0
stringlengths 9
22.1k
|
|---|
I don't know if anyone has pointed this out yet, but people pay for drugs. My argument was specifically about the possession of child pornography by anonymous download, ie. without payment. If people didn't pay for drugs, they wouldn't be contributing to the cartels' coffers.
Second, it's an obvious fact that the insane profits the drug industry earns are derived from the fact that drugs are illegal. There is a risk in producing, transporting, and selling them that demands a premium price. This is also the main cause of all the associated violence. Drug dealers are armed to protect themselves against the police and anyone who would steal their product or their cash.
If drugs were legalized, the prices would drop significantly while quality controls could be put in place to ensure against product contamination. The violence would simply disappear overnight as there would no longer be reason to fear the police or keep large quantities of product or cash on hand as they could legally use storage facilities and banks. |
Edit: I'm not the one who wrote the article, I'm just reposting so people can see it.
Just in case anyone is reading this from one of the ISPs who blocked it:
>Internet Censors Came For TorrentFreak & Now I’m Really Mad
>ISPs exist to provide us with unfettered access to the Internet, not the version they or their technology partners feels is appropriate for us. Their ‘parental controls’ do not achieve their stated aim of “protecting children” and are already causing collateral damage by blocking totally innocent sites such as the one you are reading now. It’s hard not to get angry when you realize your website’s accessibility is becoming disabled by default.
>Someone once told me never to go food shopping when hungry, never to argue when drunk, and more recently never to write when angry. Take a deep breath, go for a run, get the aggression out anyway you can first, I was advised.
>I’ve done all of that this morning and none of it has worked. In fact, I might be even more fired up than before. This website blocking nonsense that is beginning to pollute the Internet has gone way too far and is becoming my sworn enemy.
>Here at TF we’ve long been opponents of website blocking. It’s a blunt instrument that is prone to causing collateral damage and known for failing to achieve its stated aims. We recently discovered that thanks to Sky’s Broadband Shield filtering system, TorrentFreak is now blocked on one of the UK’s largest ISPs by users who think they are protecting their kids.
>Our crimes are the topics we cover. As readers know we write about file-sharing, copyright and closely linked issues including privacy and web censorship. We write about the positives and the negatives of those topics and we solicit comments from not only the swarthiest of pirates, but also the most hated anti-piracy people on the planet.
>If the MPAA, RIAA, FACT, BPI, RightsAlliance, BREIN and every DMCA takedown company on earth want to have their say they can do that, alongside the folks at The Pirate Bay. We won’t deny anyone their voice, whether it’s someone being raided by the police or the people who instigated the raid. Getting the news out is paramount.
>We are not scared to let anyone have their say and we embrace free speech. But apparently the people at Sky and their technology masters at Symantec believe that we should be denied our right to communicate on the basis that we REPORT NEWS about file-sharing issues.
>That’s just utter nonsense.
>Symantec write about viruses and malware ALL THE TIME, so are they placed in the malware and virus category? Of course not. Thanks to their very own self-categorization process they wear the “Technology and Telecommunication” label. Is their website blocked by any of their own filters? I won’t even bother answering that.
>Examining other sites helpfully categorized by Symantec and blindly accepted by Sky reveals no more clarity either. UK ISP Virgin Media runs its own Usenet access, customers can find it at news.virginmedia.com. From there it’s possible to download every possible copyrighted movie and TV show around today, yet that service is listed by Symantec as a “Technology and Telecommunication / Portal” site. Download.com, possibly the world’s largest distributer of file-sharing software, is also green-lighted through.
>On the other hand, TorrentFreak – which neither offers or links to copyrighted files and hosts no file-sharing software whatsoever – is blocked for any Sky household filtered for under 18s? Really? Our news site is suitable for all ages yet when Sky’s teenager filter is turned on we are put on the same level as porn, suicide, self harm, violence and gore.
>Are you kidding me?
>Thanks to Ernesto’s annual ‘most-pirated‘ charts we have been cited countless dozens of times in the past few weeks by fellow news resources all over the Internet. Yet Sky users who are “protecting their children” find that when they try to follow the link to the source of those stories they are effectively informed that TorrentFreak is unsuitable for anyone under 18. What does that do for our reputation?
>As an earlier statement from Sky points out, the parental filters can be modified to let certain sites through, TorrentFreak.com included. However, when someone in a family asks the account holder for a site to be unblocked (they are the only person who can do that), why would they do so when Sky and Symantec make it very clear on their block screen that we are a file-sharing site? Who will most people believe, a teenager or a “respectable” corporation that cares so much about kids? Furthermore, what are the chances that the account holder even remembers how to turn filtering off once the initial ‘default on’ settings are accepted?
>There can be little doubt that little by little, piece by piece, big corporations and governments are taking chunks out of the free Internet. Today they pretend that the control is in the hands of the people, but along the way they are prepared to mislead and misdirect, even when their errors are pointed out to them.
>I’m calling on Sky, Symantec, McAfee and other ISPs about to employ filtering to categorize this site correctly as a news site or blog and to please start listening to people’s legitimate complaints about other innocent sites. It serves nobody’s interests to wrongfully block legitimate information.
>And to Sky, please don’t try pretending that you’re actually trying to stop file-sharing with your parental controls, because if you really meant business you would have blocked the actual protocols, not merely some websites. But that would cost you money in customer churn, and we obviously need to avoid that at all costs. |
Well, they've got you covered there:
And the |
Email marketer here. We're not spammers (or at least, not all of us are). Sending an email to someone who didn't ask for one is the last thing we would do. It has terrible impact on inbox delivery. We want happy recipients, so I'll guarantee we will immediately add your email address to the suppression list :)
But for real spammers, I don't know if they would use this option. First, I think Gmail will only enable it for legitimate emailing service providers. Not to the advertiser, so your email will be blocked at the ESP side, and not given to the sender as an option for targeting again.
Next, I think real spammers don't care about who's an active email account: they just keep sending to every possible email address. They don't care. Spamming is cheap. |
Sometimes this wont make much a difference.
About 10 days ago I decided to go thru my mom's Gmail and unsubscribe from newsletters that she no longer wished to receive.
For the next 2-3 days I clicked the "UNSUBSCRIBE" option on the bottom of the emails, went to the websites themselves and took myself off the list.
Then I turned around and put those emails into the Spam folder but before i did many still asked me to Unsubscribe and Put in Spam.
Now 2 weeks later she is still getting the same damn emails.
That kind of shit can be infuriating.
I even used UnRoll.Me and this service has helped clean up my email pretty good but newsletters still somehow get thru i dont get it. |
1st Question:
They are still pushing webapps. The featurelist for webapps on iOS becomes longer and longer with each iOS Release. Here are some of the more recent ones that come to my mind:
Auto Kerning and Ligatures
Retina Support for Websites
Columns and pagination
AirPlay API (Stream Video from your WebApp to the AppleTV)
2nd Question:
If you are genuinely interested read this: |
It has brakes but those are only used under rapid deceleration so a set of pads can last you over a decade easily. You might need to replace shocks and springs if they wear out and tires are gonna be about the same as a conventional car but you don't have the massive hunk on hoses, coolant, and contaminated oil at 200 degrees under the hood which is awesome from a maintenance perspective. Yes the battery eventually wears out but the warranty is for 8 years and after that it's just mildly reduced capacity. |
well I only know of a few that were being used back in 2010, there's a lot more by now I'm sure.
cookies.
IP address
flash shared objects (you can't remove these unless you know how specifically)
say you clear your cache/cookies and change your ip, but don't know how to clear your FSO, you are linked and tracked on the new ip and instantly linked with the FSO account, which then lists that new IP as being you... it's hard to explain
Here .
Chrome also has a new tracking feature you have to remove from your personal account. |
who gives a shit. is mark zuckerberg gonna sit there and query his database looking for "username=titomb345"? no, he's not. the data is going to either be used to target my ads, which, i think is a good idea, or to make my overall web experience better in some way by personalizing a page. but then again, i don't put anything on facebook that i wouldn't tell someone if they asked me, so what the hell is the big deal? |
Okay I'll go one by one then.
First, you missed (skipped over?) the part about him being pro-life.
Second, I may have overstated it, so let's just list out his position on homosexuals.
He opposes gay marriage.
He opposes gays in the military.
He supports "separate but equal" legislation regarding gay marriage.
He refers to the debate about same-sex marriage as a "moral crisis"
Third, your bit about AGW is about as wrong as wrong, myopic, and anti-science... I'm not going to touch this with a 10-foot pole except to encourage you to read up more on this, because... damn...
Fourth, you've straw manned the shit out of me. But just to be thorough, I won't be voting for an Arab that wants to kill you for being gay either.
Fifth, it wasn't meant to be an argument. That's why I included the "many of us find" bit. In any case, you're wrong. There is quite a bit of evidence against the Libetarian free-market. It is why it isn't taken seriously by either liberal or conservative economists. But it is simple to understand, so I do get its appeal. But here's your chance to shine, show me this "massive prosperity boom" that correlates with libertarian economics.
And for the bonus round?
Rand Paul doesn't support the separation of church and state.
A quote from Mr. Paul himself:
>"The First Amendment says keep government out of religion. It doesn't say keep religion out of government,"
He's a member of the Tea Party movement... which I think is "nuff said", but maybe you don't?
And so my |
The difference is it can be very difficult to tell the difference between the uses of literally by context. In fact, an extremely common and proper use of the word is exactly when it would be difficult to tell from context and was traditionally used to explicitly state the difference.
>She was on the phone literally the entire class.
Was she on the phone for an hour or ten minutes?
>When he heard the news it literally almost killed him.
Did he have a heart attack, or was it just surprising? |
Way, way too cynical. Rand Paul is not doing something smart politically. You think that politicians with something to hide want to talk for hours and hours and hours on the record and in front of the camera?
He is doing what all of us say we WANT in a politician. He is speaking about liberty, something republican, democrat and libertarian voters believe in. Your kind of "they're all the same" cynicism is what feeds the beast. Yes, you are right in most of your critique of Obama, but informed voters are much better at picking out who is credible and who isn't. The signs were there with Obama but there was a stigma attached to acknowledging them. As a rule, look at politicians that you know to have corruption issues, which is NOT same as politicians that you disagree with on policy, and see how they view the candidate. I can tell you that bought and paid for politicans on both sides don't like Rand Paul. Add that to bolster what he is saying, he doesn't do what is politically expedient for his career, that is an indicator of a difference between himself and Obama. |
Bad news. I met with Rand Paul's Louisville office assistant during Anonymous Operation Blackout SOPA. Not only did Paul's office acknowledge or concerns regarding the ongoing war over the internet but added helpful observations from his insider perspective such as not only will the american government keep pushing surveillance and censorship but they hate that the internet is untaxable - something we hasn't considered before.
While senator Paul has done the absolute best that he possibly can, the problem in not solvable from the same level at which it was created. If the government could have prevented the weaponization of the internet then it already would have. When it comes protecting the future of the internet, politics is proven not to work and not proven to work.
Now for he good news. Core team members from Operation Blackout SOPA also came up with a long term plan codenamed [BitVote]( that combines technical social engineering into an elegantly simple solution - one that we are proud to say has passed ~3 years of viability testing so far.
In other words, we have a plan and it works.
There's only one problem. Me. I'm the last member of the core team alive and functional but I'm the least of my brothers (RIP Aaron Swartz) so while it's up to me to keep carrying the project - mostly alone - I'm far from perfect and let's face it, there's no way to say what I'm saying without sounding crazy right? |
oh yeah mate i live in my parents basement like you, never seen a shine of daylight in my life. All I do is feed the trolls on teh interwebs with smart jackass comments and txt with sex lines. Can't call them either, whenever one of them fat bitches starts talking sexy about licking my asscrack and shit. Damn niggah, i tell you my delicate cyberized brain can't handle such emotion. I'm having trouble enough as it is comprehending that utf16 character encoding shit they got going on now. |
i got my phone in the mail on thursday and if i hold it the same way i used to hold my 3gs (the 'death grip'); the signal drops to 0 bars and my 3g connection drops off completely. |
You have to think of the camera lens as the picture source. If the source is good (from a large lens that lets a lot of light in for each pixel) the picture is good, but if the source is bad (from a small lens there is not much light, so not as much data to collect in each pixel) the image quality is bad. It is not like CSI where they can infinitely zoom in and enhance a picture, there is only so much data that it will collect when you snap that picture. Software can only touch up a picture. |
Variety is the spice of life. |
This is one of those times where I am comfortable saying: |
x-post from r/pics] I found this at an occasional shop this morning and had to have it. I did some research, and found that IBM made clocks from the late 19th century until about the 1970's, usually for industrial offices and schools. It seems to be missing a plate that covers the mechanism, which would have additional information, i.e. the serial number. The only identifying mark is the number 57-74-000076, seen here. This is the model number, but I can't find any info about the last six digits. Is this the serial stamp?
It does work (we tested it at the shop), but I don't trust the cable - the ground is missing from the plug and the cord has some electrical tape towards the top. I don't want to take any chances.
There's also no reasonable way to set the clock since these ran based on the signal sent from a "master clock" - the frequencies were sent through the power lines (?) of the building and synced with that clock automatically, no matter where it was plugged in. Pretty cool, if you ask me. |
One of the best ways the entertainment industry can combat against piracy would be:
1) Stop trying to charge more to rent a movie through the internet than a brick and mortar rental company would charge for a DVD or BluRay. $3.99 is not a fair price but $1.00 is.
2) Stop geographically-locking your content. Wether you like it our not, there is an active market for your programming outside of your geographic area. The fact that you treat this audience as unwelcome is fundamentally wrongheaded. If you refuse this audience service, you make it difficult for them to justify not going the piracy way. Find advertising overseas and have them buy advertisements.
3) Understand that Napster was a response to unfair market value of compact discs and the music industry's unwillingness to offer track singles for anything outside of country and hip hop music (in the US). For almost 15 years, you fed the public albums from artists who didn't have an album-worth of quality music. "Someday I Will Treat You Good" is an interesting single, but I dare anyone to listen to anything else from that Sparklehorse album.
4) Understand that piracy is a better alternative for sheltered children than actually asking their parents for a ride to the local Best Buy to buy music written and performed by "thugs," "degenerates," "homos," "sinners," or whatever taboo rubs then the wrong way.
5) Innovators (as the government likes to refer to tech companies and the entertainment industry) if you understanding point #4, stop trying to sell parent-empowering censorship technology so hard if the end result is more middle-of-the-road, safe movies, music, and TV programs. Your innovation has, for some reason, led to a decade of mediocre movies and music.
6) In economic recessions, reduce the price of your products across-the-board. It makes you look less greedy. |
I'm not though. The entire point of my argument was to show that cost of reproduction is a terrible measure of inherent value. And it is.
So, you point out that copyright is not only arbitrary but abused. Yes and yes. The constant extension of copyright are a miscarriage of justice. The system is being abused. Absolutely. Ignoring the abuses for a moment, I'd like you to come up with a non-arbitrary system for respecting the rights of inventors and the rights of society to eventually get their hands on it.
It's not going to happen. It's arbitrary by definition. Eventually you'll just be picking a number. That's the problem with pragmatic decisions. They may work out in reality, but there's never an impregnable ideology backing it up. At best, pragmatism just leads to things that work.
You can't give someone copyright forever. Hell, half the time they're not so much inventing something as discovering it, and you don't give someone permanent ownership over anything in music biology film or anywhere else because that would be insane.
But, you can't snatch away the fruits of their labor the day it comes to fruition. Otherwise, only independently wealthy people with a natural curiosity about the world would work in fields where the cost of reproduction is lower than the inherent value. And that's a small group at best.
So you pick somewhere in between. It's going to be arbitrary, but also hopefully somewhat practical. You can have exclusive rights to your discovery for a certain amount of time, but eventually that knowledge needs to become societal, so other people can stand on your shoulders and do something brilliant. |
So I'm late to the comment game, but I'm fine with that.
I read the statement and it's really not saying much. It basically says "our meal ticket doesn't know how to keep getting money, and we're out of ideas, so please help us obi-wan public, you're our only hope".
Well, ok, I'll tell you what I think. It's a two part plan. Step 1, stop trying to be the world police. Step 2, let the outmoded industries evolve to solve their own problem.
Step 1 is a easy...and would actually make America a better place. Stop trying to change other countries and start looking at what greed has done to America. A "fix your own bunker before you start a war" approach.
Step 2, well, that's going to involve spending time/money that the industries just don't have chuckles . That's complete bull. Technology has come a long way since the CD was introduced, but we still pay about the same price, but don't really get anything different. For movies, yea we now have HD disks, but they are still premium cost and we still don't get anything different really. Be honest, how many of you watch the commentaries? Probably not enough to have it considered a selling feature.
Then there's the bit about actually having good content...which in my opinion is not very frequent lately. I go to the movies frequently, but rarely is it because I want to see the movie, more that I want to veg out and be semi-entertained for a few hours then hang out with friends.
blah blah blah, rant about the quality of the crap we buy and how the industries would rather get the government to do the dirty work instead of making something that people actually want to spend their money on...yadda yadda yadda. |
Exactly this.
Disclaimer: Didn't mean to write so much. Not an expert. Feel free to shoot holes in my argument.
The Internet is the ultimate game changer, but media publishers don't want the game to change. These corporations are no longer relevant. It's adapt or die time, but they want a 3rd option... Fix the game in their favor.
It's a fact that they could make money if they embraced new models - just look at what Apple has achieved with iTunes. Now imagine an iTunes store without record labels sucking up profit and providing no value in return. Apple could give more profit to artists while drastically reducing song prices, giving consumers less motivation to pirate music.
As for software, look at the SaaS model. Imagine if you could pay $5-10 a month to use a "cloud powered" version of Adobe CS instead of the current $2500 up front cost. I'm sure they'd see a huge influx of new registrations.
Yes I'm oversimplifying here, but I hate the idea that the consumer is the problem.
It's like when Disneyland takes a photo of you on their roller-coaster and tries to sell it to you after the ride. These guys probably hate it when people snap pictures of the preview screen instead of paying them $10 for the picture. These consumers aren't "criminals", they're simply sending a message that while there is still demand for the product, the perceived value of these photos is now much lower than what it once was due to advances in digital photography. The "piracy" actually provides valuable information.
So what's the best way to improve sales here? Reduce the price to better reflect perceived value? Innovate the product to bring the value back up to $10? Give the photos away for free to generate more ticket sales? Or Impose a $10,000 fine for taking pictures of the preview screen?
The root of the problem is that corporations will do what's best for consumers if, and only if, it benefits them short term. When they're in bed with the government, and the average consumer is ignorant/compliant, fixing the game in their favor becomes the path of least resistance. I hope we prove them wrong. |
I agree that this is unlikely to be an attack vector. It's much easier to execute remote code via Powerinjector - which is a payload delivery framework that runs natively in Powershell (encrypted) and allows you to set up a meterpreter shell on any machine running Powershell. The bonus here is that Powershell is trusted by AV software and doesn't need admin confirmation to escalate being that it is run in a system account. It's quite easy to drop with any one of ten HTML5 code exploits. |
Unfortunately this is necessary because employers will do anything unless they are specifically forbidden to do so.
While some might argue that it is unnecessary to codify this into law, they are probably arguing from the position of already having a job.
Some of us are luckily in the position that I would take if asked for any login information for Facebook or any other service.
"I'm sorry, I don't see how my personal life has any bearing on my ability to do this job and I absolutely refuse and I am insulted that you would even ask me."
And then they would not hire me for the job and I wouldn't care since I wouldn't want to work for a company that would do such a thing.
Bully to this Senator for actually doing something that it beneficial to the common man. Hopefully it doesn't get shat upon with amendments and riders that make it useless or that do things completely unrelated to the core idea of the bill. |
You would be surprised, I am not very big on online social anything except for reddit, when I recently applied for a company they asked me if I had one and I honestly said no. I guess they search for it because I got called in for another interview and they told me, "we searched for you online and you are like a ghost". I responded with a smile, "yeah, I like to keep it that way." While someone with more effort could obviously get my information, I like to know it's not readily available. |
Every time this article is reposted everyone either argues that it can't be done, or is too impractical. They say this because they think aren't thinking past today's or the very near future's technology, which this will not be built with. So all the problems, even possibly the G-force problem will have to and will be solved by revolutionary ideas before this it is actually being considered to construct. That isn't to say that it can't be done and it certainly will be eventually unless there is a more efficient way of transport that is developed in the mean time. Which means that arguing over it is moot. |
Actually, I do. I'm nice about it, but end of the day I'm paid to be honest. I'm a pragmatist; so if something is stupid, I'll call it stupid. I'm not saying it isn't pretty (or flashy or whatever word the kids are using for cool these days) but as a logo, especially for a brand that already has a ridiculously siomple name - it's stupid - mostly because it doesn't say "hp", it says '//, or something. . Nobody understands that. So while a little stylistic abstraction is well and fine, this has gone too far.
Add a couple of really think little diagonal lines in the other direction though and you'll be back to saying 'hp' again - and that wouldn't be quite so stupid.
EDIT: |
So copyright holders couldn't get their draconian business models afloat to ruin the internet in SOPA/PIPA...now they want to destroy the internet and the vast majority of business in general both in and outside of the net.
Their desperation has gone to full retard.. potentially destroying not only eCommerce, but commerce in general.
edit/additional rant:
It's a business murder/suicide by far. I moonlight a business that sells collectibles from Japan; I'm a legit re-seller with all the paper work but the implications of these rulings would mean I'd go out of business but not just a small fry like me. My day job is one of only two pro camera stores on Long Island; it's a medium/small sized business and I know for a fact that Sony and Nikon in particular are trying their best to cut out the retailers and just sell direct to the consumer. This ruling would quickly get them the ammo to complete their intentions and thus put a bunch of people out of work.
I've in the past sold Swarovski crystals on eBay through a wholesaler from my old job at an eBay consignment store...these companies (Swarovski, Prada, etc) don't want to come to terms that sites like eBay, Amazon, and craigslist determine a product's true value. I sell on eBay, amazon and my own site and yes, I'd love to sell at retail but like anyone who's ever done retail knows, retail value doesn't last.
At my day job doing coding/web content for this camera store, I'm constantly stressed by the increasing restrictions the manufacturers have with the retailers. For example, many manufacturers have something called MAP pricing. It stands for Minimum Advertising Price where a store is forced to sell at no lower than a certain value (usually at MSRP). Nikon and Sony take that one step further now with MVP pricing (Nikon calls it this) and SURE pricing (Sony's version).
With these policies and since I'm the "webmaster" posting the products on the company's site, I'm put into tons of pressure, getting calls on my days off for example, to make sure the pricing is 100% right during all of the various (and sometimes convoluted) rebates for said products. If any item is even a penny under that price...the store loses their right to sell anything from that manufacturer.
This assbackwards way of going at online/store pricing has been getting worse in the past 2 years and it almost certainly points to the manufacturers wanting to cut out the middle men and sell directly to the customer at prices they want and only THEY want.
I'm putting on a bit of a tin foil hat with what I'll say next but to me as a business owner, this doesn't sound out of the realm of reality....
It seems that this is some End Game by big businesses still tied to old business models. They are upset SOPA and PIPA didn't go their way and now they are committing a business murder suicide on a massive scale. What these guys seem to be trying to do is completely wipe the vast majority of jobs from the private sector. The only ones who'd survive the aftermath from this would be shareholders and the super rich who live off their investment money of these companies or stockpiles of cash in bank...everyone else would be then forced to either live on the streets, manufacture for these said companies (only if overseas) or work under them. These companies won't be too worried about lost sales because they want to monopolize the product and the work..forcing the vast majority of the public who simply "go with the flow" to then adhere to this paradigm. The way big businesses already undermine college education here in the US by making the act of getting a "lifelong career" for these "astute" companies be the selling point to college as oppose to the actual education gained, improvement of humanity's knowledge and the chance to be your own boss from your knowledge... seems to also point at their intentions. In other words it's to have a loyal and manipulative world population that innovate on their terms with no start-ups and innovators to outpace them. |
Use tasksel , unselect ubuntu-desktop, and select one of the many other desktop choices. No screwage. That's a pretty easy way. |
Store Apps (formerly Metro, but someone has the copyright and was getting ready to sue once the product came out so they ditched it) are all part of the closed system.
The Store Apps API is designed such that all apps created under it can be, and will be, compiled natively to both ARM and x86-AMD64 . The point being that if you write it for the store, it will work on any Windows 8 device, no app fragmentation based upon which architecture you're using.
Anything you write specifically for x86-AMD64 , not using the Windows 8 API, will be solely x86-AMD64 and won't be in their store. If you write it for x86-AMD64 with that API, it compiles directly for ARM so there's no reason not to (and thus Microsoft can enforce that thing submitted to the store be only using their API and work on both). |
As much as I hate it, locked down experiences are simply better for the general consumer. Part of the reason you've had to be so hands-on about making shit work for Mom and Pop is because open platforms are both less secure and less uniform.
The security argument should be relatively apparent. By forcing everything through the store, MS has reduced the attack surface from anything with a networking stack to the app sandbox, the MS store, and Windows Update. Of course there have been exploits for all of these, but reducing the surface still helps since it lets MS choose the terrain for exploits and be responsible for fixing them.
The uniformity argument is rather frustrating.
Competition is necessary for products to evolve rapidly. MS's decision to not provide the special permissions for the default browser on WinRT is deeply troubling since the IE team doesn't have a track record of being trustworthy with a monopoly. I'm also certain that if MS allowed competing stores, the Metro version of Steam would provide a far better gaming experience than the MS store.
However, most programmers have proven that they should not be trusted with the ability to do whatever they want. Take a look at the standard drivers that ship with a typical laptop to see what I mean. There's so much crappy middleware that simply makes people's lives harder and slower. This isn't just about the uselessness of some of these products, but also they way in which they are coded. The MS store allows MS to ensure that there is a minimum quality bar for how stable apps are, and to ensure that those apps are coded in a way that is future-proof.
The corollary to this is that if it's possible to do something differently, someone will. This means that for every new program I interact with, I have to learn how to perform the common operations in a new way. For the tech-savvy, this isn't really a problem, but for everyone else it makes computing a struggle. The MS store will enforce a common UI paradigm across apps, ensuring that the general user doesn't have to relearn how a computer works for each new program. It also means that MS will enforce the Metro look across all of the apps which should make Windows apps look better generally. |
It really annoys me when i see this argument. whenever RMS spouts this off it usually means one more person who identifies a GNU/Linux as a operating system run by rude and "holier than thou" people. Honestly I refuse to mention it GNU/Linux if the fsf doesn't recognize a GNU/Linux distro as free as they demand that everyone use the term yet refuses to mention the distro on there website as an fsf endorsed distro such as trisquel or parabola. to be honest RMS could make his point better if he simply corrected them once and mentions his disagreement with the term simply without scaring everyone off. Some of his ideologies are great but his attitude presenting them needs some work.
PS: if this was an attempt to be funny I apologize for missing the mark. |
I'm going to use some rough estimates here to demonstrate why a sneakernet may be better if transferring large volumes of data. In this case we will use 2TB.
2TB = 2097152MB
Presuming the round trip takes you a total of 3 hours (3600 seconds per hour, gives you 10800s), including travel and copying time. 2097152MB / 10800s gives you about 194 MBps equivalent download rate. This is ~ equivilant to a 1.5 Gbps download rate, presuming 0 overhead in the transfer of data. The closest thing you have network wise that can net you that much throughput is google's fibre at 1Gbps peek bandwidth allowance. You are short 1/3 of needed capacity.
Also, the other factor is your bandwidth upload capacity. Odds are you or your friend do not have 1.5Gbps upload capacity even if your download rate was fast enough. |
My only connection to your city is through Jack White.
Even though the WBC is based in KS I don't think many people hear something about Kansas and immediately make that correlation.
I mean, personally, I don't hear the word "Texas" and immediately say, "Oh god Waco and all those wierdos" or even on a broader scale, I don't immediately correlate Guyana with Jim Jones' cult. |
Isn't that verse referring to the Love Thy Neighbour decree and the Ten Commandments. I mean, what you said is technically right. If you tell a lie, you are guilty of telling a lie, if you kill a man, you are guilty of killing a man, just as equally as anyone else who has committed whatever crime you have committed.
I looked up the verse, and what is being said seems to be "If you are going to follow the teachings of Christ, follow all of them or none of them.".
It also talks about laws (these are different from sins, by the way.). The laws referenced are the Ten Commandments, which are the only ones Jesus didn't fulfill with his death. All the other laws found in the Old Testament are not applicable to Christians. Sins are things to not do, acts of Naughtyness. Think of it like Laws and Rules. The Ten Commandments, as I said, are the laws. These are legal strictures with heavy repercussions. Sins are more akin to rules (in the idea of sinning is breaking a rule) with consequences, but saying 'sorry' usually absolves you. Yes, the laws are about sins (Major sins) but the other stuff (The Big Seven aside, of course, since they tie to the Ten Commandments) are like rules in any other organization. There may be consequences for breaking a rule, but it will never be as severe as violating a law. |
Just realized that this was /r/technology. Sorry. Had it confused with /r/politics for a second.
Are you guys really saying that because she's mad, that her point is invalid? The person who shared the picture apologized and this woman, albeit she's the sister of the website's creator, said the issue was shifted.
Well, I agree. The issue WAS shifted. Human decency isn't about what you can do with something, it's what you SHOULD do with something. Sure, a lot of people could get famous by doing stuff that "decent" people wouldn't, but it's best that less people do that. That's what happens. Just because you're capable of sharing a picture from Facebook, doesn't mean you should. I've seen bikini pictures from some friends that I'm SURE they wouldn't want total strangers looking at, so I don't put it out in the open where it's vulnerable. I'm capable of it, but I don't. That's her whole point. Yet somehow it has shifted to "this thundercunt thinks the website is bad, she should have her brother fix it" and bullshit of the like. |
So what? The NY Times uses [AdChoices]( for their advertisements.
AdChoices is an "interest-based advertising" platform.... Meaning that the advertising that is delivered on the page are based on your likely interests. This type of advertising tries to make the ads you see more relevant based on the types of sites that you visit on the Web. With interest-based advertising, you receive ads and offers for products and services that are more likely to be useful to you. |
Sure - but the New York Times company shouldn't be content with this specific outcome of an ad for electric cars appearing alongside a story detailing an alleged conflict of interest by their reporter re: electric cars. If you gave an NYT exec the choice to press a button and change this particular ad to something else like microwaves, my guess is that they would gladly press the button. Having the ad is frankly awkward (however modestly) and possibly damaging to the NYT brand, especially as it engages in an investigation surrounding its own journalistic ethics.
To me, this shows that there are still problems with interest based advertising and savvy media companies ought to be seeking out software solutions to avoid this type of awkward article/ad pairing. |
John McCain proposed something like this when he was running in 2008.](
Sure, it was a campaign gimmick, but I did like the concept, and it makes a lot of sense when there's already some impetus out there to reach a milestone, and the target is somewhere reasonably close on the horizon.
Traditional grants still have their place though. Automakers were already trying to improve batteries, the infrastructure was already in place and didn't need to be funded. A grant system works better when there needs to be infrastructure that isn't there already. (I.E. prove the god particle exists and we'll give you enough money to build a hadron collider... no thanks.) |
100 cars worth of electricity != 100 cars producing pollutants.
your thermodynamics is skewed by the oversimplification
1 source is VERY relevent as again you can control EASILY one source instead of literally millions |
The myth that government-funded research returns positive a ROI is because the "returns" are calculated as increases in GDP, which is a terribly flawed way to measure the cost/benefit of research dollars.
Look, when a government appropriates $1mil to R/D of some company, that appropriation increases GDP by $1mil (the program has already "broken even" before a single dollar has been spent on research). Now the company spends the $1mil on research, mostly in the salaries of their employees. Let's assume all of the money was spent that year, as a contingency of the appropriation. GDP increases by another $1mil ($3mil total now). Now assume the employees take their paychecks spend their money that year on new cars, refrigerators, shoes, whatever. GDP increases by another $1mil. And so on.
So, in this case, even if the research resulted in literally nothing productive what so ever, someone looking at the numbers would conclude it had a 4:1 ROI because it increased GDP by $4mil at a cost of $1mil.
But here's the important part. There's nothing to show for it. There is no "product" in the end. There's no clearer example of this than war spending. Spending billions shooting bullets, blowing up bombs, and flying planes around increases GDP numbers dramatically, but it does NOT make a nation any richer.
This is why GDP numbers become meaningless as government spending as a % of GDP increases.
Look, if Government really saw between a 4:1 to 500:1 ROI on R/D funding as you suggest, then there would be absolutely no need to raise taxes on anyone. The government could just spend more on research and rake in the enormous returns. |
They did pull in $486 billion in revenue, not profit. It cost them $307 billion to get there. Drilling new wells, etc.
Then they spent around $106 billion in operating expenses. Payroll, etc.
That leaves them with around $73 billion in net income. Then they paid around $31 billion in taxes! So that's cool, but after taxes, that only leaves them around $42 billion.
Ok, $42 billion is still a shit ton of cash. It just seems to me that things get so over generalized that most people don't know the difference between gross and net profits. But anyway, $42 billion is a lot, so raise their tax rate, or charge a special rate for renewables, or whatever. But who's to say the government would make a better decision with that extra money than the engineers, scientists, and business people at XOM?
But thats the problem all around, right? Issues are argued using examples at the very far ends of the spectrum. The talking heads won't make it clear on either side so they can use the misconception to emphasize their point, and most folks just aren't smart enough or inquisitive enough to figure it out for themselves.
So, for the folks like you and me who don't earn our money making outrageous arguments on tv, we should present both sides of the story and have our shit in a pile. Anyone on this website is more than likely smart enough to do that. The question is whether OPs and those that comment want to further shitty misconceptions or want to encourage people to think critically and for themselves. |
The hilarious thing is you're arguing that yes Government intervention sped up development of these technologies... in a thread where you compatriots are ripping Obama's initiative for trying to do exactly that. Gotta love cognitive dissonance. Oh well.
>On another note, NASA has received over 526 billion dollars since it was created in 1958.
You know how small an amount 526 billion over 50 years is when we're talking about the US's GDP, correct? Less than a third the amount spent in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that's only spread over 12 years.
>Without NASA the taxpayers would've have had an extra 526 billion dollars since its existence to spend at their own discretion.
This would have had a negligible impact because a) it would have been spread over 50 years and b) look at the impact of Bush's tax rebate wherte each tax payer/ house hold got a check of between $300 and $1200. Remember how much better the economy was because of that? Yeah, no one else does either because the $168 billion IN ONE YEAR wasn't enough to affect the economy.
>Also every scientist working for NASA would've presumably done something at least related to research.
That's a giant unsubstantiated leap that you're making there.With what money? And towards what direction? Even in the 60s, private companies didn't just throw money at markets that didn't have a consumer base. The space program was just part of a larger Government push towards increasing the Math and Science literacy of all Americans which directly led to these scientists being educated. But that's not profitable either, so fuck it right?
>So the question now I guess is, are the few things that seem like they wouldn't have been produced without NASA worth 526 billion dollars?
Ignoring that you're wrong about how few products wouldn't have been developed without NASA, lets look at just one industry that saw it's development enhanced like Barry Bonds on 'the clear'; the computer industry, because the changes directly due to the race to the moon are most visible in computer technology. Actually, lets look at just one company inside the computer industry. You have already said that our technological level would be nowhere near where it is now without NASA, so it goes without saying that Apple wouldn't be the company it is today without the R&D that went into going to the moon, or at least it would be 20-30 years behind where it is today. Apple paid $8.23 billion in taxes in 2011. It paid over 7 in 2012. So in 2 years, Apple, using technology that is directly traceable to the space program, paid for 35% of the lifetime budget of NASA. One company. In two years. And that's only the company. Not even looking at employees income tax's or anything else. You still want to argue that it isn't profitable? Didn't think so. |
I understand what you're trying to say with the apple bit, but that's the worst math I've ever seen.
8.23+7=15.23
15.23/526=.0289 or 2.89%.
In other words it would take Apple just under 100 years to pay back NASA.
Yes, I'm saying they sped up the development of the technologies, but that doesn't mean anything. If the money wasn't being spent at NASA and the research wasn't being done there, then those resources and labor would have been done elsewhere. Likely aiding the development of other technologies. Or, since obviously computer technologies were being developed, the computer programmers and researchers would've been doing those nearly exact same jobs privately. You can't just say none of that research would have been done, that's just absurd.
I'm not advocating that my, or anyone's money be spent in Iraq or Afghanistan, I don't know why that was brought up. That was a solid attack on my character though. Subtle.
Yes, 526 billion isn't very much money over 50 years. It comes out to 28$ per person in America per year for 50 years, assuming a constant 370,000,000 population. It isn't very much. The absurdity of bringing in a tax rebate is ridiculous here. A tax rebate is your own money being taken and then returned to you later on, of course it won't help the economy, it's zero sum.
I don't think it's a leap to say trained scientists are going to work in their respective fields without NASA. It actually makes more sense than if they didn't. But I already addressed that above. I have no idea why you think that I hate math and science education, I have no idea where you got that. Maybe from the same place you got your math skills (as shown above), directly out your own ass. Maybe I can straw man you a little too and call you a commie who wants everyone to walk everywhere for the environment and there should be no economy because its evil and greedy! Oh wait you didn't say any of that. Huh, at least mine was joke.
>Ignoring that you're wrong about how few products wouldn't have been developed without NASA, lets look at just one industry that saw it's development enhanced like Barry Bonds on 'the clear'; the computer industry, because the changes directly due to the race to the moon are most visible in computer technology. Actually, lets look at just one company inside the computer industry. You have already said that our technological level would be nowhere near where it is now without NASA, so it goes without saying that Apple wouldn't be the company it is today without the R&D that went into going to the moon, or at least it would be 20-30 years behind where it is today. Apple paid $8.23 billion in taxes in 2011. It paid over 7 in 2012. So in 2 years, Apple, using technology that is directly traceable to the space program, paid for 35% of the lifetime budget of NASA. One company. In two years. And that's only the company. Not even looking at employees income tax's or anything else. You still want to argue that it isn't profitable? Didn't think so.
That whole thing, is chock full of so much bullshit it's unbelievable. For someone claiming I make unsubstantiated leaps, just saying most of the things NASA has contributed to today wouldn't be here without NASA, is pretty unsubstantiated as well. Your second link. Read the descriptions. Almost every single thing "invented by NASA" was invented or improved by a private company that contracted with them. Yes, they were paid by NASA to do these things, but you make it sound like it would be impossible for them to exist without NASA's guidance. That is every bit a leap as big as I made.
Your math bit (despite its flaws) does male a good point. The computer industry was helped by NASA, but the way you did your math implies that the computer industry wouldn't even exist or pay taxes if not for NASA. Computers did exist before NASA. NASA doesn't just make people who are good at researching computers. They go to school to become good at it. If there's no NASA, where better to go than the computer industry? They would have the most dedicated R&D on the planet. Competing against each other with all of these brilliant minds researching at individual companies that need to turn a profit to succeed against one another. What better way to make money over Microsoft, if you're Apple, than to develop the newest and best technology faster than them? That's why computers are getting so much better, and so much faster now. Competition. So to come out and say Apple would be 30 years behind without NASA is preposterous. Maybe in the crazy fields of sports bra technology and pool purification you've got me. |
Now before we get into this; remember- you said that there was no profit involved in walking on the moon. Even with my bad math, we have shown that the space program has more than paid for itself. Just want to make sure this doesn't get buried by my response.
>I understand what you're trying to say with the apple bit, but that's the worst math I've ever seen.
Haha. Nice catch. I'm really not paying too much attention to this at the moment. March Madness!! (If you really must know I divided 526 by 15 instead of the other way around)
>it would take Apple just under 100 years to pay back NASA.
But Apple is only one of thousands of companies whose whole business is based on technology developed by NASA. Despite the bad math, I'll stand by my larger point; that the return on investment from the money spent has more than broken even. You're the one who said it wasn't profitable when it obviously has been...
>Or, since obviously computer technologies were being developed, the computer programmers and researchers would've been doing those nearly exact same jobs privately
Except there was no wholly private computer programmers at the time. IBM was heavily subsidized by defense department contracts and had been since WWII. So basically, if the programmers didn't go to NASA, they were going to work for the Pentagon, or a company being paid by the DoD. At this point it's just semantics. So yes, without government money I can say that none of this research would have gotten done. Not debatable at all.
> That was a solid attack on my character though. Subtle.
I don't know how you can possibly construe this as an attack on your character. Now if you are that thin skinned I effusively apologize, random internet citizen.
>The absurdity of bringing in a tax rebate is ridiculous here. A tax rebate is your own money being taken and then returned to you later on, of course it won't help the economy, it's zero sum
I assumed you were making the libertarian argument that people would have been better off spending the money themselves. Now, assuming that you are a libertarian would have been an attack on your character and for that I apologize. However, the argument for the tax rebate at the time is exactly what I said; that it would stimulate the economy because it was an unexpected rebate.
>I don't think it's a leap to say trained scientists are going to work in their respective fields without NASA.
But without NASA funding their research they will have a hell of a lot harder time getting work. While there might have still been trained scientists there would have been little to no demand for it.
> I have no idea why you think that I hate math and science education, I have no idea where you got that.
Uhh... I never said you hate STEM. Your reading comprehension needs as much help as my math skills.
>I can straw man you a little too and call you a commie who wants everyone to walk everywhere for the environment and there should be no economy because its evil and greedy! Oh wait you didn't say any of that. Huh, at least mine was joke.
I suddenly understand why there are no conservative versions of Jon Stewart/ Steven Colbert if that's what passes for a joke.
>just saying most of the things NASA has contributed to today wouldn't be here without NASA, is pretty unsubstantiated as well
This is just logic. If NASA advanced technological innovation, then without it technology wouldn't be where it is today. What logical leaps are there in that? Your point of view seems to be that NASA didn't do anything that wouldn't have happened without it. This is a logical leap.
> Almost every single thing "invented by NASA" was invented or improved by a private company that contracted with them.
Using money they wouldn't have had to hire scientists they wouldn't have been able to afford in facilities they wouldn't have been able to build otherwise. Other than that they did it all on their own.
>Yes, they were paid by NASA to do these things, but you make it sound like it would be impossible for them to exist without NASA's guidance. That is every bit a leap as big as I made.
If they could have done it without NASA then why didn't they? I mean, there was no profit in it, right?
Your whole next section boils down to 'blah blah blah competition drives innovation blah blah blah'. However, you have already said that NASA sped up the development of technology and did this by giving scientists money and letting them do their thing. How do you reconcile those two ideas?
Also, you're trying to compare existing markets (Apple v Microsoft) to markets that didn't exist/ were in their infancy with no demand.
>to come out and say Apple would be 30 years behind without NASA is preposterous
To say 30 years is pure speculation on my part. To actually say how far ahead we are because of NASA we'd have to look at historic R&D budgets before NASA compared to how much money NASA injected into the sciences. We could get a pretty good idea that way.
>That's why computers are getting so much better, and so much faster now. Competition.
That's reductionist to the point of being false since 50% of R&D in the US is still funded by the US Government. |
The fiscal multiplier argument falls apart in cases like these with simple understanding that if you hadn't taxed the money in the first place, it would [ still have been spent ]( The only difference is it would have been spent by the original earners of said money not the taxpayer beneficiaries working at PoliticallyConnected Inc.
And didn't you notice something?
>Find a policy with a fiscal multiplier that is consistently above 4, and you've just solved pretty much all the world's economic problems.
Solving economic problems and growing an economy has far more to do with production than it does consumption. This is the biggest limitation to Keynesian economics. Yeah, yeah, "supply side".
Look, let me illustrate exactly what is meant by the emphasis on the importance of production over consumption. The problem in the poorest parts of the world isn't that they don't have enough consumption. The people in Ethiopia aren't poor because the people aren't spending enough or the Ethiopian government's policies don't have a high enough fiscal multiplier. They're poor because they have very little capital. They don't have the farm equipment, the factories, the sophisticated levels of automation, and the other factors of production required to produce goods at a low enough cost that consumers can actually afford them. You can't even begin to talk about raising consumption until you deal with the problems of production.
How does a nation improve meaningful production? You know, the production of the goods people actually want, not the goods a government agency dictates be produced? By building capital equipment to produce the demands of the market place. How does this capital get built and directed into industries where it will serve real market demand? It sure as hell doesn't come from an Obama pouring $200 million into green cars or by a Bush pumping billions into Ethanol research. No. You get meaningful capital investment from entrepreneurs in the private sector, led by the profit motive to increase the production and the efficiency of production of the goods their customers demand. This is done far more efficiently (without the overhead of an IRS taxing the money, without the overhead of lobbying efforts to essentially bribe lawmakers, and without the overhead of government agencies who wind up allocating the money in the end) and without the devastating [crowding out]( effect government spending has on the economy. |
1:3" for many of today's energy sources" is an outright lie and for you to even mention that shows your dogmatism. A quick search reveals that you must be referring only to bitumen tar sands. "we're already seeing that." You are so blind it boggles my mind. "Hey prices are going up on energy, here comes that 'hard stop', just like I said. What? Now they're going down since the higher prices incentivized more investment? Wow. Who would have thought?" Every economist other than members of the Krugman Kronies, that's who. For you to say that we're already seeing a 'hard stop' on energy growth due to lack of supply is so wrong I don't even know where to begin.
You're ignoring about 3 major points. #1 Higher prices don't mean that resources are running dry. There are hundreds of factors. #2 EROEI is completely irrelevant with regards to a 'hard stop' so long as it is above 1. As long as it remains above 1, it is profitable and will be acted upon. We'd extract methane from Saturn if EROEI was even 1.0001. #3 You completely ignore, and I mean completely, the fact that higher energy prices, consumption, and profit potential enabled investments by many countries into seabed methane, which Japan finally was able to extract efficiently. That's the whole point, the market will react.
Take a look at this graph of Canadian oil production.
It shows that once all 'easy' oil was found and extracted by the '70s, oil production dropped. People in those days began to talk about an imminent 'energy crisis', just like you are today. Yet, lo and behold, new technology spurred by higher prices has allowed Canada to extract more oil now than ever, with the trend line ever increasing. |
You are not making any kind of coherent argument. Only an absolute idiot would think my "logic" dictates slavery. You're essentially saying "oh and what if slavery was somehow.
Ad hominem. Okay, so, I'll put in in a syllogism.
We should do whatever it takes to get X
Y will enable us to do X,
Therefore we should do Y.
Now unless you find a problem with the "form" of the argument, this argument is absolutely true. They are you're premises:
Premise 1 : We should do X whatever it takes to get X; X being minimizing suffering, prosperity.
Premise 2 : Y will enable us to do X; Y is an action by government.
Conclusion : Therefore we should do Y.
Now Premise 1 is your argument. Premise 2 is anything anyone wants to apply to Premise 1 . So libertarians would apply free market, in their case Y=Free Market. Socialists would apply Socialism, Y=Socialism. In my hypothetical case Y=Slavery.
Now what makes one system better than the other? Well according to you "whatever works." So then, all I would have to do is prove that Slavery works, and by the logic above, it would fit in the syllogism, and therefore be true according to your logic. |
I've worked at a big box Best Buy for 6 months now and of all the hundred some computers that I've seen going through the department only one All-in-One (a Dell I think?) has had this feature. |
So my question is did that Ditto company not check for any patents relating to what they're doing? I read through that patent and it seems pretty clear to me that Ditto is doing just that.
I understand we're supposed to hate these "megacorporations" on reddit, but this wouldn't have happened if Ditto bought the patent they're clearly (to me at least) infringing on.
And before someone goes on a huge rant about patents, I have problems with them too, but that doesn't mean you can just start up a company and not expect anything to happen. |
Here's my take on it.
The UN is absolutely toothless and could never enforce anything that the U.S. and, to a lesser extent the other major powers, does not want to be enforced because the UN is just another tool to be used by those major powers.
The primary driving force behind U.S. foreign policy is to create and maintain opportunities for large corporations to make money (that's the same money that picks our Presidential, Senatorial, and Congressional candidates from both parties).
As a result of #2, our foreign policy is focused primarily on securing access to profitable resources (including cheap labor), blocking access to said resources for our competitors (Russia, China, etc.), or just destroying a whole bunch of shit that has to be rebuilt (at great profit, obviously).
America's economy is, to a very large extent, a war economy and has been since WWII. Our economic system is built on consumption and the biggest consumer of material and human resources is the defense sector. We are quite thoroughly addicted to defense contracts and our economy simply would not survive in it's present form without them. Such massive defense spending can only be justified through constant war. It doesn't matter if it's a war on drugs, crime, terrorism, communism, immigrants crossing the border, or telepathic invaders from Venus, so long as there's something we can throw massive quantities of people and expensive machinery at to keep the all-consuming machine running because if that machine ever breaks down then all hell will break loose.
I hope I live to see all hell break loose. The murdering assholes in charge have got it coming and I think that what comes from the wreckage will be a million times better than what we have now even if our standard of living does take a big hit. |
Self aware" robots that can kill already are in active service. PHALANX guns on ships and tank active protection systems can be set to basically fire at enemy planes, missiles, helos, whatever
From Wikipedia
On October 11, 1989, the USS El Paso was conducting a live fire exercise off the east coast of the United States using the Phalanx against a target drone. The drone was successfully engaged, but as the drone fell to the sea, the CIWS engaged it as a threat to the USS El Paso. Rounds from the Phalanx struck the USS Iwo Jima, killed a US Navy officer and injured a US Navy petty officer aboard this ship.[17] |
I didn't mean any offense by commenting on your 'asshole style.' I said I liked it, mostly because i'm the same way. I apologize for that, dude.
> you compare trucks that are 13 years worth of technology apart
Also, that was the point I was trying to make in my first post. People down here think that V6 trucks that are 13 years newer than their current V8 truck still isn't as powerful or useful for work. I was also being fairly conservative in my comparison because the average age of pickup trucks here in texas is much older than 13 years. Most truck-driving texans also rarely use their V8 to its full potential. Hell, I would say most truck-driving texans never take their truck off-road or tow any trailers. People down here use supercrew V8 dualie long beds to go to class or drive around the city. Many of those people could do 95% of their driving in a Smart Car. |
The majority of the funding for TOR comes from the US government.
They also run a large proportion of tor servers (nodes).
Tor has quite large security holes that allow someone who controls large numbers of nodes to get significant information about what is being done on the network, and in some cases to track who is doing what with a reasonable certainty. |
According to Wikipedia, Hyundai made nearly 3 million vehicles in 2011. If you add something which costs five dollars per vehicle to each of those then you've just cost the company a heap of cash. Providing both is an option, my car has both, but it's slightly higher end than a Hyundai, which is aimed at the budget end of the market. Increasingly people are going to want a USB port, for media as well as power, so removing the cigarette lighter (don't forget that companies don't want you to smoke in the car these days and even an ashtray is often an expensive extra) to provide power and media instead is the cheaper option.
I heard a great story years ago, no idea how true it is, about a man who approached a matchbox company with an idea to save them huge amounts of money for no investment, and with no reduction in the quality of the product. The company turned him away, thinking that if it's so obvious to an outsider they'd be able to work it out. After a certain amount of time, the man went back to the company and asked them if they had found the savings he promised. The company admitted that they hadn't, and agreed to pay his fee. The man simply asked them why they had two strips of sandpaper on the side of their box, when only one was needed. The second strip cost very little money per box, but over the production of ten, twenty, fifty million boxes of matches it added up to a significant saving. |
Learned it in lecture in graduate business school.. I'll see if it's in [my textbook.](
Edit: there's one lesson on Sony mentioned in the book, and it's a comparison of quality and cost of Sony televisions. At the Japanese plant, they were shipping televisions that did not meet the color density specification and at a San Diego plant they were adjusting units to meet specifications before shipping them out. The San Diego plant average loss per unit was $0.89 greater than the Japanese plant, due to the San Diego plant adding cost by trying to adjust the units before they shipped, these units were also more likely to generate customer complaints than the japanese units which were close, but out of spec, to the original target value. Genichi Taguchi advocated that the distribution of quality in Sony televisions would distribute evenly around a target value, and though some units are out of specification shipping them before testing results in a lower total cost This is the basis for the "[Taguchi loss function]( which Sony uses in combination with customer feedback to develop a continuous quality improvement. |
How? By lottery? Mass surveillance isn't necessary. Surveillance is.
If you consider watching a public TV program, or reading publicly published papers surveillance, then whatever, I suppose you're completely correct in the paranoid little universe that you inhabit. I hope you don't mind that I don't join in your delusions; I'm all out of tinfoil.
On the other hand, back in the real world, censorship can be achieved without surveillance through the exact means I already described; suppressing public discourse that doesn't agree with the censor's views. Funny thing about public media: they're public . You don't need "a lottery" (way to shoot for sarcasm and hit ignorance) to notice publicly held "undesirable" speech and suppress it, and even though this suppression does not have the coverage that mass-surveillance-enforced censorship does, it's still of significant consequence. Like I said, this has already happened for thousands of years without the use of surveillance by any recognizable definition.
> Next, mass surveillance convinces writers to self-censor
Nice strawman, but I wasn't arguing with this point, I agree with it, as I said in my comment...
> Your "thousands of years" comment makes this seem like computers and an internet are necessary for mass surveillance.
Again, I really have no idea how you got this from my comment. |
Signed up for Prime this holiday season, ordered twelve items which qualified for Prime shipping however the way Amazon processed the order flagged my Visa for fraud and four of the items are arriving after the holiday, even after I had paid for faster shipping.
This happened a few years ago at Xmas, and I stopped using Amazon. After years of my friends telling me to give em another try, I get the same results.
If I place an order for twelve things, why is Amazon running my card twelve times? Anyone know or have a guess?
If I place an order the payment should be processed as one charge, even if it's multiple companies fulfilling the order, especially if I'm a Prime member. Amazon is providing a service for which they charge extra; they should handle the processing and pay their distributors. |
This is a repost and the last few threads were full of people disproving this, mostly the 7 fucking thousand spent on gpus which cost no where near that. |
Pick one of these modems and purchase one. I recommend the Surfboard 100% as it does nothing fishy and is not a modem/router combo. I have had OK luck using the Cisco gateway in bridge mode but you lose the status page with signals (Atleast on Shaw Cable in Canada) |
I work for Comcast, well sub contracted for, I don't work directly for them. I troubleshoot wireless gateways, Cisco, Arris, Tecnicolor, and SMC devices...
The Arris from my knowledge is the only one that is broadcasting the "XFINITY WIFI"... "hot spot" I get a lot of customers that think that's their specific wi-fi which it isn't and call in complaining they can't get online.
Cisco is usually the best Wireless Gateway it's also dual band 5ghz/2.4 ghz, these are rare in my department or they just work well and customers don't call in often with them...
Arris: usually the best between SMC/Tecnicolor/Arris, easies to fix for a customer, has the least fucked up firmware on our end that we can work with
SMC: Is okay, only has three channel selections for wi-fi 1/6/11 can't do any other channels even when connecting to 10.0.0.1... These things fucking SUCK if you ever have to do an FR, they take over 10 minutes sometimes, record for me is 15 minutes waiting for it to download a new Firmware
Tecnicolor: The worst for last, if you need a VPN for work DO NOT use this device, the tecnicolors will block almost all VPNs from connecting... Also they are the most called in about devices, they are also the most shipped devices, I was upgrading my service and they tried telling me how much better a tecnicolor is and I told them to shove it... |
I moved into a new place last week and TWC was the option for internet. When I was calling to set it up the guy asked if I wanted wifi. Both my boyfriend and I have laptops so I said yes. Turns out if you do wifi through them it costs an extra 12 dollars a month. Just for them to supply you your own router. I told him to not add that service.
Later when I called back to downgrade my internet to 15mbs (I didn't realize that 30 was insanely faster than the stuff my parents had, 15 is quite enough for me) the guy told me that they weren't supposed to tell their customers this, but you could actually buy your own router and have your own wifi.
That's fucking ridiculous. Can you imagine how many older or non technology knowledgeable people have been tricked into paying an extra 12 dollars a month for something they can get for a one time fifty or so dollars? |
1 Gb/s (~128 MB/s).
So, figure out how far you have to travel and the speed that it travels at, and pick the appropriate storage size.
For example, if an unladen swallow travels at 11 m/s, and you want it to travel 11 meters, then you would need to attach a 128 MB storage device to equal Google fiber.
If you attached a 1 TB SSD to said swallow (at the above distance), you would achieve a throughput of around 8192 Gb/s.
If you increase that to 11 km, that drops to just 8.2 Gb/s.
Increase it again to 110 km, and your looking at .8 Gb/s. |
I don't have enough bandwidth for Netflix HD but they are more than happy to give my bandwidth away to random peoples? Shit like this isn't going to stop till people with guns start showing up at shitty companies like Comcast and Verizon. |
Surprisingly, Comcast never gave us shit for giving their firmware the boot. The irony in this situation is that it was a relative non-issue, the way our house is built, the router wouldn't get a consistent signal across the house, but apparently all of our laptops had better antennas because we found some open source firmware that let us mess about with the antenna settings, and managed to get consistent wifi throughout our house. |
Get one from your yard and try it.
Snails are actually quite amazing. Yeah, I know I sound like a complete moron, I'm OK with that.
Anyhow, snails are photophobes; they move away from light. They will retract their stalks on the side that is lit up, and begin moving away from the light. I suspect this is to keep them from drying out in the sun.
I've built machines that simulate this behavior. I do not understand how snails find food, else I'd simulate that as well. |
Well yeah, a bunch of other people are now using your WiFi, that's why it got shittier. You are paying for other peoples internet access now, isn't that great? Just hope no one is illegally downloading or distributing copyrighted material over your line. Comcast won't help you fight against the music or film industry and they'll say it's your router in your home, your internet connection that you are paying for. You didn't opt out. And it's really hard to figure out who could have done it, so they'll take you as the scapegoat. |
Wow really? Do you guys seriously believe this is a bad thing? Well let me tell you this:
here, in portugal, one of our major ISPs is called ZON (it became NOS last week. Zon has a deal with a company called Fon, which speciallizes in public hotspots.
That deal is called fon@zon and it did the same as comcast: each Zon router also transmitted a fon@zon wifi signal, capped at like 4mbps. The bandwith used by this is also sepparated from your connection. Also, each contract gives access to one Fon account with unlimited access, which means anywhere you have internet access as long as you're getting signal from a zon router.
Because Zon is so big, you basically can get fon@zon signal near 80% of the buildings in this country. |
The old one we had crapped out and they replaced it, shittiest piece of shit ever.
I get like 66 Mbps, but only if I am sitting 6 inches of the thing anything further then 5 feet and the wifi connection is too slow for shit.
What we did was get a power line Ethernet adapter, if you are having wifi problems I highly recommend getting one.
Edit: wanted to add more
Also the Comcast interface with the router is unusable, it gives you the option to set a name and password that's it.
Also even with the hotspot feature off the Comcast modem broadcasts an extra hidden network that I can't figure out how to get rid of for the life in me and I have Cisco CCENT certification. |
I'll try to ELI5 this. Imagine dozens of roads going into a city. The city is verizon. You are on road Level 3 which handles Netflix and similar services. Everyone knows they have to be on this road to get In the city. The city pulls a Chris Christie and narrows all the traffic to two lanes. They could slow people down by just posting a lower speed limit, but hey the traffic blocks itself off, so we don't really need to do that. So in comparison this is like seeing a 65mph speed limit on a highway and instead everyone is driving at 7mph. Does it have the capacity for more people? Yes, but the city is being paid the toll either way so why spend upkeep money on maintenance for the other 4 lanes?
Now a VPN. Think of it like a service vehicle or semi truck taking a side road into the city. The city doesn't care to look at what's inside the semi (which is you), and the road is fairly empty because there is less traffic. The city would put these throttles and blockages on the semis, but to do that they would have to put a block on each semi truck company that you hired individually. They would have to make rules to block Taylor, block FedEx, block Dane (I don't know many famous trucking companies, sorry, you get the idea). Oh, and these side roads can go as fast as they want. The only thing stopping them is physics and the max speed of the trucks.
So in the video the user was looking at his odometer while traveling on the major highway into the city. He then jumped onto a side road as a disguised vehicle and the city didn't notice him, so he went whatever speed he wanted.
EDIT: To answer your question, no Verizon hasn't responded. The probable response from Verizon is that they can't possibly distribute all Netflix traffic evenly, and it would cause more problems because Netflix uses too much data. |
Everyone else seems to not have a problem increasing capacity, and lets face it - upgrading networking bandwidth is a drop in a teeny, tiny, measly bucket. |
So in effect you are saying the rerouting around level3 by using that VPN service is what eliminated the sluggishness? Others seem to indicate that it is a matter of either deep packet inspection, spotting Netflix users and throttling, or simply lowering QOS for packets destined for Netflix.
Regardless of the issues mentioned above there is a solution possible in theory. I am going to assume Netflix has more than one streaming location. What they should do, is for users experiencing trouble, adopt torrent style tech. So for example;
Phil has great speeds 60M+ but Netflix is a drag. The Netflix app could be made smart enough to know if its pausing while buffering constantly to reach out to another server and split the load between the two. This could also by design have the effect of moving the traffic to carrier X over 2 or more backbones into carrier X's network. This would lower the traffic on overused backbones into carrier X as well because overused backbone would buffer more often causing the data splitting to occur. Of course if you did this you would likely have redundant packet transmission from the 2 or more servers until sufficient buffering has occurred. |
I don't wanna go too far towards the mortgage crisis stuff as that's a whole book or three, but to call that industry, or by extension to this argument, the telecom industry anywhere close to being deregulated, now or in the past, is just not true. (Awkward sentence, sorry.)
> But there is no competition.
That is certainly true! But it need not be. Let me give an example closer to the topic of internet provider: energy utilities. Some states gas or electricity. I live in Georgia, where I can buy natural gas from any of more than a dozen companies. Let me just say: the end result over the past several years for us consumers is AWESOME. Those poor companies have to fight so hard for my business that I got a free Nest thermostat out of it!
Can you even imagine Verizon or Comcast or any other monopoly telecom in that kind of situation? I can, you should, too. I'm not talking abstract fantasy here.
One could call what a government does to enforce competition "more regulation". And there are some wonkish aspects of property rights (i.e. a company dug and laid the cables, and so owns them) and that is related to [common carrier]( discussion. Also interesting, but a bit tangential and I'm of two minds in the subject, so I won't argue either way. |
Because network speeds have always traditionally always been measured in bits. A "byte", is actually a vague measurement, and can (and actually has been) different from 8 bits depending on the machine (see PDP).
You would want to use "octet", maybe, which is explicitly defined as 8 bits. I suspect that "octet" didn't exist as a unit waaay back when networks were first developed. |
The headline is melodramatic compared to the story. |
There's a few problems I can see immediately:
With hacking becoming a "real" part of warfare, putting kill switches in your weaponry means you now have to rely on the manufacturer having strong enough cyber security - otherwise your opponents will simply disable your weaponry. Since cyber warfare is always a race between code creators and code breakers, it's simply a matter of time until your "unhackable" kill switch technology gets cracked, and then you're sitting on a pile of metal. The author briefly mentions this possibility, then makes an entirely different argument about ignition keys, which gives the impression he's covered this issue, even though he actually completely glossed over it.
How comfortable would you be if the person selling you a phone kept the option to completely disable it remotely, turning it into a brick?
Now consider this not being a phone, but a piece of weaponry you will have to rely on to save your life in physical combat? Would you ever buy such a weapon, or opt for the DRM free, although worse, alternative? (e.g. black market, or Russia, noting I don't know much about international weapons trading.)
What's the point of a weapon someone else can just disable if the decide they don't like you any more? I think this would just drive the trade elsewhere.
Look at the computer games market. Game creators put DRM into their games to ensure they can't be used without purchase; games are cracked within weeks, even days of release. As soon as the software is in customers' hands, it can be cracked. The same would happen with weapons - completely defeating the point of kill switches in the first place.
In conclusion, I think this article is a pipe dream - it's simply not feasible and/or practical to introduce kill switches to weaponry. |
Yeah, I felt the same way as you when I started it. But then I had to let the characters grow on me. Once they do, you'll start watching it and then just binge watch it.
It's really hard to classify. It's shot in the style of the office, mockumentary style, yet I think a lot of it is improvised. So, I'd compare it to an amped up version of a Christopher guest movie. Yet it's very "white trashy" which was surprising to me, it being from Canada. I think I assumed everyone was just nice and proper in good old Americas hat.
I recommend it. Watch the first season. If it's not doing it for ya, turn it off. But for me, I got through the first introductory season of character development and that's when it hit it's stride.
I wouldn't say it's the funniest show I've ever seen, but it's unlike a lot of what's out there, and it's quality, and makes me laugh at the absurdity.
So, |
I did this earlier in the summer- worth it and it was a graet opportunity to connect with local politicians. Luckily Wisconsin's reps are pretty much in favor of Net Neutrality so it was just a series of questions to make sure they knew what was up, which took like 1 minute. :) |
What about the fucking bank CEOs who actually do whatever the hell they want and have actual negative reprocussions on the general populace?
"yeah, those guys can tank the economy you work so hard for, that's cool. But got forbid we can't watch everything you do!" |
wifi, radio etc are Below the visual spectrum and doesn't contain enough energy to kick out an electron or break a molecule.
XRays etc. ar Above the visual spectrum and does carry enough energy to, say, break DNA (and thus wreck havoc, create cancer etc).
Visible light is in the middle (don't get too much sunburns...) |
I know it must be tempting to dismiss these people as hypochondriacs or as the product mass hysteria, but there are honestly people who are sensitive to these things. There are actually a handful of people who break out, physically, in response to the presence of Wavelengths that most people cannot perceive at all (EMF). It's hard to believe or understand, but there are people who are basically [physically allergic to modern technology]( |
Ionizing Radiation is what is dangerous. Ionizing means it ionizes the atoms it collides with, making them bond completely differently. If the atom was in your DNA, suddenly your DNA doesn't behave like it did and if the difference is just perfectly wrong (and doesn't kill the cell, like normal) it can result in cancer.
The three most common types of Radiation are Alpha Particles, Beta Particles, and Gamma Particles. Alpha Particles are basically Helium nuclei (two protons, two neutrons) they are (comparitively) large and so are easily blocked (the layer of dead skin on your body, a sheet of paper, etc) but can be very damaging if allowed to collide with living tissue. Beta Particles are basically high energy Electrons, they are much much smaller and can pass through some parts of skin, again they are very damaging if allowed to get inside your body. Gamma radiation are Photons, or simply Light.
All light is Radiation, but not all Light is ionizing radiation. The point where it becomes dangerous is the point where the waves become small enough to start penetrating (dead layer of) skin and interacting at the molecular/atomic level. This is what UV is and why we wear sunscreen. UVA is the larger wave UV (larger wave = less energy = less dangerous) the lower end of UVA can't penetrate skin but may harm your eyes and lips, the upper end of UVA can cause some light sunburn through skin. UVB (smaller and higher energy) is much more dangerous as it penetrates the top layer of skin and does more damage, this is the primary cause of skin cancer and why you need Sunscreen. Upper UVA and UVB are normally blocked by glass. UVC is even more deadly but water is opaque to it, so our atmosphere (Ozone and moisture in air) blocks it.
After UVC is Xray, then at the very high end of the spectrum Gamma Rays (not to be confused with Gamma radiation as a whole). Xrays pass through a lot of stuff which is why they are used to make "X-ray" scans of your bones. Gamma passes through even more things but when the photons collide they can cause all kinds of damage, often creating cascades of Beta particles by knocking electrons free from atoms. Gamma rays are the single most powerful forms of energy in our universe (I think?).
So will your router, or cell phone, give you cancer? No.
Both run on a wave length much smaller [larger wave length, less energetic, sorry for the oops was writing this while working] than the light bulbs in your living room (incandescent even, I know CFLs use UV light that is then fluoresced, which can give you cancer if the coating is not present). Those wave lengths will have to COOK YOU through heat before they can give you cancer. So unless your cell phone is baking you like a turkey, you're fine.
Those wave lengths aren't ionizing. |
What child? Where?
To paraphrase [Justice William Brennan from another case where the government wanted to use prior restraint]( since encryption would not cause an inevitable , direct , and immediate event imperiling the safety of any child, prior restraint is unjustified.
The government has to show some immediate, direct, and inevitable harm. If not: they can go fuck themselves.
Now, it's important to note that: they're not wrong . The DoJ is not trying to claim that everyone who uses encryption is a criminal. They are not trying to claim that only criminals would want to use encryption. They are not trying to claim that encryption is evil.
There are bad guys, who will use encryption to help them do bad things. This is the real world, and these things will happen.
But that's the price we pay to live in a free society. The government is simply sometimes not allowed to prevent crimes; not allowed to protect its citizens. There are a lot of crimes that could be prevented (or halted, or discovered) if police were allowed to search everyone's homes without reason.
The [three women held captive as sex slaves in Ohio for a decade]( could have been freed if police were allowed to search any home, at any time, for no reason. But police are not allowed to do that. We, as a society, have decided that it is right that crimes are allowed to continue; as the trade-off for allowing individual liberties. |
The North West US seemingly continues to prove themselves as a governed body by the people for the people. While I will always understand the benefits of the federal government, their existence is only useful to prevent abuse of the state government and provide unity of the states, their oppression of progression is fueled by the very States that bleed States rights.
The irony is righteous. |
A backdoor implies that something is secure and that security is circumvented. Wired communication historically was never secure and hence "tapping" into an electrical current.
Whether you agree or not, there is no expectation of privacy on any communications channel except what is protected by law.
If you read Skype's TOS, this is stated. Internet communications are covered by CFAA. Telephone and VoIP were determined to be subject to CALEA.
At present, breaking into a secure phone is protected by the CFAA. Whether Law Enforcement can "dump" your phone data during an arrest is more complicated and is still the subject of pending case law. |
It's true - a lot of power is generated by fossil fuels and it would of cause be best, if it all came from solar, wind etc. A gasoline engine is quite ineffective, converting only about 25-30% of the energy into usable power powerplants are more advanced like [Avedøre Power Station]( that can be up to 94% efficient. The energy in these plants are not all converted into electricity, but also into heat, that is used to heat peoples houses and water. This gives another advantage in not having to use electricity to heat up these things. Also, these plants can use garbage as fuel instead of using oil or coal. And when the electric motors in a car is using the power, they are a lot more efficient, with the [Tesla Roaster running at about 88%]( Of cause, there is some loss in the transportation of electricity with [USA estimated at 6.5% loss]( in 2007.
The big picture here (as I see it) is that we need everyone to convert from fossil fuels to electric. Cars that can run on electricity can get their energy from renewable and fossil power plants, so some of the power already comes from renawable. The total cost of switching the cars will be better, even if we don't change our energy production to renewable. But we are changing the production in that direction, so we're on the right track. |
The Ford T costed $850 in 1908]( and with [inflation $21,715.33 in 2013]( Not really for every human at that time. Granted, it's a lot cheaper than a Model S today.
The thing you're missing is the removal of fossil fuels. They are a cheap way to carry a lot of energy. Replacing this requires some new technologies, that Elon Musk sells to people that can afford it. If they made a cheap car, it would suck (like other EVs) and nobody would buy it and therefor no money for more research. |
Any fix will have a limited impact unless the basic nature of humans is altered. |
This has got to be the dumbest fucking argument I've read today.
> And yes there IS a compelling business reason to have women specifically, and diversity generally, around your boardroom table.
There is? The most successful companies in the world are run by meglomaniacs and micro managers.
The inconsistency in statistical representation of women in upper tier management is already skewed by the absence of women in related education programs. As much as feminists tout the 61% of college attendees are women they conveniently ignore that most of them are nursing, teaching, blogging journalism students. An engineering degree isn't required but it will certainly open doors that would otherwise be closed.
The CEO (of a start up) and VC, require extreme risk taking and/or money to risk. This article like most "womenz are treated unfairz" is never about starting something from nothing but always about coming in after the fact when the big risk taking is done, everything is relatively stable, and expecting a seat at the table. That's not generally the way companies work. The people that get in on the ground floor are usually the ones (provided they are competent) that get the top tier seats. My personal experience is that I didn't get a seat at the big kids table by being a dedicated employee. Only when I spun out to do my own thing, became successful at it was I then invited back to the adult table.
Upper management/partner leans more on trust than capability, usually these are the people who helped build the company from the ground up, few are hired into this position with a new company (that house cleaning comes later if at all). While you need to have leadership and decision making skills the most important skill is trust. You need to be able to trust your uppers are in it to win it, won't walk away with ideas, tech, clients, data, etc and are not going to hamstring the company with a public lawsuit over a perceived slight. Skills are great but you can always put someone under someone you trust that is more competent in a given area. Trust is something you earn mostly through networking and life long relationships. If you treat men as "ewww icky" and have no experience communicating with them, and no marching in with "entitlement labeled as equality" is not communicating with them, you can hardly expect them to trust you. Because laws or no being the new kid on the block and expecting you are owed something is a sure fire way to be stonewalled.
VC and CEO (of a start up) are also where women are underrepresented. Here's the kicker, there's no bullshit excuse with these two positions. There is no glass ceiling preventing women from being a VC or starting her own company. They need to be willing to take the risk or have the capital to risk. Entrepreneur/CEO doesnt really mean anything if you are not making money. How willing a VC is to giving a person money is directly proportional to the expertise of the team, the idea itself, and its ability to generate revenue and at what scales. Just like with the education statistic feminists love to tout that women start more businesses than men but most of them fail and/or limited in the amount of potential revenue they will generate.
Look through the authors about page it links out to some lists of perfect examples....foundation, after nonprofit, after advocacy group.....none of them actually produce anything. |
Maybe. Something about her seems a bit contrived though.
Maybe I've just seen too many videos of politicians sitting in their "breakfast nook" talking "common sense" - with all the lighting and camera moves that come from a sound stage. My senses thus overwhelmed, I am skeptical at all times these days. It is quite possible that I'm no longer able to recognize anything real when it does emerge from the scum pit of US politics.
Politicians have been faking it like they are "of the people" for such a long time, I'm just not sure what "genuine" even looks like anymore. Even Mitt Romney rolled his sleeves halfway up his forearms in his pressed white $200 shirts (because he saw that some of the "dirty-skinned working class" roll up their sleeves to keep grime off their clothes when they work). Obama talks about "folks" constantly in his lousy attempts to seem less like a piece if shit.
They're all so focused on what they need to do in order to fool the public, they have no time to think of ways to serve the public. Warren may be the real deal, or maybe she's the most carefully cultivated con job yet. |
Libraries are everywhere and are in one sense a limited-time piracy system ...
Libraries pay about a billion dollars every year in the U.S alone to stock their shelves. In many countries they pay authors a fee per rental. Lastly they don't copy anything. |
Oh, sorry...I was hoping for chap 7, not 11.... |
At relativistic speeds, velocity addition is not merely "u+v". Even at nonrelativistic speeds, it is the same formula as relativistic speeds, but the difference from that and u+v is so negligible that we ignore it. Here's a quick analysis of what might happen:
s = (u+v)/(1+(vu/c^2)) = (c+c)/(1+((c*c)/c^2))
Since the car is going at speed c, and the headlights will go at the speed c, we can say that u=c and v=c. Also, they are both headed in the same direction. Simplifying the above we get:
(2c)/(1+((c^2)/(c^2))) = 2c/(1+1) = 2c/2 = c
So the resultant velocity will just be the speed of light. You would travel WITH the headlights. |
Similar story: In early 2008 I rented Call of Duty 4 from a local Hollywood Video. I returned the game (I am 100% sure of this) within the given time period. Months pass, I rent more items from the store. All of a sudden in 2009 I start getting phone calls from collection agencies. I ignore it until my curiosity gets the best of me. They say that I owe Movie Gallery $109 for not returning Call of Duty 4 (the game + a few weeks of late fees.) I argued my innocence but, as a collection agency, they were only interested in getting my money. Surely there had been some error. I told them that Movie Gallery had given me absolutely no notification of an overdue rental and that this is the first I had learned of the given situation. They continue to demand payment. I told them that I will not pay for a game that I don't have. I described that there was no way I could prove that I didn't have it, just as there is no way they could prove that I possessed it. I asked how I was able to continue renting movies/games while I supposedly owed late fees, etc. No answer. I considered it extortion of some sort and hung up. They stopped for a while but recently they've begun calling again in 2010. If I don't pay it my credit will "take a hit" (exactly how they phrased it.) Seems pretty fucked up to me. Just thought I'd elaborate on a real-life scenario regarding your comment. |
I suggest american redditors contact your senators and send them a polite email about why you oppose this bill.
I sent two different letters, each emphasizing a different aspect of the bill that would appeal to each side. For example, here is the democrat letter:
>Dear Senator Democrat,
>I recently heard of S.3804. As a librarian and amateur copyright scholar, I request that you do not vote for this bill.
>The bill gives the government the right to take down any website that hosts enough copyrighted material. This means sites like YouTube, facebook, flickr, and the internet archive can be shut down because of copyright infringement, thus putting it on a blacklist, and censoring the material those sites and the creators of those sites.
>Additionally, this bill is unnecessary, due to the DMCA, which gives copyright holders broad powers to request the removal of copyrighted materials from domains, a far better option than what is currently being proposed by S.3804.
>By allowing this bill to pass, it will be a travesty, not only for your own state, but for everyone who enjoys the free exchange of ideas via the internet.
>Sincerely,
>ArchytheArchivist
And in the republican one I emphasized things I thought his tea party lovin' heart would like:
>Dear Senator Republican,
>I recently heard of S.3804, a bill to give bill give Attorney General and the Department of Justice the authority to require domain registrars/registries, ISPs, DNS providers, and others to block Internet users from reaching certain websites due to copyright violations. As a librarian and amateur copyright scholar, I request that you do not vote for this bill.
>The bill gives the government the right to take down any website that hosts enough copyrighted material. This means sites like YouTube, facebook, flickr, and the internet archive can be shut down because of copyright infringement, thus putting it on a blacklist, and censoring the material those sites and the creators of those sites.
>Additionally, this bill is unnecessary, due to the DMCA, which gives copyright holders broad powers to request the removal of copyrighted materials from domains, a far better option than what is currently being proposed by S.3804. The government intrusion in the proposed process is unwarranted and a waste of money and time.
>By allowing this bill to pass, it will be a travesty, not only for your own state, but for everyone who enjoys the free exchange of ideas via the internet.
>Sincerely,
>Archythearchivist
Not much different, but I think it might maybe help? |
I was especially disappointed to find [Sen Leahy is one of the sponsors]( I'm friggin embarassed. What this dude from Vermont is busy sponsoring this bill [I can't even imagine]( I find it absolutely disgusting that he's sunk to this level as if he'd have had any trouble getting re-elected anyway. My uncle was on his campaign committee and I've met the guy a few times- hence my personal letter to him indicating just how little respect I have for this move and how it will interject skepticism into anything he has to say from now on. |
How could this work technically?
You could take down domains in the root dns servers, then we'll just have rogue root servers and the internet will go into chaos.
You could perform deep packet inspection to pull the "host" line out of the HTTP GET packets, then ISPs will have to invest billions of dollars in new network hardware to handle all of that processing, packets now pass through very quickly at near bare-metal level, imagine every border router having to scan ALL of them and match against a huge list of domains, obviously routers would eventually be redesigned to make it faster, but it'll always be several orders of magnitude slower than what we have currently. This method also fails with HTTPS.
Blocking IP addresses would be the best method (that I can think of quickly), but is still technically impractical, how fast should the blacklist update? ThePirateBay can easily set up a DHCP server that changes DNS dynamically, and set the lease to 1hr (with DNS TTLs set to 60 seconds). |
For those of you who don't look past the title and think that the sensationalist bullshit demandprogress pushes is true, please take time to read the bill.
>(a) Definition- For purposes of this section, an Internet site is ‘dedicated to infringing activities’ if such site is primarily designed, has no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator, or by a person acting in concert with the operator, to offer goods or services in violation of title 17, United States Code, or enable or facilitate a violation of title 17, United States Code, including by offering or providing access to, without the authorization of the copyright owner or otherwise by operation of law, copies of, or public performance or display of, works protected by title 17, in complete or substantially complete form, by any means, including by means of download, transmission, or otherwise, including the provision of a link or aggregated links to other sites or Internet resources for obtaining such copies for accessing such performance or displays.
This is not vague, for those who want a |
I get that offshoring jobs will increase the quality of life in less fortunate countries but it will decrease the quality of life for people in North America. So what exactly makes someone in another country deserve our current quality of life more than someone over here?
If the prices of things were lowered here to match the economies of where they are offshoring to we could take a lower pay. Example, a large order of McNuggets here cost approximately 8 bucks Canadian and the same order of McNuggets in India is approximately 2 bucks Canadian (the last time I was trying to figure a baseline out). Coincidentally, at my last job, I was replaced with four people from India. So now four people in India can live how I live in Canada. Except the money I'm spending is going back into the economy I'm working in. The money they're spending is not. In this case they are leeching off of our economy and are not adding anything to it except for inferior work (in my case). This will create a bubble as there will be a time that our economy will not be able to support the companies that are currently offshoring. These companies will exploit this bubble until they transition their market to the economy they are propping up. So what makes people in India worth more than me? I'd be be open to only earning 500 dollars a month if I could buy a decent house in Toronto for 100000 dollars. |
Subsets and Splits