I have depression and have had it since I was 16. My parents don't. My brothers don't. No one in my family on either side suffers from it. And yet, SSRI's work for me, not NRI's, DRI's or MAOI's. I wouldn't associate it with genetics based purely on subjective observations.
1) It's scientific fact their brians aren't as mature as you seem to think at 16.
2) It's up to the parent, not to you, me or anyone else, to determine what constitutes healthy sexual exploration and behavior..
3) There are plenty of people like you who will not use the software, you can all pat yourselves on the back, somehow liking sex means you're more intelligent than the rest of people... somehow..
4) There are plenty of people who will use this software and not bother you at all about what you do, so why do you care what they do?
It's not as simple as that. Not everyone is an introvert, the majority of people are naturally inclined to involve themselves with others via an online identity. It's pretty much a psychological imperative. Still, every time a privacy issue is raised on slashdot, we get a half dozen of these kinds of posts like yours. This being dismissive and condescending toward people who enjoy using social networks but also have misgivings about privacy.
We realize that we are surrendering personal information in exchange for their services; we realize that's their stipulation. It doesn't mean we forfeit our ability to desire the terms were different and in our favor; just because we use the modern internet, it doesn't follow that we aren't allowed to think or to say we want privacy on social networks. Whether it's a FB post among our friends, a CC purchase, or a location check-in, those services just happen to be the common means to socializing, and we do expect our privacy to be limited in scope just as we would AFK.
For example: I am talking on my cell phone in the grocery store to my aging father whose health is ailing. Not a convenient conversation, but that's where I happend to get the call. Yes, I am have a conversation in public. I am talking aloud in a forum where others can overhear me. But does that fact alone mean I waive every realistic reasonable expectation that other people mind their own business and don't eavesdrop? Does that mean I should have no problem with some stranger recording that convo and posting it online or somehow making it available to someone other than myself and my father? Just think about it. I can't fathom how the principles guiding your privacy concerns AFK don't extend naturally to your online activities.
I don't think so. Just because I post something on some server somewhere does not mean I intend to share the data with everyone and anyone. You may liken a facebook Like click to shouting aloud in a public auditorium, but I don't. And I'm not alone. Look, just cos you're comfortable contributing to marketing and political campaigns doesn't mean everyone else is. So, no, it doesn't make it OK.
Also sounds like a great thing for an incumbent president seeking a second term to exploit. wont' be long till we're financing political campaign strategies. you know, because of the terrorists.
It's not legal to find things in America? The article doesn't say what law he violated. I never would have thought the dude did anything illegal at all....
Under a California law dating back to 1872, any person who finds lost property and knows who the owner is likely to be--but "appropriates such property to his own use"--is guilty of theft. In addition, a second state law says any person who knowingly receives property that has been obtained illegally can be imprisoned for up to one year.
That's fine, but no way would he be guilty under that statute. Nothing described so far binds him invariably to the conclusion that the phone was property of Apple. Lost phones don't automatically revert ownership to the company that originally sold them.
But, according to that article, precedent follows from a ruling where Possession of stolen property, accompanied by an unsatisfactory explanation of the possession or by suspicious circumstances, will justify an inference that the property was received with knowledge it had been stolen.
Ok. So having something that you know you did not have before, qualifies as theft, because knowing you did not have the thing and now you do have it, is tantamount to knowledge you have stolen it? Yeah, right! That seems just wrong. I can see that extending to countless cases it should not otherwise apply... I suppose the only thing preventing a slippery slope is the whim of the prosecutor/judge. does anyone know if California is the only state that has such bizarre property law? Are there more elucidating precedents I can read? Cause it's early in the morning and having trouble understanding how Hogan did anything wrong.
We don't and probably won't ever really know the true nature of this virus. Assuming there is a C&C outside the network or a traitor inside, the thing probably was either told to self-destruct, plant a bogus virus and delete its trace - or it was manually deleted. And since no one was actively monitoring the systems, I'm guessing their logs and back-ups are in such a disarray that forensics won't yield much about the original infection.
*sarcasm* way to go, Obama. You can hire the world's best data mining and marketing scientists to crunch social media trend numbers for your campaign, but you can't secure the military which looks to you as their top chief? No, no, I'm not trying to be political... but that is very ironic and shows in general how as a whole our country's investment in computer tech is misplaced.
Anyways, since we can't privatize our intel, obviously we need to invest more money into educating, training or hiring decent (or better) cyber defense and security experts. And monitor our systems with a combination of 24/7 human and algorithmic plus machine learning AI. It needs to be a 110% top priority starting now. A strong policy there will also stimulate growth in the field - education will expand, demand for skilled workers will increase, and the computer industry as a whole will benefit.
Some organizations offer cheap background checks via publically available aggregated data, some of which report an arrest as a conviction (meaning if you were arrested but acquitted or later not even charged for something, the background check still returns True on the IsCriminal...) The point is, the system treats arrested people as if they were criminals, and this isn't much different - the search and seizure would only be legal if my IsCriminal == True, but that's the case just for being arrested.
I don't see the cell phone search as problematic if the person was convicted and the cell phone was already in the possession of the police. But Jesus, I get pulled over and have a warrant for unpaid tickets, suddenly this means I don't have my usual rights, even though I haven't yet been to court and proved guilty of anything? If they can violate my property rights and privacy on suspicion of being liable for arrest, what stops them from arresting me just for being suspicious?
If you start arguing for your rights with an officer, did you know they can slap cuffs on you, for "failure to cooperate with law enforcement"? Which means they can literally arrest any person who expresses having a problem with being questioned or searched, meaning they can search a phone any time they please, in theory. The supreme court was wrong to let this one stand.
Submitter, why quote something so sensational and so wrong? It's like saying Google censors websites becaue it ranks them in a way that hides far away results, and I'm opting out of censorship by clicking to the next page. The pages are there, they can be viewed. By definition, that is not censorship. Just filtering. I see no harm here.
is that their vision of the future there? Hey I'm all for liberating media from DRM, as long as you paid for the content. Aside from the absurdity of their stance on property ownership, let's all just keep in mind content creators make money, which pays taxes, which keeps the government running. I don't expect the government to curb that revenue any time soon just so a few jerks with expensive equipment can sit around rippin DVD's and blurays all day.
Or a homeless person got access to the internet? No, I suspect it's the same person talking about Buffy the Vampire slayer, I say that cos I've seen it on at least two other forums other than in slashdot comments (schizo comments + Vampire slayer in the same thread). And I think it's something like the Markov anyways, whoever it is, is too smart to be that schizo.
I agree, I see a lot of mods that don't make sense at all, stupid inflammatory comments modded up and obviously intelligent ones modded down... and in general it does seem to reflect the herd mentality here (which is anti-MS, pro-hack, pro-piracy) but I think it has something to do with the people rather than the method of moderation itself and I don't see either getting fixed easily.
I think moderation is for moderators. So I don't think a replacing it or supplementing it with comment rating system for ALL users would necessarily be a good idea. Fixing the human "problem" isn't a page shaping issue, anyways. So what do you propose?
tl;dnr: Anyways, couldn't load the survey; didn't take it..
The rest: First two times, got a 503 error. Now the page "loads"... but I don't think properly. The page sections are all layered upon each each other, the survey is in the back, the menu's are in the front. Actually that happens quite a bit on Slashdot these days, and I'm using separate computers (work, home, parent's home, personal laptop, etc.) Is slashdot actively trying to make IE look like a bad browser, or does this happen to people not using IE? Site visited in IE 8.
Ignore these posts. Someone has been deploying what appears to be a Markov chain text generator all over Slashdot, which has previously been used on usenet (see Mark V Shaney) and I suspect The Daily Show with John Stewart, and with greater range, the Colbert Report.
I mean, they're "deep cover" liberals. I thought we knew that by now? And this just proves they're fake. If they so abhorred Steve Jobs, they certainly wouldn't support products and services associated with him. That's how I operate, and I assume that's how the rest of you operate, especially the anti-gates crowd around here won't touch a thing MS has had a hand in creating. You know what it's like to shun a company and therefore shun its products, good or bad. WBC... They're just making a mockery of Christianity and/or conservatives, with pretense and false extremism, and now it backfired a little bit. At least slashdotters ought to know whatever they're doing has no resemblance to right wing/Christianity... right?
For those who can't stomach Microsoft not being evil 100% of the time. It's not like they were really compelled to do this at their own expense. They did the world a favor; no matter how bitter you are at Microsoft for whatever reason, taking down a botnet and identifying an operator is still a good thing. We're not talking lesser of two evils. We're talking about an objectively undeniable good act. Props to MS, I'm glad they did this.
Look, aside from atheists' crazy, paranoid theories about some Vast Judeo-Christian Conspiracy, there is very little to say about historical documents being kept "secret" (trust me, the scholars who wanted to and needed to examine the texts, they have...) The article mentions "control" like a dozen times as a pejorative without once explaining what the problem is - why keeping the Dead Sea Scrolls exclusive to scholars is somehow a nefarious deed. The entire article literally had no point except to iterate over and over some disparaging slant against Judaic history and implicitly suggesting some kind of esoteric, high-powered society of control is involved here.
Do any of you realize how many historical documents are not made public, but are maintained strictly for access by serious scholars? Tens of thousands at least. And dinosaur bones, do you think these are made available to the public? Has this affected you? Do these people participate in some kind of information control for the sake of control? Or considering this practice spans all sorts of cultures and all sorts of historical documents, do you just think it's more reasonable that it's simply the practice of historians, palentologists, etc etc to maintain their historical artifacts in this manner?
Slashdot Mirror
too bad they don't own patents on what will likely become common gestures.
I have depression and have had it since I was 16. My parents don't. My brothers don't. No one in my family on either side suffers from it. And yet, SSRI's work for me, not NRI's, DRI's or MAOI's. I wouldn't associate it with genetics based purely on subjective observations.
1) It's scientific fact their brians aren't as mature as you seem to think at 16.
2) It's up to the parent, not to you, me or anyone else, to determine what constitutes healthy sexual exploration and behavior..
3) There are plenty of people like you who will not use the software, you can all pat yourselves on the back, somehow liking sex means you're more intelligent than the rest of people... somehow..
4) There are plenty of people who will use this software and not bother you at all about what you do, so why do you care what they do?
It's not as simple as that. Not everyone is an introvert, the majority of people are naturally inclined to involve themselves with others via an online identity. It's pretty much a psychological imperative. Still, every time a privacy issue is raised on slashdot, we get a half dozen of these kinds of posts like yours. This being dismissive and condescending toward people who enjoy using social networks but also have misgivings about privacy.
We realize that we are surrendering personal information in exchange for their services; we realize that's their stipulation. It doesn't mean we forfeit our ability to desire the terms were different and in our favor; just because we use the modern internet, it doesn't follow that we aren't allowed to think or to say we want privacy on social networks. Whether it's a FB post among our friends, a CC purchase, or a location check-in, those services just happen to be the common means to socializing, and we do expect our privacy to be limited in scope just as we would AFK.
For example: I am talking on my cell phone in the grocery store to my aging father whose health is ailing. Not a convenient conversation, but that's where I happend to get the call. Yes, I am have a conversation in public. I am talking aloud in a forum where others can overhear me. But does that fact alone mean I waive every realistic reasonable expectation that other people mind their own business and don't eavesdrop? Does that mean I should have no problem with some stranger recording that convo and posting it online or somehow making it available to someone other than myself and my father? Just think about it. I can't fathom how the principles guiding your privacy concerns AFK don't extend naturally to your online activities.
Best post ever.
I don't think so. Just because I post something on some server somewhere does not mean I intend to share the data with everyone and anyone. You may liken a facebook Like click to shouting aloud in a public auditorium, but I don't. And I'm not alone. Look, just cos you're comfortable contributing to marketing and political campaigns doesn't mean everyone else is. So, no, it doesn't make it OK.
Everyone is mining your social network data.
oh, good you pointed that out. so that makes it alright then
Also sounds like a great thing for an incumbent president seeking a second term to exploit. wont' be long till we're financing political campaign strategies. you know, because of the terrorists.
It's not legal to find things in America? The article doesn't say what law he violated. I never would have thought the dude did anything illegal at all....
According to this article,
Under a California law dating back to 1872, any person who finds lost property and knows who the owner is likely to be--but "appropriates such property to his own use"--is guilty of theft. In addition, a second state law says any person who knowingly receives property that has been obtained illegally can be imprisoned for up to one year.
That's fine, but no way would he be guilty under that statute. Nothing described so far binds him invariably to the conclusion that the phone was property of Apple. Lost phones don't automatically revert ownership to the company that originally sold them.
But, according to that article, precedent follows from a ruling where Possession of stolen property, accompanied by an unsatisfactory explanation of the possession or by suspicious circumstances, will justify an inference that the property was received with knowledge it had been stolen.
Ok. So having something that you know you did not have before, qualifies as theft, because knowing you did not have the thing and now you do have it, is tantamount to knowledge you have stolen it? Yeah, right! That seems just wrong. I can see that extending to countless cases it should not otherwise apply... I suppose the only thing preventing a slippery slope is the whim of the prosecutor/judge. does anyone know if California is the only state that has such bizarre property law? Are there more elucidating precedents I can read? Cause it's early in the morning and having trouble understanding how Hogan did anything wrong.
We don't and probably won't ever really know the true nature of this virus. Assuming there is a C&C outside the network or a traitor inside, the thing probably was either told to self-destruct, plant a bogus virus and delete its trace - or it was manually deleted. And since no one was actively monitoring the systems, I'm guessing their logs and back-ups are in such a disarray that forensics won't yield much about the original infection.
*sarcasm* way to go, Obama. You can hire the world's best data mining and marketing scientists to crunch social media trend numbers for your campaign, but you can't secure the military which looks to you as their top chief? No, no, I'm not trying to be political... but that is very ironic and shows in general how as a whole our country's investment in computer tech is misplaced.
Anyways, since we can't privatize our intel, obviously we need to invest more money into educating, training or hiring decent (or better) cyber defense and security experts. And monitor our systems with a combination of 24/7 human and algorithmic plus machine learning AI. It needs to be a 110% top priority starting now. A strong policy there will also stimulate growth in the field - education will expand, demand for skilled workers will increase, and the computer industry as a whole will benefit.
Some organizations offer cheap background checks via publically available aggregated data, some of which report an arrest as a conviction (meaning if you were arrested but acquitted or later not even charged for something, the background check still returns True on the IsCriminal...) The point is, the system treats arrested people as if they were criminals, and this isn't much different - the search and seizure would only be legal if my IsCriminal == True, but that's the case just for being arrested.
I don't see the cell phone search as problematic if the person was convicted and the cell phone was already in the possession of the police. But Jesus, I get pulled over and have a warrant for unpaid tickets, suddenly this means I don't have my usual rights, even though I haven't yet been to court and proved guilty of anything? If they can violate my property rights and privacy on suspicion of being liable for arrest, what stops them from arresting me just for being suspicious?
If you start arguing for your rights with an officer, did you know they can slap cuffs on you, for "failure to cooperate with law enforcement"? Which means they can literally arrest any person who expresses having a problem with being questioned or searched, meaning they can search a phone any time they please, in theory. The supreme court was wrong to let this one stand.
Submitter, why quote something so sensational and so wrong? It's like saying Google censors websites becaue it ranks them in a way that hides far away results, and I'm opting out of censorship by clicking to the next page. The pages are there, they can be viewed. By definition, that is not censorship. Just filtering. I see no harm here.
is that their vision of the future there? Hey I'm all for liberating media from DRM, as long as you paid for the content. Aside from the absurdity of their stance on property ownership, let's all just keep in mind content creators make money, which pays taxes, which keeps the government running. I don't expect the government to curb that revenue any time soon just so a few jerks with expensive equipment can sit around rippin DVD's and blurays all day.
Wow. That's hilarious. Of course the "Copyrights are teh evil!!" crowd want to own and control things, it's human tendency. but this is just pathetic.
Or a homeless person got access to the internet? No, I suspect it's the same person talking about Buffy the Vampire slayer, I say that cos I've seen it on at least two other forums other than in slashdot comments (schizo comments + Vampire slayer in the same thread). And I think it's something like the Markov anyways, whoever it is, is too smart to be that schizo.
What?
I wish they would have discussed the software and algorithms a bit more than "subtracting the star's light". Oh well.
I agree, I see a lot of mods that don't make sense at all, stupid inflammatory comments modded up and obviously intelligent ones modded down... and in general it does seem to reflect the herd mentality here (which is anti-MS, pro-hack, pro-piracy) but I think it has something to do with the people rather than the method of moderation itself and I don't see either getting fixed easily.
I think moderation is for moderators. So I don't think a replacing it or supplementing it with comment rating system for ALL users would necessarily be a good idea. Fixing the human "problem" isn't a page shaping issue, anyways. So what do you propose?
tl;dnr: Anyways, couldn't load the survey; didn't take it..
... but I don't think properly. The page sections are all layered upon each each other, the survey is in the back, the menu's are in the front. Actually that happens quite a bit on Slashdot these days, and I'm using separate computers (work, home, parent's home, personal laptop, etc.) Is slashdot actively trying to make IE look like a bad browser, or does this happen to people not using IE? Site visited in IE 8.
The rest: First two times, got a 503 error. Now the page "loads"
I see this has gone from a survey into a hypothetical functional specs design palace.
Ignore these posts. Someone has been deploying what appears to be a Markov chain text generator all over Slashdot, which has previously been used on usenet (see Mark V Shaney) and I suspect The Daily Show with John Stewart, and with greater range, the Colbert Report.
I mean, they're "deep cover" liberals. I thought we knew that by now? And this just proves they're fake. If they so abhorred Steve Jobs, they certainly wouldn't support products and services associated with him. That's how I operate, and I assume that's how the rest of you operate, especially the anti-gates crowd around here won't touch a thing MS has had a hand in creating. You know what it's like to shun a company and therefore shun its products, good or bad. WBC... They're just making a mockery of Christianity and/or conservatives, with pretense and false extremism, and now it backfired a little bit. At least slashdotters ought to know whatever they're doing has no resemblance to right wing/Christianity... right?
For those who can't stomach Microsoft not being evil 100% of the time. It's not like they were really compelled to do this at their own expense. They did the world a favor; no matter how bitter you are at Microsoft for whatever reason, taking down a botnet and identifying an operator is still a good thing. We're not talking lesser of two evils. We're talking about an objectively undeniable good act. Props to MS, I'm glad they did this.
If you want to be immature and troll, why don't you gfto and just goto fark or something?
Look, aside from atheists' crazy, paranoid theories about some Vast Judeo-Christian Conspiracy, there is very little to say about historical documents being kept "secret" (trust me, the scholars who wanted to and needed to examine the texts, they have...) The article mentions "control" like a dozen times as a pejorative without once explaining what the problem is - why keeping the Dead Sea Scrolls exclusive to scholars is somehow a nefarious deed. The entire article literally had no point except to iterate over and over some disparaging slant against Judaic history and implicitly suggesting some kind of esoteric, high-powered society of control is involved here.
Do any of you realize how many historical documents are not made public, but are maintained strictly for access by serious scholars? Tens of thousands at least. And dinosaur bones, do you think these are made available to the public? Has this affected you? Do these people participate in some kind of information control for the sake of control? Or considering this practice spans all sorts of cultures and all sorts of historical documents, do you just think it's more reasonable that it's simply the practice of historians, palentologists, etc etc to maintain their historical artifacts in this manner?