Aren't people becoming desensitized to ads? You'd think the free market would have driven the price advertisers are willing to pay so low as to not be worth the 10 seconds it takes a developer to paste the support code into an application.
There are metrics on who clicks the ads, and that is still conceivable worth money if the data is good. But if half the people accidentally click an ad trying to access the brightness setting for their phone, that's worthless data and advertisers ought to learn not to pay for garbage.
P.S. I was really disappointed when the market for banner ads crashed in the late 1990's and it didn't completely die. I hoped they would finally ceases and go back to TV, radio, newspaper, etc. Instead we got pop-ups, then pop-unders, then overlays. And Google came in on the upswing and turned web advertising in a trillion dollar industry.
You think "security" is something that can be "built in." Security in software development is a mindset.
You mean I can't just order my embedded software from a Chinese menu and check the box for "Yes, security please" ?
My crash course in security paired down to what I could reasonably fit into a post:
The process of threat modeling is a formal analysis of the security of a system. One easy to remember process is to use the mnemonic STRIDE - Spoofing, Tampering, Repudiation (sharing of access tokens or accounts between users, man-in-the-middle, social engineering, phishing scams, etc), Information disclosure, Denial of service, Elevation of privilege.
You can begin to build a picture of your threat models with a tool like SeaMonster. That's only one example there are many other tools available of course, such as Microsoft's SDL Threat Modeling Tool.
A formal process is pretty important, even if it's as basic as a spreadsheet that lists the threats you came up with. Reviewing the list, prioritizing it, and determining a schedule for addressing threats is better than an ad hoc hand waive to developers a week before release. ("Guys, ya, um I'm going to need you to make it secure."). An iterative process for security that begins the same day you start architectural talks is the better way to approach the problem.
When you say "1 bitcoin" is that Bitcoin (BTC), Bitcoin Cash (BCH), Bitgoin Gold (BTG), Bitcoin Private (BTCP) ?
Or maybe in 20XX those cryptocurrencies and their forks will have collapsed and there is some other system that is dominate? Defunct currency is probably worth about $0 if there is no exchange to accept them and no reliable network to perform transactions.
LOL, that's why the Republicans are currently working overtime to pack the courts; for strict constitutional fidelity, not to further their ideology.
Missing a sarcasm tag. Conservative voters tend to have trouble detecting irony and sarcasm. It's not surprising considering how many are literal and fundamentalist in their religious views as well.
Huh? We do? News to me. Actually I think current headlines demonstrate that we don't.
Why Not Algorithms?
Because you can't fine and imprison an algorithm. A similar problem exists with holding corporations accountable. It's easy to solve but we've refused to do it for the last 50-100 years, why start now?
It's certainly an amusing contradiction and demonstrates his ineptitude. But I don't think what appointed agency directors say carry all that much legal weight with courts. Especially if they tend to publicly waffle on nearly anything as a matter of political convenience.
There is no doubt in my mind that Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 gives the FCC the authority to regulate broadband. You could even argue that means the FCC has jurisdiction, and I would also agree that is very likely (almost certain!).
But what you overlook is that non-exclusive jurisdiction is possible, and California legislature and courts could adjudicate on these matters. I think California will be able to attempt to enforce net neutrality like rules for a time, and we'll see later if higher courts settle the arguably unsettled status of this issue. If it was settled in favor of the FCC, it could very well be a Commerce Clause issue, but not necessarily so.
I think it would be damning if 9th Circuit saw a case for this and ruled against California. That would be the end of it. But I think that is incredibly unlikely given the 9th Circuit's track record on populist and high profile cases. Would SCOTUS even hear such a case after the 9th Circuit ruled on it? possible, but maybe not. Would this first go somewhere other than the 9th? seems very unlikely.
Federal law only trumps state on on issues that are delegated by the US Constitution to the federal government.
I believe this will be a test of the reach of the FCC's jurisdiction. I think conservative judges would not legislate from the bench and lean towards the Constitution as written, but could interpreter relevant legislation in favor of a stronger federal government. I think liberal judges would lean in favor of California. Either way seems likely to me that Ajit Pai will lose against California. The legislature might strike back and make it clearer where the FCC ends and states begin. Disclaimer: and maybe it's clear and I'm missing some legislation that defines it precisely. as I'm no legal scholar
We could control the ingredients through legislation. We don't necessarily have to allow businesses to put whatever the fuck they want in our food. I know this would runs counter to some God-given freedom to put corn syrup in sliced bread.
We don't really have "mars chokolade bars" in the US, at least we don't call the kind you're referring to a Mars Bar. Perhaps you're thinking of Scotland?
If you're looking for a vile American fried treat, then look no further than Deep-fried butter.
Mandatory death penalty if convicted of wire fraud involving a senior citizen. Including full extradition of foreign nationals who commit this crime. That will slow scamming down a whole lot, and get politicians the senior vote.
This is about how Google has vast influence in what you see and what you read on the internet.
Private business. Nothing you can do about it unless we grant new regulatory powers to an agency like the FCC.
Same for Facebook, Twitter, and any other large internet corporation.
That's why you can't easily treat this as an anti-competitive issue. There are too many players to do that, unless we can establish some kind of collusion between these businesses. But I feel that is unlikely to produce the desired results.
Do you want your government owned by corporations, no matter their ideology or principles, or do you want a Constitutional Republic that is for the people and by the people. If you chose corporation, you failed.
I'm not here to talk about your personal ideology. I've only pointed out the current state of affairs as I see them and offered suggestions on the way out. You can take your flag waving to someone who gives a shit.
This has nothing to do with Citizens United nor is it related in any way.
I respectfully disagree. How corporations choose to support a political candidate is very much on topic here. But if you read it differently that's fine, I don't want to get bogged down in arguing something that where you're not likely to be convinced.
The Citizens United ruling gave corporations the right to express political views. If you don't like it, you'll have to overturn that ruling with new legislation (and potentially an amendment).
I feel like the current administration only likes it when the laws work for them, and want to ignore laws that are inconvenient for them. It's the sort of crap that dictators of a banana republic try to pull.
(not AC because clearly non-partisan. i.e. hopefully I pissed off everyone)
I use Windows 10 at work. It likes to blow away my keyboard remapping and layout settings on some updates. So that's not very nice of it.
The new notification area does not appear to have any option to filter out unwanted applications or even disable it. About all I can do is snooze the notification popups for a while, but it resets if I reboot or even wake from suspend.
I figure if you're going to be a little bitch and upend your Windows ecosystem just because you can't deal with a few little changes, I might as well provide the contrary opinion.
I'm an embedded developer, so "Windows ecosystem" is an overly dramatic description of what I have. Most of my tools are Linux only. With a handful on Windows. To go completely to the Linux side is not as big of a step for me as it would be for someone in a different career.
My family is still on Windows 7 until 2020. I have about 90% of my regularly played games and apps working on Linux either natively or with wine. Aiming to never have a Windows 10 computer in my house.
Did you purchase those movies, or did you temporarily acquire rights to view them. Did you basically pay $19.99 to rent a movie for a few years? When you could have paid $24.99 for that same new release on Blu-Ray. And keep that physical copy for potentially decades (archival life of non-writable blu-ray seems high). In addition your Blu-Ray disc falls under first sale doctrine (17 U.S.C. Sec. 109), so a few years from now you can sell it or gift it legally if you decided you didn't want it. Instead of waiting for Apple to delete it under the ever-shifting sands of distribution rights agreements for streaming.
People really want the convenience of streaming, and are apparently willing to pay a premium for it. But there are still some major drawbacks compared to physical media.
I remember when a large page took 10-15 seconds to load in Lynx, and it wouldn't display until it the HTML was completely downloaded.
I think like most other things, the software expands as memory, network, and processing power increases. Leaving us with only slightly faster user experience rather than the 1000x faster experience that raw numbers might indicate. (4MB unix workstation running Lynx on a 20 MHz cpu, to a 16GB laptop with four 2 GHz cpus). It seems faster, but not massively so. Much prettier though.
And now we get to my [attempted] original point. Pretty web pages and fancy apps are going to drive mobile devices to higher levels of performance. Video streaming drives the network to become faster. And embedded videos and interactive sites drives more full featured web browsers.
theoretically it's the desktop sites that use more bandwidth. they are supposed to be simpler and easier for the device to process and contain less layout directives and fewer superfluous images. Arguable if it is successful in practice, but that is the intent.
Having a site that loads in 50ms versus 20ms won't really matter to a typical end-user. Of course a site that loads in 5 seconds versus 2 seconds will be noticeable. So scale does matter. I predict "desktop" sites will be able to load on our phones in that 50ms range one day. (conveniently I'll leave out when that day will be)
Slashdot Mirror
I've went to a Halloween LGBTQ BBQ once ... AMAZING
Aren't people becoming desensitized to ads? You'd think the free market would have driven the price advertisers are willing to pay so low as to not be worth the 10 seconds it takes a developer to paste the support code into an application.
There are metrics on who clicks the ads, and that is still conceivable worth money if the data is good. But if half the people accidentally click an ad trying to access the brightness setting for their phone, that's worthless data and advertisers ought to learn not to pay for garbage.
P.S. I was really disappointed when the market for banner ads crashed in the late 1990's and it didn't completely die. I hoped they would finally ceases and go back to TV, radio, newspaper, etc. Instead we got pop-ups, then pop-unders, then overlays. And Google came in on the upswing and turned web advertising in a trillion dollar industry.
You think "security" is something that can be "built in." Security in software development is a mindset.
You mean I can't just order my embedded software from a Chinese menu and check the box for "Yes, security please" ?
My crash course in security paired down to what I could reasonably fit into a post:
The process of threat modeling is a formal analysis of the security of a system. One easy to remember process is to use the mnemonic STRIDE - Spoofing, Tampering, Repudiation (sharing of access tokens or accounts between users, man-in-the-middle, social engineering, phishing scams, etc), Information disclosure, Denial of service, Elevation of privilege.
You can begin to build a picture of your threat models with a tool like SeaMonster. That's only one example there are many other tools available of course, such as Microsoft's SDL Threat Modeling Tool.
A formal process is pretty important, even if it's as basic as a spreadsheet that lists the threats you came up with. Reviewing the list, prioritizing it, and determining a schedule for addressing threats is better than an ad hoc hand waive to developers a week before release. ("Guys, ya, um I'm going to need you to make it secure."). An iterative process for security that begins the same day you start architectural talks is the better way to approach the problem.
When you say "1 bitcoin" is that Bitcoin (BTC), Bitcoin Cash (BCH), Bitgoin Gold (BTG), Bitcoin Private (BTCP) ?
Or maybe in 20XX those cryptocurrencies and their forks will have collapsed and there is some other system that is dominate? Defunct currency is probably worth about $0 if there is no exchange to accept them and no reliable network to perform transactions.
LOL, that's why the Republicans are currently working overtime to pack the courts; for strict constitutional fidelity, not to further their ideology.
Missing a sarcasm tag. Conservative voters tend to have trouble detecting irony and sarcasm. It's not surprising considering how many are literal and fundamentalist in their religious views as well.
We Hold People With Power To Account.
Huh? We do? News to me. Actually I think current headlines demonstrate that we don't.
Why Not Algorithms?
Because you can't fine and imprison an algorithm. A similar problem exists with holding corporations accountable. It's easy to solve but we've refused to do it for the last 50-100 years, why start now?
I'm converting my Lincoln Continental over to Clean Coal.
It's certainly an amusing contradiction and demonstrates his ineptitude. But I don't think what appointed agency directors say carry all that much legal weight with courts. Especially if they tend to publicly waffle on nearly anything as a matter of political convenience.
There is no doubt in my mind that Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 gives the FCC the authority to regulate broadband. You could even argue that means the FCC has jurisdiction, and I would also agree that is very likely (almost certain!).
But what you overlook is that non-exclusive jurisdiction is possible, and California legislature and courts could adjudicate on these matters. I think California will be able to attempt to enforce net neutrality like rules for a time, and we'll see later if higher courts settle the arguably unsettled status of this issue. If it was settled in favor of the FCC, it could very well be a Commerce Clause issue, but not necessarily so.
I think it would be damning if 9th Circuit saw a case for this and ruled against California. That would be the end of it. But I think that is incredibly unlikely given the 9th Circuit's track record on populist and high profile cases. Would SCOTUS even hear such a case after the 9th Circuit ruled on it? possible, but maybe not. Would this first go somewhere other than the 9th? seems very unlikely.
(all speculation. I have no crystal ball!)
Federal law only trumps state on on issues that are delegated by the US Constitution to the federal government.
I believe this will be a test of the reach of the FCC's jurisdiction. I think conservative judges would not legislate from the bench and lean towards the Constitution as written, but could interpreter relevant legislation in favor of a stronger federal government. I think liberal judges would lean in favor of California. Either way seems likely to me that Ajit Pai will lose against California. The legislature might strike back and make it clearer where the FCC ends and states begin. Disclaimer: and maybe it's clear and I'm missing some legislation that defines it precisely. as I'm no legal scholar
We could control the ingredients through legislation. We don't necessarily have to allow businesses to put whatever the fuck they want in our food. I know this would runs counter to some God-given freedom to put corn syrup in sliced bread.
We don't really have "mars chokolade bars" in the US, at least we don't call the kind you're referring to a Mars Bar. Perhaps you're thinking of Scotland?
If you're looking for a vile American fried treat, then look no further than Deep-fried butter.
Mandatory death penalty if convicted of wire fraud involving a senior citizen. Including full extradition of foreign nationals who commit this crime. That will slow scamming down a whole lot, and get politicians the senior vote.
But carriers don't feel like doing it.
Why not make it 1mm thicker and keep the headphone jack?
To varying degrees, yes. But it's important not to lose sight of the extreme nature of the current administration.
This is about how Google has vast influence in what you see and what you read on the internet.
Private business. Nothing you can do about it unless we grant new regulatory powers to an agency like the FCC.
Same for Facebook, Twitter, and any other large internet corporation.
That's why you can't easily treat this as an anti-competitive issue. There are too many players to do that, unless we can establish some kind of collusion between these businesses. But I feel that is unlikely to produce the desired results.
Do you want your government owned by corporations, no matter their ideology or principles, or do you want a Constitutional Republic that is for the people and by the people. If you chose corporation, you failed.
I'm not here to talk about your personal ideology. I've only pointed out the current state of affairs as I see them and offered suggestions on the way out. You can take your flag waving to someone who gives a shit.
This has nothing to do with Citizens United nor is it related in any way.
I respectfully disagree. How corporations choose to support a political candidate is very much on topic here. But if you read it differently that's fine, I don't want to get bogged down in arguing something that where you're not likely to be convinced.
The Citizens United ruling gave corporations the right to express political views. If you don't like it, you'll have to overturn that ruling with new legislation (and potentially an amendment).
I feel like the current administration only likes it when the laws work for them, and want to ignore laws that are inconvenient for them. It's the sort of crap that dictators of a banana republic try to pull.
(not AC because clearly non-partisan. i.e. hopefully I pissed off everyone)
Europeans tried violence and war, two of the times were really awful and we shouldn't encourage them to repeat it.
I use Windows 10 at work. It likes to blow away my keyboard remapping and layout settings on some updates. So that's not very nice of it.
The new notification area does not appear to have any option to filter out unwanted applications or even disable it. About all I can do is snooze the notification popups for a while, but it resets if I reboot or even wake from suspend.
I figure if you're going to be a little bitch and upend your Windows ecosystem just because you can't deal with a few little changes, I might as well provide the contrary opinion.
I'm an embedded developer, so "Windows ecosystem" is an overly dramatic description of what I have. Most of my tools are Linux only. With a handful on Windows. To go completely to the Linux side is not as big of a step for me as it would be for someone in a different career.
I don't recommend living on food stamps if you have a choice. It really sucks.
My family is still on Windows 7 until 2020. I have about 90% of my regularly played games and apps working on Linux either natively or with wine. Aiming to never have a Windows 10 computer in my house.
Did you purchase those movies, or did you temporarily acquire rights to view them. Did you basically pay $19.99 to rent a movie for a few years? When you could have paid $24.99 for that same new release on Blu-Ray. And keep that physical copy for potentially decades (archival life of non-writable blu-ray seems high). In addition your Blu-Ray disc falls under first sale doctrine (17 U.S.C. Sec. 109), so a few years from now you can sell it or gift it legally if you decided you didn't want it. Instead of waiting for Apple to delete it under the ever-shifting sands of distribution rights agreements for streaming.
People really want the convenience of streaming, and are apparently willing to pay a premium for it. But there are still some major drawbacks compared to physical media.
I remember when a large page took 10-15 seconds to load in Lynx, and it wouldn't display until it the HTML was completely downloaded.
I think like most other things, the software expands as memory, network, and processing power increases. Leaving us with only slightly faster user experience rather than the 1000x faster experience that raw numbers might indicate. (4MB unix workstation running Lynx on a 20 MHz cpu, to a 16GB laptop with four 2 GHz cpus). It seems faster, but not massively so. Much prettier though.
And now we get to my [attempted] original point. Pretty web pages and fancy apps are going to drive mobile devices to higher levels of performance. Video streaming drives the network to become faster. And embedded videos and interactive sites drives more full featured web browsers.
theoretically it's the desktop sites that use more bandwidth. they are supposed to be simpler and easier for the device to process and contain less layout directives and fewer superfluous images. Arguable if it is successful in practice, but that is the intent.
Having a site that loads in 50ms versus 20ms won't really matter to a typical end-user. Of course a site that loads in 5 seconds versus 2 seconds will be noticeable. So scale does matter. I predict "desktop" sites will be able to load on our phones in that 50ms range one day. (conveniently I'll leave out when that day will be)