Slashdot Mirror

Uh, you just might want to re-check your facts there buddy:

http://www.informationisbeauti...

--
Only Cowards Censor.
Censorship is not the solution, it is precisely The Problem.

It is just an excuse to harvest your phonenumber.

For what purpose?

To sell it to Rachel from Cardholder Services, I expect.

What organizations have 2FA that might do this? I'm not saying there aren't any, but I can't think of any.

I don't know where Rachel from Cardholder Services got my cell phone number, but she certainly got it from somewhere.

Basically, what you posted in this thread can be summarized "oh, just trust them with the information, they won't misuse it. And anyway, I can't think of how I would misuse it, so obviously some corporation couldn't think of a way either."

...All information about a consumer is also a liability. Lots of organizations haven't figured this out yet,

Right the first time: Lots of organizations haven't figured this out yet.

but I think pretty much all of them savvy enough to be implementing 2FA understand it.

The historical record does not back you up on this.

  https://www.comparitech.com/blog/information-security/biggest-data-breaches-in-history/

  http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/worlds-biggest-data-breaches-hacks/

  https://www.csoonline.com/article/2130877/data-breach/the-16-biggest-data-breaches-of-the-21st-century.htm

  https://www.techworld.com/security/uks-most-infamous-data-breaches-3604586/

... the list.

World's Biggest Data Breaches

Yahoo!
Verizon
Anthem
MORE Incompetent, unethical moronic assholes.

There is ZERO excuse.

And the shitty part is that it is up to the victim to clean up the mess and be on the lookout. WE have to deal with it when someone files income tax in our name. We have to deal with the ramification. We have to deal the debt - the debt collections calls for assholes (ALL debt collectors are crooked assholes and deserve to get sued. Every single one of them.)

So, Verizon is now on the list of stupid unethical companies.

http://www.informationisbeauti... yeah private business has awesome security.

Here is a visualisation showing a lot of codebase sizes. Unfortunately, it doesn't include any routers, but considering that several routers have software built on Linux, you already have 5 - 15 million lines (depending on kernel version) from the start. Still, 30 million lines sounds like a lot.

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/million-lines-of-code/

I also call bs. http://www.informationisbeauti...

Although windows 10 probably does have around 30 million lines.

Most of them are related to drivers for a host of peripherals as well as other architectures and features your computer may not even have. So most code is largely untouched.

Here is a neat comparison: http://www.informationisbeauti...

Wonderful stuff. Reminded me of this site: http://www.informationisbeauti... (beautiful ways to view typically boring stuff).

Bit of a difference between that graph and this one.

If the product is terrible enough it is better to start from scratch than to try to fix it. From the stories I read the codebase for this is pretty terrible. http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/million-lines-of-code/ According the chart there is more code "written" for HealthCare.gov than the entire mouse genome. So starting over makes sense.

And then your data doesn't get "stolen" or "lost".

Yeah, that never happens.

Bats are not birds.

They're mammals, because we've decided that anything laying eggs are birds or reptiles (I am voluntarily skipping other arbitrary criteria), and anything giving live births are mammals (again, I'm simplifying here). That's okay then to put bats in the mammals category.

But this way of classifying is rather recent. If you classified animals in groups using other arbitrary criteria (for instance: if it has 2 legs and flies, it's a bird), then you would put bats with that group.

You cannot say their classification system got it wrong when you are judging it against your own, different, classification system.

Let me take another example. Certain cultures associate colours with emotions or situations. Assuming you're Western European or North American, you likely associate mourning with black, while if you were Chinese, it'd be white, or Eastern European it would be yellow, or South American it would be purple (ref: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/colours-in-cultures/).

Are all the other wrong because they're not using the same classification as you?

So it's true, everyone now agrees on the same classification system for animalia based on certain (arbitrary) characteristics. Don't forget it's a recent phenomenon and documents produced prior to using this classification system is not bound by it.

But would you like your boss to take 85% of your paycheck just for letting you work there? http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-artists-earn-online/

I believe since the graphic was made, there has been extensive lobbying for royalties per play to be reduced from the figures shown in this picture. There's something to the original musician's case if it takes more than 4 million plays per month to get to one individual's *minimum wage* of $1160 per month (and that's with the *generous* current pay per play rate).

Lies: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/because-every-country-is-the-best-at-something/

I am not happy or comfortable with the idea of the US having enough nukes to more or less destroy the planet.

Don't worry, we don't.

converged timeline diagram from popular TV series and films: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/timelines/
Enjoy!

Emily White violated the copyrights on the music she acquired ("I've swapped hundreds of mix CDs with friends. My senior prom date took my iPod home once and returned it to me with 15 gigs of Big Star, The Velvet Underground and Yo La Tengo"). You'd think RMS would be against that, since the GPL expresses (admirable IMO) restrictions on what you can do with it under those same copyright laws. His arguments why Emily "did nothing wrong" are mostly the lame tired shit piracy apologists have trotted out for decades now

After all, how can we support musicians? Buying recordings from record companies won't do it. For nearly all records, the musicians get none of that money; the record companies keep it. See this article and this article.

Untrue. Artist royalties are often ~20% of the sales price; this chart says $.09 for an iTunes download, and artists self-releasing through CD Baby keep 75%. The meme that artists don't get money seems to be a deliberate misunderstanding of the money record companies advance against royalties so artists can make a quality record (The Trichordist explains this well). Regardless of the percentage it is not the consumer's right or job to decide if that's a reasonable or obscene deal from the record company and online store. FFS, if you don't like a song enough to pay $0.99 for an unprotected DRM-free legal copy of it so the artist gets some money in exchange for your enjoyment of her creative endeavor:

1. Skip it and enjoy the zillions of free songs out there — under CC share licenses, out-of-copyright, in the public domain, live performances from trade-friendly artists on Internet Archive, etc.! As RMS knows from software, there are great free alternatives to restricted paid works, so go support those!

2. If you whine "Waahhh, this song I want ought to be free like all those others" so you pirate it anyway, your parents raised you badly.

RMS goes on

Practically speaking, the only effective and ethical way you could support musicians was through concerts.

Not true. Paying for the copyrighted recordings you want and love works great and delivers money to artists so they can make more! It's insulting to suggest artists should instead try to collect money for something completely different — "touring and T-shirts&quot. (No Sgt. Pepper for you, John Paul George and Ringo are going deaf on another tour that only their teenybopper fans attend.) The idea that artists should not charge for a quality studio recording has been immensely damaging to "the Progress of Science and useful Arts" in the area of recorded music, it's a big reason why today's songs are made on laptops instead of with crack session musicians. And as RMS later acknowledges, touring doesn't even work for those bands that do perform live, because they can't afford to travel to all their fans, then on any night only a fraction of fans in an area make it to the show.

RMS is on better ground with the first of his two ways to support artists

Put a tax on Internet connectivity, and divide the money among artists.

Great idea, let's hope it happens. But his second is a fantasy:

Give each player device a button to send 50 cents anonymously to the artists.

It's been tried, the Fairtunes service during Napster's golden era. I ponied up money for a song I shared, but in several y

Emily White violated the copyrights on the music she acquired ("I've swapped hundreds of mix CDs with friends. My senior prom date took my iPod home once and returned it to me with 15 gigs of Big Star, The Velvet Underground and Yo La Tengo"). You'd think RMS would be against that, since the GPL expresses (admirable IMO) restrictions on what you can do with it under those same copyright laws. His arguments why Emily "did nothing wrong" are mostly the lame tired shit piracy apologists have trotted out for decades now

After all, how can we support musicians? Buying recordings from record companies won't do it. For nearly all records, the musicians get none of that money; the record companies keep it. See this article and this article.

Untrue. Artist royalties are often ~20% of the sales price; this chart says $.09 for an iTunes download, and artists self-releasing through CD Baby keep 75%. The meme that artists don't get money seems to be a deliberate misunderstanding of the money record companies advance against royalties so artists can make a quality record (The Trichordist explains this well). Regardless of the percentage it is not the consumer's right or job to decide if that's a reasonable or obscene deal from the record company and online store. FFS, if you don't like a song enough to pay $0.99 for an unprotected DRM-free legal copy of it so the artist gets some money in exchange for your enjoyment of her creative endeavor:

1. Skip it and enjoy the zillions of free songs out there — under CC share licenses, out-of-copyright, in the public domain, live performances from trade-friendly artists on Internet Archive, etc.! As RMS knows from software, there are great free alternatives to restricted paid works, so go support those!

2. If you whine "Waahhh, this song I want ought to be free like all those others" so you pirate it anyway, your parents raised you badly.

RMS goes on

Practically speaking, the only effective and ethical way you could support musicians was through concerts.

Not true. Paying for the copyrighted recordings you want and love works great and delivers money to artists so they can make more! It's insulting to suggest artists should instead try to collect money for something completely different — "touring and T-shirts&quot. (No Sgt. Pepper for you, John Paul George and Ringo are going deaf on another tour that only their teenybopper fans attend.) The idea that artists should not charge for a quality studio recording has been immensely damaging to "the Progress of Science and useful Arts" in the area of recorded music, it's a big reason why today's songs are made on laptops instead of with crack session musicians. And as RMS later acknowledges, touring doesn't even work for those bands that do perform live, because they can't afford to travel to all their fans, then on any night only a fraction of fans in an area make it to the show.

RMS is on better ground with the first of his two ways to support artists

Put a tax on Internet connectivity, and divide the money among artists.

Great idea, let's hope it happens. But his second is a fantasy:

Give each player device a button to send 50 cents anonymously to the artists.

It's been tried, the Fairtunes service during Napster's golden era. I ponied up money for a song I shared, but in several y

You're right that artists invest time to produce a product. Where the remuneration-via-IP argument falls down, however, is in the proportion of sales their agents rob them of in practice - see http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-artists-earn-online/

Apparently not. Of course, that link ignores nuclear winter, which would do sufficient damage to Earth's ecosystem to most likely wipe out humanity along with most other species, although some very radiation-hardened otherwise hardy life would probably survive.

The Criticism and debate section is the most interesting part...

My generation was brought up with the common knowledge that there were enough nukes to destroy all life on the planet many times over, and that the radiation of a nuclear blast would make a spot uninhabitable for thousands of years.

I remember how shocked and surprised I was as a teenager (don't laugh, there were no discovery channel, google or wikipedia) when I learned that neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki are abandoned lifeless nuclear wastelands today. An important part of the common knowledge was clearly based in fact. As that informationisbeautiful link you quoted shows, a simple thought experiment quickly shows that the part about destroying all life on the planet is bogus too.

This puts the whole MAD meme in a different light. The only way to win is not to play? The military probably did the same calcs on a paper napkin and came to a different conclusion. They never stopped planning to fight and win a nuclear war.

I take all common knowledge with a grain of salt these days. For lots of things everybody 'knows' there is actually no evidence, or even evidence to the contrary (see the health benefits of vitamin C supplements or dietary fiber).

Apparently not. Of course, that link ignores nuclear winter, which would do sufficient damage to Earth's ecosystem to most likely wipe out humanity along with most other species, although some very radiation-hardened otherwise hardy life would probably survive.

These days, you only have to whore yourself out once to be fixed for life. Reaching the desired conclusion for money has corrupted so many fields that there is a serious credibility problem with anyone getting funded by entities that have oxen and fear their being gored. It has gotten so bad with the unholy alliance between politics and drug companies that many people have begun giving up paying attention to it altogether.

The way these studies are conducted might be unimpeachable and the conclusions with these particular tests (wherein the changes are said to be "insignificant" (on what basis?)) might be statistically supportable. However, this is one conclusion and not a Fact. Similar studies show that coffee|Brussels sprouts|dietary fiber|control of sodium intake is good | bad for you (related summary here), and reaching opposite conclusions shows either that experiments are not being repeated, or that the effects are not clear.

And, unlike Gore, Glorious Leader at least put his money where his mouth was on global warming.

But not so much as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, world leader in renewable energy.

Medical science is not certain at all that drinking cranberry juice helps with UTIs: http://nccam.nih.gov/research/results/spotlight/011011.htm

Cranberry juice salespeople are very certain of it, though. They have done very well at spreading the meme to medical professionals. Vitamin pill salespeople still do very well from Vit C sales, despite Vit C supplementation being shown to have no effect on the incidence or duration of colds.

I like this as a representation of the utility of various supplements and other dietary interventions: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/play/snake-oil-supplements/

I suppose artists should be celebrating getting 0.00029c per play than nothing at all, right?

even better:
The Sunscreen Smokescreen - Information is Beautiful

Because he actually gave a damn. Information presentation has recently come into vogue, but a couple years ago, it was tough to find people who recognized the value of a good chart. Also, many of the things he links to which are done by other people (example 1 example 2) are quite good.

Because he actually gave a damn. Information presentation has recently come into vogue, but a couple years ago, it was tough to find people who recognized the value of a good chart. Also, many of the things he links to which are done by other people (example 1 example 2) are quite good.

I think we should make a distinction between GE, the company hosting the site, and Stephen McCandless, the rather famous data visualization specialist who created the figures. (Here's his website: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/ )

The problem is not that the data presented are not useful, or that they're deliberately intended to deceive, which we could fault GE for. As I see it, the problem is that the graphs themselves are crap. They hide useful information, and they use shape and color in ways that seem to provide information but don't, and in general they focus on the aesthetic appeal of the charts at the expense of the data.

When I first encountered McCandless's site a few years ago, I really loved it, but as time goes on it's begun to piss me off. For example, his chart on relative radiation risks:
      http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/radiation-dosage-chart/
Logarithmic charts are always difficult to explain to the public, but the triangular shape of his graph makes it even worse, suggesting a linear increase in dose. He compares it to XKCD's chart, but his version is inferior in every way. XKCD uses color and shape to provide information; in McCandless's version color and shape have negative information content.

Another example: a graph of time travel plots in film and TV (minus Dr. Who):
        http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/timelines/
The curvy lines look nice, but all anyone can make out of this is a confusing snarl of lines too tangled to parse. Once again, shape has negative information content in this image.

But the king of the bad visualizations is probably another graph McCandless did for GE:
          http://visualization.geblogs.com/visualization/co2/#/flights_London_Tokyo
Here, there's no way to intercompare various quantities, and figure out which of two choices is bigger. Shape, color and position are once again meaningless or misleading (things are shown the same size even when they're 8x different), quantities are in incompatible units, and worst of all some of the numbers are flat-out wrong (for instance, fuel usage of aircraft).

But the one thing these all have in common is McCandless, not GE. So let's not fault megacorporations who're trying to communicate a message: let's fault information presentation gurus who care more about appearances than on information presentation.

I think we should make a distinction between GE, the company hosting the site, and Stephen McCandless, the rather famous data visualization specialist who created the figures. (Here's his website: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/ )

The problem is not that the data presented are not useful, or that they're deliberately intended to deceive, which we could fault GE for. As I see it, the problem is that the graphs themselves are crap. They hide useful information, and they use shape and color in ways that seem to provide information but don't, and in general they focus on the aesthetic appeal of the charts at the expense of the data.

When I first encountered McCandless's site a few years ago, I really loved it, but as time goes on it's begun to piss me off. For example, his chart on relative radiation risks:
      http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/radiation-dosage-chart/
Logarithmic charts are always difficult to explain to the public, but the triangular shape of his graph makes it even worse, suggesting a linear increase in dose. He compares it to XKCD's chart, but his version is inferior in every way. XKCD uses color and shape to provide information; in McCandless's version color and shape have negative information content.

Another example: a graph of time travel plots in film and TV (minus Dr. Who):
        http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/timelines/
The curvy lines look nice, but all anyone can make out of this is a confusing snarl of lines too tangled to parse. Once again, shape has negative information content in this image.

But the king of the bad visualizations is probably another graph McCandless did for GE:
          http://visualization.geblogs.com/visualization/co2/#/flights_London_Tokyo
Here, there's no way to intercompare various quantities, and figure out which of two choices is bigger. Shape, color and position are once again meaningless or misleading (things are shown the same size even when they're 8x different), quantities are in incompatible units, and worst of all some of the numbers are flat-out wrong (for instance, fuel usage of aircraft).

But the one thing these all have in common is McCandless, not GE. So let's not fault megacorporations who're trying to communicate a message: let's fault information presentation gurus who care more about appearances than on information presentation.

I think we should make a distinction between GE, the company hosting the site, and Stephen McCandless, the rather famous data visualization specialist who created the figures. (Here's his website: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/ )

The problem is not that the data presented are not useful, or that they're deliberately intended to deceive, which we could fault GE for. As I see it, the problem is that the graphs themselves are crap. They hide useful information, and they use shape and color in ways that seem to provide information but don't, and in general they focus on the aesthetic appeal of the charts at the expense of the data.

When I first encountered McCandless's site a few years ago, I really loved it, but as time goes on it's begun to piss me off. For example, his chart on relative radiation risks:
      http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/radiation-dosage-chart/
Logarithmic charts are always difficult to explain to the public, but the triangular shape of his graph makes it even worse, suggesting a linear increase in dose. He compares it to XKCD's chart, but his version is inferior in every way. XKCD uses color and shape to provide information; in McCandless's version color and shape have negative information content.

Another example: a graph of time travel plots in film and TV (minus Dr. Who):
        http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/timelines/
The curvy lines look nice, but all anyone can make out of this is a confusing snarl of lines too tangled to parse. Once again, shape has negative information content in this image.

But the king of the bad visualizations is probably another graph McCandless did for GE:
          http://visualization.geblogs.com/visualization/co2/#/flights_London_Tokyo
Here, there's no way to intercompare various quantities, and figure out which of two choices is bigger. Shape, color and position are once again meaningless or misleading (things are shown the same size even when they're 8x different), quantities are in incompatible units, and worst of all some of the numbers are flat-out wrong (for instance, fuel usage of aircraft).

But the one thing these all have in common is McCandless, not GE. So let's not fault megacorporations who're trying to communicate a message: let's fault information presentation gurus who care more about appearances than on information presentation.

Radiation dosage chart.
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/radiation-dosage-chart/

No, not everything is good: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/play/snake-oil-supplements/

Spotify doesn't really help artists http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-artists-earn-online/

omega 3's all over the place but generally below the clinically supported threshold. Of course, they don't have an RSI category.

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/play/snake-oil-supplements/

Sales of recorded music in the year 1999: over $17 billion/year. Sales of recorded music in 2008: around $8 billion/year. It's been dropping fast, and by 2008, sales were less than half of what they were 9 years earlier. Sure, you might be able to argue that there "never been proven that the internet has had ANY negative effects" - as in "you can't prove that it was the internet, as opposed to 'everyone decided to stop buying music and spend money on other things", but I think the trends are a little more than suggestive. I'd be willing to bet that the last two or three years have also seen a decline - how do I know? My amazing crystal ball.
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/the-death-of-the-music-industry/

Oh, hey, I found an updated chart, with numbers upto 2010 and adjustments for inflation and population. When adjusted for inflation and population growth, you can see that recorded music peaked around 1999 with $71/year per capita, and now it's down to $26/year per capita. Another interesting fact: Napster was released in June 1999. Coincidence?
http://www.businessinsider.com/these-charts-explain-the-real-death-of-the-music-industry-2011-2

Here is how Radiation effects the human body: http://www.standeyo.com/News_Files/NBC/radiation.human.body.html http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/radiation-dosage-chart/ Radioactive water found leaking into sea from pat at Japan nuclear plant. This can be devastating to say the least to all humankind! The effects of radiation sickness and poisoning include cancer, genetic and reproductive damage, hormonal damage, and thyroid blockage (that's why they want you to take potassium iodine, another dangerous toxin) but I wouldn't. There are much safer substances like Zeolites. A couple good articles on radiation sickness protection that shows what you need do to test radiation levels, treat water, and what to take internally to not get sick: Water Purification Tablet Radiation Sickness

that's what artists say subscription services are doing to the music industry

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-artists-earn-online/

That link really misrepresents the state of the industry.

First of all, most artists who create their own CDs don't make anywhere near $8 per CD. Having a CD produced varies greatly but the less you produce the more it costs per CD. Many artists go for short runs when they are starting out but they still have to shell out a couple of hundred bucks for 100 CDs. There are also the studio, production, and marketing costs which may or may not be present depending on the individual artist and the desired quality of the final product.

Now, if they sell a good chunk of those CDs they'll make decent money but many of them struggle to sell even a couple of dozen when they are starting out and they often sell them at far less than $9.99 because their goal is getting their music heard, not making money. So saying they make $8 on a $9.99 sale just does not reflect reality.

Secondly, they put single track sales on the same chart as whole album sales. This is comparing apples to oranges. In order to convert the two you'd have to at least multiply the track price by the average tracks per album. On iTunes, at least, the assumption is that there will be at least 10 tracks per album - if you look at the chart this means that the track download approximately matches the album download.

Lastly, the figures for album download and track download represent what might be a typical deal for an artist with a major label but the fact is there are a lot of independent labels out there that are little more than a group of artists who formed a label for the purpose of selling songs in marketplaces like iTunes. These independent labels take little, if anything from the artist so the artist ends up making close to 30% from a sale.

This means that on a $9.99 album the artist would make close to $3. If you look on the chart that would place selling an album through iTunes well above the $1.00 they would get from selling a retail album CD (high end royalty deal). At those rates they would have to sell approximately 390 albums a month through iTunes in order to make minimum wage, far better than most of the other methods in the article.

Basically that article follows the old saying, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." Yes, streaming music does make an artist less per unit than other sales and, yes, if you do everything yourself you can get a larger cut. What it ignores are the gains you get from taking a smaller cut but joining a larger distribution model that gets your music out there and listened to.

that's what artists say subscription services are doing to the music industry

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-artists-earn-online/

Someone linked to this from the Ars article on the subject, seems quite relevant: How Much Do Music Artists Earn Online?

Give it time. They are still tuning their message.

Come on, Slashdot. This information (and the graph to go with it) is originally by David McCandless and Lee Bryon in this book back in 2008 and was copied by someone. See Peak Break-Up Times On Facebook.

This is also nice, although not on patents only: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/whos-suing-whom-in-the-telecoms-trade/

The author of Information Is Beautiful also tried his hand at a better picture: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/whos-suing-whom-in-the-telecoms-trade/

Agreed. Big pictures are good. Hence: http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/the-billion-dollar-gram/

This is interresting especially when you see things like this: how-much-do-music-artists-earn-online

Gizmodo should really update their article since their source has been forced to recant.

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/planes-or-volcano/

(Do note that the graph still doesn't fully reflect their actual text from yesterday's update)

How 'bout you?

Bet you're feeling real good about driving that Prius designed to be oh-so-gentle on Mother Gaia, ain'tcha?

Meanwhile, the belch from one unpronounceable volcano wipes out the cumulative effort from all of mankind over the past hundred years to purify the water and soil, and dwarfs all of our species' feeble, amateurish efforts to pollute them in the first place.

Gimme a rainforest, a chainsaw, and a case of Red Bull. It's Payback Time!

Bollocks. You overestimate the volcano. The cancelled planes would have belched out 14 times more CO2 and SO2 than one pesky little volcano. Nature? Feeble, I say, bah!