Better to say: they tried to take them out too fast. Automation will eventually get him to the tolerances he wants, where humans might not. But developing robotics is a long, slow process, and rushing it just means you don't get the quality benefits.
Like that kind of comment went out last millennium. People kinda of should be free to express themselves via their attire and style, their choice.
Indeed, you are free to do so. And if you express "I'm a loser who can't get his act together", others are free to make hiring decisions based on that signalling. Of course, Starbucks isn't exactly choosy, but better jobs might be. But, hey, you be you.
"It is only shallow people who do not judge by appearances. The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible" - Oscar Wilde
The attacker doesn't need to bridge the networks, he just need to get his hacked device onto the other WiFi. Given the sad history of WiFi security, I wouldn't bet the farm on that being impossible.
GPP's point is that "yes, but that's not enough - also have real security inside each network". Also, the casino had the IoT bit on a different VPN, and that didn't help much. Networks that are isolated physically, not just logically, are ideal from a security perspective, but may not be practical to manage.
I'd be upset if the NYT refused to run my paid ad, which is the common way to get your text in the paper if you don't work there.
Just like there were really only 3 major nationwide networks back in the day, there's a similarly small number of mainstream social media sites. If you become the de facto public forum, you inherit certain responsibilities.
dd my memory is was the web went commercial when it had already reached enough critical mass that that the vultures decided hey now its buitl we want in to make money off this.
Your memory is faulty. There was a mass of users of walled gardens like AOL and Compuserve, effectively huge commercial BBSs, but that's not the Web. In 1993-95 the number of people online had exploded, but the web might as well have not existed for most people until around mid-95 (Netscape Navigator, Yahoo, AltaVista gain ground) and even then there was little no non-geek content.
It was only as mail-order companies started creating web storefronts that normal people started noticing, and "internet" started to mean WWW instead of AOL or USENET. Remember the days of radio ads for web sites, with DJs painfully trying to read web addresses aloud, not knowing that you didn't have to say the "http://" part?
HTTP as a goal may be obvious, but it takes a shit ton of work to create a global standard that everyone can use.
There's just not that much to HTTP. Sure, you need understand how to write/edit a standards document, but hasn't every senior engineer gotten involved with that at some point?
Hyperlinking is obvious. Networking is obvious. HTTP is obvious. Then where the was the WWW? Shouldn't it have miraculously invented itself through its own powers of obviousness?
Did you somehow miss the part where I wrote that the moment of genius was realizing you could make non-local hyperlinks? Kudos to TBL for that, but let's not exaggerate.
Hyperlinking is one part of what makes the WWW possible. TCP/IP, HTTP, etc. are all critical components
There were a variety of networking stacks back in the day. TCP/IP probably wasn't the best -- it was nicely robust, but there's a lot of overhead -- but it was good enough. There was nothing about TCP/IP in particular that was important for the WWW - it just happened to get used because of the DARPA/academic origins of the internet.
HTTP is a trivial protocol that anyone skilled in the art could have knocked out. It was an incremental improvement over Gopher, which was an incremental improvement over FTP.
The one key thing we can attribute to TBL is "hey, what if we took these hyperlinks and allowed them to be non-local." That's a brilliant invention, but let not exaggerate. The web took off because it went commercial. It was the wide variety of people who saw ways to commercialize the web that made it a household product instead of just a place for academic discussion buried by USENET spambots.
A single mom fixed the behavior tracking, and advertising, systems with this one weird trick. Facebook hates her!
The payment system is irrelevant. Clickbait works, and as long as it works, it will be used to gain eyeballs. Doesn't matter how those eyeballs are monetized. It also doesn't matter why or how the clickbait works. Content is going to be tuned to get the most readers, it's just natural selection (though machine learning is speeding It up a bunch these days).
The only place most Democratic politicians and most GOP politicians differ is a few petty social issue with no monetary consequences, like gay marriage. Oh, they'll put on a song and dance about other issues, but the funding will only ever creep up, for everything. For all the threatened government shutdowns and other fake drama, they just go ahead and pass the bills the donors want, regardless.
Neither is "centrist" as that implies they're on that spectrum to begin with, which is a farcical notion. They exist to funnel government funds to their donors, and they barely even squabble over which donors these days.
I'd actually say that Bitcoin is a product of libertarians. The sort that don't think our monetary system should be left to the government. And yeah, "how do deal with pollution" gets you a variety of answers from that crowd.
That's certainly where it started, but there just aren't that many of those guys. Bitcoin grew when it became the currency of choice for darknet, but that too is limited in size. Today the main use of Bitcoin is to sneak money out of China, and that's a vast market indeed. Of course, the people mining it don't care about any of that.
At least the South Seas scam served a purpose - it was cooked up to refinance government debt, not that different in practice from state lotteries now that I think about it.
So not onlly are we going to waste tons of electricity, we're going to pollute now too.
A coal plant has nothing on a gold mine. For all that BTC is wasteful, it's still far better than gold (from time to time, the power cost to get 1 ounce of gold exceeds the worth of that gold - ASIC mining is much less wasteful).
Yes, they're regulated differently almost everywhere. Note that limo services mostly provide "towncars" (used to be actual Lincoln towncars, but Lincoln stopped making them, so any long wheelbase sedan these days). A limo service is not allowed to be hailed from the street, and importantly is not allowed to pick up from the airport without prior arrangements (they can't use the taxi stand). You can only get a limo by calling their dispatch, not by waving one down.
Limo services also can't use meters - in most places they have to tell you the price up front.
There are legally and practically distinct kinds of hired cars. Don't call everything a taxi service just because that's the one you know. Taxis are different from limos are different from fixed-rout shuttle buses (airport shuttle buses that can take you home are technically limos) are different from chauffeurs are different from city-run ride sharing services. Uber's main service should really be it's own kind of hired car, but UberBLACK is completely a limo service.
No, your private property remains your private property no matter how popular the service becomes.
If you let everyone use your private property, it's not the same by law or custom. If your private property becomes an important utility, democracy will happen to you, as it should.
If the American left were for any of those things, they would have happened when the left controlled the house, senate, and presidency. How gullible do you have to be? Heck, the left didn't even pass a federal law legalizing abortion when the last had the reigns, because they don't actually care about the issue, and they enjoy the "get out the vote" power of the threat of a Republican appointing a Justice who overtures Roe v Wade.
The right, of course, isn't for any of the things they claim either, or they would be doing some of them now.
the right wing media and their cheap identity politics.
Depends on the school. The high school I went to had a shooting every year (and it wasn't the most dangerous school in town). Didn't make the news, of course, as that was merely expected.
Perhaps, just maybe, the federal judge actually read the law? You might consider that a full-time professional who makes a living studying something might be right where your "very clearly" is wrong, especially if you've never even read the law.
Slashdot Mirror
Florida Man, Florida Man
Florida Man meets Particle Man
They have a fight, Particle wins
Repugnant man, Florida Man
Now you got that in stuck your head
I dunno, Amazon has a pretty good record of shipping on time.
Elon's problem isn't (only) that he's not making a profit, it's that he's not even delivering the product that was ordered.
Better to say: they tried to take them out too fast. Automation will eventually get him to the tolerances he wants, where humans might not. But developing robotics is a long, slow process, and rushing it just means you don't get the quality benefits.
Like that kind of comment went out last millennium. People kinda of should be free to express themselves via their attire and style, their choice.
Indeed, you are free to do so. And if you express "I'm a loser who can't get his act together", others are free to make hiring decisions based on that signalling. Of course, Starbucks isn't exactly choosy, but better jobs might be. But, hey, you be you.
"It is only shallow people who do not judge by appearances. The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible" - Oscar Wilde
And what is a high roller then?
I know what a high troller is ...
The attacker doesn't need to bridge the networks, he just need to get his hacked device onto the other WiFi. Given the sad history of WiFi security, I wouldn't bet the farm on that being impossible.
GPP's point is that "yes, but that's not enough - also have real security inside each network". Also, the casino had the IoT bit on a different VPN, and that didn't help much. Networks that are isolated physically, not just logically, are ideal from a security perspective, but may not be practical to manage.
I'd be upset if the NYT refused to run my paid ad, which is the common way to get your text in the paper if you don't work there.
Just like there were really only 3 major nationwide networks back in the day, there's a similarly small number of mainstream social media sites. If you become the de facto public forum, you inherit certain responsibilities.
dd my memory is was the web went commercial when it had already reached enough critical mass that that the vultures decided hey now its buitl we want in to make money off this.
Your memory is faulty. There was a mass of users of walled gardens like AOL and Compuserve, effectively huge commercial BBSs, but that's not the Web. In 1993-95 the number of people online had exploded, but the web might as well have not existed for most people until around mid-95 (Netscape Navigator, Yahoo, AltaVista gain ground) and even then there was little no non-geek content.
It was only as mail-order companies started creating web storefronts that normal people started noticing, and "internet" started to mean WWW instead of AOL or USENET. Remember the days of radio ads for web sites, with DJs painfully trying to read web addresses aloud, not knowing that you didn't have to say the "http://" part?
HTTP as a goal may be obvious, but it takes a shit ton of work to create a global standard that everyone can use.
There's just not that much to HTTP. Sure, you need understand how to write/edit a standards document, but hasn't every senior engineer gotten involved with that at some point?
Hyperlinking is obvious. Networking is obvious. HTTP is obvious. Then where the was the WWW? Shouldn't it have miraculously invented itself through its own powers of obviousness?
Did you somehow miss the part where I wrote that the moment of genius was realizing you could make non-local hyperlinks? Kudos to TBL for that, but let's not exaggerate.
Hyperlinking is one part of what makes the WWW possible. TCP/IP, HTTP, etc. are all critical components
There were a variety of networking stacks back in the day. TCP/IP probably wasn't the best -- it was nicely robust, but there's a lot of overhead -- but it was good enough. There was nothing about TCP/IP in particular that was important for the WWW - it just happened to get used because of the DARPA/academic origins of the internet.
HTTP is a trivial protocol that anyone skilled in the art could have knocked out. It was an incremental improvement over Gopher, which was an incremental improvement over FTP.
The one key thing we can attribute to TBL is "hey, what if we took these hyperlinks and allowed them to be non-local." That's a brilliant invention, but let not exaggerate. The web took off because it went commercial. It was the wide variety of people who saw ways to commercialize the web that made it a household product instead of just a place for academic discussion buried by USENET spambots.
A single mom fixed the behavior tracking, and advertising, systems with this one weird trick. Facebook hates her!
The payment system is irrelevant. Clickbait works, and as long as it works, it will be used to gain eyeballs. Doesn't matter how those eyeballs are monetized. It also doesn't matter why or how the clickbait works. Content is going to be tuned to get the most readers, it's just natural selection (though machine learning is speeding It up a bunch these days).
Sure, you've studied law far deeper than the federal judge who's been doing it for decades. What is it with these 5-minute-experts on Slashdot?
The only place most Democratic politicians and most GOP politicians differ is a few petty social issue with no monetary consequences, like gay marriage. Oh, they'll put on a song and dance about other issues, but the funding will only ever creep up, for everything. For all the threatened government shutdowns and other fake drama, they just go ahead and pass the bills the donors want, regardless.
Neither is "centrist" as that implies they're on that spectrum to begin with, which is a farcical notion. They exist to funnel government funds to their donors, and they barely even squabble over which donors these days.
This is so pointless. All that energy, and all those computing resources, for nothing. What the hell is wrong with people?
Hardly a new problem - how else would you describe the pyramids. Well, at least they're cool to look at.
I'd actually say that Bitcoin is a product of libertarians. The sort that don't think our monetary system should be left to the government. And yeah, "how do deal with pollution" gets you a variety of answers from that crowd.
That's certainly where it started, but there just aren't that many of those guys. Bitcoin grew when it became the currency of choice for darknet, but that too is limited in size. Today the main use of Bitcoin is to sneak money out of China, and that's a vast market indeed. Of course, the people mining it don't care about any of that.
At least the South Seas scam served a purpose - it was cooked up to refinance government debt, not that different in practice from state lotteries now that I think about it.
You have far less slavery than Qatar though, so you've got that going for you. CO2 is the least of Qatar's sins.
So not onlly are we going to waste tons of electricity, we're going to pollute now too.
A coal plant has nothing on a gold mine. For all that BTC is wasteful, it's still far better than gold (from time to time, the power cost to get 1 ounce of gold exceeds the worth of that gold - ASIC mining is much less wasteful).
Yes, they're regulated differently almost everywhere. Note that limo services mostly provide "towncars" (used to be actual Lincoln towncars, but Lincoln stopped making them, so any long wheelbase sedan these days). A limo service is not allowed to be hailed from the street, and importantly is not allowed to pick up from the airport without prior arrangements (they can't use the taxi stand). You can only get a limo by calling their dispatch, not by waving one down.
Limo services also can't use meters - in most places they have to tell you the price up front.
There are legally and practically distinct kinds of hired cars. Don't call everything a taxi service just because that's the one you know. Taxis are different from limos are different from fixed-rout shuttle buses (airport shuttle buses that can take you home are technically limos) are different from chauffeurs are different from city-run ride sharing services. Uber's main service should really be it's own kind of hired car, but UberBLACK is completely a limo service.
No, your private property remains your private property no matter how popular the service becomes.
If you let everyone use your private property, it's not the same by law or custom. If your private property becomes an important utility, democracy will happen to you, as it should.
If the American left were for any of those things, they would have happened when the left controlled the house, senate, and presidency. How gullible do you have to be? Heck, the left didn't even pass a federal law legalizing abortion when the last had the reigns, because they don't actually care about the issue, and they enjoy the "get out the vote" power of the threat of a Republican appointing a Justice who overtures Roe v Wade.
The right, of course, isn't for any of the things they claim either, or they would be doing some of them now.
the right wing media and their cheap identity politics.
Low quality bait.
Other countries with actual worker rights have been classifying them as regular employees for a taxi service....
This is UberBLACK, which is most definitely not a taxi service, since it's a limo service.
Depends on the school. The high school I went to had a shooting every year (and it wasn't the most dangerous school in town). Didn't make the news, of course, as that was merely expected.
Perhaps, just maybe, the federal judge actually read the law? You might consider that a full-time professional who makes a living studying something might be right where your "very clearly" is wrong, especially if you've never even read the law.