Google wants to control the last mile to push advertising to you and MOST IMPORTANTLY they do not want you to have an AdBlocking router, because those are soon going to be everywhere.
Stealth was always idiotic. Always. From day one, every single technologist admitted that the advantages of stealth could only ever be short-term. It was a brief technological advantage that was certain to disappear as next gen tracking systems caught up. And they have. In fact, they did some time ago.
The problem the military has is that they are operating on long production cycles when countermeasure innovation is operating on far shorter cycles. This isn't just a major financial blunder -- this is a major strategic blunder and the military hasn't yet had that truth forced upon them: But they will as soon as the F35 sees combat. Reliance on stealth is patently stupid and any student of military history knows what happens when militaries rest on last-gen technology and pretend it's still good enough.
The only path to recover from this strategic blunder is to man-up and accept losses. Accept the reality that manned air combat is already primitive, and to spend 5000% on development of unmanned air combat which can counter Russian and Chinese 5th gen aircraft. And for god sakes MIC, air-gap your fucking computers -- please. You suck at data security.
B..b...but our species built trillions of dollars of condominiums on the world's beachfronts. Never mind that the climate has never not been changing. What we've got here now is a global, environmental emergency. We're going to need to tax you to make up for our inane lack of urban planning. Y'know, protecting the status quo, and all that.
But this does raise the issue which the "Internet money-machine" loves to ignore: That many (if not most) social networks are basically highly efficient copyright-violation engines.
The notion that posting copyrighted material falls under "personal use" is highly questionable when giant, multi-billion dollar corporations run the underlying platforms and are directly profiting from the "personal" retransmission and republication of hundreds of millions of pieces of copyrighted works,
I honestly don't understand this post. Welcome to the modern world, intellectual property rights are not all that abstract. There part of your development process. Spend 10 minutes doing a TESS search to make sure your name isn't infringing on copyright. Saying you "don't have time because you're too busy developing" is like saying you don't have time for security or cross-platform testing. Trademarks are a real issue that needs addressing.
Earth's climate will absolutely change because it has never not been changing. That's why the whole "climate change is real" argument is so asinine. Of course it's real. The only question at all is anthropogenesis. But even without anthropogenesis, the climate is guaranteed to change adversely for humans -- because that's what Earth's climate does.
In one hundred thousand years, the climate will absolutely 100% be different -- with or without humans, industry or fossil fuels.
And the chances of Earth remaining in a human-friendly, temperate zone indefinitely are zero.
What humanity needs to come to grips with is that our planet was not designed for us. The opposite is true: We were designed for a brief, fleeting set of climatic conditions that with 100% certitude will not persist indefinitely.
Should women be given free choice or not? One wonders exactly what the social-justice crowd had in mind.
The vast majority of women choose to study social sciences. Men don't.
Should their freedom of choice be curtailed? Should we 'force' women to study something they're not interested in? Because if such inhibition of personal freedoms is not acceptable then perhaps we should stop treating these obvious gender-aligned differences in preference as "flaws", and start treating them as "features" of our species.
The social justice crowd would of course insist that it's all "nurture" and not "nature". But how many times must this absurd belief system be obliterated with logic for it to finally disappear? ---> https://vimeo.com/19707588
You completely re-framed the debate on to terms which are easier to defend.
The debate is not over warming. It's over "man made" warming.
The earth has historically been far, far colder and far, far warmer than it is now. Even if the earth was in the middle of a major warming trend (which is questionable from the micro-second of geologic time that we have been paying attention) the issue is important because current *policy* initiatives assume man-made causality.
*That* is what needs to be clearly established. Stop re-framing the debate around our the easy to establish truth that our climate changes. Our climate has always and forever been changing.
Keep in mind that Google themselves promotes AdBlockPlus pretty heavily within their Chrome store, and that Google is whitelisted in ABP.
If this is indeed an ulterior motive, then it would seem to indicate that Google has become concerned about other ad blockers that fall outside their control.
Like Microsoft, Facebook is monopolistic to the point that every major business decision is made with the goal of expanding and cementing exclusive control. And like Microsoft, Facebook rarely 'sells' these decisions to its users. Rarely, it seems is the question of "Why would users want this?" placed at a higher priority than "How can we achieve absolute control?"
An interesting manifestation of their "power over popularity" focus is that both Microsoft (historically) and Facebook are notably design-challenged companies, with aesthetics that seem dated and "secondary" to their self-centered mission.
To film an entire "sphere" of video simultaneously, and then have the Oculus (client) display a subset of that data depending on where the user was looking?
That system would not only involve fewer moving parts, but less movement-related lag. It would also allow multiple simultaneous users to access the vantage point.
Anthropogenic Climate Change is fundamentally a belief system. There is no evidence of anthropogenic warming, and as we all know the climate has never not been changing since the formation of the Earth. The data is weak and those who disagree with it are publicly ex-communicated.
The addition of a religious element -- no less, a Catholic one -- is almost poetically perfect for this belief system which masks so many hidden agendas.
At least now perhaps we can put to rest some of these awful trends in web design:
- Oversized graphics that require excessive scrolling.
- Parallax silliness (Because we can)
- Round bio photos (Because Apple, that's why)
- Giant "flat design" icons that add zero value
- The full-screen expanded "hero" div which is basically this decade's "title screen". (Seriously, title screens suck. Why is one that requires slowly 'scrolling' past -
- better than one that one clicks past?)
- The giant quote. Does this need to fill up 1/3 of my screen? Why?
Obviously: Since without Life our oceans would be larger, it doesn't take a genius to see that life is negatively impacting the size of our oceans.
As a conservationist I am deeply concerned about this.
Also, by the same token -- it disturbs me that all this out-of-control biology has clearly had an effect on the chemical composition of our atmosphere. Why is no one more freaked out by this? Historic records clearly show that our atmosphere has become tainted with oxygen as a result of all this "life".
Are you okay with chemical changes to the atmosphere, and smaller oceans? Well? Are you?!
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, data collection. Yes, outright spying.
But more importantly: Advertising.
Google wants to control the last mile to push advertising to you and MOST IMPORTANTLY they do not want you to have an AdBlocking router, because those are soon going to be everywhere.
The question is, what's "modernity"?
Don't forget that Javascript has been called archaic and pronounced dead countless times as well. But it refuses to die either.
Wait until we're all supposed to re-tool for the next great scripting / multimedia platform. How many websites will cling to javascript?
Stealth was always idiotic. Always. From day one, every single technologist admitted that the advantages of stealth could only ever be short-term. It was a brief technological advantage that was certain to disappear as next gen tracking systems caught up. And they have. In fact, they did some time ago.
The problem the military has is that they are operating on long production cycles when countermeasure innovation is operating on far shorter cycles. This isn't just a major financial blunder -- this is a major strategic blunder and the military hasn't yet had that truth forced upon them: But they will as soon as the F35 sees combat. Reliance on stealth is patently stupid and any student of military history knows what happens when militaries rest on last-gen technology and pretend it's still good enough.
The only path to recover from this strategic blunder is to man-up and accept losses. Accept the reality that manned air combat is already primitive, and to spend 5000% on development of unmanned air combat which can counter Russian and Chinese 5th gen aircraft. And for god sakes MIC, air-gap your fucking computers -- please. You suck at data security.
B..b...but our species built trillions of dollars of condominiums on the world's beachfronts. Never mind that the climate has never not been changing. What we've got here now is a global, environmental emergency. We're going to need to tax you to make up for our inane lack of urban planning. Y'know, protecting the status quo, and all that.
Funding, mostly.
But this does raise the issue which the "Internet money-machine" loves to ignore: That many (if not most) social networks are basically highly efficient copyright-violation engines.
The notion that posting copyrighted material falls under "personal use" is highly questionable when giant, multi-billion dollar corporations run the underlying platforms and are directly profiting from the "personal" retransmission and republication of hundreds of millions of pieces of copyrighted works,
Yes, give the tools some time to mature. It's been over a decade now. Perhaps another 10 years then?
I heart HTML5, but seriously, the "give it time" argument was long in the tooth many years ago.
And my free advice is to pay no attention to an idiot who doesn't know what a TESS search is.
I honestly don't understand this post. Welcome to the modern world, intellectual property rights are not all that abstract. There part of your development process. Spend 10 minutes doing a TESS search to make sure your name isn't infringing on copyright. Saying you "don't have time because you're too busy developing" is like saying you don't have time for security or cross-platform testing. Trademarks are a real issue that needs addressing.
Because I'm a victim
Exactly this.
Earth's climate will absolutely change because it has never not been changing. That's why the whole "climate change is real" argument is so asinine. Of course it's real. The only question at all is anthropogenesis. But even without anthropogenesis, the climate is guaranteed to change adversely for humans -- because that's what Earth's climate does.
In one hundred thousand years, the climate will absolutely 100% be different -- with or without humans, industry or fossil fuels.
And the chances of Earth remaining in a human-friendly, temperate zone indefinitely are zero.
What humanity needs to come to grips with is that our planet was not designed for us. The opposite is true: We were designed for a brief, fleeting set of climatic conditions that with 100% certitude will not persist indefinitely.
I'm actually curious to know why that was modded down. It's a point that many have made.
Including women ... https://youtu.be/w__PJ8ymliw?t...
Should women be given free choice or not? One wonders exactly what the social-justice crowd had in mind.
The vast majority of women choose to study social sciences. Men don't.
Should their freedom of choice be curtailed? Should we 'force' women to study something they're not interested in? Because if such inhibition of personal freedoms is not acceptable then perhaps we should stop treating these obvious gender-aligned differences in preference as "flaws", and start treating them as "features" of our species.
The social justice crowd would of course insist that it's all "nurture" and not "nature". But how many times must this absurd belief system be obliterated with logic for it to finally disappear? ---> https://vimeo.com/19707588
One must note that the ice sheet has **ONLY** existed for 10,000 years.
It's very important to stress this point, as those who do not understand geologic time are at risk of thinking that 10,000 years is a long time.
It's a nanosecond on the geologic clock.
This is a very young icesheet. It's loss is noteworthy, but does not have significance when viewed on macro timeframes.
I'm building an iPhone app that tells you (on your iPhone screen) what time it is on your Apple Watch.
It's a way to use your phone, so that you don't have to glance at your watch.
It's going to be awesome. Next I'm going to make a way to show you the iPhone alerts on your Apple Watch, on your iPhone.
See? See what you just did?
You completely re-framed the debate on to terms which are easier to defend.
The debate is not over warming. It's over "man made" warming.
The earth has historically been far, far colder and far, far warmer than it is now. Even if the earth was in the middle of a major warming trend (which is questionable from the micro-second of geologic time that we have been paying attention) the issue is important because current *policy* initiatives assume man-made causality.
*That* is what needs to be clearly established. Stop re-framing the debate around our the easy to establish truth that our climate changes. Our climate has always and forever been changing.
Keep in mind that Google themselves promotes AdBlockPlus pretty heavily within their Chrome store, and that Google is whitelisted in ABP.
If this is indeed an ulterior motive, then it would seem to indicate that Google has become concerned about other ad blockers that fall outside their control.
I think Microsoft is a better analogy.
Like Microsoft, Facebook is monopolistic to the point that every major business decision is made with the goal of expanding and cementing exclusive control. And like Microsoft, Facebook rarely 'sells' these decisions to its users. Rarely, it seems is the question of "Why would users want this?" placed at a higher priority than "How can we achieve absolute control?"
An interesting manifestation of their "power over popularity" focus is that both Microsoft (historically) and Facebook are notably design-challenged companies, with aesthetics that seem dated and "secondary" to their self-centered mission.
The Internet is a big place. Restricting access to a few sites is effectively useless.
To film an entire "sphere" of video simultaneously, and then have the Oculus (client) display a subset of that data depending on where the user was looking?
That system would not only involve fewer moving parts, but less movement-related lag. It would also allow multiple simultaneous users to access the vantage point.
Anthropogenic Climate Change is fundamentally a belief system. There is no evidence of anthropogenic warming, and as we all know the climate has never not been changing since the formation of the Earth. The data is weak and those who disagree with it are publicly ex-communicated.
The addition of a religious element -- no less, a Catholic one -- is almost poetically perfect for this belief system which masks so many hidden agendas.
At least now perhaps we can put to rest some of these awful trends in web design:
- Oversized graphics that require excessive scrolling.
- Parallax silliness (Because we can)
- Round bio photos (Because Apple, that's why)
- Giant "flat design" icons that add zero value
- The full-screen expanded "hero" div which is basically this decade's "title screen". (Seriously, title screens suck. Why is one that requires slowly 'scrolling' past -
- better than one that one clicks past?)
- The giant quote. Does this need to fill up 1/3 of my screen? Why?
Obviously: Since without Life our oceans would be larger, it doesn't take a genius to see that life is negatively impacting the size of our oceans.
As a conservationist I am deeply concerned about this.
Also, by the same token -- it disturbs me that all this out-of-control biology has clearly had an effect on the chemical composition of our atmosphere. Why is no one more freaked out by this? Historic records clearly show that our atmosphere has become tainted with oxygen as a result of all this "life".
Are you okay with chemical changes to the atmosphere, and smaller oceans? Well? Are you?!
This tech is soon going to be coupled with:
a) Robots
b) Self driving 2-wheel vehicles
But here's the more important takeaway from this:
Ninebot stole Segway's technology. Segway sued them and the case went nowhere as Ninebot's profits soared. Then Ninebot bought Segway.
See the business model here?
Well to be fair, there is a certain irony about calling the energy "renewable" when it couldn't be sustained.
Still, it's an impressive accomplishment that they pulled it off as long as they did. It should be noted though that:
1) It's not replicable everywhere at any time.
2) Costa Rica doesn't have particularly demanding energy needs (as the "stupid" guy above pointed out).