I actually prefer sites with no interactive content. I like links which actually go directly where they say they will (not through a 3rd party affiliate), I like the web page to be silent until I choose to engage with multimedia content, and I don't need your navigation to zip onto the screen with a stupid animation when I hover my mouse over an icon; Just put it down the left hand side like everyone else!
Take/. for example. There is nothing on the classic view which requires JS except for the advertising and the "new" comment system; It can all be HTML and CSS, and I like it that way. It's fast, and it's simple, and it doesn't get in my way. Hell, check for yourself. The vast majority of the JS for the file comments.pl is affiliates, be that social networking buttons or DoubleClick advertising tracking. I don't want that shit! There's some stuff for meta-modding, but other than that it's CSS and HTML.
Well, basically, they pay through the nose to do it.
Take have manufacturer X who want to sell product Y, and media company Z who want you to watch their shitty TV programs. Company Z has no money at all to make any TV shows because nobody pays a subscription to a media service with no content, so they go looking for some money to make new shows. In comes X, trying to increase exposure for product Y, thinking "Hey, we'll give you money to make some shows if you show our super slide-show of Product Y in between sections of your shows!" and Z says "Sweet! Let's get to some TV making!" Z make a show, you watch the show, you see the advert for Y, X may make some more sales.
Twelve months later and Z is reviewing figures, looking at refreshing advertising, increasing synergy boondoggles or something, and decide that they don't have anyone at the company who's any good at this "advertising mumbo-jumbo". They are approached by with a company name straight out of Norse mythology, who say "Listen here, buddy, old pal. Can I call you Jim? Listen, Jim. We have psychologists, and statisticians, and SCIENCE! that will make your advertising more effective! Pay us money to handle it, and we'll show you some magic..."
Two decades later, and we have "Gillette! The best a man can get!" and "WhooooAAAAAAAAA BODYFORRRRRRM! Bodyform for youuuuuuuu!" and media companies, having proved their worth, are into absolutely everything.
. I'd upgrade the current ones in a minute, but the OEM won't provide an upgrade or allow it to be unlocked so I can install Cyanogenmod.
Who is the OEM? If I'm talking to a luddite I'll say "Get whatever you want" or "Get an iPad". For us? Nexus, all the way. No tie in, updates straight from the source, and root / unlock allowed by default. I won't touch another Android devices from other vendors.
The people that make the decisions don't care what happens in 10 - 20 years; They'll be retired at 50 with £X,000,000 in the bank and a new Ferrari every three months.
They also have parents who are responsible for their well-being. Letting your child run off to hide behind parked cars is foolish, and the parent should either watch their child if they aren't able to comprehend the danger, or should educate their child about the dangers if they are. This is technology being used to solve a social problem; Kids playing around cars.
The people you're referring to have others who are responsible for their actions; Parents. I would expect the parent to take care of their child, and not let it go playing around other people's cars.
Toddlers that crawl out into the road? Why not. Seeing as their parents can't even stop their toddler playing in traffic, I'm willing to bet that they will end up being just the type of dysfunctional idiot these cameras are designed to legislate around.
You're forgetting the non-zero cost to the economy of people who would ordinarily be stripped from the gene pool by their own idiocy, by standing behind a car, below the sight line of the driver, while the car is reversing.
Anyone who ties their shoes in front of or behind a car with a running engine and a driver at the wheel is in line for a Darwin award. There's only so much stupid you can legislate around before it becomes harmful to the majority.
It depends, was the Credit card statements laying out where anyone could see them, on the coffee table, that is the only way yoru analogy works.
They weren't public, there just wasn't any extra authentication / authorisation required to access the data. There's a difference between given permission to access files and being technically able to access files. Yes AT&T are on the hook for not securing their files properly, but that's a different issue. I'm pretty sure you could walk into HR at your employer and physically open a filing cabinet and start looking at the personnel records, but I wouldn't like to comment on the permanence of your employment afterwards. You don't, because you know you shouldn't.
What if I put up a website, thaylin.net, then you go to it, can I then claim you hacked my system and went to the page without authorization ?
If I go to thaylin.net and notice that your server is poorly configured and susceptible to directory traversal, have I hacked your system? If all we're doing is manipulating the URL, "../../../" is just part of the string. All of your files are open for me to access, I just noticed how to do it. Is your permission to access the files implied, just because I can?
He got it for accessing information which, while pathetically "secured", he did not have permission to access.
An analogy I like is that you invite a guy around to your house to play Xbox, and instead he goes and looks through your credit card statements. He hasn't been told he can't, and they're not necessarily locked away, but he knows damn well he shouldn't be doing it. He definitely shouldn't post them to the local press.
Because they can get away with it.If it were my kid, it would be a different story.
Then again, I'm not aware of the whole facts of the case. I'm also sat behind a computer in a different country. I have no children with a Facebook account on which to post negative comments, as I have no children.
From what I can fathom, they sell the ideas of CxO's for whom they have consulted to the CxO's of other companies. The more companies you consult for, the bigger your war chest of good CxO ideas.
I hate to be a pedant (I don't really), but monetising everything is the point of business. Facebook is given your information, either by your interaction with them directly (You make use of a Facebook account) or via a third party (tracking on websites, friends sharing details etc); It's not like they're calling your bank and asking for receipts of all the purchases you've made to offer you adverts, or opening your mail and suggesting friends based upon the contents ("Writing to your ageing grandparents? Be friends with Dignitas!").
I agree with the sentiment; I wish they weren't so ubiquitous or underhanded in their collection methodologies, allowing a "GTFO Facebook" service; A generic cookie which either discards or bundles your data with other such cookie users. Just pointing out that you're angry at a business for doing business things.
Exactly what I was getting at. I was including op mode, iterations etc in "encryption" for brevity. Very few here (including me) understand what it actually does, just that it's part of good "encryption". The fact that it is reversible by definition is all I was getting at. If you couldn't recover the plaintext, it would be more like a hashing algorithm.
Why is this even a thing? All reversible encryption (which in itself is a tautology) is searchable.
Plaintext record ID > Encryption+key+salt etc > Cyphertext record ID. Search for the cyphertext record ID. Bring encrypted record back from database. Encrypted record > Encryption > Plaintext record.
Name one product Facebook acquisition which it has not been monetised by their data mining core business. Here is a list to help you. Whatsapp and Oculus don't count, as they were recent acquisitions and haven't had time to be insufficiently profitable to be butchered.
"I guarantee that you won't need to log into your Facebook account every time you wanna use the Oculus Rift."
Quite so.
I think Facebook will try and become the distributor of Oculus-supporting games, mandating a Facebook account to play them instead. Boy, am I glad I didn't give Oculus any money.
Dietary science gave us Soylent, or rather there is science to back up the decisions made in the design process of Soylent. I do realise that a sample of one does not data make, but at least the guy who made it backs up his reasoning with numbers.
You wouldn't heal-toe a car without a clutch anyway; The ECU handles down-changes (kickdown).
There is absolutely no point in using your left foot to brake in a road car. If you ever get back in a manual and split-second forget so in an emergency, you'll be pressing the clutch instead of the brake. If you're a professional driver (karting, rally, Formula etc) then that's different, and you as a driver are different, but normal road drivers should never ever left foot brake.
Electric motors have maximum torque at stand-still. There is no possible gain by any clever driver trickery; You get the fastest possible acceleration simply by pushing the accelerator to the mat.
The brake pedal is on the left of the accelerator on all cars manufactured everywhere. If that wasn't the case, people who rented cars in foreign countries would be rear-ending people and smashing through red lights every moment. Car pedals go C-B-A: Clutch, Brake, Accelerator.
You are correct that you use the left foot only for the clutch, even in an automatic. This is to ensure you can never push both the accelerator and the brake at once.
Slashdot Mirror
I actually prefer sites with no interactive content. I like links which actually go directly where they say they will (not through a 3rd party affiliate), I like the web page to be silent until I choose to engage with multimedia content, and I don't need your navigation to zip onto the screen with a stupid animation when I hover my mouse over an icon; Just put it down the left hand side like everyone else!
/. for example. There is nothing on the classic view which requires JS except for the advertising and the "new" comment system; It can all be HTML and CSS, and I like it that way. It's fast, and it's simple, and it doesn't get in my way. Hell, check for yourself. The vast majority of the JS for the file comments.pl is affiliates, be that social networking buttons or DoubleClick advertising tracking. I don't want that shit! There's some stuff for meta-modding, but other than that it's CSS and HTML.
Take
Well, basically, they pay through the nose to do it.
Take have manufacturer X who want to sell product Y, and media company Z who want you to watch their shitty TV programs. Company Z has no money at all to make any TV shows because nobody pays a subscription to a media service with no content, so they go looking for some money to make new shows. In comes X, trying to increase exposure for product Y, thinking "Hey, we'll give you money to make some shows if you show our super slide-show of Product Y in between sections of your shows!" and Z says "Sweet! Let's get to some TV making!" Z make a show, you watch the show, you see the advert for Y, X may make some more sales.
Twelve months later and Z is reviewing figures, looking at refreshing advertising, increasing synergy boondoggles or something, and decide that they don't have anyone at the company who's any good at this "advertising mumbo-jumbo". They are approached by with a company name straight out of Norse mythology, who say "Listen here, buddy, old pal. Can I call you Jim? Listen, Jim. We have psychologists, and statisticians, and SCIENCE! that will make your advertising more effective! Pay us money to handle it, and we'll show you some magic..."
Two decades later, and we have "Gillette! The best a man can get!" and "WhooooAAAAAAAAA BODYFORRRRRRM! Bodyform for youuuuuuuu!" and media companies, having proved their worth, are into absolutely everything.
IMHO these websites are examples of bad design . Good design should fall back to plain html/css with ideally, minimum loss of functionality
Yeah, but then you wouldn't have to whitelist the JavaScript to see the content and get all the advertisements too.
Working as intended.
. I'd upgrade the current ones in a minute, but the OEM won't provide an upgrade or allow it to be unlocked so I can install Cyanogenmod.
Who is the OEM? If I'm talking to a luddite I'll say "Get whatever you want" or "Get an iPad". For us? Nexus, all the way. No tie in, updates straight from the source, and root / unlock allowed by default. I won't touch another Android devices from other vendors.
The people that make the decisions don't care what happens in 10 - 20 years; They'll be retired at 50 with £X,000,000 in the bank and a new Ferrari every three months.
They also have parents who are responsible for their well-being. Letting your child run off to hide behind parked cars is foolish, and the parent should either watch their child if they aren't able to comprehend the danger, or should educate their child about the dangers if they are. This is technology being used to solve a social problem; Kids playing around cars.
You've missed the point; I would not tie my shoe when behind a parked car.
The people you're referring to have others who are responsible for their actions; Parents. I would expect the parent to take care of their child, and not let it go playing around other people's cars.
Toddlers that crawl out into the road? Why not. Seeing as their parents can't even stop their toddler playing in traffic, I'm willing to bet that they will end up being just the type of dysfunctional idiot these cameras are designed to legislate around.
You're forgetting the non-zero cost to the economy of people who would ordinarily be stripped from the gene pool by their own idiocy, by standing behind a car, below the sight line of the driver, while the car is reversing.
Anyone who ties their shoes in front of or behind a car with a running engine and a driver at the wheel is in line for a Darwin award. There's only so much stupid you can legislate around before it becomes harmful to the majority.
It depends, was the Credit card statements laying out where anyone could see them, on the coffee table, that is the only way yoru analogy works.
They weren't public, there just wasn't any extra authentication / authorisation required to access the data. There's a difference between given permission to access files and being technically able to access files. Yes AT&T are on the hook for not securing their files properly, but that's a different issue. I'm pretty sure you could walk into HR at your employer and physically open a filing cabinet and start looking at the personnel records, but I wouldn't like to comment on the permanence of your employment afterwards. You don't, because you know you shouldn't.
What if I put up a website, thaylin.net, then you go to it, can I then claim you hacked my system and went to the page without authorization ?
If I go to thaylin.net and notice that your server is poorly configured and susceptible to directory traversal, have I hacked your system? If all we're doing is manipulating the URL, "../../../" is just part of the string. All of your files are open for me to access, I just noticed how to do it. Is your permission to access the files implied, just because I can?
He got it for accessing information which, while pathetically "secured", he did not have permission to access.
An analogy I like is that you invite a guy around to your house to play Xbox, and instead he goes and looks through your credit card statements. He hasn't been told he can't, and they're not necessarily locked away, but he knows damn well he shouldn't be doing it. He definitely shouldn't post them to the local press.
Because they can get away with it.If it were my kid, it would be a different story.
Then again, I'm not aware of the whole facts of the case. I'm also sat behind a computer in a different country. I have no children with a Facebook account on which to post negative comments, as I have no children.
From what I can fathom, they sell the ideas of CxO's for whom they have consulted to the CxO's of other companies. The more companies you consult for, the bigger your war chest of good CxO ideas.
A lie. You should have been able to tell - his lips moved.
A good politician doesn't lie on paper; He can't claim he was quoted out of context if he wrote it down himself.
I hate to be a pedant (I don't really), but monetising everything is the point of business. Facebook is given your information, either by your interaction with them directly (You make use of a Facebook account) or via a third party (tracking on websites, friends sharing details etc); It's not like they're calling your bank and asking for receipts of all the purchases you've made to offer you adverts, or opening your mail and suggesting friends based upon the contents ("Writing to your ageing grandparents? Be friends with Dignitas!").
I agree with the sentiment; I wish they weren't so ubiquitous or underhanded in their collection methodologies, allowing a "GTFO Facebook" service; A generic cookie which either discards or bundles your data with other such cookie users. Just pointing out that you're angry at a business for doing business things.
Exactly what I was getting at. I was including op mode, iterations etc in "encryption" for brevity. Very few here (including me) understand what it actually does, just that it's part of good "encryption". The fact that it is reversible by definition is all I was getting at. If you couldn't recover the plaintext, it would be more like a hashing algorithm.
Why is this even a thing? All reversible encryption (which in itself is a tautology) is searchable.
Plaintext record ID > Encryption+key+salt etc > Cyphertext record ID. Search for the cyphertext record ID. Bring encrypted record back from database. Encrypted record > Encryption > Plaintext record.
How is this a marketable product?!
Name one product Facebook acquisition which it has not been monetised by their data mining core business. Here is a list to help you. Whatsapp and Oculus don't count, as they were recent acquisitions and haven't had time to be insufficiently profitable to be butchered.
"I guarantee that you won't need to log into your Facebook account every time you wanna use the Oculus Rift."
Quite so.
I think Facebook will try and become the distributor of Oculus-supporting games, mandating a Facebook account to play them instead. Boy, am I glad I didn't give Oculus any money.
Dietary science gave us Soylent, or rather there is science to back up the decisions made in the design process of Soylent. I do realise that a sample of one does not data make, but at least the guy who made it backs up his reasoning with numbers.
Dude, I said "normal".
I kid, of course. A little pedantic, but I see your point! "Never say never" indeed.
You wouldn't heal-toe a car without a clutch anyway; The ECU handles down-changes (kickdown).
There is absolutely no point in using your left foot to brake in a road car. If you ever get back in a manual and split-second forget so in an emergency, you'll be pressing the clutch instead of the brake. If you're a professional driver (karting, rally, Formula etc) then that's different, and you as a driver are different, but normal road drivers should never ever left foot brake.
Electric motors have maximum torque at stand-still. There is no possible gain by any clever driver trickery; You get the fastest possible acceleration simply by pushing the accelerator to the mat.
The brake pedal is on the left of the accelerator on all cars manufactured everywhere. If that wasn't the case, people who rented cars in foreign countries would be rear-ending people and smashing through red lights every moment. Car pedals go C-B-A: Clutch, Brake, Accelerator.
You are correct that you use the left foot only for the clutch, even in an automatic. This is to ensure you can never push both the accelerator and the brake at once.