Things that don't matter could be a mirror of things that do matter (or a mirror with all the data modified). It's reasonable to test on an almost identical system that doesn't accidentally trigger the order to launch ICBMs getting sent to real places.
The 'vetted' part is probably to prevent someone from discovering a bug in play, and putting it in practice. But, yeah, depending on how the "vet" someone....
You think it's impossible because you cannot find a fairly neutral party? A smart person who wants to moderate them?
I would think that there's a ton of potential solution, if we give up on "the power to shut them down" And I don't know why that would be important. If you have five minutes, and 4:20 of them are spent on lies, then you looked dumb for 4:20
A joint press conference is not a debate. Trading insults in an unstructured (except for time) way is not a debate. BSing and not being able to get called on it is not a debate.
Not going to say that I like th courts trying to force data collection (although this seems to be targetted at a single suspect with a warrant), but I do like shutting down a company for two days to punish it. If Wall Street firms weren't allowed to trade for a few days, with their positions locked, as punishments, maybe we would start seeing better behavior.
Wow, I love how you jumped straight to "No one has a right to visit an amusement park." It's so bizarrely offtopic, its not even a strawman of what I was saying, which is that price discrimination of this sort never helps the customer
That said, if you're really interested, and you understand it's not my true position up front, I'm happy to take that position for the sake of an interesting argument. It's always fun to take the underdog position. I would need to see something that indicates you'd provide a interesting rebuttal first.
Because secondary ticket markets (a.k.a. brokers and scalping) simply do not exist for stadiums, broadway, concerts, etc.
It's not like it would be hard to eliminate the secondary ticket market if you wanted to. See, the robust secondary ticket market for plane tickets (oh, wait...)
I grant that the need to show ID would be modestly annoying. But a ton of events do that already (for alcohol-serving reasons) so it couldn't be that big a burden to bear.
But the fact remains, secondary ticket markets work well for a the original seller as well. They offload the risk that the event will be a bust.
That's cute. You think prices are going up or down by 20%. In reality, the current level is the cheap level, and prices will be going up for the peak times.
Have these markets also developed such that they are basically Android or iOS now?
No. At least certainly not a "modern" Android phone. You can still buy an Android 2.1 phone, for instance. This is a bunch of Silicon Valley people unable to see that their own experience and situation is rare.
then we get a little extra at the end of the year at Summer Solstice
Nice try south-of-the-equator-er!
Just say no to pushing Christmas back once every 4 years, and when it's so damn close.
As a purely objective solution, it should be after a floating holiday, so that extra weekend day. Or better yet, repeat the day. Who wouldn't want Oct 31 (v1) and Oct 31 (v2) on the calendar every four years?
You might say, non-Americans who don't celebrate Halloween. But Christmas is only for Christians, and July 4th and Thanksgiving aren't succeeding nearly as well at achieving global hegemony as Halloween is. By the time this proposal passes, it'll be a worldwide phenomenon.
it seems like the admins could just configure their firewall to drop all packets except those coming from Google, because all legitimate traffic will go there first.
Thanks for answering. This is really interesting.
And the firewall dropping packets isn't going to subject you to a DDOS-attack? Dropping by origin is that cheap? And spoofing the origin IP address is that hard?
I didn't see BG say anything that Google didn't also say. I saw that BG's lukewarm "we should start a discussion, this is important" was interpreted as support for the DOJ, and Google's "this is important, we should start a discussion" was interpreted as support for Apple.
But I could have misread their statements. But I didn't see it.
Printer companies practically give printers away to sell the ink. Razor companies sometimes literally give razors away to sell the blades.
If Google thinks that many little sites lead to needing to search Google instead of just go to Wikipedia and Facebook, then it's in their interest to pay to have that ecosystem exist.
Now, I don't know if that's really what's happening in this case, or if they are analyzing the shit out of the data, or if there's a long game involved.
a mathematical impossibility that there are no other planets in the universe capable of supporting some kind of life.
What do you mean? It's totally feasible that there are no other life-containing planets. Mathematics say nothing by themselves... something can happen with a 1e-GooglePlex probability, or not happen with the inverse.
Slashdot Mirror
The government already buys the data from the companies who get it via telemetry and click-thru-EULAs.
Things that don't matter could be a mirror of things that do matter (or a mirror with all the data modified). It's reasonable to test on an almost identical system that doesn't accidentally trigger the order to launch ICBMs getting sent to real places.
The 'vetted' part is probably to prevent someone from discovering a bug in play, and putting it in practice. But, yeah, depending on how the "vet" someone....
You think it's impossible because you cannot find a fairly neutral party? A smart person who wants to moderate them?
I would think that there's a ton of potential solution, if we give up on "the power to shut them down" And I don't know why that would be important. If you have five minutes, and 4:20 of them are spent on lies, then you looked dumb for 4:20
A joint press conference is not a debate. Trading insults in an unstructured (except for time) way is not a debate. BSing and not being able to get called on it is not a debate.
Not going to say that I like th courts trying to force data collection (although this seems to be targetted at a single suspect with a warrant), but I do like shutting down a company for two days to punish it. If Wall Street firms weren't allowed to trade for a few days, with their positions locked, as punishments, maybe we would start seeing better behavior.
Weird to phrase it as a hypothetical. Around 1/4 of the US used to be Mexico. See Mexican-American War.
Wow, I love how you jumped straight to "No one has a right to visit an amusement park." It's so bizarrely offtopic, its not even a strawman of what I was saying, which is that price discrimination of this sort never helps the customer
That said, if you're really interested, and you understand it's not my true position up front, I'm happy to take that position for the sake of an interesting argument. It's always fun to take the underdog position. I would need to see something that indicates you'd provide a interesting rebuttal first.
It's not like it would be hard to eliminate the secondary ticket market if you wanted to. See, the robust secondary ticket market for plane tickets (oh, wait...)
I grant that the need to show ID would be modestly annoying. But a ton of events do that already (for alcohol-serving reasons) so it couldn't be that big a burden to bear.
But the fact remains, secondary ticket markets work well for a the original seller as well. They offload the risk that the event will be a bust.
In his defense, most people, including and especially its proponents, have little idea how supply, demand and capitalism work.
Star Wars turned Harrison Ford from a nobody to a star with a 40-year-long career. I would say very positive things if I were him.
That's cute. You think prices are going up or down by 20%. In reality, the current level is the cheap level, and prices will be going up for the peak times.
It's more likely programs, not devices are they want to limit. Otherwise, there would be WhatsApp - ad-free! as an FOSS project in three minutes.
No. At least certainly not a "modern" Android phone. You can still buy an Android 2.1 phone, for instance. This is a bunch of Silicon Valley people unable to see that their own experience and situation is rare.
Nice try south-of-the-equator-er!
Just say no to pushing Christmas back once every 4 years, and when it's so damn close.
As a purely objective solution, it should be after a floating holiday, so that extra weekend day. Or better yet, repeat the day. Who wouldn't want Oct 31 (v1) and Oct 31 (v2) on the calendar every four years?
You might say, non-Americans who don't celebrate Halloween. But Christmas is only for Christians, and July 4th and Thanksgiving aren't succeeding nearly as well at achieving global hegemony as Halloween is. By the time this proposal passes, it'll be a worldwide phenomenon.
That's not what the article says. Oh, wait, it is. The summary ripped that numerically impossible line verbatim from the article, and no one noticed.
Gates claimed his quotes were taken out of context.
Thanks for answering. This is really interesting.
And the firewall dropping packets isn't going to subject you to a DDOS-attack? Dropping by origin is that cheap? And spoofing the origin IP address is that hard?
Wait, that's really it? How hard can it be to figure that out?
I'm not sure how, but maybe some kind of geolocation based on timing?
"I don't want to be spied on... I know, I'll make sure to run Google" said someone non-sarcastically on the internet.
I didn't see BG say anything that Google didn't also say. I saw that BG's lukewarm "we should start a discussion, this is important" was interpreted as support for the DOJ, and Google's "this is important, we should start a discussion" was interpreted as support for Apple.
But I could have misread their statements. But I didn't see it.
I call his "my company" is him and three friends in the evening.
So, stupid question. What's to stop the DDOS attackers from directly targeting my server, and bypassing this proxy?
Some things are free - complimentary goods.
Printer companies practically give printers away to sell the ink. Razor companies sometimes literally give razors away to sell the blades.
If Google thinks that many little sites lead to needing to search Google instead of just go to Wikipedia and Facebook, then it's in their interest to pay to have that ecosystem exist.
Now, I don't know if that's really what's happening in this case, or if they are analyzing the shit out of the data, or if there's a long game involved.
What do you mean? It's totally feasible that there are no other life-containing planets. Mathematics say nothing by themselves... something can happen with a 1e-GooglePlex probability, or not happen with the inverse.
I'm guessing MS's current pricing model will turn into "free if you also release a Windows Phone version"