No, humans share a common ancestor with apes. Probably a fairly ape-like common ancestor, but nonetheless not an ape. We tend to forget that taxonomy is a point in time classification and evolution takes place over some period of time. The same reason why there is no such thing as an 'intermediate' species.
It strikes me as a little silly to think that the type of personal information on those drives is somehow going to stay a secret. You have to give it to dozens of organizations: banks, employers, stores, and so on. So using this information as a security identifier is a very flawed approach. We seem to accept this since the level of fraud is tolerable. Plus the alternatives such as smart cards are extremely expensive to implement across all of society.
It is plenty informative if you read the article: "The study, published in the Lancet, examined Danish male jet cockpit crew flying more than 5,000 hours." The contention was that any effect of 'dark lightning' radiation should already be apparent in studies of airline crews. The study referenced by the article is full of valid data even if they didn't know about dark lightning back then.
TFA says Google's implementation first checks a local cache of known good and bad files. All other files get the info sent to Google for evaluation. That's a lot wider than "only sends back info on suspected malware". As I said, a difference in implementation, and one that certainly makes sense even just considering network and server resources. But there are no details given on what gets into the whitelist. Google can leave anything it wants to track off the whitelist, just like Microsoft could do all sort of implausible things with the data from SmartScreen. Your apparent assumption that Google is more trustworthy than Microsoft is, as I observed, a matter of karma.
It is interesting to see how karma works in the business world. Microsoft has been doing this for quite some time, with a few differences in implementation. But when Microsoft does it, we see that they are spying on us. When Google plays catch up, it grabs headlines for fighting malware.
Why shouldn't he be? He paid for it, and he uses it. I think his complaint is being forced to pay for things he doesn't use and couldn't care less about.
Well our government is a bunch of people who want to micromanage everyone's lives so there's no time for managing basic services. And also, ten million is the size of one of our major cities (plus surrounding suburbs). There's a real problem with governance at scales larger than that.
I think you are making an unwarranted assumption that the oil companies need this military intervention to operate. Whoever ends up running the place, they are going to need to sell oil. There are other reasons behind the invasions aside from the theory of one-off subsidies to the oil companies.
I thought the comment from this was pretty telling:
VMware COO Carl Eschenbach jumped on the Amazon theme, saying, "I look at this audience, and I look at VMware and the brand reputation we have in the enterprise, and I find it really hard to believe that we cannot collectively beat a company that sells books
VMWare is completely lost if that is how they view their marketplace.
I don't know what his plans might be, but there's a world of difference between publicly traded and privately held companies. There are a whole slew of constraints on what a public company can do, between regulations and notions of 'fiduciary duty'. Not to mention the obligatory lawsuits every time the stock price dips. I think we can expect to see more and more companies going privately held when large changes need to be made.
If there was any real concern, they would be a lot more vigilant about enforcing the rules. Since anyone can put an active Kindle or cell phone into their bag and the airline doesn't send people around with wands to triangulate the signal, I assume the "danger" is effectively nil.
Well causality is hard to establish for something like that. But I think it is accurate to say that more people means more economic activity, all else being equal. And they certainly weren't lightly populated states until someone came along and raised taxes on them.
Is it the case that once having pirated X, they buy X+1, not being able to find X+1 on the pirate sites?
This seems likely to be the case, at least to me. Baen Books released a bunch of free ebooks and found that sales of the next book in the series increased. A different type of file, and this was before e-readers were so pervasive, so their results may be different now.
No private company should have almost anything to do with the legal system. Running prisons, enforcing laws, scanning our emails, Nothing. Not only will they not use common sense but they will use the worse common sense possible and that is to make as much money as possible and at any cost
They will go where their incentives are, public or private. If the goal was to increase safety, the company would get paid based on reductions in accidents or some such thing. Since the goal of the cameras was to increase the revenue of the police department, this was the incentive the camera operators had. There's no reason a private organization can't have the 'legal system' as a customer as long as the incentives aren't completely off base. After all, there are plenty of private companies who sell products and services to the legal system with no problems. Office supplies, equipment, construction, software, etc. I understand this is likely what you meant by 'almost anything' but my point is it works fine when the incentives are correct.
I think you just put your finger on the ultimate answer to the OP's question. In other fields this process is sometimes called 'building a brand' and once you have it you charge a premium for it. And now that it exists, it is self-sustaining to a degree. One guy will say "I published it in Open Widgets Journal" and the audience will immediately think "It wasn't good enough to be published in Closed Widgets Quarterly". In other words, barriers to entry and switching costs discourage new entrants to the field.
You're right about Ada Initiative's response, worth reading. It seemed to focus more on the nature of the talk as off topic, especially given that at the time no one had seen the details on what was to be discussed.
Slashdot Mirror
No, humans share a common ancestor with apes. Probably a fairly ape-like common ancestor, but nonetheless not an ape. We tend to forget that taxonomy is a point in time classification and evolution takes place over some period of time. The same reason why there is no such thing as an 'intermediate' species.
Comcast egress filters SMTP and CIFS, at least where I live. What sort of low level crap are you thinking of?
It strikes me as a little silly to think that the type of personal information on those drives is somehow going to stay a secret. You have to give it to dozens of organizations: banks, employers, stores, and so on. So using this information as a security identifier is a very flawed approach. We seem to accept this since the level of fraud is tolerable. Plus the alternatives such as smart cards are extremely expensive to implement across all of society.
It is plenty informative if you read the article: "The study, published in the Lancet, examined Danish male jet cockpit crew flying more than 5,000 hours." The contention was that any effect of 'dark lightning' radiation should already be apparent in studies of airline crews. The study referenced by the article is full of valid data even if they didn't know about dark lightning back then.
TFA says Google's implementation first checks a local cache of known good and bad files. All other files get the info sent to Google for evaluation. That's a lot wider than "only sends back info on suspected malware". As I said, a difference in implementation, and one that certainly makes sense even just considering network and server resources. But there are no details given on what gets into the whitelist. Google can leave anything it wants to track off the whitelist, just like Microsoft could do all sort of implausible things with the data from SmartScreen. Your apparent assumption that Google is more trustworthy than Microsoft is, as I observed, a matter of karma.
It is interesting to see how karma works in the business world. Microsoft has been doing this for quite some time, with a few differences in implementation. But when Microsoft does it, we see that they are spying on us. When Google plays catch up, it grabs headlines for fighting malware.
That's a false dichotomy.
Why shouldn't he be? He paid for it, and he uses it. I think his complaint is being forced to pay for things he doesn't use and couldn't care less about.
Well our government is a bunch of people who want to micromanage everyone's lives so there's no time for managing basic services. And also, ten million is the size of one of our major cities (plus surrounding suburbs). There's a real problem with governance at scales larger than that.
I think you are making an unwarranted assumption that the oil companies need this military intervention to operate. Whoever ends up running the place, they are going to need to sell oil. There are other reasons behind the invasions aside from the theory of one-off subsidies to the oil companies.
VMware COO Carl Eschenbach jumped on the Amazon theme, saying, "I look at this audience, and I look at VMware and the brand reputation we have in the enterprise, and I find it really hard to believe that we cannot collectively beat a company that sells books
VMWare is completely lost if that is how they view their marketplace.
I don't know what his plans might be, but there's a world of difference between publicly traded and privately held companies. There are a whole slew of constraints on what a public company can do, between regulations and notions of 'fiduciary duty'. Not to mention the obligatory lawsuits every time the stock price dips. I think we can expect to see more and more companies going privately held when large changes need to be made.
If there was any real concern, they would be a lot more vigilant about enforcing the rules. Since anyone can put an active Kindle or cell phone into their bag and the airline doesn't send people around with wands to triangulate the signal, I assume the "danger" is effectively nil.
There is some indication you could be right, just look at the phenomenon of the copycat killer.
Since there were huge numbers of murders and massacres before the gun was invented, there isn't much of a legal case here.
Well causality is hard to establish for something like that. But I think it is accurate to say that more people means more economic activity, all else being equal. And they certainly weren't lightly populated states until someone came along and raised taxes on them.
Is it the case that once having pirated X, they buy X+1, not being able to find X+1 on the pirate sites?
This seems likely to be the case, at least to me. Baen Books released a bunch of free ebooks and found that sales of the next book in the series increased. A different type of file, and this was before e-readers were so pervasive, so their results may be different now.
True enough, just look at Wall Street
Ah yes I see what you mean.
some people like to stand out in a crowd rather than blending in
By getting the most widely used smartphone platform?
let me be the first to state that the editors are all incompetent and the quality of comments on /. is execrable
Nerd site scifi comment: This is the premise behind Frank Herbert's "Bureau of Sabotage" in Whipping Star and The Dosadi Experiment
No private company should have almost anything to do with the legal system. Running prisons, enforcing laws, scanning our emails, Nothing. Not only will they not use common sense but they will use the worse common sense possible and that is to make as much money as possible and at any cost
They will go where their incentives are, public or private. If the goal was to increase safety, the company would get paid based on reductions in accidents or some such thing. Since the goal of the cameras was to increase the revenue of the police department, this was the incentive the camera operators had. There's no reason a private organization can't have the 'legal system' as a customer as long as the incentives aren't completely off base. After all, there are plenty of private companies who sell products and services to the legal system with no problems. Office supplies, equipment, construction, software, etc. I understand this is likely what you meant by 'almost anything' but my point is it works fine when the incentives are correct.
I think you just put your finger on the ultimate answer to the OP's question. In other fields this process is sometimes called 'building a brand' and once you have it you charge a premium for it. And now that it exists, it is self-sustaining to a degree. One guy will say "I published it in Open Widgets Journal" and the audience will immediately think "It wasn't good enough to be published in Closed Widgets Quarterly". In other words, barriers to entry and switching costs discourage new entrants to the field.
You're right about Ada Initiative's response, worth reading. It seemed to focus more on the nature of the talk as off topic, especially given that at the time no one had seen the details on what was to be discussed.