Personally I'd be ashamed to have a Bible on my shelf - it's full bigotry and exhortations to violence and sexism. For example:
"“If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; and they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die:"
Big problem seems to be how easy it is to copy. I can copy your card with phone camera, without you even knowing about it - or at least with a reasonable zoom lens.
BTW there are 5 bits per digit, except the final one, since two are shared between each digit.
This stuff: http://etherpad.com/ is really cool for collaborative text editing. It says it is intended for team coding too, although I haven't tried it.
Actually, Godwin's law didn't mention the case where the actual article the discussion is about is already making a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler. I suppose it's what you would call a degenerate case of Godwin's law.
I suspect this is a flamebait. Check the original document rather than the IPTegrity piece. The fuss seems to be about the following amendment:
"there should be transparency of conditions under which services are provided, including information on the conditions of to access to and/or use of and distribute information or run applications and services, and of any traffic management policies"
This seems to propose transparency about existing access conditions, not imposing some new conditions or allowing ISP's to impose more conditions. They justify it in the text as:
"There is nothing in the Framework or elsewhere preventing a service provider from providing subscribers with access to predefined and differentiated set [sic] of services or applications.... Competition will only be effective if consumers are fully informed of the conditions under which the particular service is provided"
I think we're all agreed that this is an absolute non-idea (displaying metadata - WOW!!!). But the post doesn't say that - it's reported as though it might be of interest to slashdotters. I'm intrigued because it was also reported in New Scientist as though it was some kind of big new idea and I thought exactly the same thing when I read it there - WTF!! Is it a plant by some tricksy press department or something?
Anyone who tries to hide behind a pseudonym but posts photos of themselves is now outed by this thing. The first such tools were used by forensic researchers to catch criminals.
I don't get this. How can they possibly measure when the person THINKS they made the decision? That is not the same as when they press the button, obviously. In order to do that, wouldn't they need another button or something so they could say "now I'm making a decision" - and then the whole thing becomes circular.
Ramachandran presented something very similar at the Reith lectures in 2003 http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2003/
It's really quite amazing how many completely crap ideas and dumb-assed - 5 years in dev with no significant improvement to the nearest competitor - products MS is putting out these days. Each one is marketed with great fanfare yet it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that it is not going to fly. Zune, Vista, Tablet PC, Crap Search touted as a competitor to Google. How many more of these can they survive?
I tend to agree with plasticuser - the logic is screwed - and this is not just about retinal refresh rates - the guy also has to process characters... which is a much higher level of abstraction and probably has a much higher processing cost. It's well-known that short term memory has a limit of 7 units of whatever you're currently thinking in. This has nothing to do with the perception of time.
In fact, I'd argue that it's theoretically impossible to measure the perception of time, because everything that could possibly be a benchmark is also part of the perceptory system. Being able to perceive something at all (what the number counting thing might measure) isn't a measure of how fast it is perceived to pass in relation to other perceptions.
This is all getting a bit philosophical...
Slashdot Mirror
Also you can use notaries with other methods than perspectives like using the SSL observatory. I love that talk.
That is a good point - also made by Dawkins...
Personally I'd be ashamed to have a Bible on my shelf - it's full bigotry and exhortations to violence and sexism. For example: "“If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; and they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die:"
Until you want to do anything with your data other than have it sit there - remember homomorphic encryption doesn't work and probably never will...
Exactly: Correlation is not causation
Apparently in the EU at least, the analogue TV spectrum about to be freed up will solve the problem for the next few years.
So um - what does this data actually say ??? Anything controversial? I can only find arguments about whether it's ethical to keep it secret.
Big problem seems to be how easy it is to copy. I can copy your card with phone camera, without you even knowing about it - or at least with a reasonable zoom lens. BTW there are 5 bits per digit, except the final one, since two are shared between each digit.
This stuff: http://etherpad.com/ is really cool for collaborative text editing. It says it is intended for team coding too, although I haven't tried it.
Actually, Godwin's law didn't mention the case where the actual article the discussion is about is already making a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler. I suppose it's what you would call a degenerate case of Godwin's law.
USB Keys in car parks used by personel?
http://www.laquadrature.net/files/UK_PROPOSED_AMENDMENTS_on_net_neutrality_DRAFT_20090223_print.pdf [laquadrature.net]
I suspect this is a flamebait. Check the original document rather than the IPTegrity piece. The fuss seems to be about the following amendment:
"there should be transparency of conditions under which services are provided, including information on the conditions of to access to and/or use of and distribute information or run applications and services, and of any traffic management policies"
This seems to propose transparency about existing access conditions, not imposing some new conditions or allowing ISP's to impose more conditions. They justify it in the text as:
"There is nothing in the Framework or elsewhere preventing a service provider from providing subscribers with access to predefined and differentiated set [sic] of services or applications .... Competition will only be effective if consumers are fully informed of the conditions under which the particular service is provided"
See http://www.laquadrature.net/files/UK_PROPOSED_AMENDMENTS_on_net_neutrality_DRAFT_20090223_print.pdf
I would bet big money this is just another iteration of the Knowledge Scam. Read this: http://personal.lse.ac.uk/angell/papers/knowledge%20management/km.htm
Use a secure php config file - see http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1706
Are you planning a trip to Italy in the near future?
Yes that's it. The scarce commodity is the user's attention. The more people throw things at it, the less of a slice each one gets.
I think we're all agreed that this is an absolute non-idea (displaying metadata - WOW!!!). But the post doesn't say that - it's reported as though it might be of interest to slashdotters. I'm intrigued because it was also reported in New Scientist as though it was some kind of big new idea and I thought exactly the same thing when I read it there - WTF!! Is it a plant by some tricksy press department or something?
Anyone who tries to hide behind a pseudonym but posts photos of themselves is now outed by this thing. The first such tools were used by forensic researchers to catch criminals.
Now you can phish my car...
I don't get this. How can they possibly measure when the person THINKS they made the decision? That is not the same as when they press the button, obviously. In order to do that, wouldn't they need another button or something so they could say "now I'm making a decision" - and then the whole thing becomes circular. Ramachandran presented something very similar at the Reith lectures in 2003 http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2003/
The reaction to the same stuff from the European Parliament is worth a mention
It might use less energy, but do they take into account how much energy it takes to build? If not, it could use more energy in a lifetime.
It's really quite amazing how many completely crap ideas and dumb-assed - 5 years in dev with no significant improvement to the nearest competitor - products MS is putting out these days. Each one is marketed with great fanfare yet it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that it is not going to fly. Zune, Vista, Tablet PC, Crap Search touted as a competitor to Google. How many more of these can they survive?
I tend to agree with plasticuser - the logic is screwed - and this is not just about retinal refresh rates - the guy also has to process characters... which is a much higher level of abstraction and probably has a much higher processing cost. It's well-known that short term memory has a limit of 7 units of whatever you're currently thinking in. This has nothing to do with the perception of time. In fact, I'd argue that it's theoretically impossible to measure the perception of time, because everything that could possibly be a benchmark is also part of the perceptory system. Being able to perceive something at all (what the number counting thing might measure) isn't a measure of how fast it is perceived to pass in relation to other perceptions. This is all getting a bit philosophical...