Yes, sports are the one thing that has an absolute stranglehold on some people thereby preventing them from cutting the cord at all.
Eventually, I think ESPN will figure out that they can make more money by offering their product directly on the Internet. Right now they agree to only do so if the customer is still with the Cable companies, but I don't think that will last forever.
Once the numbers change around money will speak louder than any supposed allegiances between ESPN and the Cable companies ever did. Which, according to all the vehement rhetoric going back and forth on the Internet, the only thing ESPN cares about is progressively gouging the consumer anyways. Better if they can control that activity without a middleman anyways.
DVRs serve that purpose too. Like you, I've been living largely ad-free for about 10 years now.
Not completely ad-free.
Internet problems do not lead to TV problems. Playback is always smooth.
In some cases they are one and the same.
TV pretty much JUST ALWAYS WORKS.
Not in my experience. My father has been frothing at the mouth mad with outages with his TV service. Technicians constantly coming out, really bad artifacts on the stored video, wholly missing video, etc. It is by far not 100% as you imply.
In fact, I would have to say that my experience with Netflix has been on par, or has exceeded, the experiences related to my by others with Cable TV.
3) The UI is generally better than any other set-top box or app (like Hulu Desktop) on a traditional computer. (I still
Well, that is an individual preference and quite solvable. I personally find the interface on Netflix and the WDTV Live series to be more than adequate and noticeably inferior or superior to the UI offered by any other products.
4) There are LOTS of good shows (especially smaller shows from smaller networks) that aren't available online. 5) No delay. Shows are still on TV first. I don't have to wait a day, or 3 days, or a week. When it's "on TV", I can watch it. Period.
Well... technically they are available online, and if you live any farther west than the Midwest of the US you can be watching it at the same time it goes live.
The bigger issue with most people is the availability of sports. That is not adequately addressed by online solutions.
6) DVRs solve most of the problems (mainly, ads and scheduling) that people associate with traditional TVs.
It does not solve the problems of advertisements at all. You still have to waste time skipping through them, waste storage space on them, and the content providers go batshit insane crazy with the lawyers and legislation any time technology comes up that would assist you in skipping said advertisements.
Overlayed advertisements on programming are not addressed by DVR solutions at all, and not even by most illicit online solutions either. You need to either pay for a web download, pirate a web download, or otherwise obtain an ad-free, overlay-free source such as DVD or Bluray.
7) I actually LIKE some ads. In particular, I like seeing ads during shows for other similar shows. If an ad looks good I'll watch it, and if turns out it wasn't good, I'll skip it next time it's on. I just prefer that to "If you liked this, you also might like..." kind of stuff. (I also like browsing books in a library or bookstore. Call me crazy.)
Okay. You're batshit insane crazy dude:)
Seriously, I do think you are an edge case. Only very few people (all of them on Slashdot) claim to like advertisements on TV. Actually, the only ones claiming to like it that I know in real life qualify it with, "Only in the Superbowl".
Given the choice, most people would get rid of it.
Browsing books is not the same as advertisement either. Totally different activity, and more importantly, initiated by you.
9) I have nearly no incentive to EVER go to legally-questionable sites
More and more it is becoming less legally-questionable. While I do "pirate" ad-free, overlay-free TV I claim the rights do so because they slam their content across my property wirelessly with two important conditions:
1) I don't have to pay for it since it is broadcast television. I am only restricted by copyright law which says I cannot distribute, not that I cannot obtain. 2) According to the FCC I must accept said signals and cannot interfere with them.
That is the only thing legally-questionable that I do. With Netflix, Redbox, Amazon, and Zune I am very well covered o
1) Nick is great for kids - I sincerely doubt this is true. More likely it is Nick is not noticeably harmful towards children. 2) Nick is great for lazy parents - Absolutely true. If you are a lazy parent, then Nick is a great tool for the avoidance of your responsibilities as a parent.
Watching moderated television in no way at all hurts my children
Moderation is sorely lacking right now, especially in American culture. If you are one of the exceedingly few parents insisting upon it, then good for you.
I would argue that television watched without parental guidance is harmful. Especially the advertisements.
I get so absolutely sick of this "You're a bad parent because..." bullshit on here.
So just where would you like it discussed? I think it's better than not saying anything at all don't you? It's not like the majority of families could not use some help and guidance in that regard.
Television to an excess is bad parenting, but some isn't.
Nowhere in that statement did it say that even a little television was harmful.
And, no one here is advocating jamming kids in front of a TV all day while we play Diablo 3.
Likewise, I was not saying any parents were advocating such behavior. Only wished to point out that my adult observations of my childhood lead me to conclude that television is not required for a happy childhood, and is not necessarily conducive to one either. Direct parental involvement in my life has turned out to be far more meaningful and memorable.
If you are a parent, and you seem to be so, that spends a lot of time with your kids doing activities, than that's truly wonderful. As a former child myself, I can promise you it makes a million times more difference than every second your kids spend watching Nick.
Now, you may have a case if you consider the verification fee to be exorbitant.
It's unquestionably exorbitant and egregious.
All we are talking about is re-verification. I can't possibly believe this would take more than 100-200 hours across techs (that's generous I think), supervisors, etc. to recertify. If tens of thousands of dollars meant $30k, that means Microsoft is charging between $150 and $300 dollars per hour to recertify a patch on a freakin gaming console. Just how much testing is involved here? This leads me to believe that Microsoft does more testing on game developers code than it does on any other 3rd party vendors code that goes into enterprise products.
As a comparison, I just got a quote from a firm to build out a customer portal for a business that integrates with a current industry platform for $60k. I know that is thousands of hours worth of work too.
A few thousand I would understand. Even upwards of $7500, maybe. Tens of thousands? That's just greed and nickle-and-dime bullshit that M$ pulls on the developers because they can.
AFAIK it's true. Was out and about one day in public talking about the fallacy of porn addiction in a sandwich shop and the topic shifted towards free porn on the Internet. A man that overheard us laughed and said you could get it for free at the library too and why pay for it. I gave him a weird look and asked if they didn't complain he was taking care of business at the library and he gave me one back and said that you just take it home with you.
The only thing they have going for them is the programming they can make on their own, which puts them squarely on the same footing as a company like Viacom, or an individual provider like SyFy.
Where HBO and the like stood out was the relatively inexpensive access to large catalogues of movies. Netflix, Redbox, and to a much much lesser extent Blockbuster have been eating their lunch for years, and current on-demand offerings will kill them.
The people I know, who are affluent enough to afford it, have moved on to on-demand services and don't watch 1/10th as much regularly scheduled programming on movie channels like HBO.
Their current business model is unsustainable and you will see them transition to a nearly complete on-demand system, or cave in and go the advertiser route.
You SlashParents always have to pipe up with this "You're parenting wrong" crap at any chance you get, don't you?
That doesn't make the wrong though.
I did watch a fair amount of television growing up and I can honestly say that time I spent with my parents was more memorable and valuable then any TV show back then. Other than a few, sparingly few, exceptions like Star Trek TNG, Scooby Doo, etc., that I don't really remember the TV all that much.
What I do remember is playing board games and card games with my parents. The times that we did eat dinner together instead of splitting up and eating in front of a television. Later on in life I remember those times more than anything that was on television and wish that I had spent less time watching television.
If I had kids, they would not be watching nearly as much television as I did. I would sooner be playing video games with my children, or some other online experience, than just sitting them down in front of a TV to happily distract them for a few hours, while I do the same in a different room.
It's not like people cancel or refuse to subscribe due to the commercials.
Oh YES they do. That is a reason why people are "cutting the cord" more and more each year, although the primary ones are cost and ease of use. Don't think it was coincidence that they shut off the Internet distribution channels at the same time either. It was paramount that during this dispute that people paying for cable did not get any kind of inkling of what a world without Cable TV could be like.
I was an "early adopter" of Cable TV free lifestyle. It's a lot easier now than it was nearly 10 years ago too. Legal or not, there are more and more ad free distribution channels popping up each day.
Once people experience ad free programming it becomes very addictive. You start to realize the incredible mind numbing bullshit you have to wade through just to get some programming. The times I have been over at friends houses watching TV with them, just channel surfing, was painful. It is close to 50% commercials now, and something like 80% of every channel you are flipping to is currently playing a commercial. I think they got smart and synced up their commercials so that you will be watching a commercial no matter what if you are surfing.
People only put up with advertisements because they are complacent and/or don't know about a solution to not have them. It is not surprising that once a solution becomes available that people jump.
Disturbing and bad business to pull their shows from the Internet? Any other action would have been like suicide for Viacom. As it stands right now, I guarantee you that non-trivial percentage of Viacom subscribers through DirectTV now have the knowledge and impetus to cut the cord for good.
Perhaps there's a lot of pay per view porn on there?
The bill would be more likely a $1000 per month then.
Not being funny either. That shit is expensive. I know somebody that was acting as a legal guardian for a mentally challenged man and about $1500 dollars got racked up in one month. To make matters worse, the cable company flatly refused to offer any kind of assistance on the matter on the 2nd time around when they had lied about blocking it on the service, but still allowed it.
While you are attempting to make light of it, there are rather serious concerns:
The information at issue is limited to full name, gender, birth date, address, whether or not an elector voted in the last provincial election and any other personal information updates provided by voters
Physical address is concerning. Not everyone wants that listed and has trust that the government, who ostensibly needs that information, will protect it. Yes, it could matter. Plenty of people are harassed, have sensitive jobs (law enforcement, abortion doctors, etc.), and have quite valid reasons to wish for some privacy and anonymity. Both of which are basic human rights that no government should be able to violate in the first place for any reason. That is arguable of course, but complete public dissemination of where citizens sleep is not something I would call "popular".
Whether or not a person voted is information that can be used against them, and more than likely could result in increased harassment from political parties seeking to gain power. It's like putting blood in the water for sharks. Moreover, the fact that you did not vote is not information that is any less sensitive than who you may have voted for.
Personal information updates is just wide open. You can't make a claim either way about the sensitivity of that information, and dismissing it out of hand is baseless.
The real concern is the security practices of Election Ontario. I think it is the state of Massachusetts (?) that levies hefty fines for any corporations or organizations that let information out like this.
There is no excuse either. It's patently ridiculous to have that much sensitive information on USB sticks for fucks sake. Their CTO, and those directly responsible for the USB sticks should be fired and fined, or laws created to allow them to be heavily fined.
I know regulations are not exactly popular around Slashdot, but any agency or corporation that deals with that much information should be required to go through some information security courses or something. I'm sure we could all write pages and pages here about best security practices that would have greatly mitigated this event.
From what I understand it was only one single experiment that showed us something that we think is where/what the Higgs Boson would look like.
Has it been reproduced or confirmed?
Scientists using the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva have announced the discovery of a new subatomic particle to very high confidence that is consistent with what we expect the Higgs particle to look like.
That's not very definitive. Can anybody else around well versed in particle physics tell us if the Higgs has really been found or not?
Can't say I am all that surprised. Microsoft has been losing steadily on a large number of fronts for years and SAAS offerings are not nearly as profitable as huge license expensive server farms that do the same thing. In many ways they are eating their own lunch.
Part of me wants to rejoice, but there really isn't anything to celebrate since it leaves Google and Apple in the room alone. Hardly good for the consumer.
Hopefully this is a wake up call to the folks in Redmond.
It's not censoring progress, nor is it taking away the freedom to take photos, or process photos.
It's rather simple. Only fucking human beings can enjoy freedom.
Corporations and Governments are not human beings, and therefore should not be entitled to any sort of basic human rights.
This is only prudent as well. Look up Game Theory. It's very clear that while all entities may possess the same information, that the more powerful entities can do more with it. You would think that would be common sense, but it is quite often overlooked, just as you are doing now.
I'm sorry, but it is batshit insane crazy to have an argument about laws being applied to corporations and government and then to bring up rights and freedoms being abridged through the creation of laws and regulations upon them. They're corporations and governments. We might as well get upset that a toaster oven does not have the freedom of speech.
I'm perfectly okay with you, as a human being, taking a photo of me along with hundreds of other people in a crowded public space. If you want to use advanced technology and tag me with an identity, that's your prerogative too.
In the end though, you are just Bigby. What the heck are you going to man? You don't have massive resources at your disposal. You don't have the abilities of law enforcement to forcibly detain me. You really can't do all that much.
Do you really think FaceStupid and Law Enforcement is as powerful as you, or more powerful? Do you think they could do more with that information, or less?
Just think about it. It's not irrational to want laws to apply to just corporations and governments to preserve privacy and anonymity, when those two together are the single greatest tools we have to defend ourselves against a corrupt tyrannical regime like Syria, Libya, Burma, East Germany, etc., etc., etc., etc.,
That line of reasoning applies to private property.
Public property is a different matter, and government should always be treated differently when it comes to the acquisition and use of information. They have considerably more power than the average person on FaceStupid. It's a rather basic principle in Game Theory.
If you allow the government to have ubiquitous surveillance in all public areas you have are preventing anybody from exercising their right to simply not be there. Staying inside your house all the time, without considerable subsidies from Mommy(tm), is not possible for a normal person.
While I cannot stop my friends from putting up pictures with me in it on FaceStupid, and allowing FaceStupid to figure out who I am and then attempt to use that in marketing tactics, I can ask for laws to prevent the government from accessing or using that information.
Which, by the way, would be extremely prudent. I don't know where you live, but there are plenty of places on this planet where you can be harmed or killed simply because of your beliefs and associations. The best way to prevent that in a so-called advanced society is to have laws and practices which prevent any powerful group from obtaining tools that can be used against the populace in such ways. That is not paranoia either, contrary to the popular claims that it is. There is nothing irrational or delusional about simply remembering history, and even now, just being aware of current events.
While we are at it, I would *love* a law that prevents FaceStupid from using in any way any data obtained from facial recognition if they don't have a contract with me. My friends can store the information if they so choose, but FaceStupid cannot use it for any other processes other than categorization and display purposes for my friends.
Of course, I can hear you and others saying that is regulation going to far and it is ridiculous of me to want to control my information once it is out there, etc., etc., etc. However, corporations are not people and should be recognized for having the power that they have along with government.
It's insane to treat all entities the same when it comes to information regardless of differing levels of power.
My +5 Funny would seem to indicate that it is indeed funny. Perhaps you are just being overly sensitive and serious? It's not like it is recent either.
Quick... What is the difference between a Jew and a pizza? Pizzas don't scream when you put them into an oven. Nothing? Man.. you have no sense of humor.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank You.
I too am willing to sit in jail for as long as the judge wants me to. I would not turn over any passwords either.
I was actually thinking of one gaming console and a large TV.......
Yes, sports are the one thing that has an absolute stranglehold on some people thereby preventing them from cutting the cord at all.
Eventually, I think ESPN will figure out that they can make more money by offering their product directly on the Internet. Right now they agree to only do so if the customer is still with the Cable companies, but I don't think that will last forever.
Once the numbers change around money will speak louder than any supposed allegiances between ESPN and the Cable companies ever did. Which, according to all the vehement rhetoric going back and forth on the Internet, the only thing ESPN cares about is progressively gouging the consumer anyways. Better if they can control that activity without a middleman anyways.
DVRs serve that purpose too. Like you, I've been living largely ad-free for about 10 years now.
Not completely ad-free.
Internet problems do not lead to TV problems. Playback is always smooth.
In some cases they are one and the same.
TV pretty much JUST ALWAYS WORKS.
Not in my experience. My father has been frothing at the mouth mad with outages with his TV service. Technicians constantly coming out, really bad artifacts on the stored video, wholly missing video, etc. It is by far not 100% as you imply.
In fact, I would have to say that my experience with Netflix has been on par, or has exceeded, the experiences related to my by others with Cable TV.
3) The UI is generally better than any other set-top box or app (like Hulu Desktop) on a traditional computer. (I still
Well, that is an individual preference and quite solvable. I personally find the interface on Netflix and the WDTV Live series to be more than adequate and noticeably inferior or superior to the UI offered by any other products.
4) There are LOTS of good shows (especially smaller shows from smaller networks) that aren't available online.
5) No delay. Shows are still on TV first. I don't have to wait a day, or 3 days, or a week. When it's "on TV", I can watch it. Period.
Well... technically they are available online, and if you live any farther west than the Midwest of the US you can be watching it at the same time it goes live.
The bigger issue with most people is the availability of sports. That is not adequately addressed by online solutions.
6) DVRs solve most of the problems (mainly, ads and scheduling) that people associate with traditional TVs.
It does not solve the problems of advertisements at all. You still have to waste time skipping through them, waste storage space on them, and the content providers go batshit insane crazy with the lawyers and legislation any time technology comes up that would assist you in skipping said advertisements.
Overlayed advertisements on programming are not addressed by DVR solutions at all, and not even by most illicit online solutions either. You need to either pay for a web download, pirate a web download, or otherwise obtain an ad-free, overlay-free source such as DVD or Bluray.
7) I actually LIKE some ads. In particular, I like seeing ads during shows for other similar shows. If an ad looks good I'll watch it, and if turns out it wasn't good, I'll skip it next time it's on. I just prefer that to "If you liked this, you also might like..." kind of stuff. (I also like browsing books in a library or bookstore. Call me crazy.)
Okay. You're batshit insane crazy dude :)
Seriously, I do think you are an edge case. Only very few people (all of them on Slashdot) claim to like advertisements on TV. Actually, the only ones claiming to like it that I know in real life qualify it with, "Only in the Superbowl".
Given the choice, most people would get rid of it.
Browsing books is not the same as advertisement either. Totally different activity, and more importantly, initiated by you.
9) I have nearly no incentive to EVER go to legally-questionable sites
More and more it is becoming less legally-questionable. While I do "pirate" ad-free, overlay-free TV I claim the rights do so because they slam their content across my property wirelessly with two important conditions:
1) I don't have to pay for it since it is broadcast television. I am only restricted by copyright law which says I cannot distribute, not that I cannot obtain.
2) According to the FCC I must accept said signals and cannot interfere with them.
That is the only thing legally-questionable that I do. With Netflix, Redbox, Amazon, and Zune I am very well covered o
Yes, yes it does.
No, not it doesn't. There were two statements:
1) Nick is great for kids - I sincerely doubt this is true. More likely it is Nick is not noticeably harmful towards children.
2) Nick is great for lazy parents - Absolutely true. If you are a lazy parent, then Nick is a great tool for the avoidance of your responsibilities as a parent.
Watching moderated television in no way at all hurts my children
Moderation is sorely lacking right now, especially in American culture. If you are one of the exceedingly few parents insisting upon it, then good for you.
I would argue that television watched without parental guidance is harmful. Especially the advertisements.
I get so absolutely sick of this "You're a bad parent because..." bullshit on here.
So just where would you like it discussed? I think it's better than not saying anything at all don't you? It's not like the majority of families could not use some help and guidance in that regard.
Television to an excess is bad parenting, but some isn't.
Nowhere in that statement did it say that even a little television was harmful.
And, no one here is advocating jamming kids in front of a TV all day while we play Diablo 3.
Likewise, I was not saying any parents were advocating such behavior. Only wished to point out that my adult observations of my childhood lead me to conclude that television is not required for a happy childhood, and is not necessarily conducive to one either. Direct parental involvement in my life has turned out to be far more meaningful and memorable.
If you are a parent, and you seem to be so, that spends a lot of time with your kids doing activities, than that's truly wonderful. As a former child myself, I can promise you it makes a million times more difference than every second your kids spend watching Nick.
Now, you may have a case if you consider the verification fee to be exorbitant.
It's unquestionably exorbitant and egregious.
All we are talking about is re-verification. I can't possibly believe this would take more than 100-200 hours across techs (that's generous I think), supervisors, etc. to recertify. If tens of thousands of dollars meant $30k, that means Microsoft is charging between $150 and $300 dollars per hour to recertify a patch on a freakin gaming console. Just how much testing is involved here? This leads me to believe that Microsoft does more testing on game developers code than it does on any other 3rd party vendors code that goes into enterprise products.
As a comparison, I just got a quote from a firm to build out a customer portal for a business that integrates with a current industry platform for $60k. I know that is thousands of hours worth of work too.
A few thousand I would understand. Even upwards of $7500, maybe. Tens of thousands? That's just greed and nickle-and-dime bullshit that M$ pulls on the developers because they can.
It's also where some men get their porn.
AFAIK it's true. Was out and about one day in public talking about the fallacy of porn addiction in a sandwich shop and the topic shifted towards free porn on the Internet. A man that overheard us laughed and said you could get it for free at the library too and why pay for it. I gave him a weird look and asked if they didn't complain he was taking care of business at the library and he gave me one back and said that you just take it home with you.
Anyhoo, libraries are also good for that. I hear.
Cheers. You can remove that comma though, don't know what I was thinking there.
I blame the educational programming on TV myself.
HBO, Showtime, et al, are dead and dying.
The only thing they have going for them is the programming they can make on their own, which puts them squarely on the same footing as a company like Viacom, or an individual provider like SyFy.
Where HBO and the like stood out was the relatively inexpensive access to large catalogues of movies. Netflix, Redbox, and to a much much lesser extent Blockbuster have been eating their lunch for years, and current on-demand offerings will kill them.
The people I know, who are affluent enough to afford it, have moved on to on-demand services and don't watch 1/10th as much regularly scheduled programming on movie channels like HBO.
Their current business model is unsustainable and you will see them transition to a nearly complete on-demand system, or cave in and go the advertiser route.
You SlashParents always have to pipe up with this "You're parenting wrong" crap at any chance you get, don't you?
That doesn't make the wrong though.
I did watch a fair amount of television growing up and I can honestly say that time I spent with my parents was more memorable and valuable then any TV show back then. Other than a few, sparingly few, exceptions like Star Trek TNG, Scooby Doo, etc., that I don't really remember the TV all that much.
What I do remember is playing board games and card games with my parents. The times that we did eat dinner together instead of splitting up and eating in front of a television. Later on in life I remember those times more than anything that was on television and wish that I had spent less time watching television.
If I had kids, they would not be watching nearly as much television as I did. I would sooner be playing video games with my children, or some other online experience, than just sitting them down in front of a TV to happily distract them for a few hours, while I do the same in a different room.
It's not like people cancel or refuse to subscribe due to the commercials.
Oh YES they do. That is a reason why people are "cutting the cord" more and more each year, although the primary ones are cost and ease of use. Don't think it was coincidence that they shut off the Internet distribution channels at the same time either. It was paramount that during this dispute that people paying for cable did not get any kind of inkling of what a world without Cable TV could be like.
I was an "early adopter" of Cable TV free lifestyle. It's a lot easier now than it was nearly 10 years ago too. Legal or not, there are more and more ad free distribution channels popping up each day.
Once people experience ad free programming it becomes very addictive. You start to realize the incredible mind numbing bullshit you have to wade through just to get some programming. The times I have been over at friends houses watching TV with them, just channel surfing, was painful. It is close to 50% commercials now, and something like 80% of every channel you are flipping to is currently playing a commercial. I think they got smart and synced up their commercials so that you will be watching a commercial no matter what if you are surfing.
People only put up with advertisements because they are complacent and/or don't know about a solution to not have them. It is not surprising that once a solution becomes available that people jump.
Disturbing and bad business to pull their shows from the Internet? Any other action would have been like suicide for Viacom. As it stands right now, I guarantee you that non-trivial percentage of Viacom subscribers through DirectTV now have the knowledge and impetus to cut the cord for good.
Perhaps there's a lot of pay per view porn on there?
The bill would be more likely a $1000 per month then.
Not being funny either. That shit is expensive. I know somebody that was acting as a legal guardian for a mentally challenged man and about $1500 dollars got racked up in one month. To make matters worse, the cable company flatly refused to offer any kind of assistance on the matter on the 2nd time around when they had lied about blocking it on the service, but still allowed it.
While you are attempting to make light of it, there are rather serious concerns:
The information at issue is limited to full name, gender, birth date, address, whether or not an elector voted in the last provincial election and any other personal information updates provided by voters
Physical address is concerning. Not everyone wants that listed and has trust that the government, who ostensibly needs that information, will protect it. Yes, it could matter. Plenty of people are harassed, have sensitive jobs (law enforcement, abortion doctors, etc.), and have quite valid reasons to wish for some privacy and anonymity. Both of which are basic human rights that no government should be able to violate in the first place for any reason. That is arguable of course, but complete public dissemination of where citizens sleep is not something I would call "popular".
Whether or not a person voted is information that can be used against them, and more than likely could result in increased harassment from political parties seeking to gain power. It's like putting blood in the water for sharks. Moreover, the fact that you did not vote is not information that is any less sensitive than who you may have voted for.
Personal information updates is just wide open. You can't make a claim either way about the sensitivity of that information, and dismissing it out of hand is baseless.
The real concern is the security practices of Election Ontario. I think it is the state of Massachusetts (?) that levies hefty fines for any corporations or organizations that let information out like this.
There is no excuse either. It's patently ridiculous to have that much sensitive information on USB sticks for fucks sake. Their CTO, and those directly responsible for the USB sticks should be fired and fined, or laws created to allow them to be heavily fined.
I know regulations are not exactly popular around Slashdot, but any agency or corporation that deals with that much information should be required to go through some information security courses or something. I'm sure we could all write pages and pages here about best security practices that would have greatly mitigated this event.
From what I understand it was only one single experiment that showed us something that we think is where/what the Higgs Boson would look like.
Has it been reproduced or confirmed?
Scientists using the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva have announced the discovery of a new subatomic particle to very high confidence that is consistent with what we expect the Higgs particle to look like.
That's not very definitive. Can anybody else around well versed in particle physics tell us if the Higgs has really been found or not?
I guess we can't use M$ anymore then?
Can't say I am all that surprised. Microsoft has been losing steadily on a large number of fronts for years and SAAS offerings are not nearly as profitable as huge license expensive server farms that do the same thing. In many ways they are eating their own lunch.
Part of me wants to rejoice, but there really isn't anything to celebrate since it leaves Google and Apple in the room alone. Hardly good for the consumer.
Hopefully this is a wake up call to the folks in Redmond.
I believe the accepted term is now "differently tarded."
Thank you. I now have ice tea all over my monitors.
In my case it would be x127.0.0.1 :)
However, without breeders YOU don't exist. Think about that for a moment.
According to some studies men think about that at least once a minute, if not more.
It's not censoring progress, nor is it taking away the freedom to take photos, or process photos.
It's rather simple. Only fucking human beings can enjoy freedom .
Corporations and Governments are not human beings, and therefore should not be entitled to any sort of basic human rights.
This is only prudent as well. Look up Game Theory. It's very clear that while all entities may possess the same information, that the more powerful entities can do more with it. You would think that would be common sense, but it is quite often overlooked, just as you are doing now.
I'm sorry, but it is batshit insane crazy to have an argument about laws being applied to corporations and government and then to bring up rights and freedoms being abridged through the creation of laws and regulations upon them. They're corporations and governments. We might as well get upset that a toaster oven does not have the freedom of speech.
I'm perfectly okay with you, as a human being, taking a photo of me along with hundreds of other people in a crowded public space. If you want to use advanced technology and tag me with an identity, that's your prerogative too.
In the end though, you are just Bigby. What the heck are you going to man? You don't have massive resources at your disposal. You don't have the abilities of law enforcement to forcibly detain me. You really can't do all that much.
Do you really think FaceStupid and Law Enforcement is as powerful as you, or more powerful? Do you think they could do more with that information, or less?
Just think about it. It's not irrational to want laws to apply to just corporations and governments to preserve privacy and anonymity, when those two together are the single greatest tools we have to defend ourselves against a corrupt tyrannical regime like Syria, Libya, Burma, East Germany, etc., etc., etc., etc.,
That line of reasoning applies to private property.
Public property is a different matter, and government should always be treated differently when it comes to the acquisition and use of information. They have considerably more power than the average person on FaceStupid. It's a rather basic principle in Game Theory.
If you allow the government to have ubiquitous surveillance in all public areas you have are preventing anybody from exercising their right to simply not be there. Staying inside your house all the time, without considerable subsidies from Mommy(tm), is not possible for a normal person.
While I cannot stop my friends from putting up pictures with me in it on FaceStupid, and allowing FaceStupid to figure out who I am and then attempt to use that in marketing tactics, I can ask for laws to prevent the government from accessing or using that information.
Which, by the way, would be extremely prudent. I don't know where you live, but there are plenty of places on this planet where you can be harmed or killed simply because of your beliefs and associations. The best way to prevent that in a so-called advanced society is to have laws and practices which prevent any powerful group from obtaining tools that can be used against the populace in such ways. That is not paranoia either, contrary to the popular claims that it is. There is nothing irrational or delusional about simply remembering history, and even now, just being aware of current events.
While we are at it, I would *love* a law that prevents FaceStupid from using in any way any data obtained from facial recognition if they don't have a contract with me. My friends can store the information if they so choose, but FaceStupid cannot use it for any other processes other than categorization and display purposes for my friends.
Of course, I can hear you and others saying that is regulation going to far and it is ridiculous of me to want to control my information once it is out there, etc., etc., etc. However, corporations are not people and should be recognized for having the power that they have along with government.
It's insane to treat all entities the same when it comes to information regardless of differing levels of power.
My +5 Funny would seem to indicate that it is indeed funny. Perhaps you are just being overly sensitive and serious? It's not like it is recent either.
Quick... What is the difference between a Jew and a pizza? Pizzas don't scream when you put them into an oven. Nothing? Man.. you have no sense of humor.
Whoooosshhh?
I would explain the joke, but I am laughing hysterically over here at how many people are not getting it.
Wait, Rodney King was armed during his beating?
Yes.. he had two of them.
A McDonald's T-shirt doesn't imbue you with special authority to just tear up other people's medical documentation.
But.. But.. what about Mayor McCheese and Officer Big Mac?
Geez :)
Now you're just getting philosophical.
There is no such thing as chaos in the universe. It's merely an organizational system we don't understand.
Didn't work on my mother either when she told me to clean my room.