0
stringlengths 9
22.1k
|
|---|
Lol, extra trouble? You put the disk in and press play. Seriously though, the quality difference is night and day. Your internet runs at about 24 mbps down? (thats at least the best you can get in my area). Bluray runs at about 40mbps for video and 14 mbps for the audio coming to 54mbps total. We are kind of comparing apples and oranges here but you can see that there is no way you are going to get the that data through your internet pipes with out compressing the streams significantly. Also note that almost all HD Streaming is not hd streaming. The quality is not determined by the just the resolution but by the throughput as well. Think of the difference between your car radio running at 128 kbps (sirius) and the 320 kbps mp3s you download and play. They sound significantly better. This is why everything on itunes is crap and why downloading what is usually called an HD file you are pulling via torrent doesn't compare to what you are getting from the satellite/cable company. Even netflix hd streaming is only 720p and a mediocre bitrate using dobly digital sound which no where near compares to full BD 1080p with DTS-HD Surround sound. The only streaming service that comes anywhere near close is vudu HDX rentals but it requires at minimum at 10 mbps connection and they still compromise on the sound quality. Buy yourself a ps3. They are only $300 and you be dissappointed. I garantee you'll be like o shit. Also try out the vudu app. It's built into my TV but I'm pretty sure you can download it for a PC, maybe. Also if you don't have a surround sound pick up this: Denon DHT391XP (you can find it for $300 if you look hard enough). It is an entry level all in one setup but it will be powerful enough to fill your room with glorious DTS-HD sound. There is nothing better than watching movie and hearing the bullets fly past your head and all around you. |
A mandatory data retention policy allowing the government access to the viewing habits of all US citizens... what could possibly go wrong with that?
It's amazing how quickly politicians latch onto policies that have the potential to do massive amounts of damage to democracy, under the guise of protecting us from ourselves. In this case, the potential for abuse is overwhelming.
The ambiguous war on terror has perverted "Innocent until proven guilty" into "You have nothing to hide unless you're doing something wrong". Add a massive tracking tool like the proposed bill, remove transparency and oversight in the name of national security, and you've got a dystopian scenario which would even make George Orwell blush. |
If we disregard the complex looking figures and look only at what is claimed in the patent, the actual claims are very broad and full of vagaries, basically vaporware. It looks like a patent of a generic fuel cell that can regulate its output hooked up to a computer, without any engineering specifics. The patent does not describe a fuel cell that fits the size, power, cost, efficiency, or safety requirements of PC. But if someone else later figures out these (likely immense) problems and succeeds in building a hydrogen fuel cell powered computer, they are automatically are infringing this patent and are guilty of stealing intellectual property. |
THE PIRATE BAY IS INVINCIBLE AND BECAUSE IT IS THE MAIN TARGET OF ALL OF THE ANTI-PIRACY SHIT IT MAKES SENSE TO KEEP MY IP ACTIVE ON THEIR TRACKER AT ALL TIMES.
( |
The U.N. was created, and now run by, the U.S.
It's main purpose now is to give every participating government an equal opportunity to kiss america's ass or be stamped out via various treaties and conventions orchestrated by the ass-kissers. |
I think now is a good time for me to plug /r/testpac , which is Reddit's very own Political Action Committee.
Currently we are working hard fighting the enemies of free speech and the internet. We are working on challenging Lamar Smith (Author of SOPA/PIPA, as well as the protecting children bill). If we show congress that this will not be tolerated and you will lose reelection in either a primary or a general election, we stand a real chance of making the internet a "hands off" topic.
We also know how the system is played. We now we have no chance of unseating Lamar Smith with a democrat in one of the most amazingly well gerrymandered districts in the country, so we are fighting him with another republican who stands a chance. |
Whilst the cost of putting stuff into space has indeed come down, it is still nowhere near the level that a group of even ultra-rich people could consider. Anything that you launch into orbit has to be approved by a number of government led bodies for a huge number of perfectly reasonable reasons. Not least, many orbital altitudes are now protected, meaning what your satellite must not come within a particular distance of any other object, and once it reaches the end of its lifespan it must safely be de-orbited. As an engineering student with a keen interest in space (currently working on a project that has been accepted onto REXUS) I can safely say that this is far beyond the work of what would basically be an amateur network. Yes, things like the [CubeSat]( project are moving space technology in the direction required for a network like the one you propose, but what meaningful data throughput do you honestly think you could get on something on this sort of scale? |
And my entire accusation was not based off your entire argument. It was based off your using 9/11 as justification for anything that the government is doing. The government knew about 9/11; the evidence presents itself clearly, everyone is just too ignorant to care. Not to mention, we directed our "efforts" or whatever you want to call it towards many countries and organizations that we should have never even touched. This has nothing to do with trading civil liberties for the protection of its people.. It has everything to do with our government wanting to become supreme overlord of the entire world. Yes, 9/11 was tragic and it caused a massive uproar from the nation, but in reality, it should have caused just as much uproar directed towards our own officials. My life was destroyed by the prejudices that arose from the events of 9/11, so it was a lot easier for me to analyze things from a not-so-"OHMYGODEVERYONEISATERRORISTSAVETHECHILDREN!" point of view.. Our country is doing exactly what the government wants us to do.. We're playing retarded, buying their bait, and allowing them to carry out whatever corrupt, shady plans they have brewing behind their charade of nationalism. |
I think it's because the article talks about the achievement without really getting into how it will impact real-world applications, or when that will happen...
It's the difference between a research article about metamaterials saying "Oh cool these guys developed a zip-zop-doobity-bop doohickey with negative refraction indices that exploits fractional quantum charges in a crystalline lattice! How cool is that, amirite?!? Oh, and I guess it can probably have some use in computation somewhere.", and an article that says "Sweet Baby Jesus these dudes just got us 10 years closer to quantum computing! Fuck yeah!"
One catches your attention and gives a good idea what it means to you.
The other is more of a niche interest piece. |
On the side where it shows the rules:
Acceptable content guide:
Be about technology.
Links to news articles for posts concerning the wide and diverse world of technology.
Editorials on technology innovations.
Political discussion from around the world that relates to technology.
New technology applications, for example an innovative use of the reddit API.
Not suitable content guide:
Image submissions
Your own content if breaching the 10:1 rule.
Headlines that have been sensationalized or editorialised by the submitter.
Any URL shorteners’
Links to off topic “spam”. |
Well how about you back it up with fact or evidence ? I'm sorry but I just won’t believe you over the official reports unless you have some proof . Any proof at all will do.
Find sources otherwise you're just some nutjob making shit up.
>Bin Laden used Cellphones to communicate before he went into extreme hiding. the US almost had him 2002-03 by Locating his Phone using cell towers the same way they show you in CSI.
Please tell me how you know this.
>IIRC they had Taps on his line and could hear him shouting things as the bombs Dropped around him.....
Official reports say they never heard him on the phone. Now, I can believe the official reports OR I can believe you.
Frankly I doubt that you are one of the few people in the world who has access to the extra secret info regarding Bin Laden. Once again if you have proof , I would love to see it, until then I will just assume you’re talking shit.
> we Missed him 3+ times all in different locations.
If they "found" him three times then provide sources . Don’t use the whole “but they wouldn’t tell us if they did” excuse, because if you don’t have sources for this information then there is no way you could possibly make these claims. You need evidence to back up what you’re saying; otherwise you’re just talking shit.
In order to make any of these claims you need evidence/sources . Please provide some. The only excuse that would get you out of providing sources/evidence is if you had some insider information that you are unable to disclose (which I highly doubt). |
For clarification, my comment was a reply to this statement you made
>VOLSUNGA: The War on Terror cannot be won with hacking alone. Not all terrorist cells use accessible means of communication.
>YOU: And here is where you lost me. All means of communication are accessible.
Firstly in order to ‘win’ the war on terror, you need to catch/kill the terrorists. The biggest issue with terrorist cells is that finding them is the hard part; it took 10 years to find Osama Bin Laden (OBL), but only 40 minutes to kill him. What Volsunga meant was, you cannot track these people through hacking alone, there is no clear electronic trail, especially when many (Like OBL) are using couriers that ‘break’ this electric trail, this is why the war on terror cannot be won through just hacking.
Yes you are correct; it would be very easy for a government to intercept your communications and all communications are accessible, IF (and it’s a big if) they know where you are. But guerrilla warfare is like a big game of hide and seek, sure it’s easy to tag someone who’s right in front of you, but it gets much more difficult when they’re hiding. This is where hacking has its shortcomings, and it is also where the two strategies you listed fall short.
Secondly, I think you are misunderstanding my example. In the case of the Bin Laden example I gave; the desired information wasn’t what was in the emails, but rather OBL’s location. The whole point of following Bin Laden’s couriers was to catch Bin Laden. In this case, there was no direct electronic trail because he didn’t directly use the internet or landlines or cell phones, and it’s safe to say he wasn’t paying the bills with his credit card. There was no electronic way to track him because there was no electronic connection to him. Once again, the point Volsunga was making was that hackers, while useful, are very reliant on ground level intel.
Imagine you are the greatest hacker in the world. You are told that OBL is somewhere in the Middle East maybe, probably in Pakistan. You are told to find OBL purely through hacking, in this instance you wouldn’t be aware of his courier system, because you are only using information that you can hack into(and the knowledge of the courier system wasn’t obtained from hacking but rather interrogation). The point Volsunga was making wasn’t that hacking was useless, but rather that it had its shortcomings because it is incredibly reliant on non-electronic intel, especially when fighting an enemy using guerrilla tactics. You can’t be expected to shoot an enemy you can’t see, in very much the same way you can’t hack the computer/phone/email of someone you can’t ‘see’, in an electronic sense, OBL would have been invisible. On top of this, in guerrilla warfare all the terrorist cells are posing as civilians hiding in plain sight. As such, much of the investigation into OBL’s location was reliant on intel gathered through interrogation, informants, and following suspects.
The only reason the US knew Osama Bin Laden (OBL) was in Pakistan is because of intel from informants and POW’s. This is also how they found out about his courier system. Without this ground level intel, it would have been impossible to track OBL down purely through hacking.
Like you said, it would be easy for the US to hack into the emails using key loggers and possibly the laser Mic you mentioned, but all this is reliant on knowing where and when the courier is going to turn up, and this is where hacking becomes reliant on ground level intel. Like Volsunga said,
> Hackers have a limited scope of usefulness
And this limitation is that hackers are reliant on direction, they need to “see” (not in a literal sense) their enemy. Finding terrorist cells with just hacking would be like if I took you to a hay convention and asked you to find the needle while blindfolded.
Finally, Your argument is based on the concept of
> If I knew where he was
But the simple fact is, we don’t know where these people are, and in guerrilla warfare finding the enemy is 90% of the battle. Like I said before; it took 10 years to find Osama Bin Laden, but only 40 minutes to kill him. This same concept goes for hacking. |
Sensationalist garbage. T-Mobile dropping the iPhone doesn't have much merit, I'm afraid. Let me explain:
My uncle works for AT&T and the company has been telling him to sell away from the iphone for years. Why is this? The iphone, thanks to apple's frankly amazing advertising, sells itself. The company found that people who buy iphones tend to simply upgrade to the next iphone instead of switching to another phone.
The iphone doesn't need any help selling itself, so workers are instructed to sell the other phones (android, windows phone, etc). |
Imagine the scenario where Games Workshop Warhammer 40k Space Marines and Table Top Minatures could be grabbed as physibles from The Pirate Bay and printed directly. Now imagine just how much companies like Games Workshop and similar would want to stop that happening. Every Video Game character that occurred in a PC game would be capable of being rendered then painted which might put a dent in the Collectible figures market.
The first battle ground will be the same as the old battle grounds as markets whose revenues are being diluted by customers accessing content for themselves demand that rules be put in place to control access and monitor 3d printing and that is when Charles Stross will demand payment for the idea he published in Halting State. ( Cue maniacal laughter ) |
Well they probably got the database software just after getting a large hardware upgrade, that way the software would be on those machines for at least 5 years. So 15 years ago was 1997. Then after 7 years they finally upgrade there computer systems, so 2004 they may have had to look at the software in order to get it to run. This would not be anything near a full rewrite, more just tweaking some of the code. Also the people doing the coding were only really looking at code which had to problems running on the new OS So this could have put them on Windows server 2003. Many companies still run Server 2003. So even if they upgraded computers, the OS the program ran on could stay the same and the code would not need a rewrite. So it is possible that in 15 years they may have looked at the database code 1 time. So it really doesn't seem that implausible. |
No. Freedom is speech is a restraint against government only. The government can't, in any form, hinder your ability to express yourself, except under very strict circumstances.
People themselves have no explicit right to freedom of speech. It's implicit because the government can't restrain it. This is an important distinction because it allows a person to restraint themselves, or put restraints on themselves without being forced to waive an explicit right.
Typical restraints that a person will put on themselves are things such as non-disclosure agreements. It's an agreement between two entities with freedom of speech. It's a civil agreement.
The government can restrain you in the case of classified information, but because the government can't retain copyright, it's the only defense they have. Government can't retain copyright as it's all owned "by the people." Everyone that can legally access classified information has agreed to be subject to criminal penalties if they violate that agreement.
Corporate documents and trade secrets exist as entity-to-entity problems. Both entities have freedom of speech, but corporations can retain copyright, unlike government. So if someone distributes corporate documents, it's one entity hurting another, completely outside the argument of freedom of speech. It's copyright infringement. When the government gets interested, then maybe one entity can be considered a whistleblower...
Trade secrets exist as distribution of secret facts or concepts. A person can read a document and disseminate it's contents without committing infringement by simply rephrasing everything. This is obviously damaging to the other party, and it's generally recognized that one party has no right to the information because it "belongs" to the other party.
Forgive me. I got a bit off-tangent.
A EULA to forgo participation in class-action lawsuit is fishy at best. I believe it would be considered a civil contract between two entities, so freedom of speech would not apply. Apparently the courts have held these up in some locations, but I'm no expert on the matter. |
First off, IANAL, but the effective date of the amendment is November 1st, 2012, not the date you mist opt out by. You must opt out before December 1st, 2012.
> "...unless you opt out of the Agreement to Arbitrate (Section 14.3) by December 1, 2012."
Second, I believe this goes beyond class actions. Section 14.3 of this amendment explains that you are agreeing to arbitrate claims against PayPal rather than bring suit in a court of law or equity, unless it's a claim for small court. Meaning, you can't sue in court.
>"14.3 Agreement to Arbitrate. You and PayPal each agree that any and all disputes or claims that have arisen or may arise between you and PayPal shall be resolved exclusively through final and binding arbitration, rather than in court, except that you may assert claims in small claims court, if your claims qualify."
Arbitration is usually expensive.
Finally, in regards to class actions, section 14 of the amendment is limiting your rights strictly to arbitration, and explaining that arbitration cannot be consolidated (i.e. class action).
This may be good and bad. Good because arbitration does not take as long. Some cases in state or federal court may take years. However, not being able to consolidate similar claims may be costly to each person because arbitration itself is usually shared by the parties. Typically, the parties split the fees for the arbitors. Its basically paying for a private judge. That can be extremely expensive for am individual.
I am probably going to opt out because I rather bring a claim into court, then to arbitration. Court has its down sides, but the possibility of a jury and you don't have to pay for a judge. It would probably cost PayPal more in court, depending on the situation.
Consult with a lawyer to understand the arbitration process. These are just my interpretations through prior experience with arbitration. |
This is a pathetic attempt to discredit me. For starters, everything I said follows a clear, logical structure. You are right in calling me a child, because I am an immature jackass. However, I'm an immature jackass that is much more intelligent than you. How do I know this, you ask? Well, for one, and as I already stated, you either don't understand or choose to ignore formal rules of logic. Second, not only did you cite a wikipedia article, you cited a wikipedia article that provided little to no support to your major claim. Finally, your grammar is awful. |
I've very much been screwed by paypal. Guy with a stolen credit card bought stuff off me, then claimed it never arrived like 3 months after it was shipped.
I had devliery confirmation numbers, but paypal didn't seem to care. Nor would they take calls from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It was a shit show that ended up with money going to collections, and then I told the collection agency what happened and that was the end of it.
It's an asshole company and I hate when something I want to purchase makes me even use a credit card through paypal. |
I honestly cannot understand how anyone still uses PayPal. They are a bunch of fucking crooks, they know it and they know they can do it. They put holds on money to make interest with no explanation or time frame of when the hold will come off. Any type of complaint to you from a customer will end up with holds placed on your account and the inability to withdraw your revenue, regardless of who the customer is, their history or relevance of their claim. Their fees are insane. Their customer service is bullshit.
Needless to say, they suck - really bad. I removed my businesses accounts from them, moved them to Dwolla.com, a company that knows how to treat customers. Biggest thing about Dwolla is their prices and customer service - free for any transfer under $10, a flat rate of 25 cents for any transfer over $10. And their customer service is fantastic. |
Funnily enough, the information garnered on Violetacrez that Adrien Chen released was all public as well. Hoisted by your own creepy petard I would say. And that's on top of how funny it is that 90% of tech-related sub-reddits love to go on and on about privacy and anonymity on the Internet, then casually discard it when it comes to posting creepy-ass photos of women without their knowledge or consent. |
I will try.
This is a very long memo (disertation) from a Microsoft employee from 1993. He does not use the word "Internet" once, instead he calls it the "Information Highway" throughout.
The memo is broken down into sections. Within each section, he tries to make sense of the situation and what it may mean in the future.
The entire memo covers so much it is mind boggling. I believe many subreddits would be interested about specific parts of the memo. |
Could anyone put this into a |
I will try to present my point of view, please understand that I see your point and have to agree with it even though I don't like it.
What anon stands for is freedom of speech. But they concentrate on cases where someone from the position of authority is denying someone without authority the right to say what they want or act in a socially acceptable manner.
An example of the first would be protesting scientology when they sued and destroyed everyone who dared to unearth things about them. This would be an issue of free speech denial from authority.
An example for the second would be the situation with WBC. While people are trying to mourn the fallen, as was done for thousands of years, they come in and try to disrupt this socially acceptable event. You can even say that it is also an example of the first, as WBC is doing this as a church, as a religion, which makes them an authority oppressing people's attempt to say farewell to their beloved. As they are an authority, picketing funerals and thus making it hard for people to express their sorrow (form of free speech). |
Yup, if I had to make 1 conspiracy theory true it'd be this one.
I just wonder how they react when they say "god hates fags" and then gay marriage laws get passed. Because if they're so smart they should see how polarizing they are and how it only hurts them. |
Competitors can enter the market. They just have to build the capital, get the funding, pay the line fees and invest in infrastructure just like the existing companies did. Do you think the cable lines that go to your homes and businesses sprouted magically from the ground? I am not a capitalist kool-aid drinker, but let's be honest here. It took RCN billions of dollars to get into the game because they came 20 years later! Why should the existing companies be punished for the investment they put in?
We praise Google for investing in all this fiber infrastructure. So in 20 years, should we tell the feds to force them to let other people use Google's infrastructure at cost? Or should other companies invest now, to compete in the future (as I see plenty of people [posting on reddit?]( |
the law goes both ways
Are you even reading my posts? I'm saying SONY DESERVES TO BE SUED FOR USING CONTENT WITHOUT A LICENSE. That's how the legal system fucking works. If you break a law, you have to carry out the appropriate punishment. I'm also saying, however, that the idea that hypocrisy should be a punishable legal offense is complete shit. |
I think hacking into the PRISM db would be slightly more difficult than spoofing a pw...
I know there is no such thing as an impervious system, so I kind of get your point, but I don't think it's quite as simple as people are making it out to be...
The more likely attack vector would be an authentic user collecting and distributing targeted data to a foreign party...
"Who watches the watchmen."
I'm know that there are processes in place to control these risks, which scares me more because those processes have failed very publicly.
If I had to guess, I'f say the "watchman watchers" didn't have the appropriate resources to regulate the sheer number of people with access to the system. |
Devil's advocate, sure it can. While QC exists certainly, sometimes wires get crossed, test code gets committed, code gets un-commented, or wrong versions are pushed.
As much as you like to think tech companies are automated and foolproof, sometimes shit happens.
Example: I...er...know a guy in charge of making sure that new customers receive a welcome e-mail. Well during testing a very old function was called. This function automatically added/linked a handful of tables in a database, thus saving the user a decent amount of work adding the same references over and over again.
Unfortunately, one of the tables got linked was a customer contact table. This was not realized until later in the day. So instead of test e-mails going to "[email protected]," they went out to a few dozen real customers.
>Welcome to [Company],
>Thank you for signing up for Cat Facts (put real product here later). In order to activate your account, please go to <my company website> within the next 10 business days. One of the many features that you get with [Cat Facts] is [Belly Rubs] (put feature bullet list here).
It goes on, but you get the idea.
So... |
When I would login to facebook on my phone, I noticed it would publicly put my phone number on my page, and I would always have to delete it. Finally I realized I had to leave it there, so I put it in and just made it private. Now, no one can see it but facebook has it assigned to me.
THEN, after I graduated from college in 09, I was looking for jobs and met a cool recruiter for a company that I got to know pretty well. We exchanged emails with the account I have registered to facebook and I had his phone number saved in my phone. I ended up working for a different company but didn't delete his phone number from my phone. About 3 months later, out of nowhere I get a "people you may know" of that guy. We had ZERO mutual facebook friends and had never communicated via facebook.
How could facebook have known that I knew that guy? The only thing I can come up with is that they paired either our email accounts/cellphone contact info. I have since upgraded to new phones and will never log into facebook on my phone. |
Everything you say is well known and have been discussed endlessly. I have said this exact thing for years. This is the solution and should be implemented as soon as fucking possible: |
Heh, long story but I'll try to keep it short. I work in technology. Companies give me free stuff.
I have an AR.Drone, I wanted to add a higher quality camera to it. Looking up cameras I found small wearable cameras, then this Contour Roam. Added it to my Amazon wish list.
Back to free stuff, IBM gave me an Amazon gift card for watching a webinar on State of the (IT) Union, or something. Got my gift card, went to my Amazon list, bought the roam as it was 1. on sale, 2. $40 cheaper with this gift card.
How I use it: I travel a lot. I have a dash mount so I can keep it there and do time lapse photography. Some come out really cool. I also sometimes put it up during my daily commute in the off-chance someone will run into me and I'll be able to capture it for insurance purposes.
Secondly, I also record my bike rides. Got a new road bike (Specialized Allez) and I put it on there to record. Again, for my own amusement. I took my bike to San Francisco and cycled across from the Bay Bridge to over the Golden Gate Bridge, all on camera. (I doubt anyone is interested, nor will read down this far, but if so, I can put it on Youtube for your voyeuristic pleasure.) Also, Phoenix and cyclists are a divorced couple who think the other one is always wrong. So I keep it on my bike to record any wrong doing by any motorists. To this date, there have been none. I'm not a douchebag cyclist. Although some guy in a SUV did swerve towards me to tell me to get out of the way.
I eventually plan on using the camera this winter when I go snowboarding. |
1) It's had 1 in 6,333 cars catch fire, compared to the rate of general cars catching fire, 1 in 1350. However, when you look at fires caused by a collision, the statistic for average cars are one in ~32,600. So, on average, no, it is in fact significantly lower. Collision-wise, it is higher.
2) There have only been 3 cars that have caught fire. Think about it, the third car changed the ratio incredibly significantly because there hasn't been a large enough sample size. |
The lithium batteries that are in the Tesla are crazy dangerous. Lithium batteries are no laughing matter if they leak.
The new Porsche E-Hybrid basically has the same batteries inside it. They have trained everyone who would be near one of these including myself. Porsche is making us make a quarantine zone specifically for these cars with this type of battery. They literally can explode if anything goes wrong with them. If it were to leak and you got it on your skin, if you don't get it treated immediately the only way to treat it is you will literally have to get whatever touched it amputated. Only thing is, you wouldn't even know if you accidentally touched the leak... It takes hours until you even know if you touched it for sure. (I believe it starts to burn) This means if you get into an accident and the battery leaks in the collision and gets on to you somehow, you wouldn't even know it until hours pass. Treatment after waiting those hours includes possible amputation.
Lithium ion batteries are safer as small AA batteries, but when you have a Lithium battery running a car at around 500V and it leaks for any reason, You literally cannot be anywhere close to it. If it leaks, odds are its malfunctioning. If you try to charge a lithium battery in improper conditions they are known to explode.
Don't get me wrong though, there are safety features to prevent this type of stuff from happening. It's still serious when there is any problems at all with a lithium battery.
There is more to it than this, but that's the basic reasoning why I believe they make a big deal for seemingly no reason. |
The stock is being propped up by the present value of it's expected future cash flows. However, because no one knows how profitable the company will be, and investors have only a vague idea of the value of the brand, based on expectations, the price of the stock today in no way reflects the companies current financial situation. |
Don't assume your car isn't affected even if they don't recall it. My father had a 2003 ford escape which began having weird problems around 2010 (Car would just start on its own with no keys/driver at any time). He read into it and saw that there had been a lot of problems with that particular model cropping up concerning... you guessed it... spontaneous fires. Apparently some wires with the ABS system were prone to shorting out, but when he took it in to ford they said that his production batch wasn't affected. A month later, he gets a call from his building manager at work to tell him that his car is up in flames in the parking garage. Ford of course continued to deny that the car was effected by the defect, and the remains of the car were too burned to really tell according to the insurance company so he had to sell the thing for scrap. |
That's the funny thing about terrorism, it is only terrorism if people are terrorized en masse by it. The only reason these "terror attacks" (excluding maybe 9/11) are terrorizing the public is that the media is hyping them up and spreading the fear. So, in a very real way, the true terrorist is mass media.
I would also argue that the same effect is occurring with school shootings. We know there have always been guns in our society. We know there have always been nut jobs in our society. So what has changed that suddenly we have an "epidemic" of school shootings? It is simple: the 24 hour news cycle on cable TV. Now many nut jobs who might otherwise just kill themselves or continue living their lives as nut jobs while harming no one else have figured out that they can "go out in a blaze of glory" by shooting up some school. They know that the media will find the scariest picture of them that they can and that they will be the only person talked about for a week or more on the news. They know the media will enshrine them as some sort of hellish demon and that's just what they want: to scare people. They can't scare people effectively unless the media helps them. |
I wouldn't call Apple safe. :S The Unix backend is nice, but it's not the backend which usually has the problems, it's the front end and extra programs that run on it. They're popular not because Apple is bug free, they just have a tendency to ignore bugs and/or silently patch them which is hilariously good material for a security blog. Android bugs on the other hand are well known, and everyone knows when they get patched, so they're boring.
Apple iPhone automatically executes any .exe you send to it in a mms, with full admin rights? Well that's big. Not because it's a big flaw (it's a huge flaw, like, biggest flaw you can think of apart from wiping out the universe and starting over again), but because people who weren't Apple found that out. Apple silently patched it, and later on released a few paragraphs as a press report saying they'd patched it and the news was sensationalist. There's a bug on Android allowing a program to gain access to root? That's big, like, if the universe had already been wiped out and restarted, but Android announced that with detailed patch notes of what went wrong and how it was fixed. What headline are you going to run? Company is really nice, gave us all the information we wanted and has patched the flaw already? Or company probably has Mein Kampf on their new intern reading list and stonewalled us till a week after they'd patched it without telling anyone, then told us to shove off. |
It's not incompetence, it's news. How many Teslas on the road are there? How many Fords?
If a Ford realises that it was reincarnated from a Chevy into a Ford and kills itself, who's going to care? If a car that most people have never seen, fewer have driven, and less own, catches fire, wow lookee here, a news story. It's why murders are reported more than people rescuing kittens, because as weird as it sounds, not everyone is a murderer. There's a lot of non-murderers out there who will go their entire lives without being around violence, so a murder is a big thing. Rescuing kittens? 1), hell with the violent balls of hate, and 2), so what, we'd do it to. |
I'm sorry you were unable to discern it. It must have been hard to reach the end of my post, there were so many words!
Here, I'll make it easy for you. |
i know, old thread now, but finally getting to catch up) actually new dual stack 2-in-1 comcast hulks with router and modem capability flat out block RDP protocol nowadays. THis was a huge issue at my last company with paralegals not being able to RDP into from home until we started polling them not just on connection speeds and laptop configs, but also onthe type of routers/modems they had. all of them, to the T, had the comcast 2-in-1 wireless router and cable modem box. I could not do anything about it. at all. that shit was so proprietary and locked down we couldn't touch it without voiding employees contract service warranty and so management told us to drop it. paralegals were pissed as hell at everyone, we were pissed at managemegent and comcast, and management went out to lunch. biz as usual. |
For $38 it doesn't seem like a bad deal.
For a first tablet (or only tablet, or first/only internet device), its not bad either.
My first Android device was a $40 tablet screen. The web browser was non-descript, and apparently identified itself as Safari. I wanted to get Google Chrome, but it said I needed to use Google Play, which didn't come on the device nor could I install it. [Some people offered a way to get Google Play to install]( but it still threw up errors. I wound up installing Opera Mini on it instead.
I mention that because the Tablet in OPs article " gets apps from GetJar .
This may also be a reason why they are still using Android 4.0, as newer Apps and Android versions may be subject to "[Closed Source Creep]( For example, the Trio Stealth I bought has mostly AOSP versions of apps. They still work, though they aren't as flashy and tricked out. |
DNS servers (used for this blockade) are quite an interesting yet not very complex system. (At least, for computer science people...) I'll just skip over the explanation but changes to a DNS record can take up to 48h before everyone has the update.
It's also completely possible, plausible and even likely that not all parts of the network have the update at the same time. Translated to normal-people-speak, your neighbour might be able to access TPB before you can, the easiest solution is just waiting a few hours. |
Story time: I was at my mother's house where her Internet was really bad. Her modem ended up dying and I told her to phone the ISP to get it fixed. So she phones, and after a half-hour wait she got through to a human who told her a tech would come by between 8am and 4pm the next day to replace it.
I am talking to my mom at this point to inquire about faster speeds and if she could be upgraded. They tell her "well because of the plan you're on and the new modem you're getting you can now get 3x the speed you were getting before!"
"which is what?" I ask.
"3Mbps"
I laughed very loudly. We were at 1Mbps before... There is almost no difference. Awesome. |
I had no idea Internet could be so bad in the states. When I lived at home with my parents we had .5 down 0.1 up on a good day. They live in the Dublin mountains (Ireland).
I moved out last year to an apartment literally 10 minutes away from my parents by car towards the city. When I moved in I got 30 down 10 up and I was in heaven. 2 months later my ISP upgraded my package at no extra charge to 50 down 10 up and a free phone line. 3 months later I upgraded again for a euro cheaper per month (€43.99) I now have 120 down 10 up. I can pay an extra €10 I think for 250 down but I don't even know what to do with 120 so there is no point. I can wait the extra 5 minutes for a movie to download, it's no big deal.
It's funny, I have 2 computers, my main one and then a small one connected to a projector in my sitting room. When I download something on my main one, switch over to the small one and instead of using a usb or something to transfer the file I just download it again. If I was still at my parents that would take me another hour to download again, downloading again would be suicide.
I went home for Christmas and thought my laptop was broken because the internet was so slow. I ran a speed test and everything was normal and I just sat there thinking how the hell did I put up with this, waiting for 480p youtube video to buffer made me want to kill myself.
It's crazy that in this day and age that there is such a difference in such a tech oriented market. 0.5 down vs 10000 down (if google goes ahead). It's like if some people were still watching black and white 10" tv vs someone with 100" 4k 3d tv. |
Actually if you take a look at the fiscal quarterly earnings and correlate it to falling conversion rates, taking into account the spread of communism post WW2, we can see that employee satisfaction is null and void. |
I have heard that its extremely hard to stay safe with torrents
you heard wrong. they have been successfully spreading fear, making torrenting out to be this dangerous activety that will get you caught unless you do X... the truth is that its veeeeery unlikely youll ever be contacted for torrenting something, just cause of the amount of people doing it and the methods of pursuing you.
you dont have to get a vpn... its more for your peace of mind then for actual security...
the chances of getting a copyright notice from torrenting are about as low as winning the lottery... and even if you do get one, it means nothing... its literally a "strike" where they go: "please stop doing that, if you do that 5 more times we may take action..."
the other flavour of copyright notices are known as copyright trolls which will send you a letter stating that you were caught and they will sue you for 10'000$ unless you pay 500$ (and by doing so you admit to doing it and they can STILL sue you)... they arent intending to actually sue since they send thousands of these letters out and it costs them more to actually pursue someone than its worth... basically theyre fishing for gullible people that will pay up out of fear... the best thing to do in cases like this is to completely ingore it... you didnt have to sign for it, so you never got it.
the process for getting your name so they can send you this leter isnt easy either: first they have to be monitoring the torrent swarm at the moment your downloading/uploading from it, then they have to filter through the IPs they collected and make a list of the IPs in their jurisdiction (usa for example)... once they have this list of IPs they can go two routes...
either they use the voluntary ISP six strikes method and forward the ip to your ISP and you get a "strike" in the mail (using this method they never actually know who you are) saying that you have 5 more chances before your isp takes action...
or
they take this IP list to a judge and try to get a subpoena for the names assosciated with those accounts... theyve been doing this by collecting thousands of IPs in the same sobpoena instead of one subpoena per IP, but judges are wising up to this...(one per IP would make it to expensive) once they have list of names they send out threatening letters full of legalese offering people to "settle" for like 500$ or get sued for 10'000$... its basically a "legal" version of blackmail (only they're bluffing) and many people fall for it...
this business of copyright infrgment notices is incredibly shady and judges do NOT like it... some shady lawyer dudes were even found to be in contempt (whatever the fuck that means) and were disbarred for shit like this, here are some links on these dudes its a great read: |
Except the congestion has been proven not to exist because providers do have extra capacity but are unwilling to turn it on.
The provider sells you a 100 Mbit line. And so does to everyone else in the country. Let's say every single American gets a 100Mbit line. 30.000.000.000 Mbits are needed, or 30000 Tbit.
The upstream connection is 10 Gbit. Now we have a problem. The network the ISP sells to its customers is nowhere near good enough to sell that much bandwidth to its customers.
There are two choices. Either you get more upstream bandwidth or you accept that you can't afford to sell 100Mbit to all of your customers. If you accept that, either you increase the prices of everyone's connection, or you put a limit on everyone say down to 1 Mbit. |
Auto companies should be shitting their pants right now.
I think most of them are sitting on EVs that can reach scale pretty quickly once the market is there. Nobody wants to make the investment for a market that's not there, but they're all ready for it. Tesla being in the news so much seriously distorts the sheer throughput other car manufacturers have compared to Tesla. If Ford decided to dedicate 5% of their manufacturing to EVs they would outdeliver Tesla for a couple years, even with Tesla drastically upping production.
Once the market, technology, and infrastructure prove they are developed enough for a significant investment, every major auto manufacturer will have an EV <$40,000 within a year.
Tesla can't magically scale to producing 1 million cars a year from 30,000 overnight. Even given an infinite amount of money it would take Tesla the better half of a decade to get close to having the manufacturing infrastructure of any of the major auto manufacturers. |
I bought my new Hyundai Accent 2013 for $18k - $10k downpayment and the rest over 3 years. That's conscious for middle class.
I just don't get how the average car in the street is new and at least $40k. It seems like the middle class in America spends way above their means, and that's just generally accepted as normal. I know people making 5 times less than me, who bought cars that cost more than double what mine did!
My point is, debt is considered normal to people here. I'm from Europe and I see it as something to avoid... like the plague. I'm waiting for Tesla to make a $10k car (because they can, in theory - electrics have to be much cheaper to build). I wish the average consumer thought like me - but unfortunately, the average consumer thinks a $40k vehicle is totally normal in 2014. And that lets car makers charge people an arm and a leg. |
Some cars just don't get heavily produced. I sold cars a long time ago and remember a guy trying to trad in an almost brand new Audi A8L. We were a Nissan dealership and had no interest in that car. I called LITERALLY every Audi dealership in California. Only 2 were even willing to try and give us a number on it. Most of them said they'd never even seen a new one in stock.
Some of these high end cars you just can't expect to show up and the dealer will have every color/option combo you could imagine in stock on the lot. People can have a hard time finding a Nissan Altima with the right exterior/interior color combo and options that they wanted.
It also depends on where you are - some dealerships are much larger than others and have much more extensive stock that's targetted to their audience. A big Ford dealer might have nearly 100 new F-150s on the lot and a smaller one might be lucky to have 10. That same large dealer might only have a handful of Ford Fusions though, because it's not what they sell.
Try and buy a Nissan GTR or Dodge Viper. Most dealers won't have any at all. If they do they probably won't let you test drive it.
I remember when Minis first came out. The local dealership had 2 to test drive. All others were already sold. The next 2 months worth coming in were sold as well. If you wanted one you ordered it and came in to get it in a few months when it came in.
So yeah... |
Your experience sounds similar to one I had with Comcast a few years ago. Several months after moving from a place with Comcast to an apartment that used a different provider, Comcast started sending us bills with a "bounced check fee" as the only charge. For the next few months, I called Comcast, was told "sorry, that's a mistake, we'll fix it", and sent another bill with a late fee in addition to the mysterious check fee, every month. After the third month, I was told the bill was valid and multiple supervisors called me a liar and said that they have the "bounced check" (I never use checks) in question. I filed a complaint with the BBB against Comcast and after a week or so, someone from the BBB must have picked up the case because Comcast sent us an apology letter and cleared everything. |
When my roommates and I switched apartments this month, we did the self-installation as well. Moved on Monday, called Tuesday morning to activate. The service rep on the phone said we were all set. Our tv and internet somewhat worked for a day; it kept going in and out. So my friend called and spoke to someone on the phone. He was on the phone for over an hour, the comcast rep "sending signals" to our box. After an hour and a quarter the rep said we would have to have someone out.
They scheduled out appointment for 2 days later, on Thursday. So Thursday rolls around and no one shows up after the two hour window. My friend called and was told that the tech had been there, but our apartment did not exist. The thing is, we had never received a call from anyone that the tech was there. So after arguing with customer service for another hour, they agreed to send a tech out on Saturday. Later that night my friend received a confirmation for Monday. He called back immediately and told the appointment was for Monday. We told them we were cancelling our service.
So we called RCN and had an installation scheduled for Sunday morning (just in time for football). Called comcast to cancel. The rep he spoke to was extremely nice and informed us that after speaking with 4 different people over 4 hours the previous several days, that our service was never actually activated for the new location. The rep was stunned how no one before her noticed that. |
I once tried to contact the BBB. I had an issue with Microsoft refusing to send me the correct power supply for my Xbox 360. I had ordered a replacement and they sent me an Xbox One power supply. I filled the form out totally correct, the shipping container it was in even said it was supposed to be 360. Anyways, after 3-4 weeks of getting shuffled around support because my issue was being "escalated," I filled out a complaint form on the BBB's website. A week later a Microsoft rep. called me and said "So are you having an issue with your power supply?" I said yes, and they just sent me a new one. The guy didn't even give me time to begin to unleash my rage, it was over in seconds. Three months later I got a call from the BBB asking if Microsoft ever resolved my issue. I have no clue if they called to make sure they did what they said or to see if it was even still a problem because it had been so long since I submitted it. Either way, when it comes to Comcast, Microsoft, and other like companies, depending solely on their "dedicated support team" probably isn't your best option. |
Can confirm, I ordered a microsd card that cost about $37 on sale and it went missing for a few days at my local post office. I messaged a rep online and they sent me a new one instantly. The missing card showed up on the same day, I actually got something for free. It was astonishing, I don't remember the last time a company did anything remotely resembling that kind of service. |
You've made compromises in order to simplify, some of which, for some people, won't be acceptable. |
Every possible test for lying is going to have some rate of false positives and false negatives. The polygraph test has high rates of both, and serious issues with bias. No high quality test exists.
The polygraph has a reputation as a high quality test. That reputation may scare off some applicants who aren't qualified. It may also scare off some qualified applicants who are scared of what the test might reveal. There's some benefits and some drawbacks.
So if you step back and compare using the polygraph to not using it, which one reduces fraud overall? Keep in mind that in both scenarios, motivated and knowledgeable fraudsters aren't going to be stopped. The agencies need other protections against that class of threat.
So |
Well, during the early cold war the whole USSR vs USA was presented as a conflict of ideologies. The USSR in particular outwardly tried to present itself as leading the way in a new world order, where Communism would be the answer to all the worlds woes and would end inequality forever and other such promises which turned out to be impractical. In particular, though, a large part of the USSR's plan was to try and appeal to the working class - the largest part of any nation's population - and encourage them to overthrow their supposedly corrupt governments in a revolution and replace them with a Communist one. And then join the "International Brotherhood" of the USSR.
This scared the bajeezus out of the US, obviously, and so they responded to propaganda with propaganda, as equally overblown as the nonsense the USSR was putting out. This is where a large part of the whole "invisible hand" and almost religious worship of capitalism comes from, and a large part of it was appealing to children through comics and films they would be shown in school, teaching them that self declared Socialists like Russia are purest evil.
And guess what? All those kids who were brainwashed back in the 50's ended up growing up... and then getting into government, high profile media positions and other positions of power, and made more propaganda and policities which encouraged a fear of socialism, which made even more kids afraid of communism, who'd grow up and get into positions of power...
And so on and so forth. This is obviously an oversimplification, but it's part of the problem. |
Imo its no longer a two party system its a money making business that nobody gives a fuck about. It doesnt matter if you vote dem. Or rep. The winner got to thier position by accepting money from the corporations. The only honest politician from what ive gathered in my short time here on earth, is ron paul. Hes an extremly wise old man who just wants everyone to get along its a shame that some people just label him off as crazy. |
Isn't better to just complain instead of actually thinking for a few seconds? Complaints get more attention than logic.
Edit - Whoa Gold! Thanks invisible Internet person. If you're a woman between the ages of 27-34 I think you should marry me. If you're a man between the ages of 27-34 I think you should meet my sister. |
It's not blocking the popup.
uBlock is a content blocker and uses various optional source lists, some of which are incredibly strict in their restriction of embedded scripts, some of which block tens of thousands of different assets. These lists are regularly updated and changed, items added and removed, and there's no way to know which of these any individual might be using. I use some lists that are restrictive enough to break valid content on many perfectly legitimate sites. |
It always sounded like a nerd's dream rapture, but here's the difference:
It's very understood that any improvement and forward movement toward the Singularity is man-made. There's no magic man doing it (unless you want to call the scientists and engineers that), and there's no "let's wish real hard and self-actualize our future" bullshit. What it is is a large man-made movement toward a possibly utopic future, which could quite possibly never exist because we may never be able to make the machines we dream of.
The only certain point we have to look forward to as living human beings is death. Religions were founded to answer what happens to us at this point. Their answer was a magic man in a far away place.
With Singularity, we may one day change our only certain answer of worm food into... well, anything, almost. The best part, we, as men, did it ourselves.
I don't mean to proselytize, I just don't want this dismissed as quackery, as any discovery men make on the road to Singularity will be important regardless of if we ever reach it or not. |
The way these stock scams worked, is that they'd buy a heap of an essentially worthless penny stock, they'd load up the sell orders at the same time the email went out. because of the spike in buy orders demand the demand for these stocks exceeds the normal supply due to the low turnover/ liquidity for these stocks. Therefore the price would jump up to the sell order which the spanner had set.
An individual who followed these spam stock tips could never sell at the price in which the spam scammer had set his sell order because the spamers order would take chronological precedence. |
The Ubuntu software center works great when it works , but if you're trying to install something your system doesn't know what to do with, it gets hellish. And don't even get me started on installing non-standard drivers.
This is what Ubuntu - and Linux in general - needs to fix: the gulf between how well Linux works when it works well and how it works when it doesn't is FAR too large. Yeah, Linux is superior to Windows in a whole lot of ways as long as it's working. But troubleshooting a Linux system is nightmarish, especially if you're a new user. Oh hey, look at that! Your video driver crashed and can't even get into a GUI. Hope you know your command line . . .
Microsoft's approach of implementing sub-optimal strategies that scale well is, I believe, ultimately the better approach if your goal is attracting a lot of new users. Which is most definitely Microsoft's goal. Maybe installing software often isn't quite as simple and easy as doing the same thing with Ubuntu... but Microsoft's system doesn't force the user to only use the programs that Canonical maintains, and doesn't expect the user to learn totally different methods of installing programs whenever they want to install something that Canonical doesn't cover. 99+% percent of Windows apps can be installed by running a file either called SETUP.EXE or INSTALL.EXE, and that's a simple and easy catch-all rule anyone can learn.
Linux's biggest problem is that it is trying to simultaneously appeal to A)hardcore geeks, and B)computer newbies. And these are two worlds that, honestly, I don't believe will ever successfully coexist. Microsoft shoots for the middle and, thus, hits targets on both sides.
Or, |
Facebook won't advertise tobacco. Weed counts as the same thing. I don't really care where FB is based, but I wouldn't call anti-smoking measures a 'US moral'.
And I smoke.
But, from the article;
> A pot leaf isn't a "pro-smoking" image.
Err, I think you'll find it is.
>It's a plant
Just like tobacco.
>and as many of Facebook's executive team should know (like 40% of Americans who consume marijuana regularly as adults) there are many ways of consuming the product other than smoking it.
Yeah but would anyone be surprised that the overwhelming majority of users consume it in this way?
> since the campaign is not "pro-smoking" but a political effort to change the law.
I'm afraid it is pro-smoking by default - it will encourage smoking as a by-product. Pretending it won't isn't going to get us anywhere. |
Well, I don't really disagree with you that 4chan is a cesspool of shit, and that innocent people are targeted, and have their lives ruined.
4chan is not a force of good, it's a chaotic place were lots of people go and do crazy shit.
I am not defending 4chan, I am however, sympathetic towards the idea that this particular attack could harm people who are trying to break apart the foundations of a free internet.
All your arguments are against the people doing it, not against what they are attacking.
So |
Sadly, you are completely wrong. I have no facebook account, I never had a facebook account, I don't even remotely see the appeal of having a facebook account. Still facebook has a lot of my information, because they managed to trick some of my retarded friends into giving it to them. |
Importance of Facebook's privacy policy goes beyond each individual.
Obviously, bulk of the information Facebook own about you is what you provide. That observation is trivial and not particularly noteworthy.
However, even if you're careful with what you post, your friends list alone is enough to know a great deal about you. Someone made an algorithm to determine someone's sexual orientation based on their friends list, and it was rather accurate (can't find a reference now). Time you log in and IP address reveal your habits. People you do not friend (but have mutual friends) tell a lot too. Data mining possibilities are huge.
Even if you never signed up for Facebook , they may still have data on your contacts, based on people who try to import friends from their e-mail contact list.
Most important of all, 20% or less of people may care and be vigilant with the data they provide. A huge majority, 80% have probably never considered privacy implications or not care at all. There is a ton of info others provide about you, even if you're careful.
Facebook has more sensitive personal information that any secret service in the history of mankind. Soviet NKVD or Romanian Securitate would be red with envy. Rely on snitches, arrest and torture someone to find out about their contacts and opinions? Pfff, amateurs! |
It's not just facebook. You should be a skeptic of any website that you go to that asks for say a birth date to verify your age or a zip code or whatever. [All it takes is birth date, zip code and sex to have a pretty good shot of knowing who you are](
This shouldn't scare people away from using the web but...be aware of what you are doing. Before entering credit card info check how the system works. If you end up at some random website while clicking around and it starts asking any info question whether or not you care to be there that much.
On a related note you know that facebook connect link that has been making your lives super easy by consolidating your online identity? You can bet that they are collecting a data base of what websites you go to. |
I have never had a facebook account.
Nevertheless, when someone I know (lets call her Alice) sent me an invite though facebook to join, the email said something like "Alice and these 9 people are using facebook, why don't you join". All 9 of those people are people I know, but Alice does not.
Let me stress that I have at no point EVER told facebook one shred of information about myself. Yet they were still able to start building my friend graph. Simply having people who have your email address in their address book using facebook is enough for them to collect information on you to sell to 3rd parties. And since you never entered into any agreement with facebook, they are not bound by any laws governing what they can do with your information.
When facebook checks someone's address book for friends who are using facebook, it records ALL email addresses in there, even those of non-facebook users, and then cross checks this pilfered information against other data, stolen from other unsuspecting users, ultimately filling in the non-facebook user's info and using that for friend of friend suggestions and what not. |
You seem to single out Sony and state it's about singling out Sony.
No, that was a reply to your original comment trying to clear Sony of the accusations in the article. While the article was not just about Sony (though it was mostly about Sony, because Sony was most of the problem), our discussion here on reddit is entirely about Sony, because you made a comment that was entirely about Sony and I was replying to it.
> Your later comments of pointing the finger at theaters is more along the lines of what I have been trying to say.
That's not what I was trying to say though, that was referring to what the article was trying to say.
My original reply to you was only focused on the role of Sony's projectors in all this, and that is the part of the article I am intending to cite. Most of the rest of this discussion, about backing up arguments and the context of the article, is due to your original misrepresentation of the article as claiming that the Sony 3D lens/filter device reduced the light by 85%, and your refusal to acknowledge that misrepresentation.
Really, your fixation on that quote was just a red herring anyway, because the original question at hand was whether Sony went too far with their copy protection on their projectors, thus resulting in a noticeably sub-par experience for people watching 2D movies because the lens change procedure is to difficult, time-consuming, and/or error-prone. Whether the lens reduces the light by 85%, 20%, or some other amount, clearly people are noticing.
As for nitpicking articles and sources, that could go on forever. I vote we just drop that now.
It's pretty clear to me at this point that you are not interested in anything I may have to say that suggests you are not correct. I think my sources are much stronger then yours, and I think you are using a double standard when comparing my position with yours, but you clearly disagree. I think that may be all we will be able to agree on, unless we spent a great deal more time on this. Perhaps in time more information will come to light that will show who is correct. |
I worked at a movie theater - while movies may run in the same building for a long time, if most theaters want to maximize their ticket sales, they move movies around a ton in terms of what screens show what - new movies get the biggest theaters, or movies that are expect to last a long time, other ones get shuffled to slower theaters...
Any of the weeks when for some reason or another we didn't change around theaters much, movies you wouldn't expect to would end up selling out simply because the screens weren't balanced right. Most theaters have a pretty big range in terms of seats per theater, and juggling that is really important to not getting huge lines of people who can't see the movie they wanted to.
[Edit: |
No, that was a reply to your original comment trying to clear Sony of the accusations in the article. While the article was not just about Sony (though it was mostly about Sony, because Sony was most of the problem), our discussion here on reddit is entirely about Sony, because you made a comment that was entirely about Sony and I was replying to it.
No matter what you were replying to, those are your words. You specifically state the article is about singling out Sony:
> That is contradicted, though, by both the OP's article (which singles out Sony) and this piece with more information:
As to me trying to "clear Sony of the accusations in the article", if you view what I said as trying to clear Sony of the accusations, then yes, I feel Sony deserves to be cleared of the accusations. A projector can be set up wrong, I feel that these projectors do take some setup, but it can be done correctly and reasonably and so the fault is with the theaters.
> That's not what I was trying to say though, that was referring to what the article was trying to say.
That is clearly not what the article is trying to say. It says it's about Sony's projectors, the lenses in front, how those are there because Sony made it so hard to take them off, it implies the projection will be poor because of this also. It caps it off by stating how to avoid Sony projectors, again with the reasoning that you'll avoid the problems because they're due to Sony projectors.
> My original reply to you was only focused on the role of Sony's projectors in all this, and that is the part of the article I am intending to cite. Most of the rest of this discussion, about backing up arguments and the context of the article, is due to your original misrepresentation of the article as claiming that the Sony 3D lens/filter device reduced the light by 85%, and your refusal to acknowledge that misrepresentation.
You're kidding me. That was an example and far down the line after you already told me all my sources were anonymous and untrustworthy and therefore you were right and would remain unconvinced (and have done so).
How can you say your argument is about Sony's projectors when the thing you keep referring to you and have to clarify refers to "other misadjustments". Other misadjustments are a problem with Sony's projectors?
> Really, your fixation on that quote was just a red herring anyway
You keep bringing the quote up and the author's provenance, saying I'm fixated is interesting to say the least. I agree it's a red herring.
> It's pretty clear to me at this point that you are not interested in anything I may have to say that suggests you are not correct. I think my sources are much stronger then yours, and I think you are using a double standard when comparing my position with yours, but you clearly disagree. I think that may be all we will be able to agree on, unless we spent a great deal more time on this. Perhaps in time more information will come to light that will show who is correct.
That's not how I would have put it, but I think a lot of your points go to the same conclusion I reached.
> Perhaps in time more information will come to light that will show who is correct.
The boston.com already backtracked on their Sony comments in their own follow-up, pointing out problems with other projectors too and pointing the finger at the theater. Perhaps in time even more information will come to light.
> |
Victim (if you can really call it that) here. They exploited the Akismet plugin in an outdated Wordpress installation, uploaded a shell, apparently edited the shadow file to be able to intercept my e-mail, and used Dynadots password reset feature to change the password and hijack the DNS of my cryto.net domain where the AnonNews IRC channel runs. I'm not sure what they thought was running on that IRC, but it wasn't really anything more than the AnonNews channel. It has nothing to do with Lulzsec, or LOIC (which is explicitly prohibited on said server), or basically anything else they seem to think it has to do with.
Also, they apparently hit a wall when they couldn't guess my birthday, thus couldn't change my account details on Dynadot, and basically got locked out. It wasn't very hard to fix. |
Victim (if you can really call it that) here. They exploited the Akismet plugin in an outdated Wordpress installation, uploaded a shell, apparently edited the shadow file to be able to intercept my e-mail, and used Dynadots password reset feature to change the password and hijack the DNS of my cryto.net domain where the AnonNews IRC channel runs. I'm not sure what they thought was running on that IRC, but it wasn't really anything more than the AnonNews channel. It has nothing to do with Lulzsec, or LOIC (which is explicitly prohibited on said server), or basically anything else they seem to think it has to do with.
Also, they apparently hit a wall when they couldn't guess my birthday, thus couldn't change my account details on Dynadot, and basically got locked out. It wasn't very hard to fix. |
I'm just growing so tired of people ascribing some sort-of noble cause to LulzSec, the vanguards--the "security paradigm shifters" to sto speak. I realized people outside of Infosec were ignorant, but I didn't realize they were fucking retarded when it came to their ideas of computer security. I liked to imagine that the general population of Reddit was smarter than the people who say non-sense like "hack the GUI with Visual Basic", but I'm questioning that stance. |
Human languages, just like programming languages, are elaborate, powerful tools with established syntaxes. If you ignore grammar in a programming language, you get code that doesn't work. If you ignore grammar in a human language you get ambiguous statements that do not effectively communicate the idea you are trying to communicate.
Misuse of either type of language is a symptom either of ignorance (which isn't necessarily a bad thing - everybody's ignorant) or of lazy, sloppy cognition.* Sure, it's possible that people who communicate poorly actually have incredible ideas behind their clumsy verbiage, but if they can't convey these concepts effectively then the rest of us can't tell the difference. If Stephen Hawking substituted "herp" and "derp" for various words in his papers, he'd just be a guy in a wheelchair begging for change down at the bus station. |
Holy. Sweet. Jesus. Titty. Fucking. Christ.
Look, Top Gear is a TV show for car fans . It is about loving cars.
Let us imagine it was called "Top Horse" instead and was all about horses. They wouldn't preach about the benefits of owning a pony over a thorough bred race horse. We wouldn't care about that.
We would want to hear about Arabian Stallions and how fast we could make them go.
We wouldn't care about what type of horse was the best at pulling a cart, but we would like to hear about what type of horse could look the most awesome and might kill us but is terrific fun to ride.
Current Top Gear (about cars, not horses) is all about loving cars. Loving massive engines. Loving beautiful design. It's about escapism - I will never own a Bugatti Veron, but I like seeing the joy on Hamster's face as he speeds one down a tunnel in Italy. I like the roar that the big engines make.
This is an entertainment show. Not a consumer guide show.
The incident that this Guardian is complaining about is a non story. Everything that it says that the top gear crew did is factually true. However that is not the point. They were attempting to make it clear that the electric car in its current form is not as useful as an electric car. If you run out of charge, there is nowhere to charge it up. Even if you do find somewhere, it will take 13 hours, not 3 minutes to refill your tank. Getting from London to York in an electric car would take longer by electric car than it would by Stage coach (possible challenge there for "Top Horse") |
As somebody who enjoys the show this really upsets me. If it was any other car I probably wouldn't care but by discrediting an environmentally clean(er) fuelled car (which is something we really need to invest in) they are doing some real damage and possibly setting us back environmentally. |
Seriously the quotes should be around the word faking. It's an entertainment TV show, lots of what they say is satire and I know not to make an argument over it because they are just having fun. That is why the show is so good.
Maybe if Tesla and them worried about making cars better rather than what Jeremy Clarkson says we would have better cars. We are relying on these manufacturers to lead us into the future and they are squabbling over a TV show host making fun of them. They make fun and critique a lot of cars and nobody but electric manufacturers seem to care. The blame is going the wrong way IMO. |
There was one episode where Clarkson said that he was told they were nominated for an award in the best non-scripted show category, while he was writing a script. |
I definitely agree that hydrogen has an extremely long way to go to be an efficient fuel. I don't understand why hydrogen and EVs are often discussed as mutually exclusive. Hydrogen fuel cells can replace batteries in cars with much less toxic energy storage for an electric motor. This is a drastically different (and, in my opinion, more promising) use of the technology than hydrogen combustion engines.
There is one extremely powerful advantage to using hydrogen fuel cells: independence from power generation source. You could use wind, solar, oil, coal, nuclear, or other means to "charge" a hydrogen fuel cell. This means individuals and small companies could, in theory, compete and get into energy production for cars. It would largely eliminate the current issue of being tied to a very specific type of fuel. The batteries currently in use in EVs are incredibly toxic and unsustainable if they're used in bulk. Why so much hate for hydrogen? |
Exactly right. Although I think umop_apisdn was thinking of hydrogen as a replacement for oil or coal, which it simply cannot be. It isn't a net source of energy, in fact, we lose energy in the conversion, which is the main issue. Electrolysis isn't as extremely efficient as we would need it to be at this point, which it would need to be if we were to make use of it.
There are a ton of people working to reduce the energy needed to convert water to oxygen and hydrogen, and some really neat advances in catalysts are being made. That being said, hydrogen fuel cells that work are already in existence. We just wouldn't gain much yet since the conversion to a fuel cell infrastructure would be incredibly expensive, and since we still have "enough" oil we would probably end up hastening the end of oil by using slightly more energy to convert to hydrogen fuel cells. |
The whole point of the hydrogen fuel cell is that it would ostensibly provide greater energy density than traditional batteries, on par with gasoline, as well as maintaining the refueling advantage traditional gasoline cars have over current generation electric vehicles. The truth, however, is that hydrogen has an abysmal energy density, even when you use rare earth, expensive, high surface area storage media that achieve a whopping 0.07g/mL H2... which is nowhere near what is needed to replace gasoline vehicles.
I think the issue with my comment and your response was that I neglected to mention that I dislike hydrogen fuel cell as a concept and think we should stop funding it as heavily as we are. There is no indication it is superior to electricity -> kinetic energy efficiency, or has a better storage potential, and it is still reliant on large scale generation stations (whereas electricity generation can be done on any scale) as well as transportation issues and, oh yeah, the great big hazard of it being actually explosive when mixed with air (unlike gasoline, which is just flammable except in unusual circumstances). |
string of expletives and invective here> <deep breath> <heavy editing>
I wish these people would just quit horsing around with user interface look-and-feel, already. I barely use one-tenth of what's on the gmail screen already, and with so much else on the screen I have a somewhat difficult time just finding the Delete and Compose buttons when I need them. Now that I've been at it a year or so, and have gotten to where I finally can more-or-less count on being able to find the controls I need within a half-minute or so of starting to look for them, these guys go and change things .
And if it's not them, it's Facebook, Yahoo, or some other site/service. Why can't they just leave well enough alone? At least Yahoo has the good taste to keep their updates down to once every four or five years (maybe I exaggerate; but it's a lot less frequent than, say, Facebook)...
In my opinion, constant change makes for a very uneven user experience. I say to these people, find something that works, stick with it as long as you can, and if you simply must introduce something new, make it optional and keep the old version around (and supported) forever. If it's "too expensive" to support the old version forever, well, that's your own, self-caused problem: you didn't have to obsolete it to put up the next new latest-and-greatest thing. Take THAT down, if you need to free up some resources. |
I was a member of Zipcar for a couple years. It was handy. But after the first couple years, I never really used it much and forgot about it. One year went by and they charged me $60 to keep the account active. Annoying, but hey, whatever. Maybe I'll use it.
Then someone found my credit card number and ordered a bunch of shit. Went through the fraud process, canceled the card, and thought nothing more. Today I received my third notice that I'm "overdue" on my $60 payment for this coming year of using Zipcar. I haven't driven one in two years, but they are planning on sending me to collections because I never remember to call them when I have the time on week days (They send me the emails on Saturday). |
That article is from 2008 . Here's the actual ruling it comes from the highest legal authority we have, was a preliminary injunction . The current legal situation is a different one than the one during that injunction.
It's still not easy to get at the private data belonging to an IP address: First off, some providers don't have records to that effect, a larger number delete them quite fast, and even if you're out of luck there the situation could be worse: The providers aren't allowed to just give such information away without an official ruling, and state attorneys not unregularly just tell right holders to GTFO because they've got more important stuff to care about. |
I've been hearing the same shit since 1999 and it just never happens.
If you call going from 95% market share to around 50% "never happening", you need to review your maths and stats lessons…
> IE doesn't comply with W3 standards because they are shit.
okay… why? any argument?
> You call in non-compliance I call it fixing the bullshit that W3 couldn't do right.
I call "non-respecting standards defined by known actors of the web and by renowned companies (even by Microsoft iirc)" complete bullshit. But I'm pretty sure you'd love to have a segmented-by-browser web, like it was some years ago. Internet had been built with standards, this goes from newsgroups to ftp protocol, web, irc and so on. Why? because it must be usable by everyone , no matter if he's using Pan, slrn, lftp, filezilla, xchat or irssi, or IE, Firefox, Chrome or wtfyouwant, and no matter if their operating system is Windows, *BSD, gnu/linux, osX, Solaris, AIX, amigaOS, VMS or [put your fav' OS here]. Internet is a gift to mankind, not a gift to one corporation's OS and its users.
> The rest of the time it lingered between so-so and complete crap.
Oh, yeah, again a statement with not even a single argument.
Let's play this game: if I say "IE is utter shit, made by a pile of monkeys", would you believe me?
Mind me, I just don't care about IE (I'm not even using an MS OS), and, having used it sometimes, it's not breathtakingly fantastic, but it's not so bad as some says. |
From
> A member of America Online called me (a member of the tech support staff for
an Internet service provider with no affiliation with AOL) asking what her
email address was. After figuring out she wasn't registered with us, I
politely pointed out that we were not America Online and she might get a
better answer to her problem if she called the American Online support number.
> - Customer: "Oh, so I should call them?"
> - Tech Support: "Yes, they will probably be able to help you more than I can."
> - Customer: "But you're an Internet Service Provider! It says so right here in the phone book! If you don't want to help me fine. Thank you, have a good day." [click] |
According to the wikipedia article the CBO disagrees with your suggestion that an income tax reduction would increase revenue.
2005 US CBO estimates on tax cuts
In 2005, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a paper called "Analyzing the Economic and Budgetary Effects of a 10 Percent Cut in Income Tax Rates". This paper considered the impact of a stylized reduction of 10% in the then existing marginal rate of federal income tax in the US (for example, if those facing a 25% marginal federal income tax rate had it lowered to 22.5%). Unlike earlier research, the CBO paper estimates the budgetary impact of possible macroeconomic effects of tax policies, that is, it attempts to account for how reductions in individual income tax rates might affect the overall future growth of the economy, and therefore influence future government tax revenues; and ultimately, impact deficits or surpluses.
The paper's author forecasts the effects using various assumptions (e.g., people's foresight, the mobility of capital, and the ways in which the federal government might make up for a lower percentage revenue). In the paper's most generous estimated growth scenario, only 28% of the projected lost revenue from the lower tax rate would be recouped over a 10-year period after a 10% across-the-board reduction in all individual income tax rates. The paper points out that these projected shortfalls in revenue would have to be made up by federal borrowing: the paper estimates that the federal government would pay an extra $200 billion in interest over the decade covered by the paper's analysis. |
Why would we add money to NASA? It's a failing agency. Companies like SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, and others are new companies that are already better than NASA. The average age at SpaceX is 30, whereas at NASA the average age is about 50 or higher. Corporate space exploration is the future. If you're going to fundraise for space, invest in a company, don't contribute to a dying government agency. SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, and other extraterrestrial exploration companies are the future of humans in space. |
Much of the technology in our kitchens comes from NASA, directly or indirectly, even though we don't realize it.
The problem is that its hard to say that these innovations would not have been made anyway without NASA or that they could have been made more efficiently just by directly funding research (e.g. if we spent the same money and gave it to just general science/tech research, could we have discovered the same things cheaper?).
>On top of all the "practical" reasons to do it, there's also the fact that we, as humans, yearn to understand the world and universe we live in.
NASA does not have a monopoly on knowledge. There is still a crapload of stuff we don't know about the deep sea and yet I don't hear anyone saying we must increase funding into that. My point is that while funding spent on NASA does lead to advancements, how are we supposed to know if that is the most efficient way to get to those advancements?
>Moving beyond those reasons, one day, Earth will stop being able to support life.
I think this is the weakest argument for funding NASA. Think about it for a second. The costs of colonizing Mars would be astronomical (lol) and currently Earth is no where near uninhabitable. The money that we would spend colonizing Mars could be spent directly improving Earth's environment. How could it be possible that creating and entirely new, artificial environment would be cheaper or easier than just fixing the one we have now? Also, the sun is not going to run out of hydrogen for another 5 billion years. You think that argument will work on politicians who can't plan beyond 4 years at a time? Earth is such a wonderfully suited planet for our species and I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why we should leave it. |
facebook games, online photo editors, online multiplayer games, some mediumweight back-end apps (as in not java or sap heavy). he might not use them, but the market for big flash apps is not exactly unimportant.
also: flash supportd gpu acceleration. check this out: |
I'm pretty sure android fans hate on the iPhone because its low customization options, the phone hardware is far behind its time (mainly referring to screen size, but wheres LTE?). They also hate it because iOS is ugly in most people's opinion (like me, i think the scheme is all wrong for today's day and age, iOS looks very 2006-y), wheres android has followed the times, and Jelly bean is more beautiful than ever. It also uses proprietary software to lock you into their ecosystem, proprietary connectors, you also pay more for the name when they're stuff is made in china like everyone else...Siri is just an excuse to seem relevant, its a child's toy ("Hey Siri, How many ounces in a cup?" "Oh here you go, guy who doesn't know very simple conversions...). And mainly the fact that it caters to morons, call it intuitive or easy to use all you want, its stupidly simple. so stupidly simple that apple is afraid that they're user-base may confuse a Galaxy SII for an iPhone. Its like lowering the difficulty of the State tests so more people will pass. and yeah sure, go on with your "It always works" saying, but then again, how bad can you fuck up a 5x4 grid? then there's the copying, "Ohhh a notification center what a great idea!" (don't even say anything about Siri and voice search, because something like Siri is not pioneered by apple, and voice search has been on android for years, so apple makes the bitch talk back to you. big whoop. Don't even get me started on retina display, yeah it seems useful but how useful can it be on a little 3.5" screen? sure the retina display on the iPad was impressive, but the screen is made by Samsung! In Conclusion, the main reason we hate on iPhone/iOS is not the lack of flash, its all those reasons.
/rant |
It's not that simple. Even the browsers that score "well" in HTML5 tests all implement only parts of the HTML5 standards and even when they implement a standard, they may not implement the same backing data. Let me explain:
Example 1: Video tag
While Chrome, Firefox and Safari and IE9 all implement the video tag, this does NOT mean you can code your site to show a video and be sure it'll show in every browser. If your video is coded in ogg-theora or WebM, it'll show in Firefox, Chrome and Opera but NOT in IE9 or Safari. If it's coded in H.264, it'll show in IE9, Chrome, Safari but not Firefox or Opera.
A lot of the HTML5 standards do not specify how they need to be implemented or for what formats. This will be a HUGE problem going forward. As much as I hate Flash, if you had a video that was ogg/theora, webM, H.264, etc you could get it to show in any browser with Flash. |
HTML5 video doesn't have any DRM, so you can't use it for sites like Netflix or Hulu, thus why they don't have HTML5 apps. Even HTML5 video is limitedly rolled out on Youtube desktop for a variety of reasons (copyright, multiple video formats you have to support, etc.) Whenever you see a company bullshit about HTML5 video on their compiled mobile apps, what they really mean is that their streams are based on mp4 (because that's what all the mobile internal players use) but the app that's accessing that content has DRM built into it so that you can't just up and take the content.
EDIT: [Here's a post]( of Netflix discussing HTML5 and its services. |
HTML5 would be a great idea if it's supported fully and in the same way by all browsers (desktop and mobile), but it's not that simple.
Even the browsers that score "well" in HTML5 tests all implement only parts of the HTML5 standards and even when they implement a standard, they may not implement the same backing data. Let me explain:
Example 1: Video tag - While Chrome, Firefox and Safari and IE9 all implement the video tag, this does NOT mean you can code your site to show a video and be sure it'll show in every browser. If your video is coded in ogg-theora or WebM, it'll show in Firefox, Chrome and Opera but NOT in IE9 or Safari. If it's coded in H.264, it'll show in IE9, Chrome, Safari but not Firefox or Opera.
A lot of the HTML5 standards do not specify how they need to be implemented or for what formats. This will be a HUGE problem going forward. As much as I hate Flash, if you had a video that was ogg/theora, webM, H.264, etc you could get it to show in any browser with Flash.
And mobile browser support for HTML5 is even worse: (although not worse than IE9 which scores an awful 138 out of 500) |
I posted a question on /r/askscience about this a while ago; there were some very enlightening comments. |
The first issue is one of free nonviolent expression, which is a very basic right affirmed by the US constitution. Though its desecration may be considered disrespectful by some, the flag is merely a symbol, regardless of how it is used. To promote such legislation is to elevate the flag and the national identity it represents to untouchable, unquestionable status, which is dangerous (see North Korea, Third Reich). Just as it would be outrageous to prohibit written or spoken criticism of the government, it is outrageous to consider prohibiting a certain (and historically common) form of expressing dissent.
The second issue deals with the stripping of the jurisdiction of the federal courts over issues involving the Pledge of Allegiance, mostly to protect the "under God" clause added in 1954 as well as any future state legislation regarding compulsory recitation of the Pledge. So this is other piece of legislation that could have severe repercussions for the freedoms our citizens have traditionally enjoyed.
My main argument against delimiting free expression in such areas is that, if a simple cloth flag or traditional verbal pledge are held to be untouchable, then what defense would we have if other forms of dissent were similarly prohibited? And if the US (perish the thought) took an extreme wrong turn at some point in the future (see North Korea, Third Reich), I'd rather there not be established legislation in place preventing criticism of the state in any way.
EDIT: |
Thank you for taking the time to explain your viewpoints to me. I see where you stand on both issues; technically people should be able to do whatever they want, however disrespectful it may be seen by others. I guess I have more of a personal issue with the disrespect of the U.S. flag, and it shouldn't be a state issue.
I also did not know that the "protecting the pledge of allegiance" term was mostly to protect the "under God" part. As I see it, the reason "God" is/has been featured in various government things (eg. money, pledge, party platforms) is because our founding fathers truly came over here to practice their own religion freely (considering that religion was 85%+ of their lives at the time). As the majority of the U.S. becomes against having "God" within the government, it will end up being removed (and probably not re-added). Right now, the Democrats are on a teetering point for the removal of "God" (think: party platform vote to remove "God"), and many of the Republicans are extremely pro-"God." I support keeping "God" in there, as nobody is forcing you to say the pledge (now). |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.