Why do they insist on shooting themselves in the foot like this?
Because the gun's not loaded, lets face it, most people will not be upset about this, and if a feature is that freaking cool that it needs to be developed or you're going to have mass panic, then Apple will do it themselves.
The user isn't going to care how the company treats the developer, especially now that the developer is being banned from complaining. Their competition is development on other platforms, and even then, their lack of media text messages or copy-and-paste functionality, must have features of two to three years ago, shows that even if there is big features missing, their consumer base isn't going to care.
...even to them but not the Senate Judiciary Committee which passed the bill in a 14-4 vote. And before we mouth off on partisan politics it was sponsored and drafted by both a Dem. and a Rep. senator.
You've missed one of the critical points... If the guy giving the job interview prefer whites over blacks to an irrational degree, then yes you have a racist. But for example, if I'm the interviewer, I know I tend to like tall people more than short, skinny more than fat, athletic more than lethargic, black more than white.
In other words, more than likely everyone has some kind of bias held against them when they walk into the interview room. If the effect of skin color doesn't wander beyond the boundary of those other biases, is it really racism and are you really being held back, or are you just suffering the same handicap as everyone else? If they consider your skin color unattractive, and therefore you suffer their bias as an unattractive person, when race isn't the only factor, is this still racism.
The only way I see this answer to be yes, is to say that the vast majority of the populations shares a single bias. So where a white guy who doesn't get a job because the interviewer is biased against tall people can go out and find another interviewer, the black guy has a little harder time finding one that doesn't have that bias. And although I think this is the case, I'd disagree with calling it racist, as that seems to make the bias center around race, when it's really center around how comfortable one feels with the way you look.
That's completely bogus. Google is famous for doing exactly what you claim is impossible, they look good, are quick to load and do so on any device imaginable. It is impossible to be complex and not have control. And even then, I remember before every website was a flash site blizzard entertainment and westwood studios did fantastic jobs of this. My web browser is not a picture frame, and content designers should stop treating it as such.
Google's monopoly will hurt businesses? how? Google doesn't set the price for their adds, the community does. You pay for your rankings and the result is relative to what others pay for their rankings. So yes, adding more users means more competition which means increased cost for the same rankings but it's not google raising the price, it's the market expansion
This is different from microsoft setting the price of their product at what the market can bear, but making sure it comes free bundled with every computer so that you never have to make a choice since it's right there for you when you buy hardware. And then leveraging that market share to keep every company running on you're platform since 100% of the worker base is familiar with it.
In other words, although Google has gained market share, it hasn't gained any more authority, since it was never the one setting the dollar value of it's product in the first place. As opposed to microsoft, who essentially charge what they want, because their pervasive market share prevents people from switching.
So if you're assuming you're "stung" by google, you're mistaken. you're stung by the market. The value of an add is the value of an add. Google's deal with yahoo doesn't change that. you can still buy yahoo adds, but with a smaller base, you'll have to own a large percentage of the total ad space to reach a significant population. Or you can buy adds from Google, but you'll have to pay for the higher ranks. Either way you pay, either way it's the market and not the company.
really? you're thermodynamics teacher should be bludgeoned if someone sold you that out and out lie. Sure there are technologies like fuel cells that, in theory, can do that but most power plants run off of some internal combustion process, weather it be a steam plant or diesel generator, and that means that you're limited by the efficiency limiting that thermal cycle. For most forms that's the Carnot Cycle, which peaks out at 60% for most real world situations. This is why it was a big fricking deal when GE came out with a 60% efficient power plant which still kicks the crap out of the 37% theoretical limit for most steel IC engines.
A while ago I wrote a linux script that took the domain of the webpage I was at and mixed it with a single strong password to produce individual passwords. I don't use it any more (I was forced to switch to windows for my MBA and work) but I thought it was a pretty nifty trick.
The idea here that a user should pick one file is absurd, for the security purposes everyone mentioned. But if you made them choose two files then the game becomes a little different. Throw in the ability to pick mixing/hashing algorithms and it becomes a truly random mix of numbers.
Regardless, it's nice to see someone make an attempt to get the average user to use more secure passwords. Remember, they always have the option to not use it. And for what it's being used for (online banking, email, social networking) it's still an improvement over a weak password that someone may use.
Circumcision cuts the chances of contracting aids by 70% during a single sexual encounter. Now this doesn't mean that a man running around practicing unsafe sex is 70% less likely to contract aids, as it would be just a matter of time, but if all the men were circumcised the effect of a single infected woman sleeping around would be a lot less.
The new label for joe's garage band is pitchfork or equivalent for the genre. For him, disk printing is a commodity service.
The way the record industry built artists in the past is dying because they no longer control the media outlets. However the media outlets still control weather or not you're a huge it. Believe me, if the appropriate news source says you rock, you'll see sales.
My opinion is that this is good for the consumer, because increasingly I'm finding more accuracy in the reporting and reviewing of music. The labels have a vested interest in the outcome of reviews and therefore should be politely informed to keep they're noses out of the process.
I've been working with punk and indie music for quite some time now and I'm finding more and more that despite what is said as labels spending all this investment in "Promoting" artists, in a digital age with lots of easy information dissemination technologies available, promoting isn't as important.
Pitchfork and the other music mags make they're money selling adds, and music is a content. I'm not going to even pretend they're fair, as I've seen reviews cut to shreds by some companies because the artist's label doesn't advertise with them, but for the most part it's the content that sells.
Believe it or not people actually want to know what's good and what's not. "Promoting" only costs money if you suck. Otherwise it'll be done for free, because other people will speak highly of you if you're good enough to recommend, because they're building a reputation on being able to recognize your quality. So I consider the label's investment jack, because if the artists were really worth spending the money, then the cost would be next to nothing.
Mac delivers a product that "Just Works" and that's where their added value is that makes up the 200 to 300 dollar difference between machines with the same speck. The adjustments they make on hardware don't line up proportionally with the imposed cost. Try customizing any of their products and look at the cost increase in the customization versus what it would cost to by the items separate and install yourself. You'll find it's more often than not cheaper to buy the base and the extra hardware than the custom system. And that's because it knows it's customers don't want to pick up a screwdriver or play with cables, cause they want a product that just works, and that's what makes them, in my opinion, a rip-off.
I like the idea, as it shows a valid and reasonable effort to push reform, however I think you miss a critical point. The investigation tactics used by the RIAA are extremely expensive and in some states illegal.
In order to get caught, someone has to violate the law and snoop, which is what the first link in the post is about. The v. doe cases in these situations are just tools to extract information to be used in the civil suit.
what you're discussing would involve an internet police, which would have to snoop on all sorts of file sharing in order to be effective, because the fiscal incentive of catching people without a big fine is simply not worth it for the media companies. And I don't see this being done without massive amounts of civil violations.
Since they're Google people will clamor over this (as we're doing here) and the result will be at least a handful of folks will learn and use it. Google's key to success has always been finding fresh talent and removing barriers from their contributing and advancement so what I've seen they've done is A) help train potential employee's on how they're tech and thought process works, and B) provide themselves a filter by which to gauge the ability for a potential employee to understand they're system.
And as a bonus, they help undermine opponents who use competing technologies by helping train the workforce away from their practices. Overall I think it's very intelligent and well done strategic move.
Although I agree with you on the aspect of quantum encryption, that's not the only application for this technology. Quantum computing is a means to increase the maximum processor speed exponentially. (see the "The Potential and Power of Quantum Computing" for a good explanation on how)
a lot of the applications for "security" actually is the defeat of cryptanalysis systems as these computers could crack keys in a reasonable amount of time. This would start to drive key length to very large values in order to keep data safe.
Essentially the value in quantum computing is you can set up a logical relationship between all the qbits and then preform an operation on any number of them and they instantaneously effect the remaining qbits. This saves the computation time for preforming operations on all the other qbits. The question on making this feasible is can you make the read/write time for each of the qbits reasonable and the technology affordable to do so. This seems to be a huge step in the right direction for the latter.
In most things we evolve, not leap to new horizons. I find that most of the time I choose to read a book because I like it's similarities, I like the book because of it's differences. Like traditional sci-fi to apocalyptic sci-fi to steam punk to biohacking to cyberspace to crypto. I never would have read the Cryptomicon if I hadn't read I, Robot and can say today that I have a better appreciation for one from the other.
Typically the way we learn and get good at just about everything is that we go a little bit beyond where we're comfortable and we sustain an effort there. After a while our comfort level moves. Just like if I read enough on one subject typically I'll get caught up with a tangent subject and eventually move into that.
You understand why people do it but don't do it yourself because you'd rather live your life then write about it? well, when you make it easier to write about it, you make the decision to "live it" or "write about it" smaller because you make one take less from the other.
a remarkably rare sense to compromise? Making this explicitly illegal instead of leaving it moral/legal quandary that if the bill doesn't pass you might lose anyways, his decision might actually be one to cut his losses and make sure a screw up like this won't happen again in the future. Cause if this bill doesn't pass now, it won't come up until the next screw up.
This is a criminal database, so the database contains all the information that they are required to take at the time you're convicted. So just having one is proof enough of tampering. Plus in order to be in the database, you'd have to have committed a crime in the past. If you hadn't you wouldn't be in the database, so you'd have to have a corresponding criminal record.
And trying to prove one is wrong in a criminal trial is not hard. If your DNA profile doesn't match but your retina scan does, your not arguing that the technique lied, but that the database is corrupt and can't be trusted. And as you pointed out before, eye scan data isn't any good as you don't leave it at the crime scene. It's a form of identification. Most of the time "this person isn't john doe but really jack doe" doesn't come up at trial. Besides, if this is really tin hat validating, then uncle sam would see that your retina scan matched two entries.
as for single database, ok, sure, but that doesn't mean that there wouldn't be a ton of other locations that doesn't also have that data. DMV, the original court branch prosecuted you, the original prison you went to, etc.. would all have your records, including physicals, fingerprints, pictures, the works.
I'm not for this system, I think it's stupid (see my other post in this forum) but I think it should be decided on it's merits. Not just used as an excuse for tin hat fear mongering.
A lot of the population doesn't believe we need increased efficiency in the tracking down criminals department. At least not the minimal amount that this system would provide. Since that need hasn't been identified, it's easy to say the cost isn't worth it. We don't need an alternative to this plan, because this plan is addressing a problem that doesn't need to be solved, tracking down repeat offenders IF they visit limited locations that have the capabilities provided in this system. Especially when the cost is allowing for Uncle Sam to get all the tools to build behavior profiles on anyone.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do they insist on shooting themselves in the foot like this?
Because the gun's not loaded, lets face it, most people will not be upset about this, and if a feature is that freaking cool that it needs to be developed or you're going to have mass panic, then Apple will do it themselves.
The user isn't going to care how the company treats the developer, especially now that the developer is being banned from complaining. Their competition is development on other platforms, and even then, their lack of media text messages or copy-and-paste functionality, must have features of two to three years ago, shows that even if there is big features missing, their consumer base isn't going to care.
...even to them but not the Senate Judiciary Committee which passed the bill in a 14-4 vote. And before we mouth off on partisan politics it was sponsored and drafted by both a Dem. and a Rep. senator.
In other words, more than likely everyone has some kind of bias held against them when they walk into the interview room. If the effect of skin color doesn't wander beyond the boundary of those other biases, is it really racism and are you really being held back, or are you just suffering the same handicap as everyone else? If they consider your skin color unattractive, and therefore you suffer their bias as an unattractive person, when race isn't the only factor, is this still racism.
The only way I see this answer to be yes, is to say that the vast majority of the populations shares a single bias. So where a white guy who doesn't get a job because the interviewer is biased against tall people can go out and find another interviewer, the black guy has a little harder time finding one that doesn't have that bias. And although I think this is the case, I'd disagree with calling it racist, as that seems to make the bias center around race, when it's really center around how comfortable one feels with the way you look.
That's completely bogus. Google is famous for doing exactly what you claim is impossible, they look good, are quick to load and do so on any device imaginable. It is impossible to be complex and not have control. And even then, I remember before every website was a flash site blizzard entertainment and westwood studios did fantastic jobs of this. My web browser is not a picture frame, and content designers should stop treating it as such.
This is different from microsoft setting the price of their product at what the market can bear, but making sure it comes free bundled with every computer so that you never have to make a choice since it's right there for you when you buy hardware. And then leveraging that market share to keep every company running on you're platform since 100% of the worker base is familiar with it.
In other words, although Google has gained market share, it hasn't gained any more authority, since it was never the one setting the dollar value of it's product in the first place. As opposed to microsoft, who essentially charge what they want, because their pervasive market share prevents people from switching.
So if you're assuming you're "stung" by google, you're mistaken. you're stung by the market. The value of an add is the value of an add. Google's deal with yahoo doesn't change that. you can still buy yahoo adds, but with a smaller base, you'll have to own a large percentage of the total ad space to reach a significant population. Or you can buy adds from Google, but you'll have to pay for the higher ranks. Either way you pay, either way it's the market and not the company.
really? you're thermodynamics teacher should be bludgeoned if someone sold you that out and out lie. Sure there are technologies like fuel cells that, in theory, can do that but most power plants run off of some internal combustion process, weather it be a steam plant or diesel generator, and that means that you're limited by the efficiency limiting that thermal cycle. For most forms that's the Carnot Cycle, which peaks out at 60% for most real world situations. This is why it was a big fricking deal when GE came out with a 60% efficient power plant which still kicks the crap out of the 37% theoretical limit for most steel IC engines.
That's "Mouse Brained Android" as "Masters of Business Administration" clearly don't react logically to external stimuli.
The idea here that a user should pick one file is absurd, for the security purposes everyone mentioned. But if you made them choose two files then the game becomes a little different. Throw in the ability to pick mixing/hashing algorithms and it becomes a truly random mix of numbers.
Regardless, it's nice to see someone make an attempt to get the average user to use more secure passwords. Remember, they always have the option to not use it. And for what it's being used for (online banking, email, social networking) it's still an improvement over a weak password that someone may use.
it's already funded and being offered as a solution
Mod parent up
The way the record industry built artists in the past is dying because they no longer control the media outlets. However the media outlets still control weather or not you're a huge it. Believe me, if the appropriate news source says you rock, you'll see sales.
My opinion is that this is good for the consumer, because increasingly I'm finding more accuracy in the reporting and reviewing of music. The labels have a vested interest in the outcome of reviews and therefore should be politely informed to keep they're noses out of the process.
Pitchfork and the other music mags make they're money selling adds, and music is a content. I'm not going to even pretend they're fair, as I've seen reviews cut to shreds by some companies because the artist's label doesn't advertise with them, but for the most part it's the content that sells.
Believe it or not people actually want to know what's good and what's not. "Promoting" only costs money if you suck. Otherwise it'll be done for free, because other people will speak highly of you if you're good enough to recommend, because they're building a reputation on being able to recognize your quality. So I consider the label's investment jack, because if the artists were really worth spending the money, then the cost would be next to nothing.
people will stop sunbathing nude in there back yard
we'd be holding elections every three days to replace imprisoned officials and there'd be three bills passed a year.
Tried that one before, see previous Mars Climate Orbiter.
Mac delivers a product that "Just Works" and that's where their added value is that makes up the 200 to 300 dollar difference between machines with the same speck. The adjustments they make on hardware don't line up proportionally with the imposed cost. Try customizing any of their products and look at the cost increase in the customization versus what it would cost to by the items separate and install yourself. You'll find it's more often than not cheaper to buy the base and the extra hardware than the custom system. And that's because it knows it's customers don't want to pick up a screwdriver or play with cables, cause they want a product that just works, and that's what makes them, in my opinion, a rip-off.
In order to get caught, someone has to violate the law and snoop, which is what the first link in the post is about. The v. doe cases in these situations are just tools to extract information to be used in the civil suit.
what you're discussing would involve an internet police, which would have to snoop on all sorts of file sharing in order to be effective, because the fiscal incentive of catching people without a big fine is simply not worth it for the media companies. And I don't see this being done without massive amounts of civil violations.
And as a bonus, they help undermine opponents who use competing technologies by helping train the workforce away from their practices. Overall I think it's very intelligent and well done strategic move.
a lot of the applications for "security" actually is the defeat of cryptanalysis systems as these computers could crack keys in a reasonable amount of time. This would start to drive key length to very large values in order to keep data safe.
Essentially the value in quantum computing is you can set up a logical relationship between all the qbits and then preform an operation on any number of them and they instantaneously effect the remaining qbits. This saves the computation time for preforming operations on all the other qbits. The question on making this feasible is can you make the read/write time for each of the qbits reasonable and the technology affordable to do so. This seems to be a huge step in the right direction for the latter.
Typically the way we learn and get good at just about everything is that we go a little bit beyond where we're comfortable and we sustain an effort there. After a while our comfort level moves. Just like if I read enough on one subject typically I'll get caught up with a tangent subject and eventually move into that.
You understand why people do it but don't do it yourself because you'd rather live your life then write about it? well, when you make it easier to write about it, you make the decision to "live it" or "write about it" smaller because you make one take less from the other.
Around here they wear blue and drive crown vics with pretty lights.
a remarkably rare sense to compromise? Making this explicitly illegal instead of leaving it moral/legal quandary that if the bill doesn't pass you might lose anyways, his decision might actually be one to cut his losses and make sure a screw up like this won't happen again in the future. Cause if this bill doesn't pass now, it won't come up until the next screw up.
And trying to prove one is wrong in a criminal trial is not hard. If your DNA profile doesn't match but your retina scan does, your not arguing that the technique lied, but that the database is corrupt and can't be trusted. And as you pointed out before, eye scan data isn't any good as you don't leave it at the crime scene. It's a form of identification. Most of the time "this person isn't john doe but really jack doe" doesn't come up at trial. Besides, if this is really tin hat validating, then uncle sam would see that your retina scan matched two entries.
as for single database, ok, sure, but that doesn't mean that there wouldn't be a ton of other locations that doesn't also have that data. DMV, the original court branch prosecuted you, the original prison you went to, etc.. would all have your records, including physicals, fingerprints, pictures, the works.
I'm not for this system, I think it's stupid (see my other post in this forum) but I think it should be decided on it's merits. Not just used as an excuse for tin hat fear mongering.
A lot of the population doesn't believe we need increased efficiency in the tracking down criminals department. At least not the minimal amount that this system would provide. Since that need hasn't been identified, it's easy to say the cost isn't worth it. We don't need an alternative to this plan, because this plan is addressing a problem that doesn't need to be solved, tracking down repeat offenders IF they visit limited locations that have the capabilities provided in this system. Especially when the cost is allowing for Uncle Sam to get all the tools to build behavior profiles on anyone.