Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
>If I own a newspaper I can decide what I publish in the paper.
If you own a newspaper, you pay people to write FOR you. These people are your employees.
If you host a *public* blogging platform, you can certainly disallow what people are allowed to publish there, but you don't get to not call it censorship.
Oh please. Why do people (mostly American) trot out this narrow, legalistic, definition of "censorship"?
Blogger is a site where the public can post their communications. If Blogger is deciding certain communications are unacceptable and is either hiding them or disallowing them entirely, it's still censorship.
Just because Google isn't a government, doesn't mean it can't engage in censorship.
The accuracy of these portraits is still an area of hot debate — most of them look rather generic. The NY Times staff tested it with a couple of their employees, circulating the DNA-inspired portraits and seeing if people could guess who it was supposed to be. None of the ~50 employees were able to identify reporter John Markoff, and only about 10 were able to identify video journalist Catherine Spangler. But even though the accuracy for a person's entire face is low, techniques for specific attributes, like eye color, have improved greatly. Of course, the whole situation raises a slew of civil liberties questions: "What traits are off limits? Should the authorities be able to test whether a suspect has a medical condition or is prone to violence should such testing be possible?"
Never mind parental controls, how about user controls over app permissions? (ie. putting the user and their privacy/security first.)
According to Dacher Keltner, a psychology professor at the University of California, losing the night sky would have big consequences. "When you go outside, and you walk in a beautiful setting, and you just feel not only uplifted but you just feel stronger. There's clearly a neurophysiological basis for that," says Keltner, adding that looking up at a starry sky provides "almost a prototypical awe experience," an opportunity to feel "that you are small and modest and part of something vast." If we lose the night sky "we lose something precious and sacred." "We're finding in our lab that the experience of awe gets you to feel connected to something larger than yourself, see the humanity in other people," says Paul K. Piff. "In many ways it's kind of an antidote to narcissism." And the sky is one of the few sources of that experience that's available to almost everybody: "Not everyone has access to the ocean or giant trees, or the Grand Canyon, but we certainly all live beneath the night sky."
Alan Robock says one possible upside of adding aerosols could be beautiful red and yellow sunsets as "the yellow and red colors reflect off the bottom of this cloud." Robock recommends more research into albedo modification: "If people ever are tempted to do this, I want them to have a lot of information about what the potential benefits and risks would be so they can make an informed decision. Dr. Abdalati says deploying something like albedo modification is a last-ditch effort. "We've gotten ourselves into a climate mess. The fact that we're even talking about these kinds of things is indicative of that."
Strange, I have a Nexus 7 (2012) with Lollipop 5.0.2 and it's fine for the most part, wiht the only niggle being the occasional lag that occurrs shortly after unlocking it when it polls online services like gmail.
Essentially, they have a prophylactic to protect them from the virus that is vaccination denialism?