Apparently on Slahsdot, the scientific method has no merit when the result favors Microsoft somehow.
Forget that these tests are repeatable, and can be independently conducted and verified most of the "OMG M$ SPONSORED MICROSOFT FAKE STUDY = ADVERT" crowd ignores this fact.
How do you know how much M$ paid these people, anyways? Prove it. Like, with pictures. Better yet, maybe some shredded invoice numbers and accounting figures from M$ headquarters trash dumpsters? Seriously some of these claims are so paranoid and out of line with reality one wonders if some of the postsers are not just some psycho homeless people happening upon an open laptop at starbucks.
We all used to laugh about the ridiculous OS interface to the file system (flying through a 3D world of towers and things), the one they used to conduct their hacks.
And now it looks like it was not far-fetched after all. Why is our future being so... regressive... ?
Google's defensive posture is getting a little tired, and less and less effective. They think the answer to their legal troubles is a massive PR campaign. "It's not us, it's just that our competitors are jealous!" "We're not infringing on patents, we're just being oppressed, victimized systematically by these outrageous patent litigation abusers!"
I'm starting to ignore Google's pleas for understanding. These are not legal defense arguments. They're red herrings, and they're terrible ones at that. They're being childish, and to resort to these tactics, is actually starting to make me suspicious that they're not so innocent after all.
How many millions did they spend on this thing? What could be recovered by third parties that could be of useful intel? They didn't even confirm the could locate pieces of the thing from what I read. How do we know some other nation state isn't harvesting the tech as we speak?
Soon we will be told that powering all these ePaper displays costs more environmentally than simply using a new piece of paper, like let's say because generating the power requires resource consumption that has worse impact on the environment. Of course I'm being sardonic, because this HAS happened before, supposedly green technologies that cost more than they save.
How am I the only person upset about the issue at hand here? I don't want my posts being associated with any person, topic, or page, unless I INTEND for that to happen.
Example: There are a lot of drug groups on Facebook and if I use my account to criticize drugs, what if the NLP accidently groups myself and my friends and tags our posts as "About Citizens for Legal Marijuana" or some such? The point isn't whether the AI makes mistakes, the point is, how does it know my posts ought to be About anything at all? This should be a user choice, not something Facebook bots arbitrarily determine. Now I should worry that mention of a book might become implied endorsement of some big-budget summer movie on my part? This is ridiculous, I don't ever think Google+ will take over social networking, but Facebook keeps this up and sure enough people WILL leave.
Not to mention the thousands of pages that duplicated an automated, poorly constructed "web site" full of nonsense text guaranteed to match your search term. I have to click through five-ten pages of this crap to find something useful for just about every search I do these days. What's worse is Google doesn't care to match older documents, so relevant but static stuff just... disappears from the web. So things I found last month, won't necessarily even show up this month.
Accomplishing that task does not require "writing a program". From recording your own audio, to presentation video etc, or using a voice-synth even, the problem doesn't demand such an involved solution as writing a program. If that guy was a programmer, he would know that. I call shenanigans.
No it's not. It's private information the router vendor or ISP is broadcasting on your behalf. The burden of tying down a SSID broadcast/MAC address one is not by default aware is on the "public" air space, is not the same thing at all as the burden of closing one's windows blinds. Most people don't WANT this information to be public and aren't aware that it IS public. They aren't even aware the degree of information that can be obtained from that data. You're just plain wrong.
I don't think such an argument would be tenuous at all. Explain to me how expressing an opinion endorsing or suggesting the incorporation of a company's IP constitutes the technical legal details companies must satisfy to make such a thing a reality?
and I see absolutely no connection to Microsoft, so I'm not sure why some of you are headed in that direction.
And please don't pull a Farkism. I'm not trolling, and though I'm not trying to add to the discussion, it's just my opinion is this thing is way over-blown.
I don't want to have to look at my keyboard to ensure my hands are in the proper placement, and I'm striking the right keys. Most efficiency in typing consists in the textfile feedback, not in seeing what is reflected by the screen (most of us type looking at a document or not even watching the screen, and we let our muscles inform our brains that we've struck the correct key combinations). This isn't the first touch-screen keyboard, and I've used ones that were of adequate size to accommodate both hands (no thumb typing) and the number of errors incurred just as a result.... screw that!
I mean it reminds me of the new ipod nano's. Ever goto the gym with those and you aren't one of the track-at-a-time generation? Shuffle does no good for most of us who like a whole album. With t hose tiny touch screens, you literally have to look at the screen in order to change songs or browse around different artists. That really breaks your stride when working out, or when smoking cigarettes with a drink in another hand, etc.
Morphing may sound cool, but touch screen for input devices needs to get out of general purpose computing. It's just slowing everyone down.. that is where our productivity is really going.... The extra time spent manipulating touch screens really adds up at the end of the week...
They've seen the government is willing to track down hackers, and apparently have the resources and means to do so. If it's true they're backing off, it's because their sense of survival has kicked in and they realize they'd prefer not to be caught by giving the authorities even more avenues of evidence to pursue.
Lulzsec was probably not one of those very professional hacker criminal organizations that utilized a hundred thousand zombie pc's to conduct its information stealing activities [we're talking mafia, foreign governments, or very sophisticated and probably personally acquainted hacker groups, etc in that case]. So their tracks probably aren't that well covered.
Otherwise, why quit? Their (apparent) manifesto doesn't suggest a time-frame. "We've done it, we've shown the world they're not secure". Uhh, no, we already all knew that.
Of course that's not the same. Google does not intentionally profit from its automated link generation. This kid had intent, and his crimes (if there were any) were not accidental results of otherwise legal activities.
Not saying he committed a crime, just saying your comparison isnt quite right.
Sorry but the article did not specify under which legal code the US was seeing the extradition. This is actually relevant to judgements of merit on my part (I feel most readers made up their minds upon readng the headline...) If he were to be tried in our CRIMINAL courts, I don't understand how he could possibly violate one of our own criminal statues, as US citizens do this all the time without prosecution.
What I gathered from the two links is that he did not simply link to copyrighted material, he profited from serving those links. His distribution-by-proxy appears to be a case of profit-by-proxy-distribution which I guess is the "crime" here, and I believe the AFK equivalent of this activity is easily prosecuted. His innocent linking looks a lot different in that light. Can anyone corroborate?
It's impossible to separate Reason from the capacity to argue. The article incorrectly divides the capacity to argue from the rules of argumentation, as though "Reason" referred to methods of argumentation rather than the very thought processes involved in thinking rationally. (Hint: it is the latter. That's why we call it "Natural deduction")
Reason did not evolve to win arguments; arguments existed from the moment reason did, and so debates could be won the moment either existed. If one could debate at all, then one already possessed Reason.
And btw logicians have known for CENTURIES that logic (or reason, whatever) is not about the pursuit of truth. It is about maintaining consistency in thinking - whether argument, debate, etc. Internal consistency, not truth. What can be known is not the same as how and why things are known, and Reason was never really concerned with the former. This guy is saying nothing new, just trying to be famous, and probably simply squandered some research money and came up with this "radical new theory" the day before his abstract was due to his boss.
Also, I think he just isn't aware Philosophy classes were offered at whatever university he graduated from.
No it doesn't. You're mixing your words up. Facebook may in fact have little influence on culture. It doesn't really alter people's values, and it doesn't lead people to do anything new, both of which are traditional elements of what defines a "culture". Before facebook there was already social networking online, there were already games people could play socially, and so on. It's just a different way of doing the same thing. Not much has changed.
Aside from that, It has influence only on individual small groups. A better way of saying that is it allows individual small groups to influence themselves. Most people don't network beyond family and existing friends, and so the impact of facebook on their culture is limited to just that group. I realize there are hundred million such small groups, but they don't represent one gigantic culture, that is collectively influenced by Facebook.
This isn't limiting freedom of speech. Granted it sucks (I know in Australia we've had all kinds of stupid/funny "if we get x followers on twitter we'll do y" things on breakfast shows that this sort of thing would stomp on were it here), but it doesn't have anything to do with civil rights.
Say you are prevented from doing something. Another way of saying it is you're "limited" from it. Say that thing was what words you could say to someone else. Another noun for that is "speech". Put two and two together and you have "limited speech".
Hey, good job if you followed that! I've just prepared you to pass the 3rd grade synonyms module! Good luck and let us know when you make it to 4th grade!
Uhhh, we have that whole pesky "free speech" thing in our Constitution in the US. "Invisible hand" isn't a socioeconomic philosophy it's just a side-effect of the fact we have designed our government from the start NOT to fuck with any of our lives.
Think about it. The news programs are financed by advertisers and networks who are part of parent companies with products and services they definitely want to promote. Facebook is a great means for the promotion of these; mentioning facebook, and offering a facebook link to the news site, is like free on-air advertising: people do and will visit the facebook site, see the ads (promotions, product placements, what have you). of course in the states, it would have to be corporate policy not to mention facebook, we have free speech here, but i do think it's shameful to mention facebook during a news program for something that isn't really news. Facebook.
Uhhh, your blame is misplaced. You should be pointing your finger at the "bad guys" provoking the government to invade our rights. If they could restrain themselves, the government would have no need to do that. Seriously, how can you let them off the hook and focus all your discontentment on the government?
Yea, and when we went to Afghanistan and Iraq, all the anti-war demonstrators argued terrorists are just a scare tactic; terrorists don't exist in any tangible way, they're an unorganized, unassociated, loosely connected mystery lurking in the shadows; they weren't real targets, they said.
Well, we found them, and we still do, and we kill them. Hackers can be found. I dont' know why hackers think they're immune to the law. Maybe it's just been a long time since they had anyone with the resources to do anything about their antics, but now they are people of interest. And if they keep it up, resources will be dedicated to find them, and kill or incarcerate them.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently on Slahsdot, the scientific method has no merit when the result favors Microsoft somehow.
Forget that these tests are repeatable, and can be independently conducted and verified most of the "OMG M$ SPONSORED MICROSOFT FAKE STUDY = ADVERT" crowd ignores this fact.
How do you know how much M$ paid these people, anyways? Prove it. Like, with pictures. Better yet, maybe some shredded invoice numbers and accounting figures from M$ headquarters trash dumpsters? Seriously some of these claims are so paranoid and out of line with reality one wonders if some of the postsers are not just some psycho homeless people happening upon an open laptop at starbucks.
We all used to laugh about the ridiculous OS interface to the file system (flying through a 3D world of towers and things), the one they used to conduct their hacks.
... ?
And now it looks like it was not far-fetched after all. Why is our future being so... regressive
Google's defensive posture is getting a little tired, and less and less effective. They think the answer to their legal troubles is a massive PR campaign. "It's not us, it's just that our competitors are jealous!" "We're not infringing on patents, we're just being oppressed, victimized systematically by these outrageous patent litigation abusers!"
I'm starting to ignore Google's pleas for understanding. These are not legal defense arguments. They're red herrings, and they're terrible ones at that. They're being childish, and to resort to these tactics, is actually starting to make me suspicious that they're not so innocent after all.
So we all agree this is a joke. OK it's not April 1st so how did this get posted to Slashdot?
How many millions did they spend on this thing? What could be recovered by third parties that could be of useful intel? They didn't even confirm the could locate pieces of the thing from what I read. How do we know some other nation state isn't harvesting the tech as we speak?
Soon we will be told that powering all these ePaper displays costs more environmentally than simply using a new piece of paper, like let's say because generating the power requires resource consumption that has worse impact on the environment. Of course I'm being sardonic, because this HAS happened before, supposedly green technologies that cost more than they save.
How am I the only person upset about the issue at hand here? I don't want my posts being associated with any person, topic, or page, unless I INTEND for that to happen.
Example: There are a lot of drug groups on Facebook and if I use my account to criticize drugs, what if the NLP accidently groups myself and my friends and tags our posts as "About Citizens for Legal Marijuana" or some such? The point isn't whether the AI makes mistakes, the point is, how does it know my posts ought to be About anything at all? This should be a user choice, not something Facebook bots arbitrarily determine. Now I should worry that mention of a book might become implied endorsement of some big-budget summer movie on my part? This is ridiculous, I don't ever think Google+ will take over social networking, but Facebook keeps this up and sure enough people WILL leave.
I like Bing. works better than Google for me.
Not to mention the thousands of pages that duplicated an automated, poorly constructed "web site" full of nonsense text guaranteed to match your search term. I have to click through five-ten pages of this crap to find something useful for just about every search I do these days. What's worse is Google doesn't care to match older documents, so relevant but static stuff just ... disappears from the web. So things I found last month, won't necessarily even show up this month.
Accomplishing that task does not require "writing a program". From recording your own audio, to presentation video etc, or using a voice-synth even, the problem doesn't demand such an involved solution as writing a program. If that guy was a programmer, he would know that. I call shenanigans.
No it's not. It's private information the router vendor or ISP is broadcasting on your behalf. The burden of tying down a SSID broadcast/MAC address one is not by default aware is on the "public" air space, is not the same thing at all as the burden of closing one's windows blinds. Most people don't WANT this information to be public and aren't aware that it IS public. They aren't even aware the degree of information that can be obtained from that data. You're just plain wrong.
I don't think such an argument would be tenuous at all. Explain to me how expressing an opinion endorsing or suggesting the incorporation of a company's IP constitutes the technical legal details companies must satisfy to make such a thing a reality?
I don't see what the big deal is with this guy.
and I see absolutely no connection to Microsoft, so I'm not sure why some of you are headed in that direction.
And please don't pull a Farkism. I'm not trolling, and though I'm not trying to add to the discussion, it's just my opinion is this thing is way over-blown.
I don't want to have to look at my keyboard to ensure my hands are in the proper placement, and I'm striking the right keys. Most efficiency in typing consists in the textfile feedback, not in seeing what is reflected by the screen (most of us type looking at a document or not even watching the screen, and we let our muscles inform our brains that we've struck the correct key combinations). This isn't the first touch-screen keyboard, and I've used ones that were of adequate size to accommodate both hands (no thumb typing) and the number of errors incurred just as a result.... screw that!
I mean it reminds me of the new ipod nano's. Ever goto the gym with those and you aren't one of the track-at-a-time generation? Shuffle does no good for most of us who like a whole album. With t hose tiny touch screens, you literally have to look at the screen in order to change songs or browse around different artists. That really breaks your stride when working out, or when smoking cigarettes with a drink in another hand, etc.
Morphing may sound cool, but touch screen for input devices needs to get out of general purpose computing. It's just slowing everyone down.. that is where our productivity is really going.... The extra time spent manipulating touch screens really adds up at the end of the week...
They've seen the government is willing to track down hackers, and apparently have the resources and means to do so. If it's true they're backing off, it's because their sense of survival has kicked in and they realize they'd prefer not to be caught by giving the authorities even more avenues of evidence to pursue.
Lulzsec was probably not one of those very professional hacker criminal organizations that utilized a hundred thousand zombie pc's to conduct its information stealing activities [we're talking mafia, foreign governments, or very sophisticated and probably personally acquainted hacker groups, etc in that case]. So their tracks probably aren't that well covered.
Otherwise, why quit? Their (apparent) manifesto doesn't suggest a time-frame. "We've done it, we've shown the world they're not secure". Uhh, no, we already all knew that.
Of course that's not the same. Google does not intentionally profit from its automated link generation. This kid had intent, and his crimes (if there were any) were not accidental results of otherwise legal activities.
Not saying he committed a crime, just saying your comparison isnt quite right.
Sorry but the article did not specify under which legal code the US was seeing the extradition. This is actually relevant to judgements of merit on my part (I feel most readers made up their minds upon readng the headline...) If he were to be tried in our CRIMINAL courts, I don't understand how he could possibly violate one of our own criminal statues, as US citizens do this all the time without prosecution.
What I gathered from the two links is that he did not simply link to copyrighted material, he profited from serving those links. His distribution-by-proxy appears to be a case of profit-by-proxy-distribution which I guess is the "crime" here, and I believe the AFK equivalent of this activity is easily prosecuted. His innocent linking looks a lot different in that light. Can anyone corroborate?
It's impossible to separate Reason from the capacity to argue. The article incorrectly divides the capacity to argue from the rules of argumentation, as though "Reason" referred to methods of argumentation rather than the very thought processes involved in thinking rationally. (Hint: it is the latter. That's why we call it "Natural deduction")
Reason did not evolve to win arguments; arguments existed from the moment reason did, and so debates could be won the moment either existed. If one could debate at all, then one already possessed Reason.
And btw logicians have known for CENTURIES that logic (or reason, whatever) is not about the pursuit of truth. It is about maintaining consistency in thinking - whether argument, debate, etc. Internal consistency, not truth. What can be known is not the same as how and why things are known, and Reason was never really concerned with the former. This guy is saying nothing new, just trying to be famous, and probably simply squandered some research money and came up with this "radical new theory" the day before his abstract was due to his boss.
Also, I think he just isn't aware Philosophy classes were offered at whatever university he graduated from.
No it doesn't. You're mixing your words up. Facebook may in fact have little influence on culture. It doesn't really alter people's values, and it doesn't lead people to do anything new, both of which are traditional elements of what defines a "culture". Before facebook there was already social networking online, there were already games people could play socially, and so on. It's just a different way of doing the same thing. Not much has changed.
Aside from that, It has influence only on individual small groups. A better way of saying that is it allows individual small groups to influence themselves. Most people don't network beyond family and existing friends, and so the impact of facebook on their culture is limited to just that group. I realize there are hundred million such small groups, but they don't represent one gigantic culture, that is collectively influenced by Facebook.
This isn't limiting freedom of speech. Granted it sucks (I know in Australia we've had all kinds of stupid/funny "if we get x followers on twitter we'll do y" things on breakfast shows that this sort of thing would stomp on were it here), but it doesn't have anything to do with civil rights.
Say you are prevented from doing something. Another way of saying it is you're "limited" from it. Say that thing was what words you could say to someone else. Another noun for that is "speech". Put two and two together and you have "limited speech".
Hey, good job if you followed that! I've just prepared you to pass the 3rd grade synonyms module! Good luck and let us know when you make it to 4th grade!
Uhhh, we have that whole pesky "free speech" thing in our Constitution in the US. "Invisible hand" isn't a socioeconomic philosophy it's just a side-effect of the fact we have designed our government from the start NOT to fuck with any of our lives.
Think about it. The news programs are financed by advertisers and networks who are part of parent companies with products and services they definitely want to promote. Facebook is a great means for the promotion of these; mentioning facebook, and offering a facebook link to the news site, is like free on-air advertising: people do and will visit the facebook site, see the ads (promotions, product placements, what have you). of course in the states, it would have to be corporate policy not to mention facebook, we have free speech here, but i do think it's shameful to mention facebook during a news program for something that isn't really news. Facebook.
Uhhh, your blame is misplaced. You should be pointing your finger at the "bad guys" provoking the government to invade our rights. If they could restrain themselves, the government would have no need to do that. Seriously, how can you let them off the hook and focus all your discontentment on the government?
Ahh, a prison rape joke. Always a favorite among the more knuckle-dragging portion of the Slashdot community.
Oh no. I think Zero1za pissed off a hacker who got raped.
Yea, and when we went to Afghanistan and Iraq, all the anti-war demonstrators argued terrorists are just a scare tactic; terrorists don't exist in any tangible way, they're an unorganized, unassociated, loosely connected mystery lurking in the shadows; they weren't real targets, they said.
Well, we found them, and we still do, and we kill them. Hackers can be found. I dont' know why hackers think they're immune to the law. Maybe it's just been a long time since they had anyone with the resources to do anything about their antics, but now they are people of interest. And if they keep it up, resources will be dedicated to find them, and kill or incarcerate them.