0
stringlengths 9
22.1k
|
|---|
If you really like Windows, and can't think of much that you'd want it to do differently, then no, there's not much reason. Linux has some nice little tricks that it just does better out of the box, such as finding drivers for about 90% of the hardware out there with no input from the user, handling updates all in one place and letting you customize your desktop the way you see fit.
That being said, a lot of the neater features of Linux are only really accessible to people who feel like putting in the time to learn. Want to find all pictures you have on your hard drive that are at minimum 1920x1200, make shortcuts (links) to them in a single directory so you can use that as your "random desktop" folder? I can bang that out in 10 minutes in Linux, and then set it to run every Sunday night at 2AM. Maybe you ran out of hard drive space and want to move your /home directory (equivalent to C:/Users) to the new drive without having to fuck around with some 3rd party tool? Doing that on Linux takes about the time of transfering the data + 30 seconds of commands. Are any of these killer features on their own? No, not really (unless you do them all the time). (And I'm not saying that doing those things on Windows is impossible either, so don't go finding the tool that does it). But overall, Linux gives you more control and more tools to make the computer do the work for you. It's like driving a car with a manual transmission (that also has a really nice automatic mode). |
The problem with OpenGL comes from an outdated API. OpenGL is sorely lagging behind DirectX. DirectX has a modern architecture that many programmers favor because of it's clean and well thought design. When you compare DirectX to OpenGL, OpenGL comes out as a joke.
And yes I know the PS3/PS4 use a variant of OpenGL, called OpenGL-ES, that doesn't make it good..
Even John Carmack, one of the supporters of OpenGL until recently, has come out and said that DirectX is better than OpenGL. Source:
OpenGL suffered from a very bad 3.0 release as well which hurt them. I won't really say much and will let you read the articles below but basically instead of releasing a completely upgraded API they just released a small update which didn't modernize the aging API at all because of pressure from CAD companies.
Sources:
That being said OpenGL-ES is far from dead as anyone who want's to make a phone/console, and not use windows products will have to use OpenGL(unless they designed their own API..). Most developers will use DirectX on windows because it's a nicer API, and when they port to other platforms they'll use OpenGL. What would be nice to see, and certainly won't happen anytime soon, is if DirectX became open source and could be used on any hardware. At least in the future a completely revamped openGL API could save OpenGL and make it more favorable for developers.
Another issue with OpenGL is the fact that hardware companies decide the new features which means that one company might support XX feature but another company might not making it very frustrating for the developer. DirectX in comparison is highly standardized. One entity(microsoft) makes all the decisions on the hardware feature set and the hardware companies follow suit. That is why normally there is such a huge gap between major directX versions. This is also why if you buy a directX 11 card you can be sure that the card supports tessellation. With openGL it's a bit more tricky. |
and this is why we need to bring back ISP choice . I don't give a shit who put the infrastructure up or with what dollars, telecommunication infrastructure should not be owned by one non-utility, for-profit monopoly in a metropolitan area/region. bring back my ability to choose a different ISP from the local cable/DSL company, and they can lease physical equipment (along with maintenance) and provide what we pay them to provide, a fucking 'tube' that doesn't care what passes through it as long as its Internet Protocol. period.
let them keep trying for this shit and watch how quickly fed up Americans turn local fiber infrastructure companies into utilities (as they should be). I want my ISP separate from the people doing the physical connections, separate from the people providing my email. that way the product actually has to be quality, and we can vote with our dollars like a market is intended to work. if you're not going to let me vote with my dollars because there's no legally mandated competition, then you're a gov't sponsored monopoly, and the public might as well own you rather than freaking shareholders, or the shareholder's stock dividens go up at the expense of the quality of products and services provided to the customer- well, in this case, 'citizen.' |
A lot of people commenting are confused by how New York Times is using the term "social network." They're not talking about Facebook, Myspace, etc. They're talking about the NSA secretly building graphsyour real-life social network without warrants: everyone you talk to, do business with, etc.
From the article:
[...Using] data from public, commercial and other sources, including bank codes, insurance information, Facebook profiles, passenger manifests, voter registration rolls and GPS location information, as well as property records and unspecified tax data, according to the documents. They do not indicate any restrictions on the use of such “enrichment” data, and several former senior Obama administration officials said the agency drew on it for both Americans and foreigners. |
and reliance on security-hole-ridden plugins
So now we switch from general plugins that at least enjoy a sort of herd immunity by the fact that so many people use them it's a target for research and further development to highly privileged binary blobs created by media corporations that by law we aren't allowed to reverse-engineer and examine for fitness of function. Go read the proposed spec, these blobs have a disturbing breadth of permissions to do whatever the hell they want.
>EME means Netflix on Linux
No, it doesn't. They aren't standardizing a DRM system, they are standardizing the API with which to implement one using necessarily closed-source binary blobs. Blobs that are explicitly allowed to interrogate the system and refuse to operate if they don't like what they see. |
Its helped a tiny handful. Those people go on to become successes and get their names in the media. You don't hear about the people who get their shit pirated to death right out the gate, and they never amount to anything (even though they would have in a pirate-free world), and they go back to accounting. |
It's pretty common for people to actually think about the fire hazard while deciding which kind of fuel they use in their cars. I work at sea and gasoline is almost strictly forbidden onboard because of the fire hazard. I know we had some small trucks that we used to load small cargo that ran on petrol and we had to have very specific safety measures (how the gasoline should be stored, exactly how much gasoline there was and so on) |
There is no way of knowing how long the truck was on fire VS. how long the Tesla was. If you look under the Tesla you see fire on the road directly under the side doors to ~1/4 the door length.
It would only be a matter of time until the cab was engulfed in flames from the heat below starting the floor coverings on fire.
That is also besides the point, there is no way of knowing exactly where the truck caught fire from the photo alone. For all we know the fire did not start anywhere near a liquid fuel source but spread though the cab to the hood / body panel area ( like many cars, large truck body panels are made of plastic or plastic like materials to save weight).
Once you have heat being applied to the energy storage areas, be it diesel fuel or lithium batteries your energy storage has a potential to burn. Lithium batteries can start on fire and / or explode just as easily as liquid fuels, hence all the warnings on battery packs not to use / store above certain temps, not to throw them in a fire ETC. |
If you read the article, 10% of the Tesla's battery packs equaled about 1% of the energy that would have been released, compared to a traditional cars gas tank.
So even if all of the packs got lit on fire, it would still only be 10% of the energy of a normal cars fuel being lit on fire. |
The difference is in technology. We have been mass producing gasoline engines for nearly 100 years. Battery technology is much harder to mass produce in such as state so it is both affordable and reliable. We just don't have the experience yet with electric cars. Battery fires really are a serious concern (or did you forget the whole 787 thing).
Complicating matters is that battery production is costly and horrible for the environment. As well batteries have to be replaced before any other part in the car breaks down. |
I don't want to make a fool out of myself because I'm not that good at english but I'll try to explain. With evaporation temperature, we get fumes which are very flammable. But we also have the flashpoint, which is the temperature the fuel is able to burn. ( I think this is directly parallell to evaporation temperatures ) But yeah, Diesel has a much higher flamingpoint and thus harder to combust.
I suck at explaining so here's the wiki link. |
Quick rough estimation for a sanity check:
Typical new reactor puts out about 1.1 GW of electrical power max. Let's say 2 reactors per site, for 2.2 GW. They don't run all the time though, so scaling from the average annual output of [this reactor]( we get about 20,000 GWh/yr.
Googling around for site sizes was difficult, but I found a couple examples. The lower end was 1100 acres. Peak solar irradiance is about 1 kW/m^2 and typical panels have around 14% efficiency at peak. This article produces 5 kWh/day on average, so we have about 0.3 kWh/day/m^2, which gives us [440 GWh/year]( for a 1000 acre site. That's very roughly in-line with this [new chinese facility]( |
There's a difference between being a big company with a lot of income, and an industry itself being profitable. Exxon gets 9% profit margin but other oil companies get under 5% have much higher profit margins. Analyzing this statistic is far more important than the straight profit total. The article you posted yourself shows that Exxon had 12% profit margin for that quarter. Compare that to Ford with 13% and Apple with 27%. For an overall look at profit margins look [here]( to see that that the various sectors of oil are on average no different in profits than other industries. |
but for now you're subsidizing rich people buying expensive cars.
What? You're subsidizing Tesla to stay afloat and keep releasing cars when you buy their cars. Their first car was a 2 seat sportscar that was a little over 100k. Now its a 70k sedan. Next will be a more middle-class style car.
You're not keeping the rich happy, they're keeping us happy by having Tesla continue to develop cheaper vehicles. The Model E might come out as soon as 2015:
I can easily afford this. Thanks Tesla early adopters! |
Not exactly. Generally speaking, solar powered houses are still connected to the grid. The infrastructure is designed so that if a house runs out of solar power, the house can start pulling juice immediately from the grid. There is a cost to this "safety net"; simply installing solar panels doesn't mean that this house now has a 0 cost to the grid.
Load balancing is no easy task. Having a system where a formerly solar powered house can connect to the grid and have its needs met immediately and in full is a complex thing.
So, |
The use of "peer review" in this instance; the government grant review process, has you a little confused.
Th link above is talking about the process of reviewing research proposals to see which ones the US government will give grants to.
While they use a basis of the peer review process in their considering research -that is the examining of proposals for scientific value by "peers", they also add the process of finding which proposals represent the needs of Americans in areas such as ethics and financial viability. These areas, however, are not the domain of peer review. |
An intriguing answer, and one that I find somewhat reflected in this article about bullshitting TED Talkers lying and bullshitting?
You seem to distinguish an interest in the pursuit of truth from scientific literacy. I don't think I can agree with that. I would in fact argue that better scientific literacy, such as through my suggestion, would improve the general interest in the pursuit of truth (moving up the aforementioned notches) of any given populace. This has to be coupled with an appropriate ethics education to induce self-reflection on man's inherent intellectual weaknesses (like our tendency to think of a lot of people's misery as emotionally cold statistics compared to what is, e.g., right now happening to one Michael Schumacher), but I don't believe it to be impossible. General intelligence will still follow a Gaussian normal distribution as do almost all things in nature, but simply exposing people to such topics in their teens could be a powerful motivator in the makings of a more sceptic and enquiring-- and thus more engaged --audience, given the natural tendency of teens to question authority. All in all, I would definitely argue that scientific literacy and an interest in the truth of matters are coupled. Without wide implementation of actual policy and curriculum changes, I have no way to really prove the merit of my suggestion, but it is, after all, just an idea. I still hold that greater knowledge of the basics of science and its methods will over time lead to, basically, less conning people out of their money by making them more discerning of half-truths, even in a fatalistically capitalist system such as ours.
The real problem I see is that the game right now has been rigged in the first place. We have people with psychopathic tendencies gathering at the top because in their minds they were simply changing numbers to relate to the next real person they could find in a system that was subject to the notion of doing favours for others. Some even joked about the gravity of what they were doing. That is not indicative of species-normal empathy one is supposed to feel for people close to them. These guys might in fact be great family men, fathers and whatnot. These same faculties are simply not activated--for one reason or another--once they're in a position of power.
This brings me to my next point: I do not think that the manipulation that you, e.g., accuse Gladwell of is always something consciously or rather purposefully done by people. Without knowing each person's specifics, please allow me to generalise once more: I do not believe the majority of any given populace to set their minds on, simply said, doing what they believe their peers to consider being evil. There is nearly always context and circumstance in which such people either manage to justify their actions for themselves or in which such situations abstract them far enough from the root of what they're doing that they don't even consider such things as evil. This is all getting very vague, so I'm going to stop here, but the point is just that trained self-reflection from an early age might be a method to rein in the sheer number of such incidences and I merely proposed one method of fostering an environment where it might become more of a common occurrence than is currently the case.
This is not to say that simply studying science and ethics better (or rather the humanities) will all make us better humans in turn. I'm actually more of the mind that the humanities are becoming somewhat underappreciated at the moment and that "too much numbers" (scare quotes!) might lead to more of the problem of abstraction I described above. But a solid foundation of the scientific method should-- at least in theory (!) --improve the general populace's bullshit detectors by a few notches, so to speak--if not even lessen the number of such incidences.
Somewhat sarcastic |
OK someone explain this to me. From what I understand, GPS is a receiver only. It determines location based on the clock value from multiple satellite signals. There are a bajillion devices out there that have GPS chips in them since it's both a great way to determine location and a great way to keep an accurate clock.
That said, are the cars actively transmitting this data to some central location (possibly via OnStar integration) or are they tracking/storing this information in some central "blackbox" of the vehicle. |
Don't feel like you're ignorant.
I am very, very new to the field myself and am still trying to wrap my brain around it. The D3 modem makes it so you are capable of getting better speeds/more channels.
Having a D1 modem makes it so the ISP must have a single channel connection for the older modems, thus causing everyone else to not have the channels available for them.
From what I understand, if everyone had D3 modems (which is 15 year old technology, iirc, btw) everyone would be able to utilize all channels that are available. That means that they have access to great BANDWIDTH, on top of the greater speed. A 30Mbps pipe is a 30Mbps pipe. If you have access to 8 or 16 30Mbps pipes, then you have a total bandwidth of 240Mbps to 480Mbps. That is not accounting for additional signal bands on the pipe itself.
Keep in mind that the larger coax cable, which is more or less prevalent, can handle up to nearly 1gbps itself.
D1 modems can only handle 16 qam--10.xx mbps
D1.1 iirc can do the 16/64 split, but thats only 15.xxmbps
D2 and D3 can handle the higher 64qam at up to 42.xxmbps, and D3 can handle more channels than D2 can. Meaning it can access 16+ (iirc) channels vs the D2 8 (iirc).
More channels is where you get that 'speed burst'. Where for a few seconds you take total advantage of all of the open bandwidth that is not being utilized otherwise on your local node. That is why you can sometimes hit 60mbps/sec or more for a bit before it tapers off.
You cannot do that with a d1 or d1.1 modem. |
It sort of makes sense. The said companies don't know if you're on the up-and-up. For all they know you have something against the people running the servers you're complaining about. Investigating them could put them in hot water -- either legally or at the minimum civilly based on privacy policies. In my opinion, it's better that they stay out of it. I don't want ISPs and hosting companies playing detective.
You might say that they should report them to the authorities as fraudulent with the evidence you have. I don't know exactly who has jurisdiction over those crimes. But, I do know that Nigerian scams are handled by the Secret Service. I contacted the Secret Service years ago with information on a scam that was attempted on me. I played it through a bit to get additional information. Their policy is that they don't get involved unless you've had a financial loss. There's just too much for them to handle.
I imagine these companies have just gotten apathetic. They should at least be thanking you for looking into it and explaining why they cannot do anything. |
I graduated from a public charter high school in 2012. Our old principal had to retire due to illness in 2011. As soon as the new principal came in, she immediately lets EVERYONE who wanted to transfer in come (it was a pretty nice school before). Not out of the kindness of her heart, but so she could get more grant money. The school had goddamn billboards advertising it, even though it was already bursting at the seams. The lunatic even called herself the CEO. Now the school is severely overcrowded. Half of the lowerclassmen can't even get PE classes, so they have to wait, although I don't know how that's going to work since the influx is just as bad. |
My honest impression is that the technology is far from perfect, and Clorox doesn't give the lead engineer whatever he wants because they don't see the product happening. The lead engineer is now butthurt.
The idea that companies block research that may (partially) replace their current line of products is bullshit. Most companies are well aware that if they can replace their own products, so can future competitors, and it's better to be ahead of the curve, and capitalise on the new products.
It's not like Clorox wouldn't make big profits if they sold a product that would make cloths almost entirely stain-resistant. (Not to mention that they can make special cleaning products that do not interfere with the hydrophobic treatment, or that specialises in stains that could not be prevented.) |
Not really since it's adjusted by numbers sold so even if this did qualify the price alone will make sure it doesn't do much. Not that they need much help. My car does 420hp at the crank and can still best 20mph (18.5 mostly city driving with my lead foot). That's about 4 mpg worse than my last car while producing 3x as much power. They've also embraced the smaller displacement turbo engine. My Ecoboost (twin turbo direct injected 3.5L v6) supercrew F-150 does a couple of miles worse than my Mustang while producing similarly power wise and weighting about a ton more. They also moved to aluminum body panels in the next F-150 which is said to remove up to 700lbs of weight on some trims. They also introduced the 4 cylinder boosted engine back into the Mustang lineup and are offering some version of the smaller displacement boosted engine in pretty much every van and car they offer. |
but I bet it's fun to drive
Pretty much nailed it. I can pay less for something more efficient but I'd hate every second of it. Why bother driving something that's going to bore me to death? I'm also a huge VW fan so I actually test drove and really considered buying a TDI (diesel) Jetta which has a measly 140hp (aka 1/3 as much). Cost wise it would come out to about $9000 less over 5 years. Which is pretty nice until I found out the MK6 TDIs had a common problem with the high pressure fuel pump blowing up internally and since it's a looped fuel system the shards go back into the tank and get fed through out the fuel system. The fix is cleaning the tank and pretty much replacing every other bit of the fuel system including both pumps, fuel injectors and every piece of pipe/hose. Average repair cost out of warranty? 8-10k. I called VW of America to see about extended warranties and my options there were pretty expensive too. So I could buy an efficient but not as fun car and gamble on ultimately losing what I saved in a lump sum fix or just buy a stupid fast car that is balls out fun every time I flip the key. At first I wasn't convinced I made the right choice but after owning it for a year there is absolutely no question it's worth the extra cost.
> Seems like massive overkill to me
I thought the same when I bought it but you'd be surprised how fast 400 hp feels pedestrian. |
Your analogy is incorrect.
.
Let me first give a simplified explanation of how the internet works. There are usually four parties involved in an internet connection; the end-user(EU), the content-provider(CP), the ISP, and internet exchange points --> IXP --> ISP(CP) --> CP
Send data : CP --> ISP(CP) --> IXP --> ISP(EU) --> EU
.
ISP's have contracts with IXP's where they pay for data capacity. There was never a problem until streaming services became popular. Movie streaming sites are the examples that the major ISP's have used as a reason to end net neutrality so I will also use them as an example.
.
Let's say Alpha, a fictitious streaming site, has a contract with an IXP to pay $1 for every TB of data used. Let's say Beta, a fictitious ISP, has a contract with an IXP to pay $2 for every TB of data used. Alpha pays less because they know they are going to use a lot of data and so signed contractual agreements that benefits themselves and the IXP. Beta on the other hand doesn't expect their EU's to use as much data capacity and even puts a cap on how much their EU's can use each month along with a penalty for going over that cap.
.
Now let's say that 100 Beta EU's watch a 500 MB movie from Alpha's streaming website. Alpha pays $50 while Beta is paying $100 for those movies to be streamed. This is one of the reasons why Youtube buffers videos they way they do. Why buffer an entire video and pay for all the data capacity when a lot of people stop watching a video after 15 seconds? It's better for them to buffer in segments and load the next segment only if it needs to.
.
Now one can argue that ISP's need better contracts but ISP's aren't charities. They are in business to make money. Why pay for the extra data capacity if there is a chance it won't be used? If you owned a hamburger restaurant and only sold 60 hamburgers per month, would you buy 100 hamburgers every month? Of course not, you would go out of business.
. |
You're aware that encryption is a mathematical algorithm that would take millions of years to break with classical computers? No shortcuts, no ways around it. Just some wannabe geek on Reddit arguing with a mathematician about shit he doesn't know about. |
I had Prey installed on a laptop I purchased back in December. I had my main account as the only admin and it was password protected, but I also had a guest account to be used just for some idiot to use if my computer happened to be stolen. Sure enough, just in a little over two months, it got jacked. I immediately activated Prey online and waited to see if someone used it, and sure enough, he did.
The guy ended up using my laptop to go online and search for a charger, and the webcam took a picture of the retard (discreetly, the little light doesn't even turn on when the photo is taken), as well as showed me all the information on what the computer was doing, etc. The program also takes screenshots of whatever the computer is looking at, and I just so happened to be lucky enough that it took a screenshot of the confirmation email with his name and address on it .
Stupid motherfucker didn't have a chance. I called the police the next day, gave them all of the information the program gave me, and two weeks later I got my computer back. Unfortunately the drive was wiped (who gives a shit though when you get your stuff back) and I only ended up getting about the 5 minutes of use of him buying the charger from Prey, but without it, I would never have gotten my computer back. |
EDIT: As an example, this track has a huuuge bassline throughout the entire song that I can't even hear on my speakers here at work. I just sounds like a crappy kick drum, a hihat, and some cinematics:
I just plugged in my earbuds and I can hear it now at least, but most of it is still inaudible even at 720p. I would say you'd need the original WAV to downsample to 320/192 flat bitrate files on a small PA with a sub before being able to do any sort of real testing though, which is really where my position lies (I have beef with the headphone aspect of the tests, read below).
>Perhaps you're one of the few
I'm not claiming to have magic ears, but rather, that it's obvious to anyone in specific situations. Sub bass isn't a huge part of most genres so naturally it doesn't make a big difference with the majority of music, however. There are basslines in dubstep tracks that you can't even hear properly when you transition between 320 to 192, let alone have reduced quality. Deep kick drums also suffer significantly reduced chest pounding capabilities. Similarly if your speakers aren't good enough, even if you have a 320 you still wont be able to hear said bassline, which makes it sound like nothing but drums and weird sounds. Highs, mids, and high end bass usually don't suffer much since that's what MP3 was developed to accommodate, but there are some dubstep DJs I know who wont even use 320kbps MP3s (only WAV, FLAC, or Vinyl) because MP3 is designed to intentionally remove sub-bass that the human ear can't hear, and low-end bass that usually wouldn't work with earbuds well anyway; mostly to reduce file size.
>based on these self-professed audiophiles out there who cannot tell the difference when actually put to the test
I'm willing to bet that these studies weren't done with genres that utilize sub-bass (even drum & bass doesn't apply here really), which is central to the music I spin live to an audience. The fact that they used headphones (even expensive headphones) also strikes me as strange, as audio engineers never master audio with headphones, and phones will never deliver sub bass like a proper PA. |
Going 1920x1080 vs 1920x1200 means that if you can watch hi-def stuff without scaling or black bars. The black bars are especially pesky for LCD's as their contrast ratio is dynamic , meaning if you are watching a movie, you will notice the black bars becoming grey in light scenes, or simply a much worse contrast ratio. |
There at least nothing legal that prohibits my employee to pay me in most professions. Some professions have regulations (such as doctors, truck drivers etc) to avoid overworked personnel. Doctors which are employed by the government for instance receive "time" they can swap for working hours later (take a friday off).
Unions yes.. but Unions are for communists here... unless you plan on going jobless / have a very unsecure job you're better off just saving money and perhaps getting a insurance against malpractice/getting sued for some bullshit imho. But you dont get sued in sweden as a person, because there is no incentive in that since our courts isnt batshit crazy like they seem in the US.
In some instances union officials have voiced opinions for LOWER salaries because they're that fucking stupid.
This can happen if union leaders are told by company bosses that they'll have to downsize the working force. The union leaders then act by asking their members to lower their cut since all they think about is their member size, no the individual.
What happens then is this. If you work for a big company with a strong union and isn't a member? You get fired.
If you are a member, you get a pay cut thanks to your buddies at the union. |
Good question. It's because when it comes to overtime, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), employees are divided into two classes: exempt and non-exempt. Exempt employees aren't paid overtime, but they are also paid their full salary even if they only work one day a week. (Essentially they work for a fixed salary regardless of whether their circumstances require 10-hour weeks or 80-hour weeks.)
Generally speaking, your base salary and the type of work you do are the two things that go in to determining whether you're exempt. If you're paid a lot and you do managerial or highly-skilled work, you're exempt.
Here's some more detail on types of work (from [here](
> The job duties of the traditional "learned professions" are exempt. These include lawyers, doctors, dentists, teachers, architects, clergy. Also included are registered nurses (but not LPNs), accountants (but not bookkeepers), engineers (who have engineering degrees or the equivalent and perform work of the sort usually performed by licensed professional engineers), actuaries, scientists (but not technicians), pharmacists, and other employees who perform work requiring "advanced knowledge" similar to that historically associated with the traditional learned professions.
> Professionally exempt work means work which is predominantly intellectual, requires specialized education, and involves the exercise of discretion and judgment. Professionally exempt workers must have education beyond high school, and usually beyond college, in fields that are distinguished from (more "academic" than) the mechanical arts or skilled trades.
So, the question is this: is being an IT worker more like a true professional job (like an engineer or architect), and should it be categorized with them? Or is it something else, not similar enough to the professions that qualify as exempt?
I'm inclined to think the most consistent thing to do is to class certain IT work with engineering and say it is exempt. But it really could go either way. Although IT work is usually pretty highly technical, not always (if you're just the guy who goes to people's desks and puts in more RAM, then no). Also, IT workers generally don't belong to a professional organization, often get a regular bachelor's degree (or no degree), and don't have a licensing board (like engineers, doctors, lawyers, and architects all do). |
It's okay everyone, I'm from the internet.
I actually read this (all 4-5 paragraphs) then read the bill it was amending - the original language is already in there. Already existing verbage: [Here](
>(B) the design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing, or modification of computer systems or programs, including prototypes, based on and related to user or system design specifications;
New Verbage: Here the design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing, securing, configuration, integration, debugging, modification of computer or information technology, or enabling continuity of systems and applications;
As a former HR drone (and now reddit-detective, capable of clicking past 3 links) exempt and non-exempt are HR terms that my one company used to say if someone was exempt from OT or or not (I think? It was years ago) - I believe (and if a stronger HR Drone comes in, correct me) that companies can pay you OT if they want, there's another section in chapter 8 about how OT won't be considered regular pay - you can't sue to get OT, OT isn't a fair labor right, like minimum wage or not getting acid dumped on you by the new guy, Frank. |
Yep, this issue is long-term, and transcends borders. The aforementioned increase in computer crimes -- a direct result of companies willing and able to employ cheaper, less competent workers -- will not be halted nor circumvented by hiring more skilled (more expensive) people who could build a system without gaping holes in it. No, instead the industry will rely on the government to step in, creating draconian laws and cement the apparent necessity of the dreaded Online ID (which you'll need to take advantage of most online transactions, regardless of your location or nationality). |
Like _mach said, he's european like myself. Over here his is a valid response.
The reason american workers get fucked over is because they are totally unable / inept / unwilling to protect their own rights. You are owned by your employer because generations have let them get away with just that.
This is why it's so important to curb the power any company has over his employees, and to bolster the employees' rights. But in the US, people holding that opinion are regarded as communist pinko's by the same people who get fucked over on a daily basis.
Fired on unjust / unreasonable grounds? A union brings it to court (at no cost to you), wins by having the law on its side, and the company gets convicted to continue paying your salary until you find something else. Not getting paid for overtime? A union brings it to court, if possible leaving you anonymous, and a judge will force the company to change that policy. A company retaliates by firing you? See first example, unjust grounds leaves them with footing the bill. And no, this is not a worker's paradise, but at least there's a protective legal umbrella that shields employees from shit like described in the OP.
Reading stuff like this makes me RAGE. Why are you letting them do this to you? When does it stop? Where are you drawing the line? Not until what, you're back in the 19th century with all property in the hands of the few oligarchs, and you slaving away in their factories, on their conditions, 24/7 at their call, living in their rented housing, spending money on their products and their food? Because this was the reality we came from, and where you're heading back to again.
Start change at the local level first, don't pin your hopes on the top federal guy, the very product of the same system, to magically fix things. |
Because the US, with some basis, thinks that the EU uses scientifically baseless GMO scares to discriminate against US products. |
Does this not all stem from the ending of World War 2? This left Europe in ruins as the US recovered from the Great Depression. This allowed the US to become a Super Power just as the USSR did which allowed the US to have a reason to have a presence around the world, especially militarily. We can assume that this has led to the philosophy of the US government we see today.
So if this all comes from World War 2, then we should look at who let World War 2 happen. The thing I find amazing is that many people overlook the fact that many European countries who were powerful before World War 2, like Britain & France, simply let Hitler do what he wanted. They thought that by giving into some of Hitler's demands, that they would somehow keep him from taking military action. They let him take the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia without consulting Czechoslovakia. We may not be in the situation we are today if some European countries had taken action before Hitler did.
But, even the origin of World War 2 lies in World War 1 when the Treaty of Versailles was signed following the end of the war. This put close to all of blame for the war on Germany, punishing them severely. It not only punished them by taking away a large portion of land, but also by levying heavy monetary fines. The Germans decided that the only way to pay for this was to print more money which led to inflation to the point that the money was worthless. This was a direct result of the Treat of Versailles which was chosen over Wilson's 14 Points. Wilson's 14 Points focused on preventing further war in Europe and not on punishing Germany. It was proposed by then US President, Woodrow Wilson,; he also cameo traduced the idea of the League of Nations but the US Congress voted to not be a member.
There also another point to be made about all this in the fact that European countries were doing far worse things in Africa in the Ninetenth-Century. They were there during the Industrial Revolution for one reason, resources. They had no good reason to be there and their actions there have had a negative affect on the continent that can be seen to this day. The countries there today have been shaped largely by Europeans who claimed land in Africa. There was even a meeting of 14 European countries in 1884 that was called the Berlin Conference and had the goal of dividing up Africa among European countries.
Was I thorough enough? |
No. Facebook apps are so full of shit it's unbelievable. I have never found an app with facebook integration that doesn't piss me off. First off, every single fucking app posts shit for you. No, I don't want to publish my rainy day playlist onto timeline, to 400 friends who don't give a shit. No, I don't want to let everybody know that I watched that video of that girl getting owned just because she was hot. AND NO I WILL NOT ACCEPT YOUR FUCKING CALENDAR INVITES. I realize you can turn off these publishing features, but when the app is designed to publish what you do, it becomes a fucking drag. Honestly, what we do on the internet is private, and more often than not, embarrassing. Facebook is a public place on the internet, and cannot run what we do in private. |
DIGITAL FREEDOM, GUYS! RISE AGAINST OUR MECHANICAL OVERLORDS
But more seriously, Facebook isn't going to take over the fucking internet. No one is. Sites fall in and out of favor, and it's inevitable that another, better site will pop up eventually, and overtake it. When someone sees another's success, like Facebook, they'll try to beat it. It's what Facebook did the Myspace. |
The desert analogy is a neat one, but it doesn't take into account technology. Say one of the two people lost in the desert has a gps device and access to a satellites imaging system. It might take him a while, but he will find the other person if given enough time.
How does this continuation of the analogy translate to space exploration? Well. While with current tech it may take us about eighty thousand years to get to even Proxima Centauri (the nearest star) traveling at 57,600 km/h (the voyager probes speed and fastest man made object). A civilization that has been around thousands if not millions of years longer then we have should be able to do much better.
Think about it. Our species is young. Still in our infancy. The Mesopotamians could not have guessed that a mere 5500 years after inventing writing. We'd be sending probes to other worlds. We cannot guess what we will be doing another 5500 years from now. |
I smoke e-cigs, and they're definitely better for my lungs than actual cigarettes. I'd like to point out, though, that nicotine its self may be carcinogenic, as it activates MAP kinases. . So nicotine alone could be carcinogenic, but no studies have really confirmed it in humans. That's why I'm still trying to quit entirely (plus, I hate nicotine withdrawal headaches when I run out). |
Cheaper is sort of a huge understatement, too, for those wondering. I ALWAYS bought cigarettes around here when they were on sale from 50 cents off to $1 off, I had no brand loyalty or anything so I never minded. That said, I still smoked probably 5 packs a week and it still came to around $25-$35 a week. That's $1,300-$1,800 a year. Multiply that by two, because my wife smokes as well and just as much. Last week I ordered things from WizardLabs.us. They sell the pure chemicals that are rquired to make your OWN juice. I spent $60 and got around 1000ml total of juice and probably 25 flavors. I vape about 3ml a day if not less. That's over a YEAR of smoking for $60. It's relatively simple to make your own as well, all it is is 3 harmless chemicals, even edible, with nicotine solution. And I can make any flavor I'd ever want to try! |
Dude, all you need is a [VV eGo](
An e-cig works basically like a light bulb. When you press the button, a coil heats up like a light bulb filament. This turns the juice into the vapor we inhale. Variable voltage (VV) just means it has a "dimmer" knob to change how bright or hot it gets.
An eGo is a model that is about as big around as a sharpie marker, so it's bigger than a cigarette. We generally recommend something bigger than a cigarette because bigger batteries last longer. A cig-sized battery may only be 180mAh and last around 2 hours before needing a recharge. 650 or 1000 mAh batteries will last around 6-10 hours of average use before needing to recharge.
> with a couple of [T3 clearos.](
After you get a battery, you need that light-bulb coil (called an atomizer) and something that holds the juice. Tons of options can all get confusing. The T3 is a good starting point that's easy to fill and quite satisfying for most users. It's a clear tank that holds your juice and it has replaceable atomizer heads, because they will typically burn out after a week or so, like a light bulb, or they will just get gunned up with juice residue and stop producing as much vapor.
Traditionally, you had an atomizer as one piece and a cartridge that had some cloths or spongy stuffing that held the juice. Then those were combined into one disposable piece and called a cartomizer (cartridge+atomizer). Then another design came out that did away with the stuffing material and often came with a see-through tank, hence the name clearomizers, or clearo. All these options are worth trying, as they all have their good points, but clearos are the easiest to use, so great for beginners. Get more than 1.
These also come in different resistances like low-resistance (under 2.0 ohms), standard resistance (2-3 ohms) and high (over 3 ohms). You can get a hotter vape by raising your voltage or lowering your resistance. Since you bought a device that lets you change voltage, don't worry about this. You should be fine starting with the 2.4 ohm default heads that come with the T3.
> Also, keep a 1000 mAh [passthrough batt]( on hand at home.
You always want 2 of everything, because stuff breaks or needs to be recharged or refilled. He suggested a pass through battery instead of a duplicate of the above battery. A pass through plugs into a USB port to charge the battery while you vape. They're great if you vape a lot at your computer or in your car. Some are "passthrough batteries" and some are simply "passthroughs", with no battery, just a USB cord that has an e-cig adapter on the end. I would avoid these, because the raw 5volts from a USB port is sometimes too high for some beginner-level gear. Most beginner-level e-cig stuff runs around 3.2 to 4.8 volts.
> What's so confusing. |
Caffeine is a poison that causes significant issues as well. In moderation , neither is harmful. In fact, nicotine is an anti-inflammatory, similar to ibuprofen (but without the stomach and liver damage), and thus helps with arthritis. It's also been shown to help with alzheimers and other mental diseases (there's a reason a lot of schizophrenics smoke).
It takes around 60mg of nicotine to cause a lethal dose. Most vapers use between 6 and 24mg/ml juice (I use 12mg/ml) and vape 1-3ml per day. At an estimated 50% absorption rate, an 18mg/ml user vaping 2ml per day gets only 18mg of nicotine. Nowhere near a lethal dose. In comparison, there's approximately 1.5mg of nicotine per cigarette, and tobacco smoke has around a 75% nicotine absorption rate (yes, vaping has lower absorption). In other words, a pack-a-day smoker gets around 22.5mg of nicotine, or about a third of a lethal dose.
And then you have to take into account body mass, tolerance, etc. A hardcore smoker would have to go through a carton (200 cigarettes) a day to hit a lethal level, and a vaper would have to vape a ton of juice. Nobody's going to do that, though, because it's very obvious when you've had too much (rapid pulse, sweating).
And finally, nicotine is not carcinogenic. It's all the other crap from burning or sucking on leaves that causes cancer. The contents of e-cig juice are:
Lab-grade nicotine
Propylene glycol, a food-safe product that you'll find in everything from shampoo to ice cream and has been proven safe for inhalation in asthma inhalers.
Vegetable glycerine, which is effectively the same as PG (it's food-safe and used in many applications)
Flavorings. These are all food-safe, and the only one you need to worry about is diacetyl . No reputable juice manufacturer uses diacetyl, and everything else is safe.
Compared to the 4000+ chemicals you inhale from combusting dead plant matter, inhaling e-cig vapor is no worse than inhaling pure air. |
This is what needs to be discussed. The government makes ludicrous amounts of money on cigarettes, and it's going to be very, very hard to tax ecigarettes the same way. If they start taxing them like tobacco, people will just start ordering from China. If they crack down on imports, people will just start making their own juice. It'd be very hard to effectively tax the ingredients in juice, and it's very easy to make your own. Hell, as it stands, making your own juice will reduce the cost to vape by about 1/4 of the price. |
I also quit smoking due to e-cigs. Came home from a holiday to the US with two cartons of duty-free smokes, found out American cigarettes are just awful (it was my usual brand, they're just a lot harsher), so I was already primed to want to quit (constant sore throat etc). Bought an e-cig around the time the carton ran out, never planned on quitting, never had to exercise any will-power, the only mental commitment I made was to switch over to e-cigs.
Two weeks later, I hadn't smoked a real cigarette since, but I didn't particularly like vaping either, and I wound up smoking absolutely nothing. It never felt like quitting, no psychological pressure, because I always had my e-cig with me - I just didn't enjoy it enough to actually want to use it. |
I'm the child of a father who is an alcoholic and an addict, not to mention a chain smoker of 40+ years. I have every indicator and outside influence that would lead most psychologists to say that I am predisposed to addiction. I smoked full flavored and filterless cigarettes for 8 years and the day my wife and I found out she was pregnant we both quit cold turkey. Arguments about alternative cessation aides and e-cigs, and the related issues of marketing, taxation, lobbying an such are all great but if someone really and truly (with great emphasis on the word truly) wants to quit, they can buck the fuck up and do it. |
For me the psychological components are far and away the most difficult to get over. I've gotten through the initial few days of nicotine withdrawal hell many times and the following week or two of constant cravings a few times. After that the nicotine issue is minimal, and it's a combination of conditioning (getting in my car and wanting one, walking outside and wanting one, taking a break from work and wanting one, etc.), craving after meals (which does have a physical component, but is mostly psychological), and the need for feeling something in my hands and the smoke in my lungs. By far the most dangerous time is when I've quit for long enough that my brain can trick me into thinking it's safe now, I can just have one, it'll be fine, and the next thing I know I'm happily smoking in my car and can't recall when I bought a pack. The social aspect certainly plays a role, especially at that point, as does drinking... when inhibitions are low the tricks are much easier for the damn devil on my shoulder to pull off.
It would also really help if smoking wasn't so damn enjoyable. In elementary school they make it sound like smoking is this horrible, painful, disgusting thing you suffer through just to be cool . They don't mention how awesome it is, even with all the negative aspects. A huge obstacle is truly wanting to quit... most of the time I say I do I'm actually lying without realizing it, and the most successful attempts have occurred when I was honestly tired of it. |
I can only give my story which will probabley be differant for alot of people. I resisted taking a drag on a smoke for a very long time with people trying to get me to do it. What finally got me was my big sister, she would tell me to go for a walk with her and I would say no, then my mum would tell me to go for a walk with my sister.
The reason I din't want to go is because I knew she only did it to have a smoke and would try to get me to have one. After a few weeks of this happening I decided to shut her up I'd take a drag. I loved the feeling I got when I took that drag, I was light headed and felt happy. From there I smoked more and more until I got to where I am now 9 years later.
I'm by no means a heavy smoker, I buy one 30g of tobacco once a week and on occasion do need to buy a pack on the last day before payday to get me through, but that is mainly when friends have liberated me of a couple. That works out to about 10-12 a day. which costs me about $30-$35 a week (I think, I havn't really checked the price of tobacco for a while). |
Tobacco and pharmaceutical companies and our "treat not cure" medical industry are the reason for this. Period. Same reason why harmful drugs with medicinal value are considered culturally corrosive (I'm looking at you marijuana and MDMA).
Having smoked from 14-24, I need nicotine like a diabetic needs insulin. Almost my entire cranial development took place under the influence of nicotine. I've done meth and other amphetamines, heroin and just about every synthetic opioid derivative, benzodiazepines, as well as cocaine and crack...typically combinations thereof for extended durations of time (weeks to months, depending). I quit all of that shit relatively easily (Note: I wasn't banging straight into my veins).
I have been completely unable to stop smoking. Almost 10 years. I've tried patches, gum and cold turkey only to end up smoking more than I was before (4-5 cigarettes back up to a full pack usually). e-Cigarettes are the only effective nicotene replacement out there. I've been off cigarettes for a little over a year (minus this past summer where I barely had enough money to eat, let alone buy a month's supply of e-Juice...sure as hell found the money to buy packs of cigs though. Funny how that works. I'm a weak motherfucker). e-Cigarettes work. They don't kill you, they take money from the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries and have given rise to many start-up competitive businesses world wide.
My suggestion to folks? Quit while you still can, before the shit is banned worldwide and a crusade against yet another imaginary, un-defeatable enemy is launched.
If you smoke "analogs" (the "affectionate" term the vaping community has given big tobacco's product) and want to quit, give e-cigarettes a try. Disposables from blucigs are available at Walgreens. If it works, buy refillable cartridges and the e-Cigarette brand of your choosing and some juice. The juices come in multiple strengths (0, 6, 12, 18, 24+ (mg nicotine/mL)). 18mg/mL is the strength I started with and used for a year. I'm now weaned down to 12mg/mL. My next purchase will be 6mg/mL. My last purchase will be 0mg/mL, at which point I am hoping I will ask myself "WHY THE FUCK AM I SPENDING MONEY ON THIS SHIT?" |
Some things we can predict because we have seen it happen so often before.
There is no reason to believe that not having to make sure there is at least two different compatible rendering engines will lead to anything other than a mess. That one rendering engine would turn into a monolithic mess. Considering the forks we have, it will turn into pure design by commitee. There will not be multiple implementations of anything - the first version that works will be implemented everywhere. Things that barely work won't be reworked unless everybody agrees. Developers will not bother following the standard - they will stop when it works, and if it relies on bugs it will break if the bugs are fixed, and there WILL be resistance against fixing it since so many would have to rebuild their own stuff.
With multiple implementations to consider, nobody (serious) will rely on non-standard/undocumented for anything major in the first place. |
That is just such a fundamentally stupid piece of wording. It clearly would impact on far too many things, regardless of the nature of whether its a morally acceptable law or not. It clearly can never go through so it must be there for a reason.
I feel it may be there to begin to introduce the idea of banning or controlling pornography into the public sphere in another attempt to begin to be able to control the internet. The internet is an unfathomable font of pornographic material, the internet is for porn and it is mostly unregulated. Accross many Governments this lack of regulation is beginning to be realised to be a source of great discomfort to people in power, so now repercussions happen to people who are racist on twitter or plan anything to do with rioting on facebook.
I fear it is a point that is being used to spark debate where there should not be debate, where there should not even be the consideration of a debate. The world is uncontrollably heating up, thousands die in death camps in North Korea and much of the third world continues to starve to death and yet people are putting through legislation to stop MEN masturbating out of fear is creating inequality towards women?!
If true equality was wanted in pornography then a greater demand for porn for women needs to be created. This could be done through a campaign to remove the stigma around women masturbating rather than try to recreate a stigma around masturbation as a whole subject.
Masturbation is fun for everyone, there's nothing wrong with it, unless apparently if you're a woman, as many find the idea of them masturbating wrong or shameful. You'll be hard pressed to find a man who doesn't but equally harder pressed to find a woman who not only does, but will admit as freely to doing it. Remove THIS social stigma, don't seek to create other ones through a needless debate subject that is inherantly rooted in agendas that reach far beyond it. In fact, it is such a fundamentally flawed approach to gender equality as a whole. 'Difference' Feminism that sought to ban pornography was a 70's movement that just isn't relevant to any current discussion. |
Did people in the European government fall asleep during history lessons in school? You simply cannot ban an act that doesn't harm others generally, or else people will side with you based on personal bias and other people will side against you causing a rift between society. This inevitably leads to possible prohibitions causing new markets of smuggled porn to rise, this sounds ridiculous but not really, considering when this happened with alcohol in North America, people would try to make alcohol in their basements just to get a fix if they couldn't afford smuggled alcohol. |
If you were paying attention the joke rule used was that when men do it it kills men. Your sarcasm is not building a discussion or awareness to whatever your point is about sexism in a fictional universe portrayed on YouTube. |
I feel similarly. It's like no one wants to be real for fear of someone finding out who they are (personality-wise). Fuck that, might as well hear it from me. Maybe I'm just too young to get it, but I don't understand why the whole point of marketing yourself, i.e. pretending to be a shell, is to gauge responsibility and competence through how well you hide yourself. |
Soooooooooooo uh. Quick question for you Google and Facebook. If you want us all to know about how many requests you get for data, and how transparency is absolutely imperative, why did we have to find out about this crazy program called PRISM from a man who had to essentially destroy his own cushy life to get the word out? It seems to me like all these big companies think that we are all morons who trust you after a basic PR statement to try and cover your own asses.
Why didnt they tell us about this program BEFORE it got leaked out instead of trying to backtrack after it got leaked and remind us all "how important privacy is to our company". We understand that "They do NOT have direct access to your servers", whether or not this is true, its quite easy to just FTP them a big ass monstrosity of a file every 24 hours. |
That's correct. The industry turns out profit from mostly the big bands out there, like Kings of Leon, Muse, Arctic Monkeys and the like or the small bands that get stuck in a system that acts like a bank. Giving them money and expecting huge amounts back. Just look at 30 Seconds to Mars, sold a huge number of albums and they still owed the record company over $2 million.
The music industry isn't dying so much as shrinking. Because more and more people are going to electronic they can't force as many people into debt, or make millions off of hits they didn't make. |
So I think it's important to mention the last of the article:
> Blue Coat’s filtering tools were first discovered in Syria in 2011 by a “hacktivist” group, prompting a Commerce Department probe and, in April, a $2.8 million civil fine for one of the firm’s distributors in Dubai.
>
> The department’s Bureau of Industry and Security, which enforces export rules, said the distributor falsely told Blue Coat that the products were being shipped to Iraq and Afghanistan.
>
> “It is vital that we keep technology that can repress the Syrian people out of the hands of the Syrian government,” Eric L. Hirschhorn, the Commerce Department’s undersecretary for industry and security, said in April when the bureau announced the fine imposed on the Blue Coat distributor, Computerlinks FZCO.
>
> Computerlinks FZCO said that under the terms of its settlement it was neither admitting nor denying the allegations.
>
> In a statement to The Post, Blue Coat said, “Even when our products are unlawfully diverted to embargoed countries without our knowledge, we use various techniques to limit our products from receiving updates or support from our servers or support personnel.” Researchers said that blocking ability suggests the company can identify the location of its tools; Blue Coat declined to comment. |
Not much. I agree. I basically got it as an impulse buy, and don't really regret it as it was only 30€, and my previous Windows 7 install was free (through my university, so I'm currently running win8 pro for only 30€ total).
But so many people here are saying Windows 8 is SO MUCH WORSE than win7. In my experience it isn't, and I haven't heard a single real argument to back that up. Having to install a start menu replacement imo solves every complaint you could have, and with that my workflow is identical now as it was with Win7. If that is the only true inconvenience to Windows 8, well then I think everybody here is really exaggerating. |
1) I dont get the time pop up error, and to use windows 8 I do none of these. I have not run into a single thing listed.
2)You can minimize ribbon in windows, just like going to detail list for file management.
>Mold the OS at installation itself for users liking.
I agree this should be a wizard, but is ultimately not necessary for a computer literate person.
Everything you can do with the start button is still possible, in fact it faster. press windows button type what you want press enter...
3) quick launching steam games among others. Its useful when i'm using my HTPC, granted that is a VM with a linux version as well. Using fancy metro things to determine system state in a similar fashion to rainmeter.
4) Touch will go main stream. See phones and tablets, see wall mounted displays. It will happen, sure there will always be a need for a desktop and terminal but there is a use for touch technology. A gui is a disruption of work flow for me, I am much faster at a command line that gui, just how you are faster with a gui than touch. There are plenty of times where a touch interface is applicable. You can be short sighted and not believe, but you would just be acting like a luddite. |
It's called watering hole, look it up. I do this shit for a living. |
While this is correct the taser is still one of the more prominent tools on the officers belt. Mace or OC Spray does not effect everyone the same. Some may be debilitated, some may be red eyed, some may have no noticeable change. The taser is an excellent weapon because it causes the muscles to seize which is more likely to stop an attack.
We all know the stories about folks messed up on PCP or what not who operate like supermen; Officers emptying multiple cans of OC on them, breaking through their cuffs, etc.
the point being made is that this negates one of the officers tools in a law enforcement type interaction. The officer is trained from day one to not fight fair, to always seek the advantage in any conflict. If you take away that advantage you force the officer to make a decision. Will the Officer fight you on even ground? what if you have a knife? or will the officer up the stakes and pull his sidearm? I know what I would do.
and you can not say this item, this taser proof clothing isnt essentially body armour, and it will ultimately be treated as such. So let us not forget that in multiple states wearing body armour can get you time in jail because it represents forethought, or intent to commit a crime. (looking at you california) |
Good point. When you get tasered, the cop has just made the decision not to shoot you. When this doesn't work, the cop will then have to decide if the gun is in fact appropriate. Now they could also make this clothing bullet resistant... |
Nobody seems to be talking about how terrible unimpregnated carbon cloth is.
Guess what it would feel like to wear clothing with exposed carbon fibers? A lot like wearing clothing made of innumerable diamond needles. I've worked with this stuff a lot, and it bothered me just to cut it to size before 'laying up' with plastic, no matter my precautions. Not touching the skin you say? Sorry, but as the fabric moves those needles come free and find their way into everything, pierce any other fabric. You would be a walking biohazard. |
I got one of those before, I took the phone call but didn't make the cut, so it goes. This is not a job offer, but the recruiters are usually working for Google, at least in my case. He found me on linked in.
The Google cache is here:
Though it's not exactly thought out. Sadly the Wired article that talks about how Google actually make their money is no longer available, though you can find a link and people talking about it here: it's a fascinating read if you can find it.
EDIT: found it:
Your email is machine parsed, the same way Google "reads" the web, and we get cool stuff for free because of that. It's a trade many millions of people are happy to make daily.
As for Google helping the NSA, they may have been, (and would have been obliged to do so from my understanding of US law.) But from reading about both the US Govt. tapping Google's fiber cables, via their up-link telco providers. Plus the hole that heartbleed poked through SSL, (which was found in part by Google themselves.) I'd have to say that the claim was a literary device, rather than a real issue.
I may come off as a fan-boy here, (I've no connection with Google) but we did see Google fight back, plugging the heartbleed vulnerability will have cost the NSA dear, globally. As will encrypting fiber traffic. Two of the NSA's clandestine routes into Google are now gone. Doubtless Google are now looking for others too. |
I just ran into this today; apparently Verizon has been building it's fiber to the home under Title II regulations under state regulations all along (to get favorable right of way regulations). They have been picking and choosing whichever Title they felt like and have never told the FCC. Here's a good plan for resolving this ( |
Don't be an idiot. Without us, Facebook does not exist. Once enough people gather in one place, it becomes essentially socially mandatory. Pre-facebook: I didn't HAVE to use email or msn, but if I wanted to get in touch with my friends and not be left behind socially, I had no choice.
Now look at MSN, practically non-existent. Same with Facebook. There will come a time when it will fall apart too, until then, you don't really have a "social network" choice outside of it, and that means they should be forced to act in the interests if their users. From whom they make all their cash anyways. |
I'm sorry, but after reading this whole thread I think you really don't get what NotInDenial is trying to say. He's not saying that smart phones are bad or that everyone has to be like him and smash their phone with a hammer. It just works for him to not have one, because he prefers the independence to whatever gimmicks a phone can do.
Presenting a bunch of strawman arguments about how phones could save your life in an emergency doesn't help your argument. Person has a heart attack? Use their phone. Car breaks down? Sure it sucks, but a phone is not the only answer, and this would happen maybe once in your life. Some tools have a high cost, and besides the actual subscription cost of owning a smartphone there is a definite loss of individuality in always being connected. |
The argument that X technology isn't widespread is a shitty argument against improving methods of shipping said technology.
In order for 4K streaming to become widespread, the means to stream it must first be widespread.
Take for example OnLive. Did you know the company behind OnLive was founded in 2003? I didn't until the first time I used this example. I don't know what they were doing in 2003, because information is scarce on what they were doing until 2009 when they announced the OnLive service.
Did you know that Sega had a streaming service similar to OnLive in 1994 called Sega Channel?
Sega Channel was discontinued in 1998 and it took 11 fucking years for the idea to resurface. The issue wasn't a lack of demand, it was actually pretty popular having as many as 250k subs at it's peak. That's wildly popular for a time when video games were seen as toys for children and internet access was uncommon.
So why take so long? The same reason OnLive had so much trouble in '09. Bullshit internet connections that aren't up to the task.
It irritates me for this reason when people say stupid shit like the commissioner.
No, I don't need 1Gbps today. But tomorrow I might and who knows what services we will get once 1Gbps starts to become widely available.
I used 1Gbps because anyone that says "you don't need more than 25Mbpps or 50Mbps"as a general statement is a goddamn idiot.
For an individual those might be acceptable bandwidths. But for families, they're woefully lacking. Especially as we see more streaming services popup and much larger files become available as a norm.
IPTV is another great example why the "you don't need it because you can't really fully utilize it today*" arguments are fucking stupid. We would have had IPTV ages ago if our connections were far superior. I have a 720p video, it has a bitrate of roughly 5Mbps. This is actually superior to Netflix bitrates, but I digress.
Let's pretend that you have four TVs in your house and each TV is playing a video at this bitrate. It would require around 25Mbps to be just the four streams. 20Mbps wouldn't cut it because there'd be no overhead.
Gah, I'm ranting. I think I've gotten my point across. |
I wouldn't code on a tablet, even if I could get real Linux to run on it. |
As someone who echoes this sentiment, I can tell you why.
I currently work for a hospital in the IT dept. we run your typical EHR and systems to make the place move forward on a daily basis. Most of these programs are windows only programs that need special software to run the software we require.
Each and every one of these fucking doctors that come in has a MacBook Pro, air, wind, earth, fire, etc etc. these doctors spread their ignorance along with the few self-professed "technical" nurses and EVERY FUCKING PERSON in the hospital from the board down to the janitorial staff want only apple products because they "are more expensive so they must be better," or "you can get viruses on 'microsoft,'" or "it's the best product out there."
It's a fucking learned culture. Every single android/windows/anything else device other than iProducts are so much easier to run native software on and much less for a user to remember how to work. |
This is one huge plus for Windows tablets that nobody talks about:
You buy a cheap $60 Chinese Android tablet and it's loaded with bloatware and a halfway broken Android install that doesn't have the Google Play store and will never, ever, get updates.
You buy a cheap $60 Chinese Windows tablet and it works 100% exactly like a Surface Pro, has access to all Windows apps, and it will get regular updates through Windows Update, and it will be upgraded to Windows 10. And you can run any Android app you want through Bluestack and other emulators.
The software experience is LIGHT YEARS better on cheap Chinese Windows tablets than it is on cheap Chinese Android tablets. |
I do not believe it is bad, because even if I pay for the content, I end up getting fucked. For example, games that force me to put a CD in the drive when many modern computers do not offer CD drives and developers will not officially patch this malware out. On the other hand, the guy who got an unlicensed copy does not need to put up with this.
I do not believe in supporting people who are just out to fuck me.... and yes, they absolutely are out to fuck me. They want to sell me a defective product today so that they can sell it to me again tomorrow with the restrictions removed, or different restrictions in place like requiring online activation which will also eventually be turned off.
Then there's the whole HDCP thing, where they try to tell me when and how I'm allowed to play HD content. This makes hardware more expensive, it limits consumer choice, and it is used to strong arm people into upgrading perfectly usable HD hardware just because it doesn't support HDCP. Apparently pro-copyright people also hate the environment. |
So, the article does a really weird job of explaining everything. It mainly focuses on the two outlying viewpoints of the issue, but does nothing to explain where the middle is. It doesn't even bring in any other viewpoints at all. Just another example of how everything has to be a two-sided issue.
There are people who want IPs to be public domain immediately (fundamentalist libertarians), some who want IPs to be protected by law (fundamentalist protectors), and those that want plenty of mixed ideas on it.
At least for me, I'd think that IPs need to be protected, to an extent. It's currently way too easy for companies to keep copyrights far-extended beyond what should be allowable. If you make something, it should at least be protected in your lifespan, maybe a bit longer, unless you choose for it not to be. But, you shouldn't be able to pass it down to anyone, or any company. Easiest example is how Disney has been able to keep many of their copyrighted materials (which they got from public domain) for far longer than the lifespan of Walt Disney. Practices like that shouldn't even exist, and the very fact that we have law with Disney in the name should be telling enough for most people as an example of how corrupt the current practices are.
Additionally, the author brings up the point of how downloading something isn't straight theft (which is true), but then immediately equated it to a loss of sales. This is simply not true, and I know I speak for more than just myself when I say the following: Not having access to something, but being able to download it for free (illegally) means I can watch/enjoy the content at my leisure, and for free. But, if the download option weren't available I probably wouldn't get it in the first place. Since the author wanted to use Game of Thrones as an example (a bad one at that), I'll state my situation. I not once would have ever had access to watch GoT at all until this year had I not been able to download it. That means that I would have missed out on tons of absolutely wonderful conversations about the show, the books, and topics that they bring up about human interactivity. And, I understand that since i didn't pay for it, I wouldn't get to experience that. That's the price I'm paying to access that content. But, that also means that many of my friends also wouldn't have been able to watch it, and that means that I wouldn't have just been excluded from those conversations, they just wouldn't exist to begin with. And, once again, I understand that this is the price you pay for entertainment.
But, it is awfully strange to me that certain, popular content which many people crave (tv shows, movies, music) are not being made regularly available at an affordable cost. Time and time again people have shown that when you make something available at an affordable cost, people will buy it. A few comedians have recently released their own specials online at $5 a pop, and done quite well for themselves. Louis CK, Jim Gaffigan, etc. When you have a following, you don't need to overcharge people for content. You only need to make it accessible. Do you really think that Disney would be unable to make money off of a movie if they made it? They consistently pump out great content, and people eat it up because it's family-friendly. They might not make as much money if they did direct download for their films, but I can almost guarantee they would increase their volume. But unfortunately, in our current time most companies care far more about making money than the number of people they connect with.
Since I've brought up the other two of the big three, let's talk about music. If you don't already know, most artists make the majority of their money from merchandise and tour ticket sales. Streams and digital downloads are not nearly as important, but they are a required mechanism to get the music available to the public. How can you have a tour without fans? How can you sell merchandise if no one comes to the concerts? This is where the epitome of the argument for/against downloads comes in, and where I feel the article should have touched on more. Now comes the grey area, which is especially noticeable when it comes to music.
As an artist, would you rather have the potential for more fans, meaning potential for more tour-goers and merchandise-buyers? Or, would you rather eliminate a potential extra crowd of people because they don't want to pay for your music? If I were an artist I would most definitely pick the first option, because if I were smart I would recognize that it will earn me more money. Why would I even attempt to eliminate a possible option for potential fans/customers?
Given, movies and TV shows are a bit different in this regard, since they don't have secondary agendas. But if you're anything like me, you've stopped going to theaters. Movies only come out once, and I can watch them once they hit Blu-ray. Seriously, it's not that long of a wait anymore. Maybe, a few months or so? TV shows are similar, but because they have multiple releases of content per year, on a year-by-year basis, I can't wait until they come to Blu-ray. Also, because typically they don't. Even if iTunes has access to them the cost for an entire season of a TV show can get pretty ridiculous pretty fast. Even shows on basic cable which have episodes viewable online (for free), is downloading those without consent illegal? I already paid once to view the content when it came out, but now that I've missed it when it aired, or missed the timeframe for when the episode was available online I should now have to pay again to view the content? There's a lot of grey for TV shows, and I don't have all the time to get into it now.
Lastly, software downloads have been talked about numerous times, and it has been said that many software companies intentionally leave their software as "easily hackable" so interested users can get the expertise they need and promote either future use or a future buy of the software should said person be hired because of their skill set.
All in all, I'm really glad that the article brought up the moral argument, because that's entirely what it is. I just wish it had gone into much further depth when exploring the issue, since it could really do to be fleshed out.
I'm not going to say that my observations are 100% correct, but it's what I do know. I'd love to have a conversation with someone from a different side, so we can air out any of these points from the article or from my post. |
I don't think libraries allow you to conduct or operate businesses inside their doors. I take it you didn't read the paper. |
Hah, that reminds me of a great story. My dad was flying overseas a year or two ago. At the airport he had purchased some Listerine, but when he went through security he was told it had to be removed because it contained too much liquid. He said that was no problem, all airport security needed to do was reimburse him for his sealed and unopened bottle of Listerine that he had just bought at the airport. Initially they said no, so he said he would not have them stealing his Listerine. This goes back and forth a few times, with the security guy eventually giving up and letting him through, Listerine and all. |
Something has happened when a search result makes the news. Not the image, not the creator, not the context, but simply, “a Google search found this.”
Meanwhile, back at the plot, there are comparisons with Bush being widely caricatured as a monkey, and he was, but regardless of the reasons or implications, caricaturing the president isn’t comparable with caricaturing the president’s family.
OTOH, surely it isn’t Google’s job to say what should or shouldn’t be found on the web. Their value, which is constantly being eroded, is in presenting the web unmediated. I haven’t chosen a search engine to police the web, and I don’t want their idea of who or what I should find or choose to view. |
First off, styrofoam doesn't burn very well. According to wikipedia, it has a class 'A' flame spread rating. {1} This means that compared to wood, or 'cataclysmic backdraft firestorm', (where a red oak board is class 'C'), styrofoam is more of a 'smoulder quietly'.
Secondly, Tornado debris is not as great a concern. I believe (source please) it is said in the video that the house is structurally stronger than a comparable wood-frame house. In addition, much of the structure is sheathed in plywood; just like wood-frame houses themselves. I'd actually bet it would be safer in a tornado.
In safety and durability obviously this does not compare to a concrete or brick home. However, this home is superior to the vastly more common wood-frame house in nearly every way. In addition, and this is a biggie, the energy efficiency of this home is unsurpassed by conventional building technologies. |
It is recyclable, but not renewable. You couldn't possibly replace every house in the world with this design, there simply aren't enough precious materials to do it. |
ebert, i usually like what you have to say, but lately you have said some stupid things...
1 a 'waste' constitutes that it could have been used for something else, also just because a movie does something badly doesnt mean that something shouldnt be done
2 "it adds nothing to the expirience" enhanced realism is not nothing, it may be in an early stage of development, but remember that a film was once just a flip-book
3 these really seem like the same badly formed arguments stated over and over... "some 3d only consists of... (blah blah blah)" and some sound effects have been badly done, does this mean we should dismiss them completely?
4 same as number 3... i suppose a comparison to a fast moving 2d camera would be most accurate.i do admit this is the soundest part of the article, but again lets not dismiss the majority for the minority, howabout a comprimise, say.... showing the movie in 2d and 3d?
5 ebert clearly isnt to proficient on learning how things work.. try closing one eye, does your screen appear 50% darker? no. also, usually a 3d movie uses 2 projectors, each with perpendicularly aligned polarized filters, while it is true that this reduces the output of each projector, there are 2 of them. even if this were a problem creating a brighter projector would not be difficult for manufacturers
6 so? what, do you think pretty much all these producers of movies do it for?
you repeatedly refer to 3d as an "illusion" or call it "artificial", as if this is supposed to degrade it; do you believe that was really Lawrence of Arabia riding toward you? A movie is an illusion, that's the point. you also mention that theaters are encouraged to remove analog projectors and replace them with digital ones; what is your point? a company will try to sell their product, that's what they do. whether a projector is digital or not has nothing to do with your 'death to 3d' arguement, why are you bringing it up?
What bridge is being burned? digital projectors can display 2d movies too.
7 it must be nice in your little world where everyone does things for completely noble reasons. theaters want to make money too. Have you read catch-22? it doesn't seem like you are getting the idea... a catch-22 is a situation that is "damned if you do, damned if you don't. this is a situation where the theater is offering a film in 2d, even though the 3d is the main attraction in order to cater to those who either dont think its worth the few extra bucks for 3d or are just stuck in the same 'my generation is the best' mindset as you. and again, a bad example of something isnt a reason to dismiss it
8 the world in which the world is limited to your imagination is not one i wish to live in. you contend that 3d adds nothing, and the same movie in 2d would be just as good (again), but in the same section give examples to the contrary...it is quite revealing that a Scorsese film in 3d would change your mind, but i doubt this. you have already seen a 3d movie you "loved" but simply dismissed it by saying it could have been just as good in 2d. listen, the point of 3d is to increase the realism of the illusion, not to enhance the actual story, one could say the same about sound effects. if you are are so adamant that the immersion is pointless, why don't you review books?
9 "I'm not opposed to 3-D as an option" really ebert? really?
"Hollywood is racing headlong toward the kiddie market" did you have a lousy childhood? you say that hollywood turns to technology whenever it feels threatened, but why is this a bad thing? why stop at hollywood? aren't movies simply a technological extension of a story? I'll say it agsain, if you mean what you say in this article, then dump all that worthless technology and review books, there are certainly a whole lot of great books out there that great movies, and from you catch-22 reference, you obviously haven't been reading enough. |
I'm not gonna claim I'm a networking expert, especially from an isp standpoint, but I am at least familiar with how bandwidth allocation works, traffic shaping etc. (I have a dedicated computer as my router that is running smoothwall ( and am familiar with most linux networking utilities, iptables, etc. I know you say that NN is a solely technical issue, but what I see happen quite alot, is little clauses that are stuck into legislation, that may in fact give the government more control than we chose to give them. (ex. trying to sneak internet killswitch) However I realize that for many people, government seems to be the only venue to ensure freedom. Perhaps they could be right, but personally I am very libertarian and think that the less intervention the better. I have a few reasons to back up my belief, besides comcast throttling torrent users, what other forms of traffic shaping/censorship have we seen? I could be simply ignorant on this issue, but please enlighten me. Also the internet would then be controlled by the FCC, they don't exactly have the best track record for ensuring freedom of speech and equality. And if a telecom i subscribe to starts to exercise these behaviors, I will switch to another, competition will stave off censorship in my opinion. Not to mention protocols such as vpn's and darknets that are completely uncontrolled, and will likely stay that way for quite awhile. Programmers are better at encrypting than governments are. |
OP, why do you make such accusations against a person and have absolutely no information to back up your claims? If I had to say so, I would say that you are the troll.
Not only are you accusing DontBelieveTheLies of being a troll that is hired by a large company to spread "lies" you are also asserting that these companies like Google and Verizon would actually pay a person to go onto site like Reddit to spread propaganda. You have to realize that Google doesn't need to do this.
You know why? Because there are people, possibly DontBelieveTheLies, that are honestly supporters of a completely free market. I would probably disagree with some of their view points but I myself do agree with some of the policies that Google and Verizon have put forth.
I think time would be better spent by everybody to truly understand the situation we are in with internet and and what different ISPs plans are as far as charging for different content and limiting bandwidth to different users. It isn't a simple cut and dry issue of "the internet is open and free" like most people that I talk to think it is. Pointing at ISPs like Comcast and accusing them of limiting bandwidth to certain services or reserving more bandwidth to higher paying customers does solve anything.
You have to realize that the internet is still extremely young in the larger scheme of things. People didn't really start to use the internet until the mid 90s. The amount of content on the internet, and the speed at which people can access that content is increasing and speeding up all the time. It is also getting cheaper to service internet to people. |
Hi -- I'm actually paid to represent Time Warner Cable on the Internet. I write/edit the company blog ( and when possible, I get into online discussions about issues that involve my company's business.
But I'd NEVER stoop to copy-pasting talking points like that. I know we had at least one agency think it was a good idea to do that on our behalf, and we cut 'em loose QUICK. It doesn't even work. Whatever incremental reputational gains a company gets by doing that are completely squandered when threads like this happen. It's not even like it's an EFFECTIVE dirty trick, it's dumb, too.
I know I'm going to get flamed hard for this, but look: I'm a PR rep who reads Reddit all day long. I may not agree with the hivemind on everything but I take my job seriously and hate it when amateur clowns like that cloud a complex issue with a bunch of shameful chicanery.
To your other point: everything feels really fun when it's an exclusive club. I felt that way about indie rock in college, about any number of scenes. But I helped create the @twcablehelp team, and it feels really good to help people who are on hold and frustrated get the service they need FAST. They seem to appreciate it, too.
Twitter is a great way to reach more tech-savvy people -- or people that are at least into some aspect of tech culture -- but far, far more people still want telephone customer support. And there's a lot of support that goes much more smoothly over the phone, especially when private info like acct #, billing history has to be shared. |
It's easy to upvote/downvote, but it doesn't really make a difference, we all mostly have the same opinion, it would be preaching to the choir. Donateing would actually help the issue. If one person upvotes, nothing really happens. If one person donates, a huge difference is made. |
The N8 was supposed to be Nokia's iPhone. It didn't kill the iPhone, in fact it barely gave it a gentle poke.
Nokia clearly are stuck in the past and I think their sales will drop off sharply over the next few years. They lack direction. They lack focus. They literally released a new phone [every two weeks]( last year.
They'll forget about the N9 about a week after release, just like they did the N8, the N900, and everything before them. |
Edit: Holy Shit I didn't think my rant would turn out this long.
Okay, I'm using this account to say something I've wanted to say for a long time.
Fuck you anon.
No, seriously. Fuck you. Whenever I see you get involved somewhere, be it Wikileaks, HBGary, or whatever, I always see something like "the internet will be free!" or "information will not be silenced!" I can respect you trying to change the world. I can admire your efforts to bring about better net neutrality. But I don't. Do you know why?
You don't care about the little people. You're so "morally upright" that you're assbackwards in hell.
You hack Mastercard, Paypal, and a bunch of other major corporations. Why? Because there was some "unpleasant shit" going on between them and wikileaks. (We, as redditors, all know about this. It's been on the front page quite often.) You acted like true revolutionaries. You fought "the man." You brought about change. (Again, there's that little word.)
At what cost? Financial damages for more than just "The Man." Common, Average Joe-type people needed to use those financial institutions. You shut them down for days. Those days may have been crucial to someone's life. Their finances may have been needed for something, I don't know. I don't pretend to know. But seriously? Stepping on their lives to promote your agenda doesn't make you all that heartening to people around town.
I'm going to move on to your attitude. Now, I know that you, as anon, is actually a humongous group of different people. I only see the most vocal of those people, which is what I imagine everyone else involved to be like, which isn't a very pretty picture.
Let me take a quoted message sent to HBGary:
> Subject: Security Problem
> loooooooooooooooooool
> owned by anonymous. niiiice.
> hope your strategy wont work and ppl of this planet will become free
> without beeing surpressed or monitored.
> shame on you for your "business" - it is ppl like you who try to stop
> human revelation all in the name of allmighty america.
> nice to see you failing hard and getting exposed yourself. how does it
> feel, suckers ?
> i am looking forward to see your next fail.
> greets
> one of your monitored sheep that actually dont like to be monitored.
> ps: please do us (the human race that is not trying to be nazis like
> you) a favor and get aids and die slow and painfull,
> thanks in advance.
Okay. This message pissed me off the moment I finished reading it. I'm not talking about the grammar, although that was a large part of it. It was more along the lines of phrases like "it is ppl like you who try to stop human revelation all in the name of allmighty america," and "hope your strategy wont work and ppl of this planet will become free without beeing surpressed or monitored." HBGary, as a security firm, released the details of "top members" of anon. Okay, wrong, but is that honestly stopping a "human revelation?" Is it suppressing or monitoring people against their consent? Well, I don't work there, so I can't be 100% sure, but I can take a reasonable guess and say no. They don't act like Big Brother. They're not making us burn the books so we can't read or become educated. In fact, rather than suppressing people, they're making it safer for us to access information by blocking viruses and trojans from entering our computers while we research topics online. Not just that, but they did one thing that really pissed you off, didn't they? They opposed you. They wanted to stop you, and you didn't agree. From what I saw, you felt like you were on a righteous mission to spread freedom across the internet.
So, bravo, anon. From your inherently dickish nature, you have managed to turn the tables and make the other side look even worse.
While I'm having this "little" rant, I have yet another bone to pick with you. That whole Gizmodo/Gawker situation. Seriously? You couldn't just leave well enough alone? You had to go and fuck around with them? I understand that Gizmodo fucked themselves over with the whole iPhone 4 thing, but still, I liked them. I liked Lifehacker, io9, and (sometimes) Jalopnik. You didn't have to bring down Gawker. (Although I have seen rumors that Gawker did it themselves for yet more publicity. Shocker.)
So, back to my original statement: Fuck you anon. I can try to applaud you with your efforts to bring about net neutrality and better privacy, but every time I try, I fail, because you made yourself an ass while you did it. |
I believe that Anon behaved properly. The US Govt. has made it abundantly clear that it has no intention of following or enforcing privacy laws. If the government is going to behave as a criminal it is appropriate for organizations like our friends Anon to bring a little balance and remind the Govt. that it is not quite as omnipotent as it believes itself to be. |
I've had several bad experiences in theaters and have been that "douche".
We were in the middle of Titanic when Rose is being a bitch and won't let Jack on the board with her when this guy stands up and yells, "Denounce your worldly possessions! Only Jesus saves!" Myself and a total stranger ran after him and beat his ass in the hall. They gave everyone in the theater free passes as we were leaving.
Then when we went to see Inception and some lady had her two little brats in the theater and they kept running up and down the stairs like gazelle. No one said shit, except me. I went over to her and asked her to control her precious crotch fruit, it disrupted some folk but not nearly as bad as the kids. Everyone that day also got free passes. |
This isn't done for marketing purpose, every textbook uses bites instead of bytes for bandwidth and the reason is that there is nothing that is forcing you to send data in bytes. For example you could send 3 bits of data through network although it would occupy 1 byte in memory. |
I'm not a fan of magnet links because your torrent program has no information about them when they're first opened. What that means is that I don't know how many files and what kind of files I'm downloading (oh, I thought this was a single iso, but it's 50 rars instead). This also means that if I don't want to download certain parts of a torrent or I want to prioritize it in a certain order (download the first episode first, the second ep second, etc...), I'm going to have to wait for the info to roll in. And the last thing is I'm going to have to name the directory that these files are going in myself, instead of relying on the torrent for the name.. |
Then let's hear it for not following reddiquette. ಠ_ಠ
Downvotes are not supposed to be used for people you disagree with, only for comments which do not contribute to the conversation. I don't care about the karma(even if I did, I've already received plenty from this comment), but people who misuse downvotes are part of what's lessening the quality of reddit, and strengthening the mob-mentality of reddit's userbase. Unpopular stances can get silenced, even if a person puts time and effort into supporting their stance. |
Agreed. Who knows, maybe if digg were to actually stick to primarily serious content, it'll actually push reddit to reconsider keeping crap like AdviceAnimals on the front page. And yes, all those of you who enjoy that templatic forced meme stuff, feel free to downvote me.
Reddit's default front page could really be a lot better if it stopped targeting the 4chan demographic.(inb4 "have you ever even been there?". I have, and I know 4chan as a whole may hate on reddit, but there's plenty of crossover, and advice animals, rage comics and such originated on 4chan, years ago)
Perhaps this isn't what reddit is anymore, but I'd love it if the front page could actually be relied upon to some degree as a good way to find news, information, and worthwhile content, without having to dig through the fluff, and without having to log in. I know perfectly well I can(and I do) unsubscribe from the stuff I don't want, but I personally don't care for the way reddit looks to random outsiders.
(If it were up to me: drop adviceanimals, drop aww, possibly drop atheism--nothing against it, I'm an atheist, but that sub is 3/4 circlejerk--, maybe drop gaming. Add books, add askscience, possibly re-add programming, and if gaming were dropped, add /r/games instead) |
When I was somewhere between 5 and 7 (mid/late eighties) I was at some sort of expo. I was showing people how to boot up computers by using boot drives (this was before hard drives on personal computers) and how to run programs afterwards apparently.
I was so young that I only have very vague memories of the event, all I recall was an expo and that the monitors only displayed text in either green or orange and that at some point there was a crowd behind me watching me do it. I only know the details because my father still remembers it. |
I meant even if she did think she was doing something illegal, she technically wasn't. Its basically thought crime with to catch a predator logic.
I'm not familiar with Finland's jurisprudence and criminal justice system, but from a US perspective, it doesn't matter whether you get the "real thing" or not.
What's important in that system is the intent coupled with a transaction.
Same thing as FBI selling "explosives" to would-be terrorists or police using "simulated" drugs in stings intended to drive would-be buyers out of a drug prone area.
It's basically managing risk by minimizing possible harm.
In this case, the IP rights holder seeds a torrent with random data purporting to be a new CD. Lets them identify who's grabbing the torrent and downloading/seeding without actually having to risk having the album spread. |
Yes it does matter.
When you do those things you are charged with ATTEMPTED whatever. And ATTEMPTED whatever is a crime in and of itself. If ATTEMPTED whatever hasn't been made a crime, which in the case of copyright, it has not, then no crime has been committed. |
My problem with all this is that music and entertainment used to be an art form where you expressed yourself and made something so awesomely cool that you go down in history for it. Nowadays everyone views it as a cash cow where you immediately get rich once you get into it.
No. The people who get rich aren't the artists. The people who get rich are the people who network the artists and pretty much exploit their "ownership" of their expressed art form to squeeze out as much money as they can for themselves.
If you want something to be yours, keep it to yourself. If you want to express something to others and make a change in the world, make it available to everyone.
Once you put it out there, it is still yours, but its cash value drops tremendously. We will not claim rights to it and say that it is ours, it is still yours but we will use art as we see fit because you no longer own it when you push it to everyone else.
Let's say, you upload your legendary or even shitty song to YouTube. Now you're going to say that if I want that song, I will have to buy it. If I like it, I will buy it and support your title. If I don't, there's still shitty radio. However, who is to say that they can't just record it on their own accord and listen to it. |
UPDATE HERE
EDIT:-
I be late as usual, yarrrg!
It seems the ship be making sail again, so go back to ye copyright infringement ya scurvy dogs!
END
From their facebook page
"Yes, we're down. :(
but not out! :PpPPpPpP
Hrm.. ok. Anyway. Some tech problems. Everyone is pulling everey string, cutting red wires and shit, to get the ship sailing again.
ETA: tomorrow.
Meanwhile, which artist should we promote next weekend? Select your favorite at www.promobay.org and post the youtube link in the comments below.
Will metal win the promo battle against ze german dubstep?" |
If that is the case, really, then as a utility we should be charged by the byte. But we're not, because telecomm has a fixed cost. Electrons are free, and that is the fundamental difference between this structure and power. Power costs because it's a non renewable resource (most of the time), and there is a direct correlation between the natural resource and the power extracted. A lump of coal gives you 5 W of energy, say. So it makes sense to charge based on the cost of coal (and getting it to produce energy). However in telecomm that makes no sense at all, because its just wires, we do not need coal. Yes there are electrons running through the wires but the voltage is extremely low. |
I have 10 acres of land,I live 5 miles from 2 towns and the ONLY game on my street is telecom DSL with a speed of 1Mb download.
I gave up trying to get cable down my street(was trying since the early 1990s)
3 years ago,a new subdivion was put in..550feet from my street sign..guess what. Cable company has almost everyone signed up.
I could go with satellite since I just got Dish Network 3 years ago (was OTA before that) but data caps. Cable co has data caps. Teleco DSL has no data caps...yet but they are offering 10Mbps download speed in town.
My friend in Vegas has been with Cox Cable for years and he recently upgraded to 50Mbps download..no data cap.
If I lived in Anchorage,I might be able to get 50Mbps and 5 Mbps up... |
Someone explain Mega for the |
Forgive my ignorance, but if the files are encrypted, how is it possible to share them? Alternatively, if the key is available online for others to decrypt the files, then what is the point in encrypting them in the first place? |
Subsets and Splits