But usually not released as fast as a hand grenade. You have those precious seconds to fight a burning LiIon battery with a fire extinguisher. (again: usually)
But yes, that stuf is already dangerous in itself.
We were talking about REPLACING part of the battery with something else. Not rewireing.
The power-up test covers replacing the complete battery with some other substance (plus a little electronics), which would not show up easily on an X-Ray.
Replacing part of the battery would show up, as would replacing all the inner circuitery.
Rewiring would not show up, and would even let you add some additional electronic device, but not adding no explosives.
On a higher level, I agree with your conclusion that this whole stuff is theatre. Even Simon Beckett grade theatre, if we consider that this boils down to "Sir, would you please press the big red power button on that device of yours that we're suspecting might be a bomb?"
For that the reading recommendation would be "Snow Crash".bureaucracy has not been gotten rid of, but reduced to some insignificant role while the rest of the world is gouverned not by gouvernments or bureacracy, but "business processes" and coorprations and their three-ring-binders with company procedures.
Things are pretty much shining through:
http://apfelklinik.de/catalog/...
And a luggage X-ray works with a range of intensities, so while not real 3D or CAT scan, the operator can see through or ignore most materials. So at some point, a discontinuity would show up. And carrying a 10kg bar of lead in your hand luggage may trigger a manual search espescially because the X-Ray can't see through it.
50$? Wait.. you're assuming that you can remove the battery from your phone, right?
That's a good one.
REALLY inconvinient if you have an iPhone....
a discontinuity would be obvious on the x-ray, if a part of the battery would have been replaced with other material then the rest of the battery.
I once had to unpack my hand luggage because I mixed two different brands of batteries in a spare battery container. When the different brand label matched the different x-ray signatures, it was no further problem.
This would not prove that the battery has not been replaced with explosives.
Or do so if you want to save on disposal fees....
In the EU, which includes true socialist countries,
Which EU are you talking about? Can you name one and add the definition by which that country is socialist?
Google shouldn't have to make intelligent decisions as to what needs to be removed. It should all be automatic. Either everything is removed, or nothing is removed. Only by court orders otherwise.
Those people, who want to be forgotten, should go after those hosting the material, not the search engine pointing.
That's what has been tried first. But as a newspaper archive, the source is protected from removal. Then that guy decided to to so big time trolling and shoot the messenger (sue Google) instead.
Don't we have an expectation to know where things are when searching? The search engine should be neutral is discovering the information.
One of the biggest misconceptions ever. Altavista was neutral, going only by comparing the search keywords to the keywords on the websites. It got spammed and SEOed into oblivion. Google finally sent them into oblivion by showing search results that DID NOT try to be neutral, but tried to guess what the user was actually looking for. And they keep their position by filtering and reordering the results by so many factors, that it would be hard pressed calling it "neutral"
Like page loading speed. Is it "neutral" that slow sites take a penalty? Rank is definitly not connected to the actual content of the page here.
That's the great idea about that russion system. 3 years of all-year-round DST/summer time, then all back to Standard/Winter-Time, and in a few years, they'll be going for a few years of summer time again. Like Westeros.
Summary ommits that during soviet times, russian time was also DST all year round, so this is not a new idea from 2011. That was just the latest iteration.
They're content with a flashing 0:00 on their clock. That flashing means it is working, right? For telling the time, there is a consultant.
But this line is crossed thousandfold already. The type of environment is secondary.
So your point is everybody's doing it, so it's OK?
I never said that. I agreed that it's a line that shouldn't be crossed. But I'm still surprised that people are surprised.
According to this article here [slashdot.org], no messages were changed:
If ANYTHING about the message is altered including delivery schedule, mix of content, etc then they are altering the message.
Please define "message".
It may refer to an item in your facebook stream. In which case, nothing in the messages has been altered.
Or "message" may refer to the the facebook stream as a whole, made up of the smaller individual message items by your friends and/or advertisers.
In that case, facebook is the sender of the message and the "message" always has been subject to facebook picking news items. We basically had more than one algorithm (or parameter sets for the same alogrithm) that picked those messages. And as picking messages (or message items in this definition) out of all those potential messages sources (friends/groups/pages, whatever you're following) has always been the core of what facebook made to create its message (the stream you're seeing) there is not much new here either.
Not everything about a message is the simple content. When you send a message and the tone you use is every bit as important to correct interpretation by the recipient. Facebook altered the messages without actually changing the specific content. If the message was unaltered (including delivery, tone, timing, etc) then we would expect reactions to be identical.
i agree that context is essential for "messages". But when you're posting something on facebook to your friends, you never had control when, where and even if it will appear in other users stream. So the context in which your post may or may not appear is not under the senders control and therefor not part of the message.
Could you please give an example how facebook could have changed a message (and not the delivery context, which has always been under facebook control) without changing the content?
But this line is crossed thousandfold already.
Even if true (which I dispute) it is irrelevant. Just because others do it doesn't make it acceptable for Facebook.
I never said it was acceptable. I said it was widespread. And I put that line where you're manipulating someones emotions for commercial gain without their consent. (When I'm watching a comedy, I WANT my emotional state to be manipulated)
Agreed.
But intresting enough, according to one of those news articles I read about that issue today, one of the potential harm that was supposed to be subject of the experiment was feeling left out by too many positive news about their friends.(*)
May be BS, but may indeed be a valid and intresting theory, too.
(*) That statement should have at least 6 pairs of "quotes" around certain "words". I left them out for readability.
I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"
