0
stringlengths 9
22.1k
|
|---|
Good call. Parts of this rebuttal sounds compelling to me, and that's coming from a big Tesla fan.
Some curious bits:
> The log shows the car traveling about 60 m.p.h. for a nearly 100-mile stretch on the New Jersey Turnpike. I cannot account for the discrepancy, nor for a later stretch in Connecticut where I recall driving about 45 m.p.h., but it may be the result of the car being delivered with 19-inch wheels and all-season tires, not the specified 21-inch wheels and summer tires. That just might have impacted the recorded speed, range, rate of battery depletion or any number of other parameters.
If true, this would suggest that the internal monitors are going off different data from the console display, and installing different tires requires updating the same setting in two different places. But if they have GPS coordinates and times, then they should be able to figure out what the actual speed was.
EDIT : See EDIT at end of this post about tire size, the above is almost certainly not the case
> Tesla jumped to the conclusion that I claimed to have lowered the cabin temperature “at 182 miles,” but I never wrote that. The data clearly indicate that I sharply lowered the temperature setting – twice – a little over 200 miles into the trip. After the battery was charged I tried to warm the cabin.
This discrepancy could also be due to an incorrectly-set mileage indicator from the tire size difference.
EDIT : See EDIT at end of this post about tire size, the above is almost certainly not the case
> I drove around the Milford service plaza in the dark looking for the Supercharger, which is not prominently marked. I was not trying to drain the battery. (It was already on reserve power.) As soon as I found the Supercharger, I plugged the car in.
This certainly sounds more likely. Driving 0.6 miles instead of 0.2 miles does not sound like something nefarious, it's the equivalent of going around the block once.
> I spoke numerous times with Christina Ra, Tesla’s spokeswoman at the time, and Ted Merendino, a Tesla product planner at the company’s headquarters in California.
This sounds like the exact point where everything imploded.
A normal person would have seen the range said 32 miles and kept charging.
Tesla seems to have made two large errors:
Putting NON-engineers in charge of giving technical advice to someone, which contradicted the car's own indicators, which were designed by engineers
Not doing adequate testing in the cold themselves, and having a journalist essentially do a public beta test. Chalk it up to being a California company on the coast: "Bug closed: Works For Me" (woops!)
The worst part about this whole piece is that both parties thought that an appropriate test involved someone calling in for advice every time he wanted to scratch his balls. "Mommy, may I turn up the heat 1 degree?" FFS.
Someone repeating this route should just drive like a normal person, relying on common sense instead of PR flacks, and see if they can make it from point A to point B without a diaper and a tow truck. |
with any new technology that makes another technology obsolete, in this case, electric cars vs gasoline cars, or even gasoline, it is a literal threat to the old technologies. these corporations that possess the old technologies tend to have deep pockets, and will pay handsomely to have the new threatening technologies quashed in its infancy, before it can gain traction, to maintain their status quo. |
How can Broder be putting the blame on Tesla by saying the technicians he called gave him faulty information when it's the fucking year 2013 and ALL THE KNOWLEDGE OF DRIVING A TESLA is readily available on the Internet. I fucking hate the fact that Broder is shifting blame onto a Telsa phone operator, and completely bypassing all personal responsibility.
FOR FUCKS SAKE, if someone from Tesla told him to drive off a cliff would it be their fault if he did? Or would it be his own stupid fault for not stopping when he saw a gaping gorge in the earth.
Technology is your own responsibility, and with a tool like the Internet readily available Broder has no claim that he was "misinformed."
I mean, if I want to learn how to use Facebook, I'll check for information on Youtube, Wikipedia, or even check out a book. The last thing I'll do is CALL THEIR CEO FOR HELP. My understanding of a product like facebook is my own fucking responsibility, not Mr. Zuckerbergs.
If anything, it amazes me that even with the CEO of Tesla on the phone, Broder couldn't use the car properly. That's what his response sounds like to me. |
Posted this in the post about the story.
>I cannot account for the discrepancy, nor for a later stretch in Connecticut where I recall driving about 45 m.p.h., but it may be the result of the car being delivered with 19-inch wheels and all-season tires, not the specified 21-inch wheels and summer tires.
Sounds like bullshit excuse to me. The one and only difference would have been between the performance of all-season tires vs summer tires, and that still doesn't affect speed reading. Diameter of wheels has no bearing on speed reading because it is offset by proper tire sidewall size. E.g. my car has stock 18" wheels with 245/40-18 tires (245 is width of the tire in mm, 40 is the % from the width, and is the size of the sidewall, 18 is the wheel diameter). If I were to install 19" wheels I would need to get 245/35-19 tires. The key difference is in the sidewall size. If I were to get the same sidewall size tires but of bigger diameter e.g. 245/40-19, that would screw with the speedometer and odometer (and even then not by much, you'd have to really go full retard to screw with speedometer and odometer THAT badly). |
Actually, he says he was told "it should be." Did he check the range after the charge? Did he call them back then? If he called them back and they checked from their end and said "you're good to go, buddy!" then his story flies. If not, then it stinks. |
It sounds like he's just backpedaling and trying to make excuses now. There's no damn way I'm going to try traveling 90 miles in an electric vehicle with a displayed range of 32 miles. I'm surely not letting some customer service monkey tell me that the range will magically increase and take it off the charger early. Even if this part of the story was true, he still did that drive, in that car looking for the story he published. Not for a fair review. |
I was expecting you to bring up that argument. Basically what you're saying is that since you can access the content, you should be able to. Does that mean you also regularly walk into peoples' homes when they leave their doors unlocked? To steal from stores if you can get away with it? Those things are still wrong. Just because you can take or consume a product without paying for it, doesn't mean you have to right to do it.
It's weird to me that people have this double standard. For some reason in the real world people will realize that security in part depends on common decency, but in the virtual world if it's not 100% locked down it's for some reason free to take and download as you wish.
The reality of it is that people with ad-supported websites are trying to put up their content in good faith and you're fucking them by avoiding their only source of revenue because you're slightly annoyed by it.
If ad supported websites went away tomorrow, we wouldn't be anywhere near the diversity and free availability of content on the internet that we enjoy today. Yeah you'd be able to access those 2-3 websites that you paid for, but you wouldn't be nearly as likely to pay something new. |
Assuming that personal data is stored, yes. My bank, for example, can track me, when I'm logged in. Places like Facebook are a scary implementation of these two bits of info, I think. It's for reasons like this marketing companies are regulated to prevent your personal data from being abused. Also why those companies love Facebook selling your shit, because they can't get that info otherwise.
Online marketing has a ton of value, and without it the internet wouldn't be as awesome. People are worried about 1984, but they don't realize how much data there really is. No one can/will pay to understand that level of detail in your life that you would consider threatening. They're looking at data in the tens of thousands at a time. Online is SAFER marketing, for your personal data, than in person. (Excluding shams and people being dumbasses and giving away personal data). |
Soure: I worked in web analytics for over a year. Personal data and behavior are two seperate things, and a company must keep all data accordingly. Ebay is not allowed to have your personal data in a user account and pair it with user behavior for Amazon.
Also, the data they use this for is HUGE. The idea that someone would/could use it to track a person, is just ridiculous. It's a gross misunderstanding of how many people there really are. |
Maybe I should have specified legitimate online marketing companies/practices. Saying they just break the law is a cop out. Any company can/will break any law, that's not what's in discussion. The discussion is if a private company is making a good descision making online marketers change their code to a 1st party cookie instead of a 3rd party.
The amount of data we deal with, the efficiency that you're worried about, is actually what makes you safer. I've looked at the data, I've seen the code. It's HUGE. It takes FOREVER just to get a small bit of data to mean what you THINK it means. It's really really hard and takes weeks/months of effort and implementation. No one is paying all that just to spy on your masturbation habits online. |
FireFox is kind of the outlier. The "leverage" was really internal arms of the parent companies. Google runs the #1 ad network, #1 publisher side ad server (DFP) and the #1 agency ad server (DFA). They also run Chrome. Microsoft has the #2 (or did last I checked) ad network, a contending publisher side ad server, and up until a few weeks ago, the #3 agency side ad server (Atlas). They also run IE. |
I'm sure this will get downvoted or just hidden in this discussion, but as a 3+ year internet marketer and partner at a marketing firm, I thought that my views should be voiced.
The ad industry is not pissed off because we're creepy stalkers or something...the goal is MORE RELEVANT ads..
We don't show ads cause we like burning money. We show ads to connect with our relevant audiences to show them the new stuff that we've made FOR THEM. You're simply making it harder to connect with our audiences and you're actually making ad inventory cheaper because it's less valuable inventory.
So, less money for web programmers that work hard, and less relevant ads for internet users.
How in your opinion is this a good thing? Ads run the internet. Ask Google, ask Facebook, ask anyone. They are a NECESSARY evil because internet businesses need to monetize and if they don't have their own product, then ads are the best and easiest way to do this.
Instead of working to make ads people like though you're working to make them even worse. All the people who hold up the no-ads-internet is better should stop using google, facebook, or any major internet service period, because guess what? all their programmers are paid for by money that comes from ads. |
I used to use it, but I've found better ways... I use Adblock Plus, and I have 0 ads. No Youtube ads (I didn't even know youtube had started using ads until watching videos at school and work). And paired with my antivirus, it catches and stops all malicious websites before they fuck shit up. No need for NoScript, although I loved it when it was around, and it did a great job of stopping ads and everything. But Adblock Plus seamlessly removes ads with no trace of them. |
Let's do some simple calculation to find out how many fucks I give about your post.
Your comment has 786 characters, and 159 words (OpenOffice counted for me). This comes out to an average of 4.94 characters per word, minus a big because of spaces. So 3.94. Meaning your vocabulary is pretty monosyllabic. Monosyllabic has 12 letters. Multiplying 12 * 9 (9 is the number of lines your asisine, derivative comment takes up) gives me 72. There are 72 promised virgins in heaven for the fuckhead islams that decide to blow themselves up because their so ugly all their women cover themselves in public so they don't have to see them.
72 * 0.0014 (the coefficient of kinetic friction of my penis with a vagina, which my sister and I determined last night because we were bored) = some number, but it doesn't matter because when you multiply it by the number of fucks I give (which is 0) you get ZERO FUCKING FUCKS. |
First part: if it's backed up in multiple places, you'll need another service ensuring that the data is the same across those places, creating more overhead and potential data collisions.
In the case of a page, that does happen on some level - usually images or scripts are loaded from other domains, living on other servers.
The other issue is how do you find which server to pull from? Say I'm part of your network and you want a webpage from me, but Sean also hosts that page, there needs to be some mechanism that detects I haven't pulled the plug on my computer, or power went out, etc, and send you to Sean instead.
That job at the data server level is done by a load balancer - it's job is to just route traffic to the servers evenly so that no one server is overloaded, but it also makes sure that you're getting the page you wanted, not some error page because a server lost power.
For the load balancer to do it's job effectively, it needs to be fast and "close" to the other servers (close meaning simply it can get a response back from those servers quickly).
The unfortunate thing there is that a centralized server farm still solves the problem better.
If, somehow, you got transmission to the point where any connection takes 1ms regardless of any factors, then sure - you could have a decentralized system where a bunch of random people could put together some computers and have them run in the same manner a server farm does now (in a way, that's kind of what OpenStack .
Second part (sorry about the length): it's certainly not a cop out to say that network speeds are ever increasing. They are. What we're seeing in a lot of ways now is companies unwilling to invest in the "last mile" infrastructure. It costs Verizon, Time Warner, Comcast a lot of money to run new cables from the pole to your house, down the street, from the main lines, so they can't really justify doing it.
Google can, with Google Fiber, link up a small city like KC, but doing a state, or suburbs is another question in general. You can also compare this to Tokyo, one of the high speed centers for local Internet speed, that because it's so dense, there's actually not that much cable to lay.
In addition, just like America's aging rail system or highways, the communication lines, when they were laid, were state of the art. Since then, we've been using software improvements or main line improvements to speed up the existing infrastructure while neglecting this last mile - that's the expensive part, and no one wants to do the expensive, risky part when the current part is, well, alright. Not good, but not broken.
My personal hope and belief is that, by its very nature, the wireless infrastructure will improve and surpass wired. Cell towers mean you don't have to run the cable that last mile, and we're seeing LTE speeds rivaling that of many cable providers. That's why Verizon is in an especially good position - they lose a cable subscriber to their wireless subscription, they're alright.
Finally, in terms of speed in and out at the same rate, in theory there's no reason why that can't be true (someone who knows more about actual networking could give you a better reason). I know a place I used to live, the cable companies offered a package for faster upload speeds, so there's no real limit (obviously, other than the cost of the computing, and therefore money). |
Although what you are saying is not incorrect, it would be a conspiracy that would make a fake moon landing seem easy to pull off.
This has been one of the holy grails among mathematicians going back to Euclid. A breakthrough on the order of magnitude of which you are talking about would have implications that would be far more useful than merely cracking crypto. I don't think that any mathematicians that came upon such a thing could ever keep it under wraps. They would become one of the most famous mathematicians in history.
Again, I've heard that "this is coming" since the millennium and even before. |
As much as i hate to quote [the rules (RFC2616)](
> 4xx : The 4xx class of status code is intended for cases in which the client seems to have erred.
>
> 5xx : Response status codes beginning with the digit "5" indicate cases in which the server is aware that it has erred or is incapable of performing the request.
Now you may argue that the server was incapable of performing the request; but it was. It was perfectly capable, there was no problem.
We already have 3 status codes for when a client made a perfectly reasonable request.
The client could have made what it thought was a perfectly valid request, but the content was moved permanently ( 301 ). If the client tries again at the new location they should be able to find it.
But then there's the same situation; client made a request that it thinks should have worked, but the content is just gone. In that case it's a 410 Gone error:
> The requested resource is no longer available at the server and no forwarding address is known. This condition is expected to be considered permanent.
The RFC then goes on to mention the difference between 404 and 410 :
> The 410 Gone status code should be used if the server knows, through some internally configurable mechanism, that an old resource is permanently unavailable and has no forwarding address.
> The status code (404) is commonly used when the server does not wish to reveal exactly why the request has been refused, or when no other response is applicable.
In this way, 410 Gone is a specialized version of 404 Not Found . By sending 410, the server is giving the client additional meta-information about the missing content; that you should never expect to find it again:
> The 410 response is primarily intended to assist the task of web maintenance by notifying the recipient that the resource is intentionally unavailable and that the server owners desire that remote links to that resource be removed.
In the case of censored content, it isn't really "gone" . The resource is a valid resource, and it could come back at any time. We're just not returning it right now.
This leaves a somewhat ambiguous 404 Not Found :
> The status code (404) is commonly used when the server
> - does not wish to reveal exactly why the request has been refused,
> - or when no other response is applicable.
In this case the 404 Not Found response code somewhat applies ("does not wish to reveal exactly why the request has been refused"), but we do want to reveal exactly why the request was refused. But the main notion of 404:
> The server has not found anything matching the Request-URI.
The server has found something matching the Request-URI. Like 410 , we want another specialized subset of 404 that indicates:
> i cannot respond because i do "not wish to reveal exactly why the request has been refused" |
No. Just no.
As for you: A zero who has no formal education in economics and doesn't understand that the concept of intellectual "property" is bullshit.
A self-righteous, dismissive bigot who hasn't informed himself about a topic he feels strongly about. Pathetic.
This is like a slave master complaining about anti-slavery legislation.
"A bunch of zeroes who have never run a business in their life and thus have no concept of how critically important slavery is."
This is what you sound like. This is your whole argument. Once again: Pathetic. |
Research the ' Uncanny Valley .
One of the biggest concerns going into the military's drone age is the disconnect some researchers believed soldiers would feel between them and the hardware they were using. A study showed that, depending on the circumstances, the verbage that drone operators used when describing would change from the personal tense ("I fired the rocket") to more of a third-party, observer tense ("It (the drone) fired the rocket").
The longer the operators controlled the drones, the more 'personality' they attributed to it ("He fired the rocket"), and the further the disconnect became between the human operator's actions and their personal feeling of responsibility (which, again, was reflected in the wording and tense used by the drone operators) for the drone's actions.
I'll have to see if I can look up the exact study on this and quote it as I may be completely off base (I read this years ago when I was in my Intro to Robotics class), but the |
This means that CEOs and shareholders will have to take a smaller slice of the pie in order to keep maintenance at the generally sustainable level. CEOs and shareholders don't want to take a smaller slice of the pie despite that being the nature of capitalism is the first place. As such, the utilities are fighting to remain anti-competitive instead of adapting their business model.
You mean they will just charge people still on the grid more, which they have been doing. This turns more people to solar and raises the costs again for "gridders". The end result of this is the utility shutting down and then everyone is fucked, because there is no one keeping the grid in check and most people are not totally independent of the grid. If everyone getting solar was getting large battery back-ups too, this would be a much smaller problem. However most people just get cells and that's it, the batteries are really expensive and with cells the grid cost is virtually free.
>instead of adapting their business model.
They have very limited wiggle room. Utilities are generally natural monopolies, which means that they have no competition and likewise live under heavy government regulation. Most of the regulation was written before mini power plants started cropping up all over the place. So really it's the laws that need to change.
>If the maintenance costs are "too high" and the utility goes under, the service void will be filled by someone that can deliver the required service.
This is not true in this scenario though. Like I stated above, anyone who stepped in would be mandated into failure too. No one would step in because they would be forced to follow the same rules that the company who failed did. If a company did move in with a bit more freedom, the first thing they would do is greatly cut what they pay solar customers for their power.
Let me spin it to you in a different light that makes it much more palpable to see where I am coming from.
Fracking is a bane on the environment. I think most people here can agree on that. When new wells are created the process involves using a lot of water, usually several million gallons. During the process this water becomes pretty toxic, as it is loaded with all manner of dangerous fracking chemicals. For awhile these companies just dumped the water into municipal waste water lines and let the water company clean it. It was free and easy, since it doesn't cost anything to pour stuff down the drain. Obviously the law had to change though because they were clearly abusing the system, the water company should not be responsible for cleaning the gas company's dirty water. Nor should the customers of the water utility have to pay more to handle the extra burden.
I'm not arguing against solar or for utilities. I'm arguing that people have an impractical view of how residential solar should work. It's abundantly clear to anyone in the power industry (engineering side, not business) that if things keep progressing as they are there is going to be a power crisis. A city with no electric utility and a network of private off-the-shelf budget solar installs would be a nightmare. The fix would be to force everyone to buy battery backups and demolish the grid (expensive for everyone) or to incorporate a local body to store all the extra power/generate power, maintain the grid, and have everyone pay dues to it - a utility. |
I suspect this one will be better than the previous iPads, but we'll have to wait until they're tested. Heat dissipation in fanless tablets is primarily governed by surface area, not volume. The reduction in volume accompanies a very small reduction in surface area-- it will still shed heat almost as well as the previous generation.
But it also most likely puts out less heat. We can reasonably estimate that just from the battery stats-- we know the estimated life is the same, but the battery in the old iPad 3 was 30% larger. Which means there has to have been a commensurate reduction in power use, which also means a reduction in heat. There's also a stacked effect, since the battery itself produces heat when used, and it's smaller and being asked to do less now.
Most of this is the result of a new screen. The retina screens in the 3/4 were power hogs, requiring roughly 2.5x the power to produce the same brightness as the iPad 2 screen-- but it appears that screens have caught up. Either Sharp's IGZO plant is finally making them at volume, or Apple has found somebody with a way to affordably scale up the LTPS screens from the iPhones. |
No it is not, you can just add more trunk lines.
More trunks cost more money and requires more equipment to run, switches that run at 10GB are not cheap and have yearly maintenance contracts. Not to mention if you are smart you have 2 of these switches and 2 of every card you own in case one fails. These cards cost thousands of dollars for each one, the switches start at around 50k each, each line out to the internet is a few thousand more a month each. None of this stuff is cheap.
> No you are not, that is not how bandwidth is billed. You get a trunk line that is 100gbps, you pay the same amount whether you use the full 100gbps 24/7 or barely use it.
Not true, I work for a small town ISP that runs a Fiber optic network. We have 3 10GB connections to the internet and we have a minimum that we are charged as well a per GB charge once we go beyond that limit. Unless you pay to have a dark fiber run you are charged per GB because you are essentially renting a light spectrum, or strand of fiber, copper, whatever you are using. Then they have equipment to maintain, provide world BGP routes, etc...
I cannot argue that some ISPs out there do this and oversubscribe, during peak we only use about 6GBs so our 3, 10GB links are under subscribed but it's for redundancy reasons as well as some links are internet, some are peering.
(edit: adding general switch costs) |
A class action lawsuit I think. The thing is, I'm pretty sure no lawyer has done this before because there's not enough legal pretext the way the laws are written to win. However, even if you lose it can still help fix the problem if the case is high enough profile that it gets national media attention and puts pressure on politicians to do something.
Hopelessdespair's complaints, however, would probably not be enough to get national media attention. The caps aren't as big of an injustice as the estimated [$360 billion]( in higher customer charges state's approved to pay for fiberoptic cable upgrades that never happened. Again, they said they needed more funding in 1992 to pay for fiber optic cable upgrades. State's approved rate increases. Then they never upgraded. In fact, some of that money [went towards developing other things such as cable]( that they then went on to charge customers for. |
I work for a school with an extensive technology integration--Laptops and iPads for all teachers, laptops for all staff, iPads and Laptops for students.
In an education setting, you will see a great deal of damage when it comes to student use; students travel between 6-8 classes per day, so drops and repeated in/out of backpacks causes wear. Damage is inevitable.
The Laptop manufacturers provide awesome self-support options in term of in-house repair. They even pay us for the work. Apple even provides this support for Macs.
The iPad, however, is a mess, and this mess is caused by one part of the assembly.
Adhesive.
If Apple removed the adhesive and went to a screw-only assembly, they'd save a lot of repair headaches, even for themselves. The other flaw is the metal housing. It is too soft, so even slight dings on the corners cause inward bends. If you crack the glass digitizer and the corner of the housing, both must be replaced unless you want to shave the metal corners or attempt to remold the metal (which looks like crap), else the digitizer will not seat properly.
This makes the iPad alone not a good candidate for high-volume, portable usage. Of course, you can buy a decent case (Griffin, Survivor, Lifeproof), but these are not always cheap; the cost/benefit is reduced.
Don't get me wrong, the iPad does what we need in the classroom, but when education funds are stretched as thin as they are, less-costly repairs would be a welcome addition. The engineering changes to make this happen would involve screws instead of adhesive. |
Oh haha. Well, usually the phillips head screwdrivers we use for everyday stuff, the kind you'd find lying around would be #1 (smaller) and #2 (a bit bigger) sizes. Most indoors screws are in these sizes (as well as for desktop computers, usually). You'd see #3 size for wood work outside, and rarely #4, which are huge.
For computers I just saw some small one and assumed they were the same. Apparently I've been using #0 (quite quite small) for my laptop's screws, but it didn't quite fit completely into the hole and I had to use a bit of friction to get them started (bad thing). I needed #00 (smaller still), which fitted perfectly and had perfect grip. There's a smaller size, the #000, which I guess would be for very fine electronics.
So yeah generally you'd need #0 and #00 size screwdrivers for most laptops; you should always check guides to make sure. When I fiddled with my cellphone (I needed to change my broken screen), I used #00 for main screws and #000 for some delicate components inside.
A good thing to know if you play with electronics, buy/use a spludger so you don't pry holes in the plastics. |
I'd guess it's more the latter, simply because it simplifies (and thus makes cheaper) their warranty system.
Look at it this way, you and I might be talented repair artists, but they can't know that. Do they want every phone with a manufacturer defective battery having open heart surgery performed by untrained professionals before they get a chance to fix it cleanly?
When I receive a phone in my shop, I always ask if it's had work done before. Regardless of the answer, I look for signs of prior work. Phones that have never been opened are easier to repair, because fewer things need to be checked to ensure the problem is fixed.
When I get a phone that has been repaired before, I have to take extra steps to ensure all the previous repair artists were competent, and often end up fixing past mistakes, before I can attend to the problem the device was brought in for.
By designing the devices in ways that only those possessing proprietary tools and expertise can open it at all, it makes it less likely that a device being brought in has been opened by unqualified users, and thus easier to warranty against non-user caused damage. |
No bearing on the conversation? You brought it up.
And how does it have no bearing on the conversation when it is precisely what the conversation is about. Dumbasses who think apple product quality =\ business practice because that's what the anti apple bandwagon always does.
I don't care to be an ambassador. I said it feels good to be a smartass to dumbasses. That's why I do it. I'm not trying to convince anyone. These kinds of dumbasses already have their mind made up so no one is going to convince them. It's only when they start to research it for themselves, ie actually compare the products, buy them, use them for extended purposes at the same time, look into what hardware actually goes into them instead of herpyderping paper specs like "octocore 9 gajillionhertz beats apple CPU, 5 foot over saturated piece of shit amoled screen beats apple zomg oh no pathetic 2.5" IPS screen, apple cult can't change color of their buttons high five guys" etc. what they don't realize is what pieces of shit they have, yet they hate on apple products because of some convoluted anti apple movement that can't distinguish between product quality and business practice. |
Source](
>When you see a space contraption draped in gold foil, remember that the foil is probably a heat shield or, more practically, a radiation shield. The sun transmits heat on Earth mostly by warming the atmosphere, and we experience that heat by convection, like a turkey in the oven. In space direct impact from radiation transfers heat, like a dish warmed in a microwave. As a result, keeping instrumentation cold is less about insulation than about reflection, and gold has some very desirable qualities in this regard.
>As we can see in the figure to the right, gold reflects infrared radiation (above roughly .7 µm) as well as any of our candidate metals, which is a major part of keeping tech-heating rays out of our hair. However, it also reflects as much or more UV radiation (roughly .35 µm) than its competitors while absorbing quite a bit of visible light. This means that it won’t create blinding reflective hotspots for astronauts, and its heavy atomic weight lets it soak up quite a bit of that visible light before heating to any harmful extent.
>Gold also does not rust or tarnish in air the way copper or silver do, meaning it requires less care and maintenance to keep mission-ready, and it remains softer and more malleable than aluminum when stretched. Anyone who has ever tried to unroll and re-use a piece of aluminum foil in the kitchen knows how unwilling it is to forgive even the slightest crease. All metal foils have this property to an extent, but gold foil does present a slightly easier workflow than its cheaper competitors.
>Gold is used by NASA in all kinds of contexts. It’s used in external reflectors like those seen in these photos, but it’s also found in astronauts’ visors, filtering out IR radiation to protect astronauts’ eyes. When coupled with an ultra-violet filter like polycarbonate, this makes a shield for both infra-red and ultra-violet radiation while letting a good amount of visible light through to the astronaut. |
I just had a new 3 TB Seagate fail on me, I managed to copy everything over to another HDD because I usually check the smart data every once in a while and saw the signs of the upcoming death.
That's not even the problem every HDD has a chance of dying and that is why you backup and check on them regularly.
What made me decide I'll never buy Seagate again is the fact that after sending the HDD back under warranty they sent me a Certified repaired HDD.
I have never seen a company repair HDDs and send them as replacements of failed drives. After a bit of research I saw that people do get them as replacements and that they are not very reliable.
Yes there is the odd one that works perfectly fine but a lot of them fail in a couple of months. Then again only the people whose HDDs fail bitch about it on the internet :)
But I can't shake the bad feeling I have when I remember that I'm using a repaired HDD, 3 TB is a lot of data to loose.
Also with these "repaired" HDDs I'd very much like to know what kind of defects they repaired.
I guess this will be my rant of the day |
Fucking seriously?!?
What about 3 injuries where faulty equipment caused the employees to get covered in hot metal, caught on fire causing 2nd and 3rd degree burns, and Tesla was found to have 7 safety violations (6 of them serious)
I don't think you even read past the title of the article before jumping to defend Tesla.
> Tesla Motors has been fined $89,000 by the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health for seven safety violations, six considered "serious," related to a workplace incident that injured and burned three workers in November.
>The employees at Tesla's Fremont factory were injured Nov. 13 when a low-pressure aluminum casting press failed, spilling hot metal on the workers and causing their clothing to catch fire.
> "Molten metal was released splattering the three victims, the victims' clothing caught fire, they stopped and rolled on the floor," according to a Cal-OSHA report released Thursday. "The safety department called 911. The Fremont Fire Department arrived within 10 minutes, approximately."
>Tesla employees Jesus Navarro, Kevin Carter and Jorge Terrazas were taken to Valley Medical Center in San Jose with second- and third-degree burns . Carter and Terrazas have returned to work. Navarro, who had burns on his hands, stomach, hip, lower back and ankles, was hospitalized for 20 days and continues to recuperate at home.
>Cal-OSHA's investigation found that Tesla failed to ensure that the low-pressure die casting machine was maintained in a safe operating condition and allowed its employees to operate the machine while the safety interlock was broken. It also found that the employees had not been properly trained regarding the hazards of the machine, and were not wearing the required eye and face protection.
That's totally the same thing as your dog biting a lady. Those darn employees pouring molten metal on themselves and giving themselves 3rd degree burns in order to scam poor Tesla out of their money. /s
It's totally their fault they were supplied with faulty equipment, and trained improperly for the job they were tasked with doing. /s
Look, I like what Tesla is doing just as much as anyone else is, but safety violations are safety violations. It's Tesla's job to provide a safe workplace environment for their employees. They deserved to get fined for this incident.
$89k is a drop in the bucket for Tesla. They deserved the fine though. OSHA would've fined any company that did that just as much.
They honestly deserve to be sued too by that guy that got 3rd degree burns? Do you have any idea how much 20 days in the hospital costs? How painful and disfiguring 3rd degree burns are? How they can ruin your quality of life for the rest of your life?
It's not like the employees are the one pressing the investigation. OSHA is the one that did it. Two of the employees went back to work after they recovered. The other one is still too injured to work from having fucking hot metal poured on him . They allowed a machine with a broken safety interlock to continue to be used by their employees. Goddamn right they should be sued for that.
Mistakes happen, but that doesn't mean companies shouldn't have to pay for their mistakes. That guy's lawsuit would be perfectly legitimate and understandable given what happened to him.
It wasn't a slip up. It was a failure of the machinery. The casing that holds the cast together. That's on the people running the factory. That's on Tesla
Stop trying to bash the victims in this incident in order to make it seem like Tesla did nothing wrong. Stop trying to act like one of the up and coming auto manufacturers having serious safety violations in one of their factories isn't news. |
Even further: I'd bet Ford, GM, Chrysler, Toyota, and Honda probably face $50,000 - $100,000 OSHA fines for factory accidents one or two times a year.
This posting of the article is treating Tesla as "inherently 'gee-whiz!' " - and it isn't. It is a company, and some aspects of its product are technically intriguing. Ford once owned an aerospace division - if they still owned that division, would every job site injury at Ford "tech news", too? |
Some things like utilities only really work as monopolies - it's just not feasible to lay multiple lines of electrical cables, optic fibre, water and sewerage pipes to enable true competition.
Because it's not possible to provide true competition it is better that these utilities are owned by a level of government, which might be hard for Americans to believe because you guys have a massive distrust for your government, which could be fixed if you voted for people who would represent the citizens rather than corporate donors.
Anyway, with government owned utilities the government only only needs to charge to cover the cost of providing the utility. With privately owned utilities the owners need to charge to cover cost plus make profit. With utilities there are two ways to make profit, one, increase the prices, or two, decrease the cost of providing the service, or ideally from a maximizing profit perspective do both, in any scenario with privately owned utilities the consumer is getting fucked over. The only people that benefit from privately owned utilities are the people that hold shares in the companies that own the utilities.
Aside from that, any government owned company is not really a monopoly, if anything it's the true definition of a public company, a government owned company is a company that is equally owned by each and every single person that the particular government represents. |
I live in Chattanooga - and I have to say that it is extremely sweet having EPB.
It is a dedicated fiber optic line, so no sharing your line with half your block.
Unlike Comcast, which charges you for maintenance calls even when it is their fault, EPB covers everything for free. Additionally, no modem required, and no rental.
Unlike Comcast, no price changing ever, and no contracts. I started a few years ago with Comcast to save money but then my prices kept going up that Fiber optics became the cheaper option.
EPB's fiber optics were originally projected to lose $8 million a year. However, it became so successful that it actually turned a profit of millions, which they celebrated by changing the 4 tier speeds (50/100/250/1000 MegaBits) to only 2 (100/1000 MegaBits), and setting them to the prices of the old 50 and 100 MegaBit packages. Free upgrades and even more savings for everyone.
EPB provides Internet to most businesses and buildings in the city. Also, all the buses. I pretty much always have access to speedy wifi wherever I go. |
Apparently no one in this thread can pass the turing test because they can't read
>A version of the computer programme, which was created in 2001, is hosted online for anyone talk to. |
How don't you see this - Both sides of every connection on the internet pays to connect to each other. Everyone, Everywhere pays for the hookup. Home users pay for "internet" in their house. Business rent static IPs and get "internet" in their office. Datacenters pay for bandwidth in and out. Web Hosts like Netflix live in Datacenters.
Netflix has to pay for internet, for each and every byte another user requested and paid for. So does Facebook, Google, Microsoft, CNN, etc. They all pay to host their content.
No one in the history of the internet has pushed as much data as netflix does. This means, without Netflix in the picture, the ISPs have no issues with their agreements.
These agreements claim that since they would be charging both sides roughly the same amount for data access, there is no point in charging. Since Netflix turns this on its head, and dramatically tips the scale on this equal sharing, the ISPs are demanding to get paid for their half of the connection.
Since Netflix will at this point have a connection dedicated to them, it becomes a regular hookup to an ISP. Verizon, Level 3, AT&T, and Comcast have all claimed Netflix's needs are what is causing the issue.
Netflix agreed with this and came to an agreement with Comcast. Now they are a business, run by a board, and beholden to investors, so they seek maximum profit. As a business they do this because of that and NOT because they give a shit about net law beyond how it effects their bottom line. They fight every ISP in hopes of saving money. Nothing more.
So yeah. |
There was, however, congestion at the interconnection link to the edge of our network (the border router) used by the transit providers chosen by Netflix to deliver video traffic to Verizon’s network.
So upgrade your edge devices? They just said that there is congestion at one of their nodes, just because it is an edge node does not make it not part of your network. Its like one of my clients paying for a 150mbps internet connection and I install a 25mbps firewall and say "Its not in our network, so its their fault." |
The Upshot of this that for the vast majority of the human civilisation, the trend has been that the vast majority of peopleare only needed as labour- first in agriculture and later in manufacturing, more recently in tertiary industries like tech.Only a small portion of society would need to possess leadership, innovation or vision in order to lead the rest.
The first two are already rapidly being replaaced by automated or robotic systems, and now the third is under threat. In a society where the labour is provided by robots, the only successful humans are the ones who are either creative and innovative enough to be inventors/innovators or driven/organised/talented enough to be in management or leadership positions. |
But in the UK I got great taxpayer funded healthcare, free at the point of use
You mean the same NHS that that the UK press reports Every. Single. Week. is "on the verge of collapse"? (With the next general election coming up, this has switched to Every. Single. Day.) The weaponization of the NHS in political rhetoric is flabbergasting. I, for one, have no desire whatsoever to ever experience the US equivalent of how in the UK the NHS is always, Always, ALWAYS the #1 topic of every single election, with every candidate competing to outdo the others in promising that the NHS will "always be free" and that he is the only candidate who can make sure that the local GP's surgery hours will widen and that the A&E will no longer be "the worst in England" or "the second-worst in Yorkshire". (Canada, also with a single-payer system, sensibly divorces billing from providers. As in the US private entities deliver most healthcare, and in both countries if one's doctor has inconvenient hours or if the local hospital has substandard care, one simply goes to another as opposed to having this being something politicians are expected to fix.)
> Oh, and the UK is home to some major pharma giants such as Glaxo SmithKline, who absolutely do execute cutting edge research. So enough of this "we subsidize the rest of the world" nonsense.
That you do not like a fact does not make that fact false. The US accounts for 50% of global corporate pharmaceutical R&D the $30 billion in annual research spending at the NIH, which has no non-US equal. When considering all medical research spending, public and private, corporate and academia, [the US spends 50% more than all of Europe combined](
>Mobile: multiple competing and profitable carriers in the UK mean you can get great deals, high speed service everywhere. Real competition (everyone uses gsm, so consumers can easily switch) drives down prices and forces up network investment. Equivalent of $20-$35 per month, rather than the ridiculous $80-$100 Verizon asks.
It's important to compare apples to apples. As I stated, for example, [the US deployed LTE way faster than European carriers did]( Three in the UK, for example, has prices that are roughly comparable to that of T-Mobile prepaid or Cricket or Boost in the US, and some nice features like no additional-cost data/voice roaming in 16 countries, including the US ...
... But today only has 48% 4G/LTE coverage by population in the UK has about 80%, and all plans regardless of carrier include the highest tier of data service.
I get 55-75Mbps down and 25Mbps up with that aforementioned $30 T-Mobile plan in my apartment, and /r/tmobile is constantly spammed filled with screenshots of people bragging of 100Mbps and faster in their cities. Again, no roaming fees of any kind in a continent-sized country.
>Broadband: rather then the local monopolies we have in the US, competing UK ISPs can use the incumbent's lines to deliver service to any address, so there's real competition here too.
While I am fortunate to have 200Mbps bidirectional uncapped broadband at home for a good price, I agree that [the US can and should improve competition among home broadband providers](
> |
I had this idea, too, but it related more to how we should be paying for music. for instance, I have a soundcloud page. people go to my soundcloud page to listen to music by using data allotted by a company that provides the infrastructure to do so (internet service provider). my music lives online as a digital asset, which is only available by using the ISP's data. Theoretically, I should get a percentage of the money for data people pay for, because the data they're accessing is mine (the data is in the form of a .wav file that I exported from my computer). the ISP is merely a mechanism to deliver MY data. so I should get paid for it. does that make sense to anyone? I had a feeling people would think I was crazy for this idea...the means to pay people in this way would have to be built into the website's code in order to properly route funds to people who own those sites. |
Sprint. Genuine unlimited data. I've used the hotspot for days at a time to connect my entire home network, download steam games, stream Netflix, etc. 20-30gb for the month and my bill was the same with no throttling.
"But the coverage maps 'Nades! the coverage maps!" I did some work collecting the raw data for those coverage maps. They lie. A Lot. Huge chunks of "competing" networks are also Co-Lo'ed on the same towers owned by 3rd parties.
"But the technology! Sprint has the worst LTE deployment!" OK sure, but you are fooling yourself if you think that just because you have the LTE icon on your phone you are getting anywhere NEAR full LTE speeds. Besides that, what good is super fast access to a tiny data cap?
Throw in the underlying specs of the phones themselves and network latency over throughput "speed". Remember that a station wagon loaded with modern storage devices can achieve 68057 "Gbps".
No, this still sounds like a giant step backward. |
Not to belittle your main points, but my data conflicts with some of your arguments:
Healthcare: I used to live in the UK and now live in California. My marginal tax rate, at over 40%, is pretty much the same in both places. But in the UK I got great taxpayer funded healthcare, free at the point of use AND I was free to buy or have my employer provide private cover. Oh, and the UK is home to some major pharma giants such as Glaxo SmithKline, who absolutely do execute cutting edge research. So enough of this "we subsidize the rest of the world" nonsense.
Mobile: multiple competing and profitable carriers in the UK mean you can get great deals, high speed service everywhere. Real competition (everyone uses gsm, so consumers can easily switch) drives down prices and forces up network investment. Equivalent of $20-$35 per month, rather than the ridiculous $80-$100 Verizon asks.
Broadband: rather then the local monopolies we have in the US, competing UK ISPs can use the incumbent's lines to deliver service to any address, so there's real competition here too. |
If they do a buy out for my contract, offer more than just wifi calling, and allow me to bring my own phones (from Sprint), then I will sign on asap! I am way overpaying (imo) on Sprint for 3 phones.
EDIT: Saw others complaining about not being unlimited at a flat rate. Question for you is, do you truthfully use unlimited data? What if they offered you a "pay as you go with a max rate" plan? That would basically allow you to use as much data as you wanted, if you used more than X amount of data, then you would pay the max rate? But let's say you had a slow month and only used 3GB of data, then you would pay much less? I think this would be the ideal route for most consumers. "Let me use the amount of data I want to use in a given month and charge me for it, but have a max rate so that I'm not over charged!"
For example: Let's say that they charge $10/GB/mo for data. In March you used 3GB of Data and pay $30. April you used a lot more (say 10GB), you would expect to pay $100. But if Google was smart with their pricing they would see that a lot of carriers do an unlimited plan (for 2 lines at $100, essentially $50/line). So if they maxed out their plan at $60 for "unlimited" data your April bill would only be $60. Then in May you have a really slow usage month and you use 1.5GB, you pay a $15 bill. So:
March - $30
April - $60
May - $15
That price plan sounds a lot better to me. I don't think that is how Google has it planned, but if it is anywhere close to that, then I am in. I currently pay for unlimited on 3 lines with Sprint and I am paying $140 for the plan, $33 for phone insurance and then the leases on my phones which adds up to about $270/mo. If Google went this route, my wife and I (who fluctuate in data usage) could lower our bills, while our Daughter (who is around 8GB or more a month) would likely max out. But we could still end up paying less for bill overall. |
Moore's law has been bent to mean many things. The original was an observation on the economics of the semiconductor industry, but it's been generalised to mean "stuff gets twice as fast and twice as big every 18 months". There's a Moore's law for bandwidth, for hard drive space, for all sorts of technology. The assumption used to be that machines would get faster and people would always buy something close to the fastest machine - that's what I meant by "current-popular-machines definition". That assumption is no longer true, so you can't use Moore's law to predict the power of the machines people will actually be using a few years down the line. It's not broken in terms of predicting the number of transistors on a top-of-the-line chip, but it is broken in terms of predicting what hardware people will actually be using.
Edit: The bit about multiple cores was to do with the assumption that Moore's law meant that code that's slow on your customer's machines today would be fast on their (newer) machines if you just waited. For many apps, more cores rather than faster cores breaks Moore's law's predictive powers in that respect too. On the latest hardware, your single-threaded physics engine isn't 4x as fast today as it was 3 years ago. |
that just makes a programmer more efficient
sounds like a good start towards obtaining better software to me...
I guess it depends on how you define "better". I am arguing that programs being less error-prone to write (presumably leading to less bugs & crashes) and allowing programmers to obtain more functionality with less effort qualifies as "better".
But to do that, you need to work at an abstraction level that usually comes at the cost of extra memory or CPU usage.
Another example of this: using an Object-Relational mapping framework like Hibernate (or, say, Active Record if you're using Ruby), instead of foregoing this abstraction and just manually writing database access code. Your handcoded version will almost certainly run faster, at least in the initial version of your software. However, it takes much more effort to write, will have its own set of bugs and/or security-related issues, might become a nightmare to maintain over time, will probably get mixed up with other code, whereas using a framework would more or less force you to keep things separated, and so on.
So, that way, you might obtain "faster" but probably not "better" software, unless you keep your projects really small and manageable. It is not a coincidence that keeping programs small/focused on one task is an important part of the Unix design philosophy. However, this appears not to lead to programs that are particularly easy to use for non-programmers (see: unix command-line), so I still doubt you would (or should) consider that "better" from the user perspective, either. |
No.
Also, no and no.
None of the companies you name have monopolies. They all provide a consumer service, and there is plenty of competition available for all of them. Don't like Microsoft? Buy a Mac. Don't like Macs? Well, don't it suck that nobody else makes operating systems *cough*linux*cough*. Don't like AT&T? Neither do I. That's why I use Verizon. Don't like Google? Name something of theirs that actually has a monopoly. Everything they do is either in response to consumer complaints about the other solutions, or new and revolutionary stuff that nobody else has. |
I always thought "It's really bad" was the |
I have a related story:
When I was a teacher of Web development 12 years ago (teaching students in the age range of mid-twenties to mid-fifties), I opened my classes on the first day with rules of conduct.
I was very clear that Web development is a deadline-oriented profession, and as such, deadlines must be respected above all. Therefore, any assignment not turned in on time was an automatic zero with no room for negotiation. My program facilitator stood by me on this.
I also told them any variant of "the dog ate my homework" excuse would not be accepted for any reason. I made sure all of them knew how easy it is to lose data, and therefore showed them how to backup their projects using various backup methods.
The first assignment that wasn't delivered on the deadline was by a guy who claimed his mom had died that week. And curiously, though he had 5 weeks to produce something , he could show me nothing . He was given a zero. He appealed to the highest levels of the school and they all stood behind me.
Word carried about that event, and nobody ever missed an assignment deadline again. Ever.
Brutal, I know. I know I sound like a heartless prick, but anybody that works in a deadline-oriented world knows that I taught him, and everyone else in that school an incredibly important lesson that day.
I'm not a heartless prick, BTW, AMA if you want more details. |
I was doing some research at a lab in college, and a girl doing a separate experiment 'lost' an entire quarter's work... images, documents, everything just gone.
I asked her where her backup was, and she didn't have one. It turns out she was just keeping everything in a folder on the desktop of a public computer, and someone had deleted it in an attempt to free up hard drive space.
Whoops. She runs out the door crying her eyes out.
Turns out the whole damn thing was just sitting in the recycle bin; right-click restore, and I was her hero for the day.
But she had a boyfriend, and I was a nerd. |
The more important the data is to me, the more places it gets saved. I used to back up everything to CDRWs but now I save most everything to my 1TB external hard drive. Really important files get printed and filed in permanent storage, ie a box in the back of a closet. |
Currently setting up with new IT partner.
Meh. Back when I was doing small-office stuff on the side, all my clients refused to pay for my time and the hardware to do proper backup. And when data loss occurred, as I warned them it would, they canned me and hired someone else. This happened four or five times, and each time they paid the next guy a lot more money for a backup solution than I'd asked for to begin with. |
First of all SVN provides version, Dropbox does not. So Dropbox is more like an FTP client.
a couple of thoughts.. one... it doesnt remember file permissions. Everytime you get on the computer you have to reset the file permissions. This is espeically bad if you are using something like ubuntu.
Windows doens't have the file permission problem as badly, but it still causes problems if you have a windows file that has special file permissions for some reason.
Secondly, you have to do an all or none to share. You can't just pick and choose. Therefor to use dropbox you have to either use dropbox as your home directory and constantly be sharing EVERYTHING (I don't know about you. but my home directory is several dozen gigabytes), or maintain a dropbox home and a computer home. What I found when using dropbox that I just used it as a temporary location for files because I had to move them to a new location once I switch computers. Basically it's an FTP connection thats ALWAYS open. I would much rather just open the FTP connection when I need to use it then have it constantly doing things in the background like double checking files.
Having an easy to get to FTP server is nice to have. But it shouldn't be constantly running in the background. Ubuntu does a nice job with this kind of service by integrating the client into Nautilus. Windows also has it's own equivalent of adding remote servers as a "drive" directly into the windows explorer program.. and I'd be shocked if mac didn't also.... These "drives" are only connected when you actually use them, and you can drop files in them quite conveniently.. |
I once installed a new hard drive in my server, and then decided to format it. So first I deleted all four partitions on it, because it came from an older linux server that I needed the hard drive from. After that I formatted the new single partition to ext3. Something didn't feel right about it, so I looked into it, and I realized that it was the SECOND hard drive on my old server, and I just deleted everything on the hard drive with / and ~. Oops!
I used the hard drive that still had linux on it from the computer I salvaged the new drive from, and booted into it on the server without anything on it, installed TestDisk, and I saved pretty much everything on the drive. |
Android phones have more features,"
Why exactly does this make a phone better? Everybody prattles on about how "The Japanese have far better technology than us, look at their cell phones". Want to know why those phones never made it over here? Because they were almost always a messy pile of features. No consistency across applications (menus?) or operating environments made them feature laden pieces of shit. Apple sells millions of iPhones not because they have the most features, but because the features it has you can use, and your mum can use, and a 5 year old kid can use. |
I'm seriously considering dropping netflix. I pay a premium for blu-ray access but recently they seem to be taking the money and running. I mean no Sound of Music (blu ray), no Bridge over the river Kwai (blu ray), no it's a wonderful life (blu ray), no White Christmas (blu ray) and so many more are missing you have to wonder if all these grandiose fees are just going to make netflix a streaming service instead of keeping it a top-notch dvd rental service.
Sure I understand not buying V in blu-ray, and given the price somewhat understand not having the clone wars season 2 in blu ray. But blu-ray price gouging by the studios can't explain why spaceballs ($9.99) is missing from netflix, or the goonies. |
Say you got a 100mbit line for $2000/month with $10,000 to install it, and those costs are probably significantly underestimated. If those are just the costs to get the line run to one location you are looking at $20/month per house and $100 setup. Each person gets 1mbit up/down guaranteed.
It is pretty likely that everyone is going to want to be completely isolated from each other, so you need to either make sure everyone has a router or that you have networking gear capable of handling at least 100 VLANs.
Assuming you went wireless, figure maybe $100-$200 per house for wireless equipment, since most people are not going to be in range of a standard access point.
Because people get angry if things go down, assume two core routers will be used. Either use 2 servers or 2 decent routers. Most home equipment would fail quickly. So around $1000 assuming you used 2 basic servers. The advantage to using something like an openbsd box is it is going to be significantly cheaper than cisco gear that would do the same thing.
So, you are probably going to be spending $20/month for 1mbit guaranteed and $300-$400 setup per person. This is not factoring in general maintenance, getting someone who can actually maintain the equipment, all the other equipment necessary I didn't list, and so on. Also, I probably significantly underestimated the cost of bringing in the line and the bandwidth. That number maybe closer to $50/month per house with $500 setup.
Of course, you could allow for users to go above their limits when no one else is using it, but during peak times between streaming video, downloads, and bittorrent there would probably be issues.
Oh, and you would probably need at least some method of logging, because at that size you are starting to talk about forming a co-op isp and not just sharing bandwidth. You also have to be careful about how you set things up in case either the initial or future residents don't end up having access to the internet restricted to prevent access to things they don't think people should be going to. |
I feel that pain. My jaw dropped a little hearing nintendo would support this.
Maybe it's a case of |
software that is designed to block ads should block ads and not be selective as to the ads that it blocks based on the amount of money the developer received from a specific company but rather by the selection of the end user.
Let me help you out by conveying the information in the OP's link that you clearly did not read: "opt-out [of allowing acceptable ads] works by clicking “Filter Preferences” and unchecking the option there...On the technical side, [allowing acceptable ads] simply represents an additional filter subscription. The documentation describes how to view this filter subscription or disable the special treatment for it." |
Ehh, no. You're thinking in the past, just like the cable companies. The broadcast model is dead. Most TV watching by cable subscribers is done via Tivo these days. No one races home in the evening to watch their favorite show in real time. The same experience can be had with streaming content.
That's the future. If they don't want to deal with it, they'll be left behind as subscribers jump ship for online services. You can't say:
>When the revenue model supports that and the technology is there to make it scalable, maybe they will.
...when the article is about the current revenue model failing and while the technology very much does exists and is already in use.
It's up to the content providers to supply our demand, not the other way around. The tech exists, the revenue model is sound no matter how much the content producers want to resist it kicking and screaming.
We as consumers have spoken, and we'll have it no other way. Expecting customers to conform to what suppliers want to offer is not the way this works. They can keep up, or fail. |
Rather than be disappoint, why not discuss it. I am unfamiliar myself as I am sure are lurkers. I am a MechE by trade and am trying to facilitate discussion on a topic that I think has not had its share of the limelight. Start with the |
Yeah, they could just make decentralized DNS illegal. Label it as rogue, provided MitM hackers to spread child pornography or something. Even Anonymous wouldn't touch that. They even took down that CP TORsite awhile back.
CP is THE wildcard that we need to tame. You can label it CP, protecting children, and virtually nobody would oppose it. The fearmongers know this. The people are the sheep. Here's [relevant_rule34's take on pedophiles]( Society's culture of fear needs to change. WAKE UP SHEEPLE! |
This bill would make it easier to threaten anonymous exercisers of 1st amendment rights with unmasking. Make no mistake -- this is another direct assault on your constitutional rights. |
Is this speculation or do you actually run into these problems. I'm a professional Android dev and its very rare that this actually becomes a problem. The only examples I can think of are the odd "oh this class was a little buggy before x.x, use this work around." You can run into issues when you use undocumented APIs. You can get away with that a lot more often on iOS. Then again, they boot you off the market for that too. |
Fascinating data. I wonder how ICS will fare in the coming months as further devices beyond a reference device begin to launch. Interestingly, there've already been some rumors floating out of the mfg's in Asia about the details of Jelly Bean (perhaps coming at the beginning of Q2 this year). Wonder if ICS will end up being a small time update and 5.0 (Jelly Bean) will be a larger/faster install slope.
Either way, this is why I have stuck to Google Experience devices while on android. True, I had an iPhone 3g, but I grew tired of it quickly and upgraded to a Nexus One the moment it came out. That kept me in shape for 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3. From there I went to the Galaxy Nexus with 4.0 and an HP Touchpad dual booting WebOs and ICS.
But... as a user of the Google Experience devices, I can say that I made the choice to stick to those android devices because I was well aware of the failure of third party manufacturers to get newer versions out to their existing customers. It's definitely a problem (to me as a developer and more serious user than casual) for the platform I think. Google should probably have the Open Handset Alliance adopt some bylaws that state each device manufactured has to receive updates for a certain time duration within a certain number of days from the new version's release.
I mean, at the moment, the Cyanogen community does a better job than some of these first class manufacturers. My brother's Dell Streak was still on 1.6 when he got a custom 2.3 rom. My Nexus One was rooted and got all its updates a week or more ahead of official Google releases, my pop's Toshiba Thrive is STILL on Honeycomb. My HP Touchpad got ICS in incredibly short order considering it is not even an Android device out of the box, and it's arguably more stable than many other tablets I have used. |
Speaking as someone who has been using Linux since 1997 and mostly using nVidia in that time, I can definitely see a marked improvement in the quality of the Catalyst drivers, especially in the last 12 months. Every time I buy a new graphics card I'll always borrow or buy/return an ATI/AMD card to guage performance. Last time this happened, I actually kept the card as the drivers were close to being accdptable, but stuck with the old GTS250 for a while. Tried the HD5830 in April with the new Catalyst drivers, and it works like a dream. Not running compiz or gnome-shell though due to a 100% CPU bug, but certainly happy. |
As [merreborn said below]( we're not talking about only making open-source developers happy. You know, from a business perspective, fuck those guys, or whatever.
But we're assuming Nvidia execs aren't completely brain-dead and kind of figure out that Android is a huge-ass market. That's why they have the Tegra unfolding there as of several months ago. And it just so happens that Android is sorta-kinda Linux. Doesn't look anything like it, but at its core it's ARM Linux.
Now, if you release the non-trade-secret datasheets of your chips, or whatever docs are needed to utilize your hardware (without necessarily knowing the internal HW specifics), what can happen? A lot of tinkerers (those OS devs we said 'fuck you' to) are going to start fucking around with the chips you produce and make funky stuff. Out of a hundred useless projects, there may be one or 10 that do something useful. Those might even open up a new niche market.
Say, some guy plugs in OpenCV into an Android app using a Tegra 3 chipset, and does something like Kinect, but with your mobile. Sure, the proof of concept will be unusable for the general public. But you, as a huge-ass company with a sizable R&D budget, could take that open-source licensed project, or outright hire the guy, polish the project and use it as a competitive advantage over the other phone GPU manufacturers.
"Hey HTC, check it out, we can do this fancy volumetric computer vision stuff, and can do to phone games (for devices including our chips) what Kinect did to Xbox gaming - i.e. grow the market to include even more casual users. What say ye we try this out and move onto the important questions in life - [what are we going to do with all that money]( |
I understand the privacy argument being presented here, and actually identify with it to an extent. So I'd like to cut to the heart of the issue; some people (ad-networks or data-miners) inevitable use this functionality to collect information about your habits, and then use that data somehow to make a living.
I think most people are under the impression that these companies link your browsing habits to a personal identity: John Doe shopped for shoes last week and a new laptop yesterday. What line does this cross to make it unethical? I think the key to this issue is how this data translates to personal knowledge of someone. Is it OK if the data is collected anonymously?
Personally, if someone is stamping my name/address/contact info on a file full of my browsing history over the past few months, and then selling it off, I'd be pissed and feel violated. But if they only know me by an IP or by an anonymous ID #? I don't think that's malicious at all; the data can be used to create a picture of how the business should better serve its customers. |
Yep, that's pretty much my recollection of it. After the "upgrade", the front page ended up being mostly links that had been "sponsored" and, because of that, it tended to stay very static and boring.
When the community complained, the powers-that-be said it was "impossible" to go back to the previous system. Not that it would be difficult to go back, or even that they would work to make the new ranking system better, but that this was the way it was going to be and if the community didn't like it, to bad. Taking that attitude with a community full of techies, who know about and may already frequent other sites (like Reddit) was a huge mistake. There was a feeling that the VCs that had given Digg a bunch of money were forcing this down the throats of everyone.
This all came on top of a scandal, of sorts, a few months earlier where a large group of politically conservative users (with dozens of sock puppets each) were down voting anything they didn't agree with politically. While this wasn't Digg's fault, they didn't respond well to it, and the community became pissed off that the system they loved was being manipulated.
So, add up the manipulation of the voting system, the disenfranchisement of the community, and the arrogance of Digg itself, and the users had just had enough. Thus was born the Great Digg Migration - much to the chagrin of the Reddit old guard. |
Maybe you missed this part on the sidebar:
>museumplanner.org is run by Mark Walhimer, Managing Partner of Museum Planning, LLC an exhibition design and museum planning company.
People can be sources too, especially experienced professionals. His source is that he IS a museum planner and this is what he does. You don't have to "buy" the link, it's a professional source in and of itself. Follow through to his "museum planning consulting company" if you like.
as far as his figures go, he referencing a "generic" museum construction project.
>Starting a museum is very expensive, as a rule of thumb, the exhibition space is half of the overall space, a 4500 exhibition space becomes a 9000 square ft building at $200 per square foot of new construction is $1.8 million dollars, plus approximately, $150 to fit out the gallery spaces, $675,000, total $2,475,000 in start up costs plus operating costs. If you use an average of $40 per square ft for operating costs your yearly operating costs would be $360,000 (salaries, utilities, maintenance), not including an endowment. Create a business plan, can you earn at least 50% of your yearly expenses? Be conservative with your annual attendance figures. Too many museums have gotten into trouble using optimistic attendance figures. Attendance in the second and third year of a new museum can fall off 20%-30% (or more). Plan to the third year of operation, too many museums only plan to the opening of the museum. Plan to your third year, not to opening. |
Just wait until Government Healthcare takes effect. Want to sue the government because you died? There's no way in hell that you'll succeed since it will be like the Department of Justice suing the "Department of Healthcare". Both of those departments are like the left hand and right hand of the same body. There's no way that the government would smash their right hand, especially since they are in complete control of their left hand. |
Reposting the deleted comment from Amazon customer service team manager:
> [–]throwbackhero 2 points 23 minutes ago
> Finally I can be useful. I currently work for Amazon customer service in Canada as a team manager so let me enlighten everyone on the situation here. What mainly happens in this situation is what we call abusive tendencies. Multiple things can cause this though the most common is someone abusing their prime benefits like letting everyone in town use their account to ship goods and get the free shipping. Another would be selling items on Amazon that are against the terms of service. Now what it sounds like in this situation sadly either this person or someone they have sent purchases too or perhaps have had purchases received from them did something bad. It would have to be more than a few times before our account services team decides these two accounts must be associated with each other.
> This person could probably call in and get slightly better service but because of security and privacy we aren't going to discuss another customers account even if it has messed with your account. Don't like it? Shop elsewhere.
> |
I agree, it's the negative PR that can hurt a company...
I had an issue with my HP laptop, when I tilted the monitor, I would get yellow flashes on the screen. I contacted HP assuming they may have encountered this problem. The first thing they asked me to do was to updated my BIOS. I initially refused as it appeared to me to be a physical problem, a loose wire maybe. They insisted, so I reluctantly agreed, knowing that this IS HP after all, they must know what the are doing...
Well, updated BIOS, rebooted, computer dead.... A in wont even start. Nothing.. Instant door stop.
I emailed them back on my ancient desktop and informed them of what happened. They did a few troubleshooting tips, but as it was dead, there wasn't much to do, they informed me hat it appears my motherboard is fried. I asked if they would replace it because they were the ones who insisted on my BIOS update, they said since it was no longer under warranty, that no, they can't replace it, and it would cost me $400 to replace.
WTF??? I was pissed, I immediately asked for a manager or supervisor, and could never get a straight answer, always the run around.
After a few days, I contacted the Toronto Star and a wonderful lady in their consumer affairs department contacted me back, I explained everything and she said "let me see what I can do"
The next day, HP was calling me....
I still had to wade through a bunch of bullshit, they unsuccessfully repaired the computer 5 times. Once I even got it back, turned it on to see "windows OS not installed". When I inquired, they told me that they do the repair noted and ship it out, they never turn it on to see if it works.
In the end, they got so fed up with me, that they gave me a new laptop.
Tat laptop overheated within the first week of owning it. They de-clocked my BIOS again, and that solved the problem (more or less).
Still using that laptop, but I'll never ever b HP again.. |
Exactly the reason to prefer PHYSICAL copies over electronic. With the push of a button (or execution of automated script), you can legally lose EVERYTHING you "own", regardless of any ACTUAL wrongdoing on your part (who is to say that a hacker was not responsible for Linn's account?). If you have a physical copy, it stays yours. Unless one day, companies get the right to send their henchmen to directly break into your home and take all your books without any prior notification or justification aside from "you did something wrong because we said so". If something like that ever becomes the law, I don't think I'd want to live in a country like that. |
I do my best to remember this and direct my ire towards the organisation rather than the person. The person is the interface unfortunately and it's the only interface we get.
I also do my best to choose companies where I won't be forced into that position in the first place. |
This is a good idea, but the idea that this is the start of regulation is inaccurate.
In the European Union, the Parliament doesn't have the power of initiative. That is to say that they can't start the ball rolling on EU legislation. Only the Commission can do that, and it either does it of its own behest, or at the behest of the Council (which is a body made up of the various European member states like France, Germany etc.). The Parliament can issue loads of reports and findings etc, but this is no way the beginning of regulation. All it can do is - in certain areas - reject or amend legislation already started by the Commission.
Probably with good reason, it's the weakest of the European institutions (the other main ones being the Commission, the Council, the Court of Justice etc.), so I wouldn't get too excited. When the Commission says something, or the Council, then get excited, since then something's going to happen. |
Wikileaks is a very visible symptom in this case.
The bigger issue here is companies like PayPal holding thousands of customer's money hostage for no stated (or apparent) reason, without any proper legal means of putting things right. |
So Cox has made me realize two things.
A. Thanks for reminding me that im over the 200 gigs allotted on my UNLIMITED INTERNET. (See attached image)
B. You have now changed November into "Lets see how much over the cap I can get by downloading everything in sight." Steam Library? Yeah lets delete that and re-download everything. Good thing I get 1.5 - 2 MB/s on my plan that advertises 10 MB/s download speeds. |
I studied Comp-Sci at Cornell 12 years ago. Coming in as a freshman, I hoped to major in AI, but after taking 2 classed, one focusing on symbolic AI and the other focusing on Bayesian statistics, I was completely turned off.
Our brains are massively parallel redundant systems that share practically nothing in common with modern Von Neumann CPUs. It seemed the only logical approach to AI was to study neurons. Then try to discover the basic functional units that they form in simple biological life forms like insects or worms. Keep reverse engineer brains of higher and higher life forms until we reach human brains. I kept trying to relate my course material in AI to what was actually going on in the brain. But these questions were met with disdain and disinterest. I learned more about neurons in my high school AP Bio class than either of my AI classes. Crazy huh?
Maybe I was ahead of my time or maybe we just needed a changing of the guards. In their defense, we've come a long ways from then, with MRIs and gene sequencing. Either way, I'm glad to see common sense coming back to this field.
I truly believe the answers are locked up in all of our heads. No disrespect to all you brilliant mathematicians out there, but you’re not going to crack this one with some pop mathematical AI theory like Bayesian statistics that has no basis in Biology. It took nature millions of years to engineer our brains. If we want to crack this puzzle in our lifetimes, we to copy nature, not reinvent it from scratch. |
Same here, except the hacker made calls from Indonesia to Saudi Arabian mobiles.
OK, my bad for having an insufficiently strong password. It wasn't 12345, but it was a dictionary word. Still, was there no timeout after X number of failed attempts?
Amazingly, I managed to back get control of the account just in time. I had auto-recharge on (NEVER EVER EVER EVER DO THAT), so the bad guys could have taken me to the cleaners.
Zero fucks were given by Skype.
But a few weeks later, they cancelled my Skype credits permanently . I managed to actually speak to a human being who said "fraud activity has been detected by somebody on a Skype account using your email address, so you can go fuck yourself again."
I went ballistic. Said (a) I would immediately contact the AFP (the Feds) to make a complaint of criminal theft, and (b) listed the Australian radio and television stations who would love to run the story.
"Please hold while I speak to my supervisor" ... my credits were restored 30 seconds later.
(a) was all bluff, but (b) was totally serious. |
You are pretending to a level of competence you do not have. That is dangerous in the 'touting' business as it is possible - even likely - that you will encounter someone who will call you on it. Like now.
First, connecting a pristine Windows install to the Internet is extremely unwise. All drivers, patches and security software should be installed and configured before exposing a Windows PC to the Internet for the first time. This has been true for 20 years. Online patches and drivers just don't cut it. Doing it your way is "p0wned in 60 seconds". The pristine Microsoft certified installation media had remote exploits on launch day and the situation has grown far worse in the time since.
Next, please point to the online location of the drivers for the Microsoft Surface Pro available for download. Without that it is not even possible. While you're at it, dig up the W7 drivers too.
As for consumption / production devices... We have Citrix, VMWare View, various methods of accessing PCs both personal and corporate if the cloud-based stuff won't suit. Tablets come with them now. The iPad had Citrix on launch day. We don't have to drag the darned Windows PC around with us in a luggage cart any more. If you are so dependent on that you can't function without it you can at least leave it somewhere it can be secured and maintained by the folk who are into that sort of thing where it doesn't eat your battery. Even websites that require different versions of IE are no problem as you can access the apps through an app server and have IE 6, 7, 8, 9 AND 10, and 3 different flavors of Java all at the same time without conflicts - try THAT on a Windows PC.
Third, expecting an ordinary user to do these things before using their device is precisely the problem. For the average Windows user the steps you propose aren't just difficult: they're plain impossible. They must hire it done and trust it was done well - and we've all experience with folks who've paid well for that service and received less than they bargained for.
Let's not talk about luck. Belief in "luck" is perhaps a part of your problem. These machines are not artifacts of elder gods to make sacrifices and intone incantations to, praying for luck and good fortune. They are predictable tools that obey you completely - right up until you tell them to obey anybody on the Internet by letting your guard down. After that the first bad guy to come along tells your machine to obey him completely instead of you, and it merrily complies because that is what you told it to do. |
I'm assuming that the hacker in question was doing this to the 787, which, to my knowledge, is the aircraft most heavily dependent on these systems.
Before the mass panic sets in, let me just state that the amount of testing that Boeing had to do on this system was, for lack of a better term, a lot. We all know how anti-hacker the government is, and there was tons of research that was required to be presented.
The key points being: the ATG signals could not be responsible for flight ops of the aircraft, meaning that someone on a raspberry pi in the airport could crash a plane. The next point was that these signals could not allow a ground intercepter (hacker) access the exact status of the plane, including precise altitude, direction, yada yada. Most importantly, the instruments the selfs work in a closed system. Yes, they transmit data, but they don't receive data that could cause the aircraft to drop O2 masks. |
This may sound cynical as hell, and you'd be right, but I work in the film industry and I honestly wouldn't mind seeing the major studios cut down a notch. It's pretty much the slightly more liberal, west coast version of Wall Street. Just a bunch of greedy, rich old fucks interested solely in the acquisition of money. If anyone doesn't care enough about the integrity or "health" of the industry, it is the people running it themselves.
I think the whole music piracy thing honestly did everyone a favor by crippling the monopoly that were the big 4 record labels. Thankfully, social media further allowed independent artists to make a name for themselves without the need to be a slave to a soulless corporation. 'nother can o' worms though. |
Torrentfreak keeps cheering on the proxy sites, but that's the wrong mindset. We shouldn't even have to use proxies.
BPI/MPAA are throwing lists of domain names at the moment, as a web developer who owns websites which contain user-generated content - I'm scared for my future.
Recently, the UK passed a bill making web owners legally liable for what other people say on their site - the owner has to actively moderate their entire user-base or be held liable for someone committing a "hate" crime (aka someone who says a minor insult or joke against sex, race, sexuality etc = jail).
We can't even have nice weather. |
Implementation of a new software product can take months of testing and a longer stage of support. For example, if the state provided vpn went down for too long the company would look to the government for reparations for the time that their employees couldn't work during the outage. |
i don't think you can get the media on your side with protests with anything but numbers. 10,000 hippies will get more media attention than 100 suits. further, not everyone agrees that the clean cut look reflects anything other than submission to culture. if you want to wear rings in your nose and trash on your back, you're still a human, you still have a voice. it's your attitude of accepting that they are "different" that does the damage.. instead of telling the punks to dress up so they can pass for middle class, tell the middle class to realize punks are people too. after all, there's a lot more of the unwashed masses.
for what it's worth, i work in an office and wear office clothing every day. but i think you've got the situation backwards when it comes to image. |
I've felt some confusion over the proposed internet filtering and decided to go straight to the horses mouth, here is DC's Speech: [link](
And I thought I'd summarize it here for you, quotes are taken directly from the above link, with my notes added in.
>I’m not making this speech because I want to moralise or scare-monger, but because I feel profoundly as a politician, and as a father, that the time for action has come.
>This is, quite simply, about how we protect our children and their innocence.
A running theme: protecting the children.
>The first challenge is criminal: and that is the proliferation and accessibility of child abuse images on the internet. The second challenge is cultural: the fact that many children are viewing online pornography and other damaging material at a very young age and that the nature of that pornography is so extreme, it is distorting their view of sex and relationships.
>Let me be clear.
>These challenges are very distinct and very different.
Something that is worth noting that the media seems to be getting conflated, Child abuse =/= pornography.
>The police and CEOP – that is the Child Exploitation and Online Protection centre – are already doing a good job in clamping down on the uploading and hosting of this material in the UK.
>Once CEOP becomes a part of the National Crime Agency, that will further increase their ability to investigate behind pay walls to shine a light on the hidden internet and to drive prosecutions of those who are found to use it.
The organisation known as [CEOP]( is now getting more powers to delve deeper into the tubes. It's not stated what exactly they'll be able to do that they can't do now.
>And today I can announce that from next year, we will also link up existing fragmented databases across all the police forces to produce a single secure database of illegal images of children which will help police in different parts of the country work together more effectively to close the net on paedophiles.
The motherload of child abuse images will be kept in one place. That sounds like a bad idea to me.
>The internet service providers and the search engine companies have a vital role to play and we have already reached a number of important agreements with them.
> new UK-US taskforce is being formed to lead a global alliance with the big players in the industry to stamp out these vile images.
>Joanna Shields, who is here today, to head up engagement with industry for this task force and she will work with both the UK and US governments and law enforcement agencies to maximise our international efforts.
The US will be impacted by this! Hahahaha, suck it America... I mean, yep, this is going to be across the pond too, I look forward to hearing them pointing to the first amendment and pouting whilst their porn gets taken away
>So the search engines themselves have a purely reactive position.
>When they’re prompted to take something down, they act.
>Otherwise, they don’t.
>And if an illegal image hasn’t been reported – it can still be returned in searches.
>In other words, the search engines are not doing enough to take responsibility.
DC goes onto say that people compare search engines to postal services, in that they just deliver the data. He goes onto say that search engines are not “postal services” who purely deliver content. Instead they catagorise pages, so they should know what's going on with it and block illegal material
>What we have already done is insist that clear, simple warning pages are designed and placed wherever child abuse sites have been identified and taken down so that if someone arrives at one of these sites, they are clearly warned that the page contained illegal images.
>These splash pages are up on the internet from today, and this is a vital step forward.
>But we need to go further.
These splash images will show up when you go to questionable sites and says things like "YOU CAN LOSE YOUR CHILDREN IF YOU GO HERE" and other things in a similar vein to those on smoking packets
>If someone is typing in ‘child’ and ‘sex’ there should come up a list of options:
>‘Do you mean child sex education?’
>‘Do you mean child gender?’
>What should not be returned is a list of pathways into illegal images which have yet to be identified by CEOP or reported to the IWF.
Because going from studying reproductive biology to being involved in child abuse is a problem we all can relate to
> there needs to be a list of terms – a black list – which offer up no direct search returns.
>I simply don’t accept the argument that some of these companies have used to say that these searches should be allowed because of freedom of speech.
David continues to say he'll give search engines until October to find a way to intruduce blacklists or he'll start legislating... Wait, did DC say he doesn't accept freedom of speech? Careful, David, the Americans are listening.
>But the way I see it, there is a contract between parents and the state.
>Parents say – ‘we’ll do our best to raise our children right’ – and the state agrees to stand on their side; to make that job a bit easier, not harder.
Public wifi will be filtered and mobile internet will come with filters on that must be deactivated by an adult
>There has been a big debate about whether internet filters should be set to a default ‘on’ position in other words, with adult content filters applied by default – or not.
>Let’s be clear.
>This has never been a debate about companies or government censoring the internet but about filters to protect children at the home network level.
>Those who wanted default ‘on’ said – it’s a no-brainer just have the filters set to ‘on’ - then adults can turn them off if they want to and that way we can protect all children, whether their parents are engaged in internet safety or not.
>But others said default ‘on’ filters could create a dangerous sense of complacency.
He doesn't mention that the "others" quite like their internet privacy..
>[Claire Perry] has worked with the big 4 internet service providers TalkTalk, Virgin, Sky and BT who together supply internet connections to almost 9 out of 10 homes and today, after months of negotiation, we have agreed home network filters that are the best of both worlds.
>By the end of this year, when someone sets up a new broadband account the settings to install family friendly filters will be automatically selected.
>If you just click “next” or “enter”, then the filters are automatically on.
Opt-out filtering of all internet being set up with be big 4
>Now once those filters are installed, it should not be the case that technically literate children can just flick the filters off at the click of a mouse without anyone knowing.
>So we have agreed with industry that those filters can only be changed by the account holder, who has to be an adult.
No mention of proxies or VPN's. What about technically literate kids who can google?
>It does not deal with the huge ‘stock’ of existing customers – almost 19 million households so this is now where we need to set our sights.
>Following the work we’ve already done with the service providers, they have now agreed to take a big step.
>By the end of next year, they will have contacted all of their existing customers and presented them with an unavoidable decision about whether or not to install family friendly content filters.
>If adults don’t want these filters – that’s their decision.
That doesn't sound too bad to me..
>That’s why I am asking today for the small companies in the market to adopt this approach too and why I’m asking OFCOM, the industry regulator, to oversee this work, judge how well the ISPs are doing and report back regularly.
>If they find that we are not protecting children effectively I will not hesitate to take further action.
That sounded a little foreboding
>We need to teach our children not just about how to stay safe online but how to behave online too – on social media and over phones with their friends.
>And it’s not just children that need to be educated – but parents.
>And I am pleased to announce something else today a new, major, national campaign, that’s going to be launched in the new year, that is being backed by the four major internet service providers as well as other child-focused companies that will speak directly to parents about how to keep their children safe online and how to talk to their children about other dangers like sexting and online bullying.
Educational programs will be set up to help keep children safe
>There are certain types of pornography that can only be described as ‘extreme’.
>I am talking particularly about pornography that is violent, and that depicts simulated rape.
>These images normalise sexual violence against women – and they are quite simply poisonous to the young people who see them.
>Well I can tell you today we are changing that.
>We are closing the loophole – making it a criminal offence to possess internet pornography that depicts rape.
>Put simply – what you can’t get in a shop, you will no longer be able to get online. |
Yet another attempt to do good from a Prime Minister that doesn't understand the Internet. This will only harm legitimate users of the web. I'm sick of government regulation and filtering of websites; if someone wants to watch child porn, they can just download a tor browser and look at some shifty forums for an abusing community. If anything, making it possible to access pornography on the Internet easily makes it more likely that abusers who don't conceal themselves as well will be reported and caught. |
This is going to have very little effect on anything. The majority of the type of people this is targeting will know (and probably already use) methods to get past security systems and to remain anonymous using services like Tor and VPNs etc. They seem to be under the impression that people can just type "child porn" into Google and get exactly what they are looking for. This isn't the case. I strongly suspect that Cameron and his chums have not consulted any industry experts etc.
The most this will do will stop a few teenagers from watching porn. Maybe, and ONLY maybe. I, for one, know may methods of avoiding such filters and blocking systems and many others my age and younger do also.
Then there are the costs involved in such a system. Somebody is going to have to pay for these systems and, if the need to be capable of supporting the majority of the UK's internet traffic, they are going to be very substantial and large scale. I may not be an expert, but I imagine this will be quite costly. Who is going to pay for this? Who is going to operate and maintain it? The ISPs? The government themselves? Will the system be worth it, with so many ways around it?
This is all just another "do good" policy and a way of "helping" the people gaining publicity and ultimately votes from the naive and tech-illiterates in Britain who believe taht Cameron is really helping them out and keeping them safe. Because, as we all know, fixing the economy, the NHS, state welfare and addressing privacy issues (and much more) are definitely not important. |
Or you know, view porn anyway as the filter will not stop tech-literate people from viewing it. VPNs and proxies will increase in popularity I think, but David Cameron said something about targeting those next 'as people use them for illegal activities'. But, even so, there will be loads of mirrors popping up exactly like there was with the pirate bay. |
We have a great self-correcting system. Our pervasive "freedom to do what we want with our own property" culture isn't going anywhere, while we have companies who want our money and know that it would make zero business sense to block content. Americans are extremely annoying as customers: If something's wrong, the merchant fucked up. If the merchant fucked up, the customer wants his money back. If the merchant doesn't pay up, the customer boycotts the company publicly and makes a massive fuss, letting everyone know their tale of injustice.
From a government standpoint, spying is one thing; they're tapping into information that isn't theirs and side-stepping plain-English laws using manipulative language and fear-mongering nonsense, but at the end of the day, they're not stopping us from doing anything. In fact at the very least, they're encouraging that we do more, so they'll have more of our activity to look at. The executive government can ignore laws and interpret existing laws idiotically, but they cannot make up their own. If Congress, a group of hundreds of old white guys with too much time on their hands and the cooperative skills of a pack of alley cats, is going to pass any law at all, you can be sure the last thing that law would ever be is a ban on jacking off to xHamster videos. |
I seem to recall what Apple argued was that the supplier of the parts already paid Samsung to license the technology, so the parts were already "licensed" when Apple bought the parts. Then Samsung wanted to "double dip" by asking Apple to pay for licensing again.
ETA: none of that is relevant in this veto, though. Whether or not Apple actually owes Samsung for licensing, or how much Apple actually owes, is not the issue here. Even if Samsung's offer was fair and Apple was lowballing/being unreasonable, this veto is not "off base," because this veto has nothing to do with the actual terms of their licensing deal.
Relevant quote from Obama's Trade Representative:
>My decision to disapprove this determination does not mean that the patent owner in this case is not entitled to a remedy. On the contrary, the patent owner may continue to pursue its rights through the courts.
It's ONLY about preventing companies from using (abusing) their FRAND patents to get their competitors' products banned; if this precedent were allowed to stand, theoretically a FRAND owner could use their patents to hold competitors' products hostage by demanding unreasonable terms, getting ITC to issue a ban when they don't comply, and then monopolizing the market by essentially being the only ones able to use that standard. Which goes completely against the spirit of FRAND, btw.
I doubt this is what Samsung was trying to do, but it's all about the precedent that this ban would set: that you can use your FRAND patent to get a competitor's product banned. |
Putting aside how awful this is, it doesn't even accomplish what you want. Progress and high populations go hand in hand, and form a feedback loop.
Simple version: Efficient food production leads to more people, and less people needing to be farmers. This means we have more specialists. More specialists means more innovation in those fields. Some of that innovation leads to more efficient food production, repeat process. Historically, accelerating rise in population correlates to accelerating speed of technological discovery.
It's pretty simple, even if only .1% of your population are innovators, then more people means more innovation. And it's more than that, because scientific research thrives on communication. So 2 scientists are 4 times as effective as 1 scientist, 3 are 9 times so, etc. Maybe not those exact numbers, but the point is that technological progress is about information exchange, where it's more valuable to track network connections than individual nodes. |
Oh for fuck's sake.
I saw a headline submitted somewhere else that said this was about "who qualifies for freedom of the press" and thought, "EmdeeAhr, no one would possibly fall for that." Someday I shall learn to lower my expectations.
The bill has nothing to do with who can "report" anything, and has everything to do with who has to reveal sources in court. Everyone who gets a subpoena has to appear in court and answer questions under oath, with very few exceptions (spousal privilege, attorney-client privilege, doctor-patient privilege, and so forth). If you watched procedural crime dramas in the past 20 years (i.e., if you had a TV in the past 20 years), you know that even religious figures are not exempt from this: there's no pastor-worshipper privilege, at least not in most places.
To promote a free press, journalists have been asking for years for a national shield law that would prevent journalists from being required to reveal their sources under subpoena. If you or I don't answer questions on the witness stand, we can be cited for contempt and thrown into jail. Except in states that have laws to "shield" reporters from this obligation, it applies to them as well. (You may remember the case of Josh Wolf
But that leads to the problem at hand: if everyone is (or can be) a journalist, then who would ever have to testify in court? Doctor-patient privilege doesn't apply to your roommate who told you not to stick that thing in that hole, even if his advice was "medical" and saved your life, unless your roommate actually is your doctor . And that term has to be defined in the law so the court can rule about who is a doctor and who is not, and therefore who has to testify and who is not.
My view? A journalist is someone who commits journalism. But that's not a clear guideline for a court to follow so everyone has the same rights everywhere -- it's not "equal protection" if one judge thinks only mass media reporters are "journalists" and another judge across the country thinks anyone who uses blogger is a "journalist."
Suppose you hate your boss, and your boss's husband tells you she's been having an affair. He hired a private eye to track her and take pictures, and he gives you some of the pictures of her taking off her clothes for another man. You decide to put these pictures on a blog so she gets what she deserves -- but it turns out she was just posing nude for photographs as a gift for her husband. Oops. Now you're on trial for defamation, and the court asks where you got those photographs. You may honestly not want to tell anyone because the loving couple is happy again, but do you have the right to refuse to answer a question under oath? Should you? Were you committing journalism?
If everyone's a journalist, no one has to testify about sources. If no one's a journalist, reporters are always under legal threat of revealing sources so no one will take a risk to leak anything. The pragmatic solution: some people are journalists for the purpose of whether or not they must reveal sources. But who?
Feinstein says it's people who get paid. SPJ likes that. People who don't get paid but commit journalism aren't as thrilled with it. |
This is a complex issue and I think this article don't even scratch the
surface of the brazillian telecommunications problem and Internet privacy.
It presents the potential of the market of social media, like facebook and twitter,
which is very profitable to US-based companies, but it doesn't talk about the market
and infrastructure.
First of all, we have a huge problem in infrastructure: awful phone and eletric services,
roads made of cheap material and a corrupt system of service providing. Generally, the companies paid to provide public services have
to pass a bureaucratic process and most of the winning companies backed political campaings. After that, most of these companies don't
provide the best of the services, since they already have the money secured by his goverment allies.
This happens very simmilarly in the communications. Here we have a oligopoly of telecoms
that provide awful services and kind of work as cartels, with low broadband speed and low
investment in key tecnologies to provide better services. My region, for instance, have only
few places were the backbone are made of optic fiber cables and we haven't had investments
for years now. We already have more than 10 years of private companies working in telecoms
and none of them provided real infrastructure for the country. The hope is that Telebras puts
money where the private companies didn't put it in the first place, providing a better and cheaper broadband,
although I doubt that will be more efficient. At least I will give a try before saying the bullshit people tell
about goverment services being worse than private sector services.
Now, about citizen privacy, I doubt that the goverment will have full control of it. I think it would be more
intelligent to give finantial incentives for brazillian companies to provide services that they seem as risky
concerning citizen data, giving benefits if it provides better privacy protection. Requiring that the company
implements a set of technical specifications to garantee privacy to its clients would grant the finantial benefits
for the company. This would improove the brazillian market competition and provide inovations in the area.
Now, about goverment data: it is a really serious issue when a president have its privacy broken and I think its understandable to
isolate the country to provide better key issues the due secrecy it needs, although I would not like to have my access to my favorite sites blocked.
I believe it would be more interesting put some money in international cybersecurity development instead of trying to create a big firewall for
isolate every brazillian citizen from international services. |
Maybe they would cooperate if Google would stop harassing Microsoft over Windows Phone all the time. Basically NO google services work properly, and one time they blocked several services on the grounds of made up reasons. The latest victim was the [youtube app]( I can see how you can't force Google to write an app for Windows Phone, but first they deny Windows access to the youtube api, and then they totally block their app.
I think it would be funny to see how Google would react if next gen office files destroyed themselves when opened on an Android device. |
Yeah, I don't think I would trust a black market pharmacist lol. These medicines that are prescribed to us were created by Chemists with extreme knowledge in Chemistry. Lol I forgot most of my Chemistry, but I remember in some of my courses hearing how a slight change in the reaction/compound is able to change the effects of the drug completely. Even a slight change in charge. It can change the whole compound and even make some medicines deadly. One example I heard was some popular OTC drug (forgot the name). A few decades ago, only half the drugs in this medicine's container would have effect on you, the other half basically did nothing to your body. The reason for this is because the drug had two different stereochemistry/isomers (i'm sorry!!! I forgot my Chem terminology lol). Basically both versions had the same exact compound, only difference was how the molecules were physically structured (angles and shape). The elements in the compound might have been angled 30 degrees differently, and that slight change in the tiny molecule was able to completely change the effects of that drug. So imagine a person without knowledge in Chemistry attempting to create drugs that are meant to save lives, the result would be horrible. If we want to cheapen drugs, we need to look at the Pharmaceutical companies because they are the one's who control the prices of the drugs. |
The majority of HDMI devices support HDCP. Some devices (eg: blu-ray players) enforce it, refusing to send data unless the target device agrees to HDCP encryption.
The player device queries the display device to see if it supports HDCP and makes a decision based upon that. This information also includes supported resolutions, etc.
In this case, I would be very surprised if you were restricted to using HDCP, since you are in control of the transmitting device. The exception would be nasty applications (eg: blu-ray playback applications) which may not play unless they detect it is enabled.
You wouldn't gain anything from buying a non-HDCP compatable graphics card (I'm not sure any exist, with the exception of those which don't support HDMI and only support DVI (which is essentially, but not entirely, HDMI without encryption support)), since the application would refuse to work anyway.
There are plenty of ways to get around these restrictions, including applications which are not programmed to have these restrictions (although this is tricky, since the application needs to have a key in order to read the encrypted media in the first place. Keys for both HDDVD and BLU-RAY have been hacked, but I don't know to what degree these are used in mainstream applications such as VLC, some research may be useful).
There are also the option of devices such as HDMI splitters which communicate with the PC/BLU-RAY player using HDCP and spit out non-HDCP data. I do not know how well these devices would work with PC applications, where key revocation is easier than on a non-internet connected device such as a standalone player. |
Hence my point that it needs to be further developed without being completely dissed because it's not good enough "right now."
For the time being, since we don't have one solution that solves everything, we should be exploring any viable possibility as some might serve as intermediate technology as we transition to something better. I mean look, LCDs took over the screen-making industry and we lost SEDs in the process. How crap is that?!
Current batteries are quite terrible and are preventing a lot of technologies from being implemented in a lot of contexts (why laptops have to have a battery that is, literally, bigger than the main board is just stupid) This problem will have to be solved, and I can see it be solved soon, if we want to have nice things of the future anyway. |
quantum computers don't speed up hashing and bitcoin modus operandi for change addresses means that by the time quantum computers can be used against a then public key to get the private you have transfered everything to a different change address of which the public key is not known, just the hash of it. |
Unsurprisingly, [the actual study]( says nothing about the Silk Road actually reducing drug-related violence; the main finding of the study is that most vendors on the Silk Road are generally mid-level dealers who largely sell to low-level dealers.
As a result the mid-level dealers don't necessarily have to worry about turf violence and street level crime to conduct their business, and that this might cause a "paradigm shift" for that level of operations. But nothing changes at the street level or the cartel level.
The study notes that TSR's "virtual location should reduce violence, intimidation and territorialism" (emphasis mine), but it provides no evidence that it actually has had a tangible effect on reducing violence.
Also keep in mind just how tiny TSR's market is, compared to the whole illicit drug trade:
>It is undeniable that the size of Silk Road was negligible in comparison to the overall international drug trade: revenues on Silk Road were calculated in tens of millions of dollars whereas the international drug trade is measured in hundreds of billions of dollars. |
If this ends up growing to somewhere near the level of the workers union (Which I do hope it does, to an extent) we need to iron out the intentions of it before it starts gaining traction. It should be to fix and re-invent the current, broken system of internet provision. After that it has the potential to become a greedy, unstoppable and evil behemoth that could become just as, if not worse, than the cable companies. And that is saying something. |
Subsets and Splits