptical about evidence like this being used to build a compelling case alongside other evidence, or to narrow enquiries. You can, never, ever, 100% prove someone committed a crime even if they admit it, did it in public and on CCTV. You can however be confident the odds of a false conviction are vanishingly small, requiring any more that isn't plausible.
And that's a strength. However, selling something to people on the grounds that they can pick who fixes it when it breaks may be shooting yourself in the foot.
I like the idea that an MS campaign against FOSS can be used to show FOSS has become a serious competitor. I don't think it will play out that way. If your client watches an ad by MS pointing out flaws (real or otherwise) with FOSS the most likely impact is they will now be worried about the flaws the ad highlights. They aren't going to simply ignore the content and think "wow FOSS is mainstream, let me in on this".
Why does it become a crime when you do this to an algorithm, but it's ok to do it when dealing with people? Someone has allowed a computer algorithm to monitor the market and buy and sell using their money. You're saying that they should get protection when the system doesn't work? It's not like they hacked the machine, they made transactions that the machine misinterpreted.
Trying to role out the hyperbole and compare making transactions with another party that agrees to the trade with stealing money with a computer virus isn't going to give you any credibility.
I expect his answer would be none. The self-driving car has the full control system of a normal car and a driver present in exactly the same way as a normal car. That is very different from having a driver/pilot available to control the vehicle remotely. What Google did was just an extension of cars that can break for themselves, maintain a steady speed, turn wipers on when it rains etc all of which are fine on roads.
Perhaps this is a result of your area of work, or the place work / study etc?
I know some people who don't like the ribbon, the vast majority have a clear preference for it. Obviously neither of our anecdotal observations prove anything on a large scale. I'm surprised that you've managed to avoid fraternising with anyone of a dissenting opinion in, what, 4 years?
If you're spending $5 billion (figure made up) on a cutting edge military vehicle then you give a shit about whether it's everything you need to fight wars. You don't lose sleep about whether replacing toilet sheets won't be quite so cheap in 25 years time.
A game that comes with an achievement you can't get without buying DLC? (The Thief character). Personally I was very disappointed by this, otherwise I had no issue with its DLC.
I've never respected a manager who thought their job was to do the job their staff were employed to do. I've been 'managed' by someone two-three rungs up, based on another continent who I met twice. He had no background experience of my area of expertise. He was extremely good at getting the information he required, involving people as required and committed to decisions he made. I'd much rather be managed by a good manager than by a good worker.
Bollocks. There is nothing contradictory about wanting something and not acting on it. I want a shorter drive to work. I also want the job I have, want my partner to have a shorter drive etc. I weigh up the options, make a value judgement and keep my current drive. None of this makes the fact I want a shorter drive to work false.
Makes about as much sense as the original model, grind 100 hours for blue shirt of +1% health, then buy the expansion and grind 200 hours for grey shirt of 2% health etc.
I don't play any subscription or 'free to play' RPGs (I have a bit in the past). Giving an edge to people who pay isn't inherently less fair than giving it to whoever spends the most time playing. I tend to stick to games which give little if any advantage to either (beyond the increased knowledge of greater play time).
Politicians don't need to spin it. People have used the anonymity of the internet (and safety of national borders) to harass someone. If the company used the same tactics against the (alleged) file sharers we'd be screaming bloody murder. Internet vigilantism, regardless of how just,will be part of the reason why further clampdowns on anonymity will happen.
Finally, it was the 'evil pirates' who did most of the damage sharing the personal data. ACS cocked up by making it available, but it wouldn't have spread over the web like wildfire if the DDoSers had the moral fortitude to resist the urge to spread it around. If anyone on that list suffers harm it will be because the attackers shared it so wildly. If I forget to lock your house and someone robs it then I'm to blame for not locking the house. The douche who stole your stuff is still a douche.
I believe it was libraries. I think they took exception to the government asking for records on who was borrowing books under NSLs. Not being from the US (and being too lazy to do proper research) I can't vouch that it actually happens.
Google won't, and shouldn't, add that. Google doesn't know what an application needs to function, a lot of users will block internet/phone etc access and break the application. Google and the app developer will then get bombarded by complaints and help requests. Android will need to match or beat iOS in user friendliness, options that offer nothing to most users and cause negative user experiences aren't going to help do that.
I would like this functionality, even though I would rarely use it. I just don't think it would benefit Android in general.