0
stringlengths 9
22.1k
|
|---|
I'm in indirect sales for Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile.
It's purely a money thing. AT&T easily has the means to aggressively roll out LTE and lay fiber to support it, considering the profit margins they have. The argument about strain on the network is completely bunk. Data is inherently infinite. There is no pool of data that AT&T has to dole out. What is finite is network capacity, meaning the amount of bandwidth available to a tower at any given point. If they are going to limit us in any way, it should be bandwidth limits. You pay for the speeds you need. Even at slower speeds someone can still use a ton of data, but it's much less of a strain on the network because they are using less bandwidth at any given point.
EDIT: To expand on this a bit: I had my AT&T account manager pull up some tower monitoring systems for me last week. We looked at one tower in particular near our hospital. I watched over 60GB move through that tower in less than 5 minutes. So, they aren't always lying when they say that there is strain. Capping data usage is not the way to fix it, however. |
Wouldn't data caps effectively reduce bandwidth usage by discouraging people from doing online stuff? I mean, statistically speaking, you would end up with a smaller peak bandwidth usage if everybody was considering whether or not to use their arbitrary "internet usage points" to download whatever they wanted to download. |
Obviously you haven't actually watched the video. It's clearly not a process where you literally print a burger and eat it. Maybe at some time in the future that will be possible. But right now it seems that the idea is to 'print' the meat product and then it would go through the same distribution chains and outlets that natural meat would go through. |
Are you fucking kidding me? The combustion engine has trillions in R & D.... This is one very small cross section of proof (used because it contains pictures), this is just ONE of Toyota's engine models the [Toyota A straight 4 cylinder]( You can visually see all of the R & D put into this engine model, it goes from being SOHC too DOHC, carbureted too fuel injected. Thats just the most extremely obvious evolution from looking at the pictures...
If this is toyota's old average economy car engine, imagine all of the R & D put into ALL OF THE OTHER FUCKING CAR ENGINES. I HOPE YOU GO DIE IN A MOTHER FUCKING FIRE, SAY WHAT AGAIN. I HOPE MY CAPS LOCK IS CONVEYING THE MESSAGE CLEAR ENOUGH. |
Over the past decade we have seen a lot change, our technology has grown exponentially while our thirst for big profits has grown along with it. Companies see the opportunity to make huge profits by making the maintenance on their products exclusively theirs, which in turn alienates us as consumers. Corporations also hold more power now than they have in the past, which is why congress passed such a ludicrous law regarding cell phone unlocking.
I think in the coming years we are going to have to fight for our rights as technological consumers, just as we have in the past with SOPA. |
The defcon lecture about fooling biometrics is really interesting.
You can do it with all sorts of stuff. Anything from gummy worms to certain resins and even gum. |
Except it will take a LOT of vote buying for that to happen. "Supporters" would need to pay 289 members of the house (at least) and 51 members of the senate (at least) to overturn a veto. According to the voting roll 42 ayes were Democrat (206 Republican) and, through history, veto votes usually fall on party lines. But let's say all of the ayes keep their vote and the no votes there (no votes can be from an absent member to a "vote of disagreement" with both sides), that is still 41 more votes to buy in the House.
This doesn't even include the senate who haven't voted yet and are fairly unlikely to pass the bill (most senators vote on party lines). |
I don't mean to be that guy, but no, not really, not according to the letter of the law.
Google AdSense makes direct, prohibitive mention of monetizing footage of video games. That video game EULA nobody reads usually explicitly bars you from "public exhibitions" or "network transmission" of various description. Lastly and more importantly, you are not allowed to make money off of their product unless you specifically are within your rights (according to EULA/ToU) to do so, as it can be construed as "infringing their rights."
So, while you would have claim to the fruits of your likeness in the video, you are not even allowed to have made that video in the first place, and many of your own rights are waived; monetizing is where you could really get in trouble though.
Now, the game industry is the last industry that lets you get away with using their content for your own creations (Let's Plays, Mods, Etsy crafts, shirts, etc) even if their terms expressly forbid you to so - because on the whole, somehow, they understand it's good for the industry, and to do otherwise would bring bad PR and wrathful neckbeards. So much of the gaming industry is the culture of absorption and making their product into a brand within the community - Do you think anyone ever got sued for making a dollar off of a zelda painting? What would Time Warner do if you started trying to sell something with their characters on it?
Taking ad revenue is an amicable way for x0AcidKirbyGannonsipr0x and Nintendo to not have to get into a legal battle which by all extents is over whether you're allowed to profit off of their product without asking. And frankly, you're not.
I could go on, but it's time for the |
I built my first rig and bought 80% of the parts from newegg. I went in having read various articles and guides and it was a great learning experience. It gave me a better knowledge of what is actually going inside my computer case.
Having never built one before I think I went in over my head. Overall i'm pretty frugal and am quite content buying cheap (cars,food,clothes etc.) but when it comes to electronics I impulsively reach for the higher end equipement. I really only realized what I got myself into once the parts came in. Imagine slotting in the CPU and messing up the pins. With a 40$ dual core? Eh, it sucks but learn and move on. A core i7 3930k? I would have been crushed.
My long winded way of saying their tech support was quick to help and very friendly, they even help me set up my graphics cards, which were arguably the most costly part of the build and not even purchased from them! And thus ends my rant, honestly I lost track of what my original point was... |
My experience is that Dell gives zero f*cks about you whether or not you buy your computer through them.
I bought an XPS laptop from them about 4 years ago. It took them 2.5 months to ship it to me, partially because they for no possible reason cancelled the order in their system twice without me ever interacting with them, lying to me twice over the phone about the status of my order "Yes, it shipped 3 days ago you should get it very soon (check the shipping tracker and it shows no record of shipment) after "The computer is currently built and being checked" (roughly 3 weeks before the above). And when I finally got it, the thing was bricked. They tried to get me to pay return shipping, I was like eff that, fix this or I'm just returning it and taking my business elsewhere ($3000 laptop)...they then took nearly another month replacing the motherboard, graphics card, and power source (nice inspection).
This is after years ago when my dad bought me a Dell desktop, and has similar issues (I didn't know at the time because I was like 13 and it was a gift). |
I doubt this will be the case in the near future. I'm also not sure where the article gets the price tag for this jet. [Wiki]( has it at $240 million which is still a shit ton of money. The Harrier went through the same type of development in its early years. The Marines need VTOL aircraft and they are not cheap nor easy to make. Look at the [V-22 Osprey]( for example. It took 25 years to get it right and people died building it but it will serve the Marines for decades into the future.
Replacing the U.S. aging fighter fleet will probably be the biggest non-combat headache the pentagon will go through for the next 30 years when the need to do it again. |
The library can only check out as many copies of an e-book as they’ve purchased or licensed from publishers. Seems like an antiquated way of going about things, right?
What does the author of this shitty article expect? That libraries should be able to pay a single license fee and then distribute infinite copies simultaneously to everyone?
>Publishers also decided that since e-books don’t wear out the way paper books do, they need to put limits on how many times a title can be lent before the library has to buy a new copy. For some publishers, the e-book “wears out” after 26 uses.
What does the author of this shitty article expect? That libraries should be able to pay a single license fee and then distribute infinite copies simultaneously to everyone without ever having to restock?
Hell, why don't we just make the lending term permanent while we're at it? There's no technological barrier for that either.
>Despite all of the data about how libraries help with book discovery and lead to greater recognition for books, and more sales...
...data based on the old analog model not your fantasy "frictionless" digital model. But hey, let's just gloss over that little discrepancy and cite it anyway as if it actually proved or supported anything. |
The paper is mostly about Shannon entropy vs. Reyni entropy. They work an example using hashed passwords, but I think the core concept applies to much more than that. Basically: if the plaintext isn't completely uniform, the useful entropy of a cyphertext won't be nearly as high as you might think.
I think this concept is potentially useful, but already widely understood on intuitive terms. The most obvious implications are for hashed passwords, but we already know about dictionary attacks and similar vulnerabilities. You could also view some attacks on bad RNGs as falling under this category, where you thought you had plenty of key entropy (uniform distribution), but you were wrong. Basically, it formalizes a framework for judging the useful cryptographic entropy. |
Amateurs didn't destroy the professional music business. Attempting to tell people what they like did, instead of providing music that we liked. They didn't want change, as change brings uncertainty. Their fear of loss of revenue destroyed their source of income.
Don't tell me what I like, let me choose it and make it available. Netflix is a prime example of an industry adapting. |
As a college student in Germany, I can say that if you are looking for parttime work on the usual jobsites for students, it is basicly 75% companies looking for programmers. Now of course I do not know if that is a sign for a general shortage of programmers and you can easily get a fulltime employment or if it is a sign that companies a simply trying to employ low pay college students on a short term basis and its hard to get fulltime employment. |
It's not the phone, it's the OS. Edit: Or more specifically, the fact that Microsoft made it. |
MUNICIPAL ISPs may not share data with the NSA! That means they support terrorism! |
What makes you think government is the only entity capable of using force for it's regulation? Remember the coal mines of the way back when. They would machine gun and burn towns when the people wanted things like enough food for their children for their labor. Absent regulation businesses will use their force privately, they'll use their money to buy powerful positions, mainly with violence, and they'll use their new position to turn more profits. |
Yes, I click one button and generally don't see it again the rest of the time I'm at a computer.
Meaning "I welcome the little inconveniences, because I'm subdued." |
Oh god, don't get me started on the synaptics touchpad bullshit. You can disable that behavior in registry (and perhaps their tools), but man does it bug me when they invoke charms or app switch because you dared brush the edge of the touchpad. It sucks that we get blamed for that, but the same thing happened in Vista with "stupid Microsoft" in response to bad video card drivers causing BSODs.
What hardware wasn't it compatible with? We set out with the goal that "if it works on Win7, it works on Win8" for any cpus that support the PAE/SSE2/NX bits. |
Any machine with a solid state drive likely also has an UEFI BIOS.
The real killer drag on boot times over the last 5 years hasn't been Windows boot times (that was mainly an issue 10-15 years ago). It's been sitting through the POST of the traditional BIOS.
Windows 8 hybrid hibernated boot takes off mere seconds. Less than the time saved from PC's switching from legacy to EUFI BIOS and removing the POST screen. |
Absolutely right. People assume you can just Google a problem and find the answer and parrot that all over the Reddits. "Dey'll take der jobs!" Dey won't. I have yet to meet an average user who could figure out the correct terminology. They can use Google for the things they are good at, but not tech.
My father in law is also very tech savvy and works at Arris. There are many things he is very, very good at. But actually searching for problems related to end user PC's, his included, is not one of them. I think partly he doesn't have the patience, but a lot of it is how he thinks about problem solving. |
I actually really like windows 8. I don't know if it's just because I got a new computer that came with it so everything felt faster, but it's really smooth. I haven't had a single problem with it. Granted it's just an 800 dollar internet machine, and sometimes I use it for school, but seeing as how that's what a large majority of everyone else does, I reckon it passes the test. I still like XP the best, it was so simple yet elegant, but it might have just been the jump that was made from 2000 to XP was so big sorry I'm rambling. |
I should specify, I had to promise hell fire and brimstone on april 8th to my boss if we didn't ditch XP, but to keep him from being pissy every two minutes, I had to install custom themes, classic shell, and custom printer drivers which require the "special boot which allows unsigned drivers". Then regular Win8 options: disable lock screen, mess with log in times, framework upgrades for legacy software, uninstalling half the built in apps for each user log in. |
It is actually pretty simple if you think about it.
People who started with computers in the 70's know how to program in basically everything because they had to make their own rather than buy them.
People who started in the 80's know how to troubleshoot most programs and operating systems regardless of who developed them.
90's folks know how to install, upgrade, troubleshoot and configure stuff that other people made. And how to program in the most popular languages.
2000's + know how to use a computer to write documents or browse the web and send email. The computers are smart enough to configure themselves and leave the user out of the experience. Think about how a smart phone "just works", or an apple computer.
Sure there are still lots of people who know how to actually WORK on a computer, and customize it, or configure it for specifics. But average users now expect things to just do what they want with plenty of bells and whistles, with no requirement to figure out HOW they work.
Microsoft in my opinion, is trying to cater to the new generation at the expense of pissing the old generation off. Because they know the older generation knows how to adapt, and will still be able to support the new users when things go wrong. |
actually in all of my experience, windows is really exceptional at requiring a lot of driver workaround before migrating a hdd to a (even slightly) different computer/chipset. usually it's storage drivers that make it BSOD on startup all the time, (and no, startup repair etc never fixes it).
so i'd be especially wary even when changing from e.g. hdd to ssd.
i've experienced this many times on entirely separate machines, my brother has once as well. and uninstalling "all of the drivers" isn't always possible. and even when you do, i'd have it manage to boot up just fine, without a BSOD as usual, but after using it regularly for a while, suddenly hit a BSOD at runtime(but the bsod didn't give an indication of a driver issue, or which driver it was, because it was a generic one). don't ask me how it seemed to compromise the stability of the system..but all the old drivers were uninstalled as far as i could tell, and the machines themselves weren't even that different (same intel cpu even).
it has a lot to do with how windows handles hardware and how their HAL works. |
Well actually the point of business is to turn profit. Thats the only thing a company is interested in, technological progress, happy customers, healthy competition are all side product. But thats all ok as long as we have a system that keeps the balance, we have healthy legislation, we have competition, bureaucrats that are not bought to defend interests of corporations. The idea of proprietary technology is not just to bring better products to customers, not only to bring something like lightning port or firewire its also to serve company internal needs, help them to control everything help Apple to turn more profit. I hate it when people criticise Apples closed garden approach and ask Apple to be more open, closed garden is what Apple does, if you don't like it you can pick up a competitor. |
I pay for 107 from Suddenlink and wasn't getting it for several months. Last Septemper it got really bad, especially during peak hours. I was only getting 10-20mbits. I suspected that my node was saturated and confirmed that suspicion one day when the power went out in my town. I have my modem and router on a battery backup, so I still had Internet. I decided to do a speed test to see what I would get. I got 70Mbits, and that solidified my suspicion that the node had way too many people on it. During all of this, I had been calling customer service and having techs come out who confirmed that there was nothing wrong on my end so that I could get refunds each month while I tried to get them to really fix it.
Finally, I was fed up and demanded to talk to the call center supervisor and asked him of he could give me the number of the lead tech for my area. He did, so I called him and told him everything that I thought was going wrong. He checked the node and the data and confirmed that my node was the worst one in the area and needed to be split.
It took them 2 months, but they did 2 things. First, they added 4 more downstream channels to the node and provisioned the DOCSIS 3 modems so that the could use 8 total. After they did that, I could get the 107Mbits that I pay for immediately. Later that week, they split the node and I still had the speed and all was good.
It took them several months and a tech savvy customer being very persistent, but they did fix it and credit my account for the months that they had record of me complaining about my speed. They fixed it for everyone else in my neighborhood too, but I'm the only one with the 107mbit service on the node, so I'm likely the only one that noticed. |
Thanks for the love. I'm an academic librarian. Our system, Innovative's Sierra, purges patron check out records beyond the second user. You can only view who currently has it out and who had it before them.
On a funny note, we really do retain your records if you don't return books. For example, since the stock market crashed many people required college transcripts for job interviews/applications. One such person couldn't get their transcripts from our university because they had four unreturned books from 1987. Since they were all textbooks (checked them out and dicked other students by taking them all semester so no one else could use them), we've a policy that states they were to be replaced with the most current edition. Their total fine? $628.00. |
Academic Librarian here (Community College). We are protecting your privacy in 2 ways.
Once a book is checked back in, we have no way of seeing who has ever checked it out. The only thing attached to the record is the last date it was checked in.
We have a program called Deep Freeze on our public computers. Any time the computer is shut down, everything is wiped, and any files that had been downloaded are deleted. We do have some filters, but they are pretty lenient, and it should be noted that the public is welcome to use these computers at any time, for as long as they want. There is no login info required to use our network. Even with our wifi, you can use a dummy e-mail address to register. |
There's a reason for some of that. In order to receive certain federal funding, public and school libraries must have filtering software on their computers as part of CIPA. This is an [imperfect system]( and some libraries will make errors out of extreme caution:
>Often, it is because the institutions and individuals responsible for implementing these policies misunderstand or misinterpret CIPA and the Supreme Court decision upholding the law. Among these misunderstandings is a belief that an institution will lose all federal funding if it does not block all potentially inappropriate sites to the fullest extent practicable, or that the Supreme Court decision authorized mandatory filtering for adults and youths alike. |
Indeed. This sensationalist title seems to obscure some parts of the fact.
I've been an iPhone 6 owner and I've never even come close to bending that shit. Even if you're as fat as my dad, it really doesn't bend even if you put it in a jean pocket. If you sit on it, however, that's a completely different story... |
If that is true,
It would take you 30-60 seconds to verify this. Are you that lazy?
>This is my last post, because I think 3 posts is enough. I mean, any more I might be called some sort of wackjob that wanted to argue on the internet more than look at facts because I had some sort of political agenda where I somehow based my value on a product. Certainly 4+ posts if trying to sway others would qualify me, so I'm going to leave it to the professionals. I certainly hope someone was paying you today. |
I'm not arrogant, I'm honest.
Yeah? Then explain this:
>You've spent pages ...
Pages?
>I've handled both devices from apple, they are reasonably sturdy.
I have as well (even own and use an iPhone 5C daily.) And that's exactly my concern. Previous models have been sturdy. Not without shortcomings, but at least they were structurally sound (not including the glass, but that's not unique to any particular device.)
> I'm certain that I could fold, spindle, or mutilate any of them given enough lack of care and concern.
Sure, but what about daily use? That's the issue at hand with the 6. Regular, daily use for that specific device has led to structural failure (as in, a failure to maintain shape,) in that device. We're not talking about extremes. Placing a device under extremes over time with the intent of causing a structural failure will not be unique to the iPhone 6.
>So what, really, is your point?
Made repeatedly and restated again in this response.
But for the |
95% of the time it's under my shirt and you can't see it at all. If I am working at a particular job and have to have my shirt tucked in, they would expect someone like me to have a holstered phone. |
I've been wondering if this is going to be an American news story this morning.
These are the news stories were finding as we check: Kardashians are upset about something, how to lose weight, Obamas Visit to China, 'Vacation Breasts' or 'insta breasts', how far left the Democratic Party is, finally, on BBC world news it is going to be covered as a top story.
We don't get NASA channel with our top tier cable tv. |
Find a copy of windows 7, NOT windows 8 unless you want a headache.
Then follow these instructions. |
the frontpage of reddit is one of the most attractive advertising spaces on the internet. how many times have you seen a picture proudly toting a major brand live subway or taco bell that ultimately doesn't even seem like that interesting of a post? I'd argue that, more often than not, these sorts of posts are intentional PR/marketing constructs that leverage either sold reddit accounts or "for lease" usernames that otherwise have innocuous posting history.
what's more, the reddit staff is acutely aware of when the system is being gamed or abused, so they're likely keen to what these big firms are doing and either put a blind eye to it or, worse, include it into their business model somehow. |
Windows phone doesn't allow developers to access the cell ID info, just like iPhone. |
The fact is that all chips you buy, in the same family, are from the same design. You aren't exceeding the design of the hardware if you aren't running it faster than what the manufacturer already sells.
I recently bought an i7-920 and I am running it like an i7-975 on stock cooling. I do this mainly because I want the maximum single threaded performance I can get for TF2, which doesn't really use multiple cores well (read at all). The side benefit is that my computer is now as fast as a stock i7-975 and I saved $600. |
What you mean here is " I cannot imagine any circumstances in which I would let it out", but that's far, far, far from being the same thing as "I would never let it out". You're only as smart as you, so all you're really saying is "someone only as smart as me couldn't persuade me to open it". Well... yeah, obviously. But we're talking about a massively more intelligent transhuman AI here - it's not bound by your limited intellectual abilities, so unless you're basically a fundamentalist (utterly irrational and will stick with your beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary) you have no idea what it might - by virtue of its greater intelligence and reasoning abilities - be able to persuade you to do.
What you're saying here is the AI-in-the-box equivalent of "I can invent a security system so complex that I can't break into it"... but it's a well-known fact that anyone can invent a security system which is so clever that they can't break into it. However, this is trivial and worthless - the true test is designing a system that nobody else can break into, and that's a lot harder. |
This is true. I work for the Apple tech support line and have to explain this many times a day.
I actually feel good doing it, as an avid PC fan, telling customers that if they chose a Windows machine, they would be able to sync their new devices.
Breakdown:
1. iPhone 4, iPad or iPad 2, iPod Touch 4, iPod Shuffle 4, iPod Nano 6; all of these devices require iTunes version 10 or later. There is no explanation for this.
2. iTunes version 10 only works on OS X 10.5 or later. You cannot upgrade to 10.6 without an Intel processor.
3. In order to upgrade to 10.5 or later, you need to PURCHASE the operating system upgrade.
4. We do not sell 10.5, so you are forced to purchase OS X 10.6 with 10.5 as a package. This nets about $140.00. This also forces older Mac users (no Intel) to purchase a new Mac to continue.
NOTE : It is possible to upgrade from 10.4 (Tiger) to OS X 10.6 using just the Snow Leopard disk. However, this is forbidden by Apple and [voids the warranty.]( |
He has a Macbook that is still running 10.4 Tiger, but for some reason he never realized that Apple has released two major OS versions since then and never thought that he would need to update the software on his machine. He then went and bought an iPhone 4 without looking at the published spec requirements and doesn't want to pay for Leopard (the Apple employee said he had to buy Leopard). However even though everyone on the internet has said that all he needs to do is spend $30 on Snow Leopard, he refueses to verify this with a simple Google search and instead writes a link-bait article designed to drive page views and spread misinformation, not to mention start yet another Apple related flame war. |
Tiger is obsolete. Any computer that can run Tiger can run Leopard, which has been out for 4 years now. If you call AppleCare and tell them you have a Tiger machine and can't use your other Apple hardware because it requires Leopard, they will typically offer you a free or discounted upgrade. Even full price is only $129, hardly unreasonable for upgrading a six-year-old OS. If you won't update your computer OS, then don't update your iOS devices either . Problem solved, you can keep using outdated software across the board or you can upgrade across the board, the problem only emerges when you want to use the latest software updates on one component and very outdated software on the device you want to use it with. |
I don't believe they will shut down anything large like youtube, reddit, facebook or twitter. The second the government starts permanently detaining Alex Jones or Steven Colbert under NDAA laws, you'll have massive protests and awareness of government corruption. They wont do that, the government is smarter than we give it credit for. They'll simply prevent the next Alex Johns from ever getting popular to begin with, and over time all the old activists will die off.
They'll do the same with the internet. Cut off new and upcoming sites and let the old ones [die.]( |
I'm with you up until "CREATE A NEW POLITICAL PARTY." The US system is set up to completely marginalize anyone trying to get a view represented outside either major party (with the exception of local offices where one party is already dominant).
However, there is nothing that prevents people from promoting the proactive defense you're talking about within the existing parties. Real change, good or bad, is affected through them. SOPA didn't gain steam by promoting a pro-entertainment industry party, it has reached the cusp of being written into law through the purchase of congressmen on both sides of the aisle. The Tea Party would have been a truly pathetic political force if they hadn't co-opted the existing Republican party.
If one insists on third party approaches to saving American politics, they're fighting both for their issues and against the existing political machinery in this country, a war on two fronts. |
I hope SOPA does pass so all you faggot basement dwellers take your neck beards some place else. |
Well, here's my thirty-something take on it. Life gets harder the older you get. Might sound obvious, but think about this - the second you are in right now, is the easiest your life is going to be for a very very long time. And that wears you down after a while. It's not some sudden realization, some decision when you wake up one day and think "Yup, today's the day I'm going to turn into my parents!". It's gradual, it's water wearing away at rock, and it happens without you even realizing it.
The biggest challenge I've faced in the last ten years, is to not let the ever-increasing torrent of shit that comes my way on a daily basis turn me into a hardened, colder person. The biggest disappointment is that I haven't suceeded nearly as much as I'd like.
Anyhow, maybe you're the same age as me, or older, and already know this - if that's the case, please ignore my ramblings. But if you're still late teens/early twenties, and haven't started to experience this yet? Get ready, because it's coming. |
ok lets say you create a program, write a song or produce a movie, or any other activity that costs u time, money and effort. lets say you spent your life savings pursuing your idea and are able to release a product to the public. it starts generating money (people buy your cd, go see your movie in theaters, etc.). suddenly, someone posts it on thepiratebay, torrentfreak, etc. now, something you worked hard on and put blood, sweat and tears into is being spread across the internet. everyone now has free access to copywrited material, which is ILLEGAL. this is what SOPA is trying to prevent. while this bill is DEFINITELY flawed, it is a step in the right direction to prevent people from benefiting from other's hard work. |
It's a sultry night in July, you've fallen asleep in the arm chair. Abruptly, you startle awake, disoriented. The television is on.. But, not the sound. You strain to understand what you're seeing. Two ghostly white figures in coveralls and helmets are softly dancing. They make strange little skipping motions which propel them upward amid barely perceptible clouds of dust.
But something is wrong. They take too long to come down. Encumbered as they are, they seem to be flying, a little. You rub your eyes, but, the dreamlike tableau persists. |
As far as I understand it, polygamy does affect you (unless you are already married). I am no expert, but from what I read, seen and from basic logic, traditional polygamy (where a man can have multiple wives, rather than the other way around) benefits women and disadvantages all but the most suitable men. Fewer men get more of the "top" women, leaving every other men with a smaller pool of women to choose from, leading to more men without mates and the men that do find mates are typically left with less suitable ones.
Of course, the suggestion here implies that the polygamy could go both ways, but in our current society, I have a strong feeling that there would be many more of the 1 man many women marriage than there would be 1 woman many men marriage. |
No, I recognize that there were good qualities in the south. Before, during, and after the civil war. Their were brave men and women on both sides. What I am saying, is TODAY, the confederate flag is not a symbol of that strength, it is a symbol of the hate that predominated the south during that time, and it is a symbol of the hate many people in the south (and frankly the north) have today. The flag is a symbol of hate and racism. This is not disputable, it is a fact. Is it also a symbol of southern pride and states rights? Sure, why not. But more so, it is a symbol of hate. Not hate based on beliefs or idioligy (which I get), but hate based on skin color. Hate based on God given traits. This is something I cannot stand for. To me the confederate flag is a symbol of everything wrong in the country. Is that a fair feeling? No, I admit that. But it is the feeling many (if not most) American's have, and there is at least some justification for it. And, no I am not down voting you, just because i disagree with your comment does not mean I think you do not have the right to say it (in fact I really appreciate it, most people do not even try and explain why they like the flag) I just completely disagree with what you think that flag represents in this day and age. |
Hate to be "That Libertarian Guy" but when we say stuff like "It's within a company's rights to not hire [insert subjugated minority] people, even though it's a terrible idea", we're thinking like Microsoft is here. Like a successful business should think. Microsoft might actually hate gay people (who knows?) but it's a pretty stupid idea to cut yourself off from talented people or cash-carrying customers based on backward, close-minded ideologies. |
I understand what you're saying. But perceived disadvantages in the long run doesn't seem to be a good enough to deny someone the right to happiness and freedom. I could be a gay man and say 'Straight marriages/couples tend to reproduce on an already overpopulated planet whereas gay couples do not. Therefore, we should make being straight illegal because by their very nature, they will push humanity to starvation among other grim outcomes' |
Dark people tend not to use sun tan lotion.
The point of the labels is that their are behavioral and cultural differences between various ethnic groups. Indians eat basmati, chinese eat chinese rice, latinos eat yellow rice, and white people tend to eat bread. Of course they could all suddenly switch, or change up briefly, but most people are quite traditional. From understanding the likelihood of people to do certain things based on their background a better understanding of people can be had. |
This is an argument that has been put forth by economist Richard Florida. I don't always agree with his assessments but overall I like his thinking.
[Richard Florida](
If you really want to learn about his work, I suggest you take an hour and watch the following:
[The Flight of the Creative Class](
If you do end up watching this I'd love to know what you think, cheers. |
well, not so biased as this, but it is about state rights and the freedom for the states to make decisions for themselves. The confederacy was not fighting about slavery, but their constitutional right to make decisions for themselves. Abraham Lincoln actually violated the rights initially promised to the states by refusing to let them make their own choices. |
I'm very confused here. We are in support of having a corporation affect politics? I thought that we were very much against that. Yes, it's a good move they are making, but in the end they even state that this is for the company's best interest: "This in turn will help us continue to compete for talent." If Microsoft can claim the right to push legislation or at least make a call for action, why is it so wrong for something like the MPAA push its interests into SOPA/PIPA? And if you are about to say that the MPAA, RIAA, et. al. are pumping money into politics, I'm pretty sure you will find that Microsoft is doing this somewhere as well on this issue (don't have any source for this, just speculation). A strongly worded letter isn't going to sway a politician on a hot button issue like gay marriage.
FWIW, I am all for gay marriage, so I appreciate the gesture here, but the gesture is from a corporation, who should be staying out of politics. That's the reason I'm very much against SOPA/PIPA (besides the whole fucking up the internet part). Just wanted to get some discussion on this. |
I'm going to let you in on a not-so-secret fact here: the first version of Android, as purchased by Google, was a Blackberry knockoff. It looked very little like say, Eclair or Froyo. The VM was mostly worked out and the root of what's at the bottom of the OS was more or less what you see today, but the interface was wholly different.
Come 07, Apple announces a capacitive slate smartphone and Google realizes the Blackberry form factor is likely on the way out. They re-jiggered the UI to work on capacitive slates and the rest is history.
Steve Jobs was sort of pissed off when the new, improved Android was demo'd. Mostly because he'd shown Schmidt an engineering prototype of the iPhone back when the former was on Apple's board, back when Android was more Blackerry than iOS. We'll never know how it all really went down, but Jobs was convinced that Google used inside knowledge to knock up a competitor. He'd been through this before with Windows, and probably wasn't very impressed.
I think the vendetta was personal and had nothing to do with competition. Jobs thought he'd been ripped off and the work that Apple had been doing was for naught. Remember they were working on the iPad for years before they decided to try it with a phone first. All that work essentially avoided, if you believe the theory, by Google. |
I'm guessing, since these "journalists" (and I use the term loosely) don't provide a source or any reasoning behind these claims), that they simply looked at the requested privileges of an app and ran wild with the result. Annoyingly enough, on Android at least, getting the phone serial number (to uniquely identify a phone, something lots of apps want to do) requires getting permission to "Read phone state and identity" which is also enough permission to see what phone number is currently on the line. |
That 30% is just the number that actually bother to click the terms and conditions link. Whether they actually read, much less understand, those terms and conditions are another issue entirely. Personally I always click and scan such terms, usually failing to actually read the whole thing thoroughly. Then again I always assume the worst and take proactive measures to protect and sandbox what they don't need to know. Few people are sophisticated enough to pull this off, and I don't even use the same computer for this to avoid errors. |
This study looked at (only 100) people in the 18-25 age group, which tends toward narcissism and low self-esteem anyway (as young people trying to find their place in the world and determine who they are).
In order to trust the results of a study attempting to profile a service that has hundreds of millions of users, we need a much larger survey group that also accurately reflects the age/gender/ethnicity/etc demographics of people who use the service (not just 18-25-year-olds, for instance - because people of all ages, 13+, use FB). |
Why is everyone surprised about this? If you want to avoid this type of Social Shit Networks, don't fucking use faceshit, twatter or goggling+, simple.
I don't use those and still keep in touch with all my friends via something called, real life. I avoid social networking sites now a days because they keep crossing the line of my privacy. I don't wear tin foil on my head or believe Mark Zuckerberg is Satan (well, not completely), its because they just take my info and sell it to the highest spamming bidder. I miss the old days of "social networking" via AIM when it was personable and private. Now its all about vague wall posts, pic whores, shitty meme's and how many friends you have contest. Sure theres some positive aspects like how its used to overthrow dictators and organize protests against oppressive 1%'ers, but most of the social networking crap is all about how they can take your info and sell it (Oh, your getting a bomb dropped on you by your own government? Would you like to sign up for a 5% discount on molotov cocktails?). Ok, now get off my lawn!
Down vote to hell all you want. |
Yes it was.
So corporate lobbying in Brussels has made sure this would not happen.
Here in Belgium, the utility companies charge people who don't have solar cells (who mostly can't afford to place them anyway) an additional fee.
Reason ? The costs of putting solar power back into the grid when not used... |
I'm a little fuzzy on the details because this isn't my area of expertise - however I had a long talk with a few people in the industry, and these were their main talking points:
Power does not "hang around" the grid - a complete circuit is needed. If power demand rises sharply, voltage will drop - and if power use goes down sharply, voltage will rise. Think of the power plants as generators and the grid as its' load. When people stop asking for power, they actually shut down plants to equalize. So power is not just a matter of providing, it's a matter of providing it in the correct amounts, when it is needed.
Solar panels and wind turbines rarely provide power when it is needed. For example, the largest power-usage period is usually from 5pm to 9pm, when everyone is home. It's not very bright around that time. It's brightest at noon, and that's actually a medium-to-low power usage time.
The power company pays the homeowner for the power used, period. However, they may not be able to make effective use of the power. If the grid is rising in voltage, it's time to shut down a few power plants to get the voltage under control - but even as they're trying to reduce their power production, they have to keep paying for Joe Schmoe's solar panels.
As far as I know, there really isn't any shunting or bleeding-off of power - as far as I know. They probably manage the grid well enough that things simply stay within tolerances. But if everyone in the state were to shut off everything, the power grid would definitely have a severe voltage spike. |
no one will argue that point, saying any form of technology doesn't need improvement would be detrimental scientifically.
I just hate hearing those who oppose anything electric say we shouldn't try. Of course ICE platforms will do more for cheaper, it is fully developed tech that has over 100 years of experience with this application. We're talking about engines with computer controlled direct fuel injection, high pressure fuel rails, variable valve timing, computer controlled forced induction (turbos), cylinder deactivation, etc making internal combustion engines as capable as they are. In fact, electric drivetrains are laughably simple compared to what we would call 'traditional' drivetrains. This results in electric motors taking less energy to complete the same amount of work, despite their primitive nature.
what I'm getting at is internal combustion engines are stretching the limits of their potential. they are doing this with systems so complex it blows my mind that they are capable of being driven in adverse conditions everyday by average people and not break down weekly. If electric motors had this same developmental we would be ahead. electric motors operate more efficiently with less drag and less rotating mass using less complex systems and one fuel source (electricity) that can be produced in so many different ways and even delivered in so many ways that it makes no sense not to switch to it.
Batteries are un deniably developing at a fast rate, I would even be willing to say they are developing faster than anything under the hood of a traditional car. They will also soon be supported by cars equipped with solar panels strong enough to actually make a difference with range at a price that is accesible for the middle class, because that is another form of developing tech.
Saying we shouldn't even attempt to use the technology until it is developed is a catch 22. It needs to be implemented if you want to see real progress. I'm not saying that you are implying that, but it is a popular opinion unfortunately and it is counter productive.
I would also like to say that charging stations will be easy to implement, all gas stations are hooked up to the power grid afterall. |
I don't think your first point is correct. Your example of the transistor is a good one. Making a transistor with gain was not simple the first time it was done. Figuring out how to make a good transistor that could be mass produced took a long time.
I think it relates more to the fact that physics as a discipline is not socially appreciated. The Cold War made physics not only acceptable, but necessary. In fact when USSR broke apart the best students entering into college went to economics and finance, while before they would go into physics. It was considered a 'manly' discipline. You had one of the highest positions in society.
Also, we are still running on Bell Labs old steam. Transistors, lasers, wireless, UNIX, C,...all Bell Labs. I have met several guys who worked there before they broke up Ma Bell. The way they set up the research was conducive to blue sky thinking. They gave each guy (which were basically professor level researchers) his own money and space. They encouraged collaboration.
Look at research in universities today and it would make you somewhat ill. People are unnecessarily competitive and secretive. They think about the patent before the publication. Professors spend so much time trying to convince funding agencies that they are doing worthy research that they don't spend much time doing research themselves.
There is lots of physics out there, applicable to the real world. But unless you work on quantum gravitation effects in nanowires that heals AIDS and cancer, you can't get your publication into the Scientist Anointing Magazines (Science/Nature), and you will have trouble getting money to pay students and post-docs. |
Ah yeah, I remember TWENTY GODDAMN YEARS AGO WHEN THOSE WERE RELEVANT. Ascii was the shut but really, porn us an important part of life, I don't understand the lack of it. I literally post it all the time and I couldn't go without that.
Damn drunk talk, |
the income of most media creators is going to be strongly reduced
Let us suppose that's true. So what? People will spend the money on something else. You seem to be making the assumption that less money going to creating art is automatically bad. Maybe if people spent less money on media they would donate more money to humanitarian projects.
The problem we are trying to solve with economic systems in general is optimal resource allocation with respect to some notion of well-being for people. It is not immediately clear that the amount of money going to creation of content (and even less the distribution of it inside the industry) is anywhere near optimal. |
I am condemning it for claiming it is any shade of moral to have those laws.
While I partially agree with you in general policy I disagree with this assertion. Copyrights are a compromise. They exist to provide protection, and hence incentive, for creators to publicize their creations (and perhaps produce them in the first place). The reason we want them to create and publicize is that all members of society benefit from the sharing of new ideas, expressions, commentary, debate, and other forms of copyrightable works.
Moreover, we want to maximize such benefits. That means if protections are too weak, there will be fewer new productions than if protections were stronger and the public hence benefits less. If protections are too strong then the public has less access and benefit to use and adapt them for growth, than if the protections were weaker. The concept works well in balance and, given the goals and very rational strategy to maximize such benefits, it is entirely moral. I would say even more moral than having no such laws.
The problem we're having is that the balance is far out. It leans very far to the creator side, driven largely by the "It's my property since I created it" meme that has been part of the struggle since even before the Statute of Anne first recognized copyrights in law. But the goal of copyright isn't to recognize personal property rights; it's to maximize public benefit as above.
What is needed is fixing the balance. There are a number of considerations:
The duration needs to be short; long enough to give the artists a good incentive to monetize their works, but not a minute longer. Then let everyone else have a crack at it.
The scope needs to be very limited. Clearly non-commercial uses and ones that don't undercut artist efforts to monetize should not be stopped. Having a song on in the background of a Youtube video doesn't stop people from buying the song. In fact, it is more likely to increase sales, but that is irrelevant to the principle.
Ease of access. If I want to use a clip from a TV show in my video on Youtube, I have no idea who owns the copyright, if anybody, how to get ahold of them, or how to license it. Google can help somewhat, but often the only way to find out who owns various copyrights is to violate them and see who sues you. That is too high a risk and too difficult to access.
Cost of access. I've discovered that to do a cover song on guitar on Youtube could actually cost on the order of $1000. The public can't afford that. That just discourages usage.
Competition of distribution. Here is where I agree with the article. The incentive is for the artist to create, not for the artist to set the means of distribution. Mandatory licensing fees is one way and has been pretty successful in radio, clubs, and other venues. I think it, or something similar, is necessary for sales as well. I shouldn't need to track down every copyright owner, or label, to negotiate rights for each song, artist, or label. That effort is inefficient and costs the public unnecessarily. I should be able to just start selling them and pay a fee for each one sold. That allows experimenting with efficient business models which tends to maximize income for artists.
These might not be exhaustive, or the best policies or examples. But I do see the need for such laws, but with balance. I think it solves your competition problem as well and maximizes the benefits to everyone. |
A few things I disagree with. For one thing, that system doesn't protect the original creator's rights. If you make a product you want to profit from it right? But without copyrights or patents some larger business with more resources can steal your idea and mass produce it, driving you out of business and then forming a monopoly on the product. Yes prices fall faster, until a monopoly forms and drives the prices up. I think you misunderstood my comment about apple, I meant that the ridiculousness with suing people for the slightest similarity is getting out of hand, that's part of the system that needs to be fixed, and yes these things do happen on a large scale but not as blatantly as they would without copyrights. |
What OS would that be?
The single biggest malware outbreak in modern times, in percentage of total userbase infected, was the Mac OSX Flashback. It infected as much as 1% of the total Mac OSX userbase .
The biggest Windows outbreak in modern times, Conficker, infected 0.7% of user base. Now, someone will say that still is a much higher number of users, and of course it is. But, if you are looking at your chance to get infected on a platform, percentage of userbase is the right measure.
If you look at the pwn2own hacking contest, not only have Safari and OSX been first to fall a number of the times, but if you read the interviews with the winners, they acknowledge that Windows have gotten quite good at security, [and OSX is playing catchup]( |
Can a badass play by the rules? I am not familiar with that trope.
I kid. I know I sound like that a bit, and hilariously and unintentionally my username lets me get away with it a bit since people assume it's a novelty thing.
However, I really do hate piracy. I have a lot of friends who do indie media for a living, from comics to movies to games. And I'll be honest, I used to pirate a lot when I was younger. However, meeting these people and understanding how their worlds were based entirely around their non-physical products changed how I viewed it all.
I'd love it if we could all sit down and have a lovely chat instead of me having to look like the last cowboy, but hyperbole and reactionary shit wins out in the end. So yeah. |
I live in New Zealand, a while ago on a radio station called The Edge a caller said he tweeted Kim Dotcom to ask if he wanted to go to his barbecue, and he went! Apparently he's super chill and shit. Class act. |
This has always been a contentious point for me. I had assumed that the internet would make a lot of this stuff cheaper. You aren't producing any actual stuff, other than data.
You can blame DVDs for this trend actually. When DVDs replaced VHS, people suddenly had to re-purchase their entire movie libraries because DVD players won't play VHS tapes.
This led to a decade where DVDs were horrendously profitable. The media companies could literally release anything and turn a profit.
The media bubble, if you will, has since run out. Blue Ray players will play DVDs, which means this time around we don't need to re-buy everything, so the media companies are sitting on top of all this debt accrued to wind up for blue ray/win the last format war, and sales are nowhere near as high as they were when DVD hit the market. (lets face it...HD didn't die because it was the inferior product like beta did. It died because Sony spent billions of dollars buying out exclusive deals with major movie studios so they could flip the middle finger to the consumer and be king shit of turd island on their terms).
They spent money expecting a similar boom to DVD vs VHS, and the boom never happened. Instead, sales dropped back down to where they were when VHS was king. Then, to kick them while they were looking down the barrel of their own stupidity, along comes the internet, and they didn't/couldn't move fast enough to monopolize on the technology, and didn't have enough money to kill streaming in its infancy like they did HD.
The media companies don't want consumers. They want subjects. They want to dictate to us, the consumers, how much we will spend at any given time so that they can reap comfortable profits without risk or innovation.
Fuck them. They can suck my dick. |
No company ever is just thinking about creating or removing jobs: they only think about making more money. That is the only goal of a public company. If Apple moves jobs from China to the US, it is because they thought this through and they are convinced that this will net them more profits, either because sales number will go up because of the positive PR, or because they think customers will be prepared to pay more for products made in the US, or because without shipping and with government backing the extra costs are very limited (probably a combination).
Don't get me wrong, I love this! But never, EVER be fooled that this is about creating jobs or 'doing the right thing'. Actually, the whole idea of job creators wanting to create jobs is just stupid: not a single entrepreneur actually wants to create jobs: if they could all do it themselves or just hire one guy to do all the work, they would.
The myth that job creators would create more jobs if they had lower taxes, eg more money, is also just stupid: jobs are only created if the demand is higher which forces the company to hire more people to keep up with the demand. |
I've never paid more than $300 for a laptop and have never wanted or needed more features or performance. I even having a standing offer to buy any of my friends or relatives a new computer if they can show me how theirs is "too slow" and have never had anyone take me up. |
I cancelled my AT&T and went to Straight Talk. I noticed a severe lack in data quality immediately, despite Straight Talk using AT&T's network.
Also, buried in the terms and conditions they explicitly prohibit streaming of any kind. I streamed during my first month and after about 2GB of data I kept getting spam automated calls, and an offshore employee offered to assess my usage. He basically asked me if I stream and I said yes, which is when he immediately ranted about how streaming is banned and that's why. Fair enough, I stopped streaming. After a few days I received yet another threatening call to stop using my data excessively and stop streaming. I was only using my phone per the terms and conditions and it was far from excessive. I asked customer service why I kept receiving the messages and they told me not to worry, yet I continued to receive them. I got frustrated and asked why, and what my data limits are if they are not 'unlimited' but they refuse to ever tell you what 'excessive' means. Customer service seemed extremely lacking in logic and knowledge, and in the end I got very fed up and switched to Verizon. |
But that is the thing, they did acknowledge it, they said yes, everything will go up and at tax time you will be compensated for it. It is tough to carry that debt all year for sure. They did say though that they don't expect it to have a practical impact on the populace though, which I think was a little naive (because of the carrying the debt year long bit) because of the compensation. I don't think it's a perfect system but it will be far better than the coalitions undefined "we won't tax more but we'll spend more on incentives". That doesn't add up either. I just wish that Turnbull hadn't been booted from the liberal leadership, they were far more credible on these matters with him there than Abbott. |
To everyone that is complaining that these things happen too often: That is exactly why they are doing it. They want to keep repeating these things until people are tired of fighting it. that way they can say, "well not many people actively opposed it. I didn't get too many calls from people in my district, that must mean they don't mind it" not taking into account the fact that the first fifteen times they tried, there was a public outcry like no other. |
I expected the top post to contain some talking points that we could use when calling our reps. After reading the bill and some articles on it, here's what I see:
CISPA will give the government the ability to get information that it can't get constitutionally today. It makes it easier for companies to give the government your information if there’s any reason to suspect cyber crime or intellectual property theft without legal repercussions. As written, there is a wide net of what could be "suspected" of being a threat to "cybersecurity."
There very little transparency or accountability in the bill. Companies and the government will, according to the bill, receive broad immunity from legal liability for monitoring, acquiring, or sharing communication which could end up overriding privacy laws like the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act. See sections (4) EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY and (5) RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS of the bill.
CISPA gives businesses new powers to use "cybersecurity systems" to obtain any "cybersecurity threat information" ( includes personal communications ) about a perceived threat to their networks or systems. The only limitation is that the company must act for a "cybersecurity purpose," which is vaguely defined to include such things as "safeguarding" networks. Any information they obtain from this can be handed over to the government at any time.
The bill isn't all bad, which is why it's supported by tech companies like Microsoft/IBM/Intel/Facebook. For them, it can help them better protect them against attacks (DDOS, CSRF and other exploits) by increasing knowledge be shared about the attacks. In fact, it's important to note that most of what this bill does is already legal . There is not however, guaranteed immunity from civil/criminal prosecution for sharing data under the auspices of "national security" , thats what's important about CISPA , it is a carte blanche for the government to collect whatever data it wants, with almost no oversight and very little accountability.
On top of that, it is incredibly easy to abuse due to the vague wording I mentioned. We saw this happen with the PATRIOT Act. It was created to "fight terrorism" but the wording is so vague that it has [continually]( - [been]( - [used]( - [on]( - [American]( - [citizens]( for non terrorism related crimes. |
To play the devils advocate:
The thing with the cert is that it confirms that you are who you say you as guaranteed by a trusted cert provider.
If the cert provider can't be trusted to not give a valid certificate to others this would make them no longer trusted.
For example if some government agency ask the certifier to give them a valid cert for someone else domain so they can use it to attack/spy on someone this would be a very serious breach of trust if they complied. By openly working with very questionable people they open themselves up to distrust. |
Why? If Chinese labour can make products cheaper and easier for Canadians, I'm all for it. If it's possible to discriminate and say American jobs are inherently superior to Chinese jobs, then it's reasonable to go further. Why should a Vancouverite have to suffer Toronto taking all our jobs? Buy BC only! (and so on until you won't even trade with your neighbours)
If Apple has found a way to make quality products at similar margins in the US, go for it. Manufacturing in the US shouldn't simply be because of the politics of geography. That sort of pandering hurts the consumer. |
Americans have three levels of privacy protection:
Constitutional, stemming from the 4th amendment's right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures (and a ton of very complicated precedents governing what this means in a changing world).
Statutory, stemming from an overlapping and conflicting mess of state and federal laws.
Contractual, coming from various usage agreements, contracts, and terms of service.
Fairly obviously, these protections are tiered; each level adds on the protections of the one before, but cannot reduce them. The constitutional protections are actually quite narrow (and in any case only apply to the government), which is why we have statutory protections.
Now, the biggest limit on 4th amendment protections is that they only apply when you have an "expectation of privacy". Your private thoughts, written in a notebook in a locked safe in your bedroom is private; a cop can't wander up, blow the safe, and read your notebook (not without a warrant, at any rate). Your private thoughts, posted on a billboard next to a freeway are not private at all. And in general, it's ruled that if you give some information to a third party, you lose all privacy protections on it. This is why, incidentally, having an informant "wear a wire" works; because your information is private right up until you tell the government informant. Once you do, you lose your expectation of privacy, and the informant is free to tell whomever he likes. It follows, incidentally, that the contents of a letter are quite private, its addressing info is not private, and neither is a postcard.
Statutory rules add a lot more protections. For example, while there is no constitutional protection—at all—on address information of postal mail, there is some weak statutory protections (the government basically has to write a formal request...I did say they were weak). And while the constitution says nothing about whether I, as a private individual, can wiretap my neighbor, record all my phone conversations, or put webcams in the girls locker room at my local high school, various state and federal laws do restrict this (although not always in ways you'd think; recording my own phone calls is legal in some, but by no means all, states). But by and large, statutory rules mirror the 4th ammendment in only protecting privacy when you have a legitimate expectation of privacy (ie, only when you haven't shared the information with third parties).
Finally, contracts add more protections, although, obviously, only to people who are a party to them.
So, email: Contrary to what you might intuitively think, email is legally like a postcard, or like a message left with a receptionist.
> "Hi, this is Mr Smith's secretary, how can I help you?"
> "Oh, hi Maggie. Can you tell John I'm going to be too busy to meet him at the brothel after work today? Thanks. Oh, but don't tell anyone else! Especially not his nosy secretary!"
> "..."
It just doesn't work.
So in the case of Gmail:
It's not a part of the government, so the 4th ammendment doesn't apply.
It's a third party, so you have no general expectation of privacy in the things you tell them to tell a Gmail user.
Based on how email legally and technically works, everything in the email is being "told" to Gmail to "tell" to the user. It's a postcard or a telegram or a phone message, not an envelope. Yes, even though that's not how you think of it.
And if you aren't a Gmail user yourself, you aren't a party to any contracts or agreements with Google.
...in other words, if you email a gmail user, google can read your emails, and there is absolutely zip you can do about it. It is precisely analogous to giving someone's secretary a message to pass on to them, but then getting upset at the secretary reading it. Legally, it's fine because you have no "expectation of privacy", but the reason you don't have that legal expectation is because, as a practical matter, you're telling people your private secrets. And if you do that, they're no longer private.
To which the obvious response is "but emails should be treated like envelopes! I should lose protections only on the metadata!" And maybe so, but the law does not, and has never worked that way. And Google was correctly noting that this is so, and that as a result, they have violated absolutely no laws. (I'm not sure this is correct. Not every privacy law hinges on the expectation of privacy, and for all I know, google actually has violated the law. But their argument is that the relevant laws do only apply when you have that legal "expectation of privacy", and that with emails, you don't. And the latter half of that is inarguably correct.) |
Define "privacy" and you have your answer about the confusion.
Can your creepy ex read your mail? No. Can the NSA? SURE!
Users should all expect that Google can do with the contents of their message whatever it likes. The EULA tells them what Google intends to do, but that can change at any time. |
Why the FUCK don't more people use PGP encryption for their email? At least then it doesn't matter what the email looks like on the server; you decrypt it on the device!
I still use an email client on my desktop, and the beauty of most PGP plugins is that they only store the encrypted comments, and de-encrypt only in ram. So, aside from super forensics and disk caching (or malware, of course), it's pretty much impossible to read messaged that are intercepted.
I have it configured, but I never use it because no one I know uses it either.
EDIT: Accidentally some words. |
From my understanding (I haven't read the filing itself) Google isn't saying "non-Gmail users have no expectation of privacy" but that "if people send an email to a Google account they understand that Google will have to process it."
The key quote seems to be (based on [this article](
> Non-Gmail users who send emails to Gmail recipients must expect that their emails will be subjected to Google's normal processes as the [email] provider for their intended recipients.
There is a huge difference between "if you send an email to Google you expect they will process it" and "you have no expectation of privacy about it at all." Google (presumably) thinks that people do have an expectation of privacy, but that they understand that Google is a key part of the chain and has to do some processing. Simply allowing one party to look at something doesn't waive all rights to privacy (and this is well established in some privacy laws). If this wasn't the case, even sealed and encrypted letters would have no expectation of privacy because the recipient is expected to process/view it...
The problem is that Google is relying on the Smith v Maryland case. This was a 4th Amendment case (and possibly the one the US Government will be relying on with NSA stuff), where there were two main points;
1 When you make a telephone call, you accept that the telephone company will keep a record of the details of the call so they can connect it and accurately bill you for it,
2 Because a third party is making such a record, you have no expectation of privacy about this.
Google is relying on 1 in this filing (about targeted ads) but will likely be challenging 2 when it comes to fight the NSA etc. stuff (arguing, presumably, that 2 doesn't follow from 1). As noted in the Techdirt article, it is perhaps a bit unwise for them to do this - as the US Government may argue that citing the case is Google accepting both principles - but what they are doing is far from saying there is no expectation of privacy. |
Do you work in the online as industry? You seem very well informed. I ask only because it used to be my job too.
But anyway, you're right. But you're also not quite right that DoubleClick is the only way to get that kind of data. Google Analytics, a tool which is free and easy to use, gathers a lot of the same information from visitors to your own site.
A few of the things I can learn about you/visitors to my site are: how long you browsed the site, what you clicked on, how you got to my site, where you're connecting from geographically, whether you've been there before, etc etc. And that's only what I can see in real time.
That's said, you can't really track a person's movements through the web. The data, while formidable, is entirely anonymised and amalgamated. It would be impossible to single out a sole user and track that specific user's actions because the way Google gathers and manages the data is heavily focused on this anonymity.
You can get broader, non-site specific data similar to what you get with DoubleClick through an AdWords account, but it isn't quite so powerful an interface. Data is the same though.
What is REALLY interesting though is what you can get if you know people at Google. As part of my job I used to work with a fairly big player in the car industry. Through them we had access to one of Google's ad guys, who was able to give us a lot of consumer behavioural data amalgamated across the industry, as well as inferred interest/market data from stuff like YouTube. But that's more to do with how they're able to crunch the raw data. Its still all anonymous.
So it's scary, but not that scary imo. Also, for the last year or so, all websites are required to inform you if they are placing tracking cookies on your computer and give you an option to opt out by EU law. If you aren't in Europe you're shit outta luck though. The industry to a giant punch to the ballbag after that ruling. |
Soz, you're perfectly right, I'm not concentrating on the positives, and that was an insightful statistical argument at the end there.
I might add that im not in the states, I imagine things are a lot better for artists there. Most of the people i've met in the music industry in my country seem to just be concerned with being cool and charismatic. However, the radio won't play you without a label, label wont sign you without radio play. It's a little weird. Like how the FUCK does anyone get going? I'm not still not sure how it's all meant to work. I've sat over the table discussing plans with several record labels now (nuthin' major, medium and indie sized), and it always sort of ends with an attitude of "well, take the deal, with no real direction, no guarantee of financial security, and no clear idea of how to market/promote it, or someone else will." (and that to me is an implicit "you ain't skilled buddy, you should just be lucky to be talkin' with me", which is just a horrible way to do business anywhere/ with anyone)
The worst thing i ever heard a label exec say to me was "why do you wanna get lawyers involved? dont worry, just sign the damn contract and if it goes bad we'll forget about it" when I said I should get a lawyer to look at it. I probs shouldn't say who it was because i believe their label is quite respected.
I dunno. It frustrates the hell outta me and I wish i had other skills besides music. you've probably got a picture of me being a whining hack now, and thats unattractive as hell to anyone. Enough ranting. Sorry! |
While I agree with your statement, that's not what conshinz asked.
The answer at least in my case would be: rarely but I buy and pirate different stuff like - buy Tarantino, Nolan but pirate Emmerich, Spielberg
Quote: "and the fact that research shows that file-sharers actually spend more money on entertainment than those who don’t share"
That is actually a fact but it's not how it should be presented.
I go to the movies about 3 times a month and buy some Blurays but I'm still pirating movies. The point is that movie fans buy and pirate stuff at the same time and if there was no such thing as pirating I'd probably end up buying 3 Blurays a month instead of 5 a year. |
This reminds me of a depressing story one of my Econ professors told us. He was hired by the state of Alabama to do an expensive cost benefit analysis of a proposal to dredge some river so that they could widen it for more barge traffic. So after paying him and his firm a large amount of money to do this analysis, they have it marked confidential and throw it out because the result he came up with was that it would NOT be cost effective. In the meeting they literally asked him to change the result, but he refused. Then they passed the bill to do the project anyway. |
I'm glad for cheap, pay services, I think they've really helped. I used to download movies, now I use Netflix. I used to download PC games, now I wait for them to be SUPER cheap on Steam. If I were into a lot of new music, I'd use Spotify, or whatever. I think.
Either way, that's what's helping us; it's just cheap. 20$ for a new album with 2 songs I like, nah. Oh what, iTunes, 99c a song? Mmkay, reasonable. $30 for a new game? Nah. Oh wait, Steam weekend madness, $5? Sounds good. I "try out" things that are just too expensive (not I don't have enough money, but are just unreasonable priced, in my opinion). If I don't like it, no harm; I only played/watched it for a few minutes, and don't like it, therefore I SAVED money by NOT buying something I WASN'T going to like. If anything, "piracy" has stopped me from wasting money on things, AND helped give me attention to things I never would have considered before (much like Netflix; I've bought a LOT of movies because of watching them on Netflix).
Sure, there'll always be "those people" that just consume, consume, consume. But there will always be parasites to every system. Bottom feeders that don't think about who put work into things. But rules and laws should not be made because of the of them. They're the reason we have such laws about drugs/alcohol/etc. |
OK, music industry defenders who think "this is bullshit," I'm confused: are you agreeing with the music industry's assertion that "we can't compete with free," meaning that people don't buy specifically because they can receive the same product for free?
If that's true, then how is the UK study's finding explained? They found that yes, sales are down across the board. Everyone is buying less, but the people who buy the least are the people who don't torrent.
Doesn't this suggest that if everyone stopped "infringing," sales would drop even further? Please explain.
I had always characterized the drop in sales as a drop in consumer interest, in general. By 2004, there was a perfect storm:
The labels had finally given up on really "discovering" new artists -- you had to have a MySpace with thousands of followers before they'd even look at you
Huge media corps like Clear Channel were well on their way to cornering all the major radio markets, severely reducing diversity and marketplace availability of back-catalog music on the radio
The radio market monopolies had also largely stopped giving local bands airtime
Many major-market but independently-owned "record stores" had been driven out of business by big-box under-cutters like Best Buy, WalMart, Borders, MediaPlay, etc. Post-2004 I never saw another "local music" section at any record store, ever again. The big boxes came in, sold a disc for $7.99, and when mom-and-pop records down the street went under, the prices rose back up to just under $20.
Corporate music's price-fixing was nearly universal, and kept prices high and unappealing. The ONLY place to find a disc for under $17-20 was at a new big-box when it was trying to fold the local competition. I don't remember seeing discs for under $20 anywhere at my local mall. And the corporate store at the mall, or the big-box across from the mall, was the only place left to buy a record for miles around.
2004: Does a CD really have to cost $15.99? was not a price I was willing to pay for a disc, EVEN IF there was still a method for me to learn about a new disc I wanted to buy.
Concert prices were rising, and TicketMaster was taking over access to corporate-owned venues. Learning about a new band by going to their show became a really expensive prospect
[All pop songs are converging on the same tune.](
** |
I want to correct some of the information in here, because it sounds like there is a lot of mis understanding or misconception around whether or not Sony is losing money on the PS4 console, and whether that is wise or not.
TRUE or FALSE : Sony is losing money on the PS4 hardware.
TRUE . By many bring each unit sold to about a $60 loss per unit.
TRUE or FALSE : Sony's strategy of taking a loss on the PS4 is a bad one.
FALSE ... ok, falsish . This one is debatable. First of all, let's understand WHY Sony sells their hardware at a loss. This is what's called a razor-razorblade is sold at a loss - what is called a loss leader . The company takes a loss on the razor itself, but more than makes it up with sales of heavily marked-up razors.
Sony is using this same model: Their hardware is sold at a marginal loss, which they assume they will recoup with other high-margin sales like Playstation Plus subscriptions ($49.99/year) and other software/hardware. With an earlier release, selling the PS4 at a slight loss - and at a $100 discount to the Xbox One - Sony is making a bold move to try and get people into their ecosystem first.
Now, they tried this tactic with the PS3, and [we know how that worked out]( The difference here is that the guts of the PS4 are different than the guts of the PS3, in that the PS3 had a lot of custom-built components. That makes it very difficult for Sony to lower their production costs over time. With the PS4, the hope is that the "simpler" component structure will allow them to rapidly decrease their production costs in the coming years, so that even the hardware itself can become profitable - although, if history is any indication, that likely means Sony will also drop the price of the console as well. They want to make these things as cheap as humanly possible to get people into the Sony ecosystem and buying subscriptions. |
We did. It's just that the invention requires larger lenses and sensors to get around fundamental limitations. To go back to your earlier analogy about computers, and how they used to be the size of rooms-- we have today tiny pocket computers that can do what those did. But we also still have computers the size of rooms, because some of the things we want to do still require it despite all our advances.
39MP sensors for security cameras are probably in the realm of possible, sensors of such resolution that a wideangle image cropped to just the image of the eye is still 39MP are, however, somewhat less likely in current form-factors. And doing it cheap enough to be commonplace gets even less so. There's no fundamental physics law that says we couldn't build security cameras with enormous amazing optics and a sensor the size of your laptop... but that's the way you'd get the image you wanted, and it seems like a hard sell in the market. As others have pointed out, we're reaching the point where very expensive high-grade camera optics (big pro camera lenses cost thousands of dollars) don't have enough sharpness to fully take advantage of all the pixels on the sensor. And on the sensor side, we're at the point where the individual photosites are limited in what they can do, because they are collecting so few photons each that we can see the discrete jumps when each single photon hits, but this sensitivity also means we are literally detecting noise from things like the warmth of your hands emitting invisible IR photons when you hold the camera. |
Yeah anybody can do this with a 200 39 megapixel image. |
This is more of a usability problem than a pricing problem.
Uber's business strategy is sound: cars should always be available. Uber optimizes around the "hit the 'Pick up' button and go" experience, which is a fantastic experience. Reliability is one of the biggest differentiators in any transportation system. To that end, they prioritize availability over price, which necessitates some kind of demand-based price mechanic like Surge Pricing.
OK. You have Surge Pricing as a thing. How do you communicate it? Uber uses a pop-up when you open the app that shows you some kind of messaging with a multiplier value: prices will be 2x or 3x normal prices. In my opinion, this does a pretty terrible job of communicating the concept of surge pricing to the user.
As an experienced Uber user opening the app, I'm going to see 2x and really only think "more than normal." I'm not necessarily thinking about all the things that go into the final price: how far I have to go, how thick traffic is, what the normal price of that trip might be. (Uber does have a "quote" feature, but I've never used it during a Surge, so I'm not sure if it accounts for Surge multipliers.) You may have some expectations about the final price, but there are so many variables that go into it that you can't form an accurate picture of the final price based solely on a multiplier, so your expectation is likely going to be inaccurate.
If you're an inexperienced Uber user, or you're taking a trip you haven't taken before, or you're brand new to the service, a multiplier means absolutely nothing to you. You have no baseline to multiply, which means you have no expectations set at all about the final price. I imagine a lot of people fell into this bucket around the holidays: someone just introduced you to Uber, or you're in an unfamiliar situation with an untried route, or both. It stands to reason most people wouldn't have proper expectations about the price.
Uber attempted to solve this through marketing. Usability problems have been solved by marketing before. A great example is the original iPhone. Despite what you'd think about the iPhone, the original failed pretty badly in its first usability tests with new users, but it was pretty intuitive once you understood the basics. Apple used [its first iPhone commercials]( to educate the public about how to use the iPhone. This works if your first exposure to a product is likely to be through its marketing. Uber is pretty viral, so your first exposure is more likely going to be the app itself following some kind of recommendation. It means all the videos and blog posts aren't going to get seen by the people who really need their expectations set properly: new users.
This is my hypothesis for why, despite Uber's best efforts, lots of users are pretty frustrated about the surge pricing: shitty usability. I think they could do a lot to fix it, but it would require a decent overhaul of their Surge Pricing UX, which would also have a large impact on their conversion rate. They'd have to balance quick access to transportation with expectation management, which can be tricky. A good start might be a "how far do you want to go" prompt that gives you a rough idea what prices might be for certain trip ranges, or a current location to destination zip code price estimation. Something to quickly get a number in front of the user's face. They could even over-estimate and surprise the user when the price is $10-20 less than the estimate. (Disneyland does this with all their ride wait times: it's actually about 5-7 minutes less than the stated time.)
The |
Uber is becoming increasingly shitty as a service.
Not two weeks ago I had a driver taking me to a holiday party. I asked if it would be okay if we stopped a liquor store so I could grab a bottle of wine for the host. It's a small corner store and I knew exactly what wine I was getting and I knew where it was and I assured the driver I would be no more than 3 to 5 minutes and to just keep the meter running. He said it was no problem.
I was dressed really nice that night for the party and I think the driver could tell. Anyway, I thought Uber was more of an upscale and trustworthy service so I left my items in the car. The moment I got out of the car he sped off with my hat and sunglasses. This was an expensive fur hat ( I know hate me PETA people ) and expensive sunglasses. The cost of both items was about $400 dollars ( yes call me an asshole fashionista ) but the point is they were my dress up clothes and I bought them and they were mine. They were stolen from me.
I contacted Uber immediately and their response was "not our problem". I called the police and they were like "yeah... we have murderers and shit to deal with so basically their response was [this]( Which I totally get but I'm not using Uber anymore. Fuck them. |
When I render images in HD, it's not uncommon for a single uncompressed frame to be in the tens of megabytes. Each second is 24 frames for film. A typical 120minute film is about 7200 seconds, and 7200 x 24frames is 172,800.
Now if each uncompressed frame was about 20MB , a whole movie would come out to about 3.3TB (172,800 * 20MB), and this is even before Audio is sent in. Even if the files were 10MB/frame the raw images would still be 1.6TB~
All this is thrown out the window after it's sent through the video editing software and pumped out as a video file with a compression codec to reduce file size and make it playable. |
I would beg to differ somewhat. The majority of people have some idea what an image shot on film should typically look like. But when it comes down to it, "looks like film" can often pass for authenticity to a public that is now typically unaccustomed to seeing film images on a day-to-day basis. For example, take photos that people post on instagram that they run through filters to make it look like film. Now, it goes without saying that someone that sees film images on a more frequent basis is going to be able to spot that it isn't film of course, but a photo taken on an iphone and filtered to death. And I'm sure that if you took that photo and put it side-by-side with the same image taken on film, most people would be able to recognize a significant difference between the two images. Now, when it comes to which image people like better, of course there's going to be discrepancy and I'm all for that- my point is that there is still is a major difference between the look of an authentic film image and one doctored digitally (at least with the current level of digital manipulation tech available) and there are a lot of people who aren't educated enough (and by that I mean formally and/or environmentally, from what is available in our daily lives) to be able to the spot the difference offhand, without being shown directly.
I'm really advocating for the right for both mediums to exist. Which is what Paramount is threatening by ceasing physical film print distribution, the implications are massive to the film industry just in terms of dollars. With the rapidly increasing loss of revenue from distribution prints not being not being made on film any longer, the result is that film will become even more prohibitively expensive to shoot with in the first place. Like take this quote from Rodrigo Prieto (cinematographer for The Wolf of Wall Street ) ([link](
> “I shot the same images on film and on digital, and when I screened the tests for Scorsese, he kept pointing to the film versions and saying they looked better, basically noting that the skin tones were richer and there was more color nuance. So, I went to our producers to explore the financial implications of shooting on film negative and reserving digital capture for low-light situations. After looking at the comparative costs, production agreed to work with that hybrid method.”
Financial implications of only partially using film . That using film could already be rendered a financial veto by a major film company is a nothing less than tragic. That people thinking they know "what film looks like" is not harmless- it is killing the film industry and rendering a valid mode of artistic expression obsolete. |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.