The only way I'll consider this product remotely credible against malware is if it runs its first scan, detect itself as spyware, then terminates its own installation with extreme prejudice.
Sony has apparently been in the music business since the late 1960s in Japan (a tie-up with Columbia records), but it's only since they took over Columbia/CBS's music and film divisions in the late 1980s that they became a major part of their business worldwide.
No, it doesn't. This is an actual, legitimate question.
Betteridge's Law has been around for *years*. You'd think that by now people around here would understand why (and where) it applies instead of kneejerk-yelling "Betteridge" at every headline with a question mark. And yet, I can still reply to stuff like this with a comment I made six years ago:-
As I correctly predicted earlier this year, lots of Slashdotters have seized upon Betteridge as the latest fad kneejerk response, and are misapplying it without understanding what it means. In his own words,Betteridge's Law applies to cases where journalists "know the story is probably bullshit, and don’t actually have the sources and facts to back it up, but still want to run it."
For example, without the evidence to back it up, a headline saying "Tomato ketchup caused AIDS that led to exitinction of dinosaurs" would be obvious crap and lead to criticism of the paper and/or journalist. OTOH, "Did Tomato ketchup cause AIDS that led to the extinction of the dinosaurs?" gives them the weasellish get-out of "Well, we didn't actually *claim* that it did".
Even then, if a question headline was a genuine attempt to present a plausibly-supported but not universally-accepted idea (possibly because it was new and/or divisive), then Betteridge's wouldn't apply.
In short, Betteridge's original observation was insightful where he claimed it applied, but it was never a blanket dismissal of question headlines, so please stop the tedious, kneejerk misapplication.
Pretty sure that the vast majority of people contributing to Slashdot (a geek-oriented site) know what a factorial is, which is partly why the joke works here- not because I'm under the impression it shows me to be a maths genius(!!)
Now that I think of it, while it's something most people only learn later on, there's really nothing about the concept that couldn't be explained to an average primary school pupil that understood basic multiplication.
Regardless, as the other person noted, the use of a bare exclamation mark in the middle of a sentence like that isn't normal in English. Typically, it would be written in parentheses, like so:-
Amazon has now 50(!) planes itself, because of it and still.
Also,
The joke would be a reasonable joke iff math notation was standardized. But it isn't.
Technically, isn't "iff" a widely but not universally accepted non-standardism? Or perhaps that was meant to be the joke?:-)
Thanks for the links; haven't had time to do any more than skim them at present, but it does remind me of a comment I read recently that I felt just put its finger on Amazon's recent direction:-
" Amazon is not the same company they were 10 years ago. You can feel the skeeviness is creeping in."
If it was quite a while ago, I'm assuming that the "retro console" you had was the first generation Atari Flashback.
Its Wikipedia article notes that this was based on an "NES-on-a-chip" design that didn't even bother to emulate the original architecture through software, but merely ran what were effectively NES ports of the original games.
The article also notes that those ports "differed in varying degrees from the original games, and therefore the Flashback was unpopular with some purists."
Apparently the Flashback 2 was a single-chip hardware recreation of the VCS (obviously the best solution short of an exact reproduction of the original hardware) and most/all of the later versions use software emulations of the original system.
Not even close. Given that Apple were claiming that a $384 million building was worth $200 (i.e. a factor of almost two million to one), it's far, *far* more literally close to owning an actual $13m Rolls Royce Sweptail and claiming it's a Hot Wheels toy version of that same Ford Fiesta.
Came here to say this. The mystery was "solved" years ago when it was proven that it didn't exist in the first place.
I appreciate that it doesn't benefit the makers of what I'm assuming is going to be a cheesy, "Ancient Aliens" level documentary made for bloody Channel 5 for this to be the case, but I'd at least expect better from Slashdot than to waste time promoting this fluff.
Jesus Christ, you fucking morons, these are social media sites run by private people/companies as they please.
And others are free to criticise them as they please. Whether or not they want to run their own social media website.
They can edit whatever they like
I wouldn't be as confident as you are if it came to court. Even if there's some BS covering this in the small print of the terms and conditions, putting words in someone's mouth without it being obvious this has been done sounds legally dubious to me.
ban people, delete posts, etc., and they wish.
Yes, they can. And others are free to criticise them for this. Whether or not they want to run their own social media website.
Run you own forum or get a fucking life, you fucking idiots!
This whole post is virtually the same logic hauled out by fanboys of big companies when they're criticised. No, the fact that someone isn't pointing a gun at my head forcing me to buy (e.g.) the latest iPhone doesn't negate my right to criticise it. Or require me to design and build my own iPhone.
Logically, this would preclude criticism of the vast majority of things and remove the critical/review information that a truly free market depends upon.
'Course, the irony with such fuckwits is that they act like they're defending free markets, when in fact they're attacking a core part of their functioning.
Fair point, but the general principle still applies, and it should be noted that it was Betteridge himself that referred to journalists ("The reason why journalists use that style of headline is that they know the story is probably bullshit").
(I note that the original quote- now corrected in the Wikipedia article- says "bullshit", not "bollocks" too).
On reflection, I don't think I made it as clear as intended that everything after the first line is a cut-and-paste of the same six-year-old comment that I linked to.
So, no, it's not the latest fad now, even if it was six years ago. And yet, as I said, I'm surprised that would-be smartasses are *still* managing to get it wrong.
"Carob works on the principle that, when mixed with the right combination of fats and sugar, it can duplicate chocolate in color and texture. Of course, the same can be said of dirt." - Sandra Boynton
(I commented on this six years ago, yet people like you are still yelping "Betteridge's!" at every question-phrased headline without getting it:-)
"No, [Betteridge's law doesn't apply here]. This is an actual, legitimate question.
As I correctly predicted [earlier that same year], lots of Slashdotters have seized upon Betteridge as the latest fad kneejerk response, and are misapplying it without understanding what it means. In his own words, Betteridge's Law applies to cases where journalists "know the story is probably bollocks, and don’t actually have the sources and facts to back it up, but still want to run it."
For example, without the evidence to back it up, a headline saying "Tomato ketchup caused AIDS that led to exitinction of dinosaurs" would be obvious crap and lead to criticism of the paper and/or journalist. OTOH, "Did Tomato ketchup cause AIDS that led to the extinction of the dinosaurs?" gives them the weasellish get-out of "Well, we didn't actually *claim* that it did".
Even then, if a question headline was a genuine attempt to present a plausibly-supported but not universally-accepted idea (possibly because it was new and/or divisive), then Betteridge's wouldn't apply.
In short, Betteridge's original observation was insightful where he claimed it applied, but it was never a blanket dismissal of question headlines, so please stop the tedious, kneejerk misapplication."
Better hope you've got nothing you could *ever* be blackmailed with, then. And- of course- that includes things you might not want Uncle Sam to know.
And he need never know if you do whatever's required. Perhaps just pass on that useful trade secret that might be of benefit to their companies, it's not a big thing...
I was going to say something similar- that it said something about the current attitude that he felt the need to include that qualification in the first place.
Yeah, because I trust the current Hard-Brexiteer-pandering UK government who think "AI" will magically be able to spot and take down offensive social media posts and intend- from this position of ignorance- to compel social media networks to make that work *so* much more.
(Not that I have any liking for the social media companies either, but my enemy's enemy is *not* my friend here).
Perhaps, but R Kelly- who isn't homosexual as far as I'm aware (#)- used almost the same term in the name of a song almost 25 years ago, and it didn't stop *that* from becoming a hit.
(#) He's apparently more into the wholesome heterosexual act of urinating in the mouths of underage girls. (Link goes to music website article entitled "R. Kelly’s Alleged Sex Crimes Are Still Horrific 13 Years Later " in case you're wondering whether it's okay to click).
Maybe a positive person only wants to hookup with another positive person
Unfortunately, while the logic undelying this decision is usually "it doesn't make any difference if we're both already infected", things don't actually work like that and you risk HIV superinfection.
Yes, that's the point I was trying to make (and *had* made repeatedly in the past) before I prematurely submitted the half-edited post. Take away freedom- or legitimacy- of criticism, and you have little more than a corporatocracy or fascism in its early 20th century form.
Slashdot Mirror
The only way I'll consider this product remotely credible against malware is if it runs its first scan, detect itself as spyware, then terminates its own installation with extreme prejudice.
if you don't want it that means there is more for the rest of us who know what the fuck we are doing
Pretty sure that's not how it works, sorry.... ;-/
It's seriously pro-sumer level shit
On the other hand, I can't work out whether you're trolling or whether this is *meant* to be parody. :-)
Sony has apparently been in the music business since the late 1960s in Japan (a tie-up with Columbia records), but it's only since they took over Columbia/CBS's music and film divisions in the late 1980s that they became a major part of their business worldwide.
Betteridge's law definitely applies here.
No, it doesn't. This is an actual, legitimate question.
Betteridge's Law has been around for *years*. You'd think that by now people around here would understand why (and where) it applies instead of kneejerk-yelling "Betteridge" at every headline with a question mark. And yet, I can still reply to stuff like this with a comment I made six years ago:-
As I correctly predicted earlier this year, lots of Slashdotters have seized upon Betteridge as the latest fad kneejerk response, and are misapplying it without understanding what it means. In his own words, Betteridge's Law applies to cases where journalists "know the story is probably bullshit, and don’t actually have the sources and facts to back it up, but still want to run it."
For example, without the evidence to back it up, a headline saying "Tomato ketchup caused AIDS that led to exitinction of dinosaurs" would be obvious crap and lead to criticism of the paper and/or journalist. OTOH, "Did Tomato ketchup cause AIDS that led to the extinction of the dinosaurs?" gives them the weasellish get-out of "Well, we didn't actually *claim* that it did".
Even then, if a question headline was a genuine attempt to present a plausibly-supported but not universally-accepted idea (possibly because it was new and/or divisive), then Betteridge's wouldn't apply.
In short, Betteridge's original observation was insightful where he claimed it applied, but it was never a blanket dismissal of question headlines, so please stop the tedious, kneejerk misapplication.
Now that I think of it, while it's something most people only learn later on, there's really nothing about the concept that couldn't be explained to an average primary school pupil that understood basic multiplication.
Regardless, as the other person noted, the use of a bare exclamation mark in the middle of a sentence like that isn't normal in English. Typically, it would be written in parentheses, like so:-
Amazon has now 50(!) planes itself, because of it and still.
Also,
The joke would be a reasonable joke iff math notation was standardized. But it isn't.
Technically, isn't "iff" a widely but not universally accepted non-standardism? Or perhaps that was meant to be the joke? :-)
Quite probably, but they're so damn tempting. :-)
Thanks for the links; haven't had time to do any more than skim them at present, but it does remind me of a comment I read recently that I felt just put its finger on Amazon's recent direction:-
" Amazon is not the same company they were 10 years ago. You can feel the skeeviness is creeping in."
Amazon has now 50! planes itself
Amazon has 3 x 10^64 planes?! That's... rather a lot.
If it was quite a while ago, I'm assuming that the "retro console" you had was the first generation Atari Flashback. Its Wikipedia article notes that this was based on an "NES-on-a-chip" design that didn't even bother to emulate the original architecture through software, but merely ran what were effectively NES ports of the original games.
The article also notes that those ports "differed in varying degrees from the original games, and therefore the Flashback was unpopular with some purists."
Apparently the Flashback 2 was a single-chip hardware recreation of the VCS (obviously the best solution short of an exact reproduction of the original hardware) and most/all of the later versions use software emulations of the original system.
If you meant the 7.3 *million* they were actually fined, that would probably be the case, yes.
7.3 billion, on the other hand, would sting quite a bit- even for a company the size of Lenovo...!
Not even close. Given that Apple were claiming that a $384 million building was worth $200 (i.e. a factor of almost two million to one), it's far, *far* more literally close to owning an actual $13m Rolls Royce Sweptail and claiming it's a Hot Wheels toy version of that same Ford Fiesta.
Came here to say this. The mystery was "solved" years ago when it was proven that it didn't exist in the first place.
I appreciate that it doesn't benefit the makers of what I'm assuming is going to be a cheesy, "Ancient Aliens" level documentary made for bloody Channel 5 for this to be the case, but I'd at least expect better from Slashdot than to waste time promoting this fluff.
Jesus Christ, you fucking morons, these are social media sites run by private people/companies as they please.
And others are free to criticise them as they please. Whether or not they want to run their own social media website.
They can edit whatever they like
I wouldn't be as confident as you are if it came to court. Even if there's some BS covering this in the small print of the terms and conditions, putting words in someone's mouth without it being obvious this has been done sounds legally dubious to me.
ban people, delete posts, etc., and they wish.
Yes, they can. And others are free to criticise them for this. Whether or not they want to run their own social media website.
Run you own forum or get a fucking life, you fucking idiots!
This whole post is virtually the same logic hauled out by fanboys of big companies when they're criticised. No, the fact that someone isn't pointing a gun at my head forcing me to buy (e.g.) the latest iPhone doesn't negate my right to criticise it. Or require me to design and build my own iPhone.
Logically, this would preclude criticism of the vast majority of things and remove the critical/review information that a truly free market depends upon.
'Course, the irony with such fuckwits is that they act like they're defending free markets, when in fact they're attacking a core part of their functioning.
Fair point, but the general principle still applies, and it should be noted that it was Betteridge himself that referred to journalists ("The reason why journalists use that style of headline is that they know the story is probably bullshit"). (I note that the original quote- now corrected in the Wikipedia article- says "bullshit", not "bollocks" too).
I thought the latest was
On reflection, I don't think I made it as clear as intended that everything after the first line is a cut-and-paste of the same six-year-old comment that I linked to.
So, no, it's not the latest fad now, even if it was six years ago. And yet, as I said, I'm surprised that would-be smartasses are *still* managing to get it wrong.
"Carob works on the principle that, when mixed with the right combination of fats and sugar, it can duplicate chocolate in color and texture. Of course, the same can be said of dirt." - Sandra Boynton
(I commented on this six years ago, yet people like you are still yelping "Betteridge's!" at every question-phrased headline without getting it:-)
"No, [Betteridge's law doesn't apply here]. This is an actual, legitimate question.
As I correctly predicted [earlier that same year], lots of Slashdotters have seized upon Betteridge as the latest fad kneejerk response, and are misapplying it without understanding what it means. In his own words, Betteridge's Law applies to cases where journalists "know the story is probably bollocks, and don’t actually have the sources and facts to back it up, but still want to run it."
For example, without the evidence to back it up, a headline saying "Tomato ketchup caused AIDS that led to exitinction of dinosaurs" would be obvious crap and lead to criticism of the paper and/or journalist. OTOH, "Did Tomato ketchup cause AIDS that led to the extinction of the dinosaurs?" gives them the weasellish get-out of "Well, we didn't actually *claim* that it did".
Even then, if a question headline was a genuine attempt to present a plausibly-supported but not universally-accepted idea (possibly because it was new and/or divisive), then Betteridge's wouldn't apply.
In short, Betteridge's original observation was insightful where he claimed it applied, but it was never a blanket dismissal of question headlines, so please stop the tedious, kneejerk misapplication."
Better hope you've got nothing you could *ever* be blackmailed with, then. And- of course- that includes things you might not want Uncle Sam to know.
And he need never know if you do whatever's required. Perhaps just pass on that useful trade secret that might be of benefit to their companies, it's not a big thing...
Or whatever else they might want.
I was going to say something similar- that it said something about the current attitude that he felt the need to include that qualification in the first place.
Yeah, because I trust the current Hard-Brexiteer-pandering UK government who think "AI" will magically be able to spot and take down offensive social media posts and intend- from this position of ignorance- to compel social media networks to make that work *so* much more.
(Not that I have any liking for the social media companies either, but my enemy's enemy is *not* my friend here).
Perhaps, but R Kelly- who isn't homosexual as far as I'm aware (#)- used almost the same term in the name of a song almost 25 years ago, and it didn't stop *that* from becoming a hit.
(#) He's apparently more into the wholesome heterosexual act of urinating in the mouths of underage girls. (Link goes to music website article entitled "R. Kelly’s Alleged Sex Crimes Are Still Horrific 13 Years Later " in case you're wondering whether it's okay to click).
Maybe a positive person only wants to hookup with another positive person
Unfortunately, while the logic undelying this decision is usually "it doesn't make any difference if we're both already infected", things don't actually work like that and you risk HIV superinfection.
YEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.".... cool, I'll let Roger Daltrey know that the next time I see him.
I wish someone would port it to bloody Emacs then- just about the *only* feature some obsessive hasn't added to that is a decent text editor!
Yes, that's the point I was trying to make (and *had* made repeatedly in the past) before I prematurely submitted the half-edited post. Take away freedom- or legitimacy- of criticism, and you have little more than a corporatocracy or fascism in its early 20th century form.