"depending on how close you are" - those are the key words. In 1 apartment I lived in, the switching junction was literally about 100 feet from where I lived. Speed was decent for the time. I then moved, staying in the same general area in the city (only moved about a mile south), and then I could only get the lowest tier speed becasue I was too far away. If I wanted anything faster than 1 MB down, I had to go with cable.
I may just be remembering it wrong (it has been quite a while since hacking code in Basic), but I thought that anything that wasn't a variable and you wanted literal output of need to be encapsulated in quotes. But then again I can't ever think of a real situation where I would just want to print a hard coded integer - they would usually be variables, or maybe hard coded text in quotes.
Brilliant. On another article exclusively about Apple, you have somehow managed to yet again blame Microsoft for Apple's practices. And in a way that has absolutely zero bearing on the subject we were actually talking about!
Sounds like you responded to the wrong conversation.
Well, until Apple has some more lawmakers on their payroll, they can display that message all they want, but they can't legally enforce anyone to comply. It would probably make pleading ignorance to the fact that you don't know who it belongs to a little harder, but there is no way to legally force someone to contact the owner.
Yeah, becasue Apple wouldn't want to give the press a quick "teaser" peek, have them write an article that would give them tons of free advertising, and then kill it remotely, right?? I mean besides all the free hype and boatloads of dollars worth of free marketing, would would really be in it for Apple?
Apple sure pulled the wool over your eyes. What, do you think after "accidentally" letting the phone fall into the hands of the press, Apple was going to act like it wanted it to happen? No, because that give them just enough plausible deniability so that folks like you will make statements like -
It doesn't sounds like marketing to me.
This is classic textbook Apple advertising of a new product. Next some specs will be leaked and posted online, and after sufficient time that anybody is interested can see them, Apple will start issuing takedown notices. Are all of you really not going to remember that Apple has done stuff like this in the past??
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me dozens of times, I'm an Apple customer."
Only under certain circumstances, like tax laws. Corporations are definitely not the same thing as a person under all laws. A corporation cannot commit a crime and be jailed, for instance.
Not only have I never been convicted(yet), I have never been caught(yet). I have not been arrested as an adult(yet) anywhere.
However to me, a "criminal" isn't just breaking laws they see as unjust, it is breaking any they feel like and for any reason. Now I don't follow laws for the sole reason that they are laws, but I also don't just break them for the same reason. As you say everyone breaks a law at some point, and I don't view all of society as "criminals". But sure, technically we all may be according to the law.
I think there is a difference between someone who deliberately follows most laws, but occasionally breaks laws that are outdated or just don't make sense, and a "criminal". I still maintain I am not a "criminal" in that sense. Besides, it's only illegal if you get caught, right?
And you sound like one of those people who thinks a man could never make a good gynecologist, becasue he isn't a woman. Whether or not I have children myself does not make me completely oblivious or all-knowing to what good or bad parenting is.
Where did I ever claim you should not keep an eye on your kids? Keeping an eye on them is not the same as "ratting them out to the cops". Sure I did things I shouldn't have as a child, we all did, but nothing that would have warranted my parents spying on me, and turning me in to the police. See, they concentrated more on keeping me out of trouble than reporting any trouble I did get in to the cops. And lo and behold I didn't become a criminal as I grew up.
Well, you trust the government more than I do then. I think for every positive extrapolation for use of this system, there are thousands of negative ones. I really don't think it is even close to a 1:1 ratio. And besides, the government does have algorithms like this that are supposed to prevent things like that from happening. We saw how that system has failed us, why should we have faith this new one will give any better results?
A fantasy is just that - a fantasy - until acted upon. Sorry, but having fantasies, even ones that would be illegal in reality, does not make you "mentally ill". Are you a psychologist? Can you explain exactly what diagnosis would be given for "having fantasies" - becasue all human beings have fantasies, so are we all "mentally ill" in your eyes? Mind you I am not saying that fantasies and illegal activities have zero bearing on each other, but saying that having a fantasy is the same as doing something illegal is an awfully big (and dangerous) stretch.
Curing a disease is much better than suppressing it, for both it's sufferer and his fellow humans.
I agree. Someone needs to tell that to those crazy religious types who claim they can "cure" homosexuality. Their "cure" just seems to be suppression.
You said "I'd either work like hell to change them or spy on them be the first to rat them out."
Bad parenting! You should never be concerned with "spying on and ratting out" your children. If you raise them correctly, it isn't an issue. Knowing if a computer thinks one or both of your kids may be prone to certain behavior should not affect how you raise your children. Raising a child right is raising a child right no matter what label IBM slaps on them.
Here is the deal - one of your sons may be prone to criminal activity. I am not going to tell you which one, so you are just going to have to "bite the bullet" and be a good father and raise both of them with love and respect.
Slashdot Mirror
And the 75 Opera users will be sure to point that out ad nauseum.
Either way it works, intentional or not.
"depending on how close you are" - those are the key words. In 1 apartment I lived in, the switching junction was literally about 100 feet from where I lived. Speed was decent for the time. I then moved, staying in the same general area in the city (only moved about a mile south), and then I could only get the lowest tier speed becasue I was too far away. If I wanted anything faster than 1 MB down, I had to go with cable.
I may just be remembering it wrong (it has been quite a while since hacking code in Basic), but I thought that anything that wasn't a variable and you wanted literal output of need to be encapsulated in quotes. But then again I can't ever think of a real situation where I would just want to print a hard coded integer - they would usually be variables, or maybe hard coded text in quotes.
Except you forgot quotation marks around the text you want printed.
Brilliant. On another article exclusively about Apple, you have somehow managed to yet again blame Microsoft for Apple's practices. And in a way that has absolutely zero bearing on the subject we were actually talking about!
Sounds like you responded to the wrong conversation.
Well, until Apple has some more lawmakers on their payroll, they can display that message all they want, but they can't legally enforce anyone to comply. It would probably make pleading ignorance to the fact that you don't know who it belongs to a little harder, but there is no way to legally force someone to contact the owner.
Day 3 material? This is day 1 material. "Never trust user input." Hell, it could be lesson 1.
No, it's not conceivable.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Yeah, becasue Apple wouldn't want to give the press a quick "teaser" peek, have them write an article that would give them tons of free advertising, and then kill it remotely, right?? I mean besides all the free hype and boatloads of dollars worth of free marketing, would would really be in it for Apple?
It doesn't sounds like marketing to me.
This is classic textbook Apple advertising of a new product. Next some specs will be leaked and posted online, and after sufficient time that anybody is interested can see them, Apple will start issuing takedown notices. Are all of you really not going to remember that Apple has done stuff like this in the past??
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me dozens of times, I'm an Apple customer."
Only under certain circumstances, like tax laws. Corporations are definitely not the same thing as a person under all laws. A corporation cannot commit a crime and be jailed, for instance.
Not only have I never been convicted(yet), I have never been caught(yet). I have not been arrested as an adult(yet) anywhere.
However to me, a "criminal" isn't just breaking laws they see as unjust, it is breaking any they feel like and for any reason. Now I don't follow laws for the sole reason that they are laws, but I also don't just break them for the same reason. As you say everyone breaks a law at some point, and I don't view all of society as "criminals". But sure, technically we all may be according to the law.
I think there is a difference between someone who deliberately follows most laws, but occasionally breaks laws that are outdated or just don't make sense, and a "criminal". I still maintain I am not a "criminal" in that sense. Besides, it's only illegal if you get caught, right?
And you sound like one of those people who thinks a man could never make a good gynecologist, becasue he isn't a woman. Whether or not I have children myself does not make me completely oblivious or all-knowing to what good or bad parenting is.
Maybe those are questions you should have asked before you decided to reproduce.
Well, now they can hire the 9 year old to be their systems admin. He obviously knows more about security than they do.
What, you sometimes don't let lefty get some?? Don't spoil righty like that. He may develop a complex.
Lol, yeah seems suppression is the only defense there...
Where did I ever claim you should not keep an eye on your kids? Keeping an eye on them is not the same as "ratting them out to the cops". Sure I did things I shouldn't have as a child, we all did, but nothing that would have warranted my parents spying on me, and turning me in to the police. See, they concentrated more on keeping me out of trouble than reporting any trouble I did get in to the cops. And lo and behold I didn't become a criminal as I grew up.
Well, you trust the government more than I do then. I think for every positive extrapolation for use of this system, there are thousands of negative ones. I really don't think it is even close to a 1:1 ratio. And besides, the government does have algorithms like this that are supposed to prevent things like that from happening. We saw how that system has failed us, why should we have faith this new one will give any better results?
Curing a disease is much better than suppressing it, for both it's sufferer and his fellow humans.
I agree. Someone needs to tell that to those crazy religious types who claim they can "cure" homosexuality. Their "cure" just seems to be suppression.
You said "I'd either work like hell to change them or spy on them be the first to rat them out."
Bad parenting! You should never be concerned with "spying on and ratting out" your children. If you raise them correctly, it isn't an issue. Knowing if a computer thinks one or both of your kids may be prone to certain behavior should not affect how you raise your children. Raising a child right is raising a child right no matter what label IBM slaps on them.
"or spy on them be the first to rat them out."
No, you are clearly not. Put the period before the "or" in that sentence and forget the rest, then we can discuss this again.
Here is the deal - one of your sons may be prone to criminal activity. I am not going to tell you which one, so you are just going to have to "bite the bullet" and be a good father and raise both of them with love and respect.