Some states, such as California, impose "use taxes" on items imported from other states. These "use taxes" are exactly the same percentage as sales taxes in those areas, but because they aren't technically taxing the sale, they get away with it under our constitution.
You had to side-load it, right? That's the point, you can't install another App Store without side-loading, which is riskier than third-party app stores.
And of course other stores aren't on Google Play That would be like Walmat allowing a Bestbuy to setup inside its walls
The problem with you analogy is that Walmart (Google Play in your analogy) is the only store where you can "legally" shop. Every other store is considered "under the table" and "use at your own risk"--kind of like buying from the guy on the street corner in front of Walmart.
A better analogy for what I would like Google Play to be, is a shopping mall. Lots of stores under one roof.
Do you buy products from every back-alley Web site that offers merchandise for sale? No, probably not. You learn which ones can be trusted. Are there shady sites that try to scam you? Of course. Should we have only one Store where you buy things, to make sure you stay safe? Hardly.
There are a few interesting and useful applications for IoT. Home security systems and remote medical devices, for example. But for the most part, it's just an excuse to charge you more for a product. Do I really need my lights, air conditioning, sprinklers, refrigerator, coffee maker connected to the Internet? Yeah, some of it's cool, but is it worth the added risk?
Google IS currently free to do what they want. But should they be?
I'd like to see alternate app stores become available, giving users a real choice. Yes, I know Amazon and Samsung have their own stores, but they are available only to users of their own branded devices. Of course, you can side-load apps, but then you open the door to all kinds of security issues. What I want is alternative stores that are completely integrated. THAT would give us some true competition, and maybe some better rates for developers.
Locard's exchange principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locard%27s_exchange_principle) says that the perpetrator of a crime will always bring something into the crime scene, and leave something behind. This is one of the foundational principles of forensics.
Although private browsing doesn't equate to criminal activity, the principle applies. Electronically, you will always bring something with you, and leave something behind. There is not, and never will be, a truly "private" browsing experience, regardless of browser. There will always be trace evidence that can lead to discovery of what you were browsing, and what you did while there.
More broadly, this principle is true in all of life.
You are not thinking like a cheater. Of course, it's unlikely to defeat the x-ray itself. So you do what any cheater does: find holes in the process.
For example, it's unlikely that all bikes could be x-rayed at the same time, in the seconds just before the race. The process takes time. That means that bikes will be sitting somewhere--theoretically in a secure area--for some period of time after the x-ray. This leaves open an opportunity to bribe someone, or breach security in some other way, to make the desired modifications after inspection.
Another possibility is to find a way to swap out a look-alike cheater model, for the duly inspected version. In any long bike race, it's unlikely that every foot of the course is under the watchful eye of officials, leaving room for a secret exchange. Or even if every foot is being watched, there's still the possibility of paying someone off to look the other way.
So yes, your x-ray itself would be hard to defeat. But that does not make the method foolproof.
Remedies like whitelisting might be effective, but if you've ever worked in a corporation--typically large ones--that use it, you know that it's a nightmare to manage. When you need to get something done, waiting for your whitelist request to be approved can take so long that you might as well not try to use the tool.
It's interesting that the author said NOTHING about password complexity. This is one of the stupidest security measures, at least in the way it is typically implemented. For example, you must change your password every month, it must have three different punctuation characters, numbers, upper, and lower case, and can't be any one of your last 50 passwords. All this type of rule list does is make people write down their passwords (because they can't remember them) or find some pattern that defeats the system. Two-factor authentication is far better and more secure.
1. People who trade on the ups and downs, hoping to outsmart the market. If you're in this game, the computers will always win. They can do it much faster, and much more accurately, than you can.
2. People who buy stocks because they want to own a piece of a company they believe in. These kinds of investors are in it for the long haul, and if they do their homework, they will beat the computers every time.
The blockchain isn't even on the list of important inventions of our age.
To ask whether it's the most important, is like asking if Ryan Hoyer is the most important quarterback in the NFL. He's really important to one city, but he couldn't handle prime time.
I thought that the reason Iranian leaders hate America so much is because it is a nation of infidels. How would Russia--with its atheist views--not be considered infidels too?
There might be times when it's nice to have the second person helping pedal up a long hill. But you're certainly not going to double your speed or your stamina with two people on one bicycle.
Pair programming is like that. There are specific situations where it's useful, especially when you're dealing with a tricky algorithm or intricate business requirements. But much of the time, the second person is just dead weight.
There is nothing about Nielson ratings that wouldn't work equally well--or poorly--compared to traditional TV or cable. Broadcast TV doesn't share viewer numbers at all, because they can't. So the fact that Netflix doesn't share numbers doesn't hinder Nielson at all, compared to broadcast TV. If they want those numbers, pay Nielson for them!
A "fundamentally unknowable" might fall into the "known unknowns" category.
Then of course there are unknown unknowns.
It's preposterous to suppose that we could know everything. It's akin to the patent office wanting to shut down a hundred years ago because everything had already been invented.
OK, so $150 billion went to corporations. In that same time, $2.1 trillion went to health care and social programs. It's pretty clear who is the big winner here.
Not if you're any good at what you do. Resumes or not, it costs a business a LOT of money to hire a new person, generally equivalent to 25-50% of the person's annual salary. Businesses do think hard about keeping good people.
It is possible to tell your boss you will not give up your life because they won't hire more people. It's all in the presentation. I know, I've done it many times, and have yet to be fired over it. I haven't been passed over for promotions or pay raises. AND my life has been relatively free of overtime, while many of my co-workers fell into the overtime treadmill.
That's funny, I'm pretty sure my money isn't being transferred to the 1%. But a whole lot of my money--thousands per year--is being transferred via taxes to the people less fortunate than I. Don't get me wrong, some of these people do need the help. But let's be clear about where the money is being "transferred."
The 1% in the US generally get rich by selling things, especially, a lot of things. If that's what you mean by "transferring," then fine, but I won't fault them for that. When you sell something, you should get money in return, and if you can make a profit, so much the better!
In any case, we have not reached the limit of our money supply. There is plenty of money to go around. If you want more of it, there are ways you can work more, or sell more, to get some of it. If you want to live on 20 hours of work a week, you can do that, it just won't be a life with multiple cars, loads of electronics, a big house, etc.
Like other solutions, this one is temporary at best. Sites are already starting to serve third-party ads from their own sites. They'll get better at it with time, until self-hosted ads will be as obnoxious as the third-party ads are now. Many sites have already succeeded in reaching this goal.
Slashdot Mirror
It won't take an amendment.
Some states, such as California, impose "use taxes" on items imported from other states. These "use taxes" are exactly the same percentage as sales taxes in those areas, but because they aren't technically taxing the sale, they get away with it under our constitution.
You had to side-load it, right? That's the point, you can't install another App Store without side-loading, which is riskier than third-party app stores.
And of course other stores aren't on Google Play That would be like Walmat allowing a Bestbuy to setup inside its walls
The problem with you analogy is that Walmart (Google Play in your analogy) is the only store where you can "legally" shop. Every other store is considered "under the table" and "use at your own risk"--kind of like buying from the guy on the street corner in front of Walmart.
A better analogy for what I would like Google Play to be, is a shopping mall. Lots of stores under one roof.
The Amazon App Store is only available on Amazon-branded devices.
From TechCrunch: "Google doesn’t allow competing app stores in the Play Store"
http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/...
Do you buy products from every back-alley Web site that offers merchandise for sale? No, probably not. You learn which ones can be trusted. Are there shady sites that try to scam you? Of course. Should we have only one Store where you buy things, to make sure you stay safe? Hardly.
There are a few interesting and useful applications for IoT. Home security systems and remote medical devices, for example. But for the most part, it's just an excuse to charge you more for a product. Do I really need my lights, air conditioning, sprinklers, refrigerator, coffee maker connected to the Internet? Yeah, some of it's cool, but is it worth the added risk?
Google IS currently free to do what they want. But should they be?
I'd like to see alternate app stores become available, giving users a real choice. Yes, I know Amazon and Samsung have their own stores, but they are available only to users of their own branded devices. Of course, you can side-load apps, but then you open the door to all kinds of security issues. What I want is alternative stores that are completely integrated. THAT would give us some true competition, and maybe some better rates for developers.
...must not have been part of the study. It takes a lot more than sleep deprivation to force me to use facebook!
No, progress won't be rolled back fifty years. Even if performance is rolled back 50%, that's only one or two years of progress "rolled back."
Maybe the difference is that the AdBlock browser doesn't "interfere" with other apps. It is its own app.
Unfortunately, the browser isn't a very good or very fast one. I quit using it after a couple of days because it was faster to just browse with ads.
Locard's exchange principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locard%27s_exchange_principle) says that the perpetrator of a crime will always bring something into the crime scene, and leave something behind. This is one of the foundational principles of forensics.
Although private browsing doesn't equate to criminal activity, the principle applies. Electronically, you will always bring something with you, and leave something behind. There is not, and never will be, a truly "private" browsing experience, regardless of browser. There will always be trace evidence that can lead to discovery of what you were browsing, and what you did while there.
More broadly, this principle is true in all of life.
You are not thinking like a cheater. Of course, it's unlikely to defeat the x-ray itself. So you do what any cheater does: find holes in the process.
For example, it's unlikely that all bikes could be x-rayed at the same time, in the seconds just before the race. The process takes time. That means that bikes will be sitting somewhere--theoretically in a secure area--for some period of time after the x-ray. This leaves open an opportunity to bribe someone, or breach security in some other way, to make the desired modifications after inspection.
Another possibility is to find a way to swap out a look-alike cheater model, for the duly inspected version. In any long bike race, it's unlikely that every foot of the course is under the watchful eye of officials, leaving room for a secret exchange. Or even if every foot is being watched, there's still the possibility of paying someone off to look the other way.
So yes, your x-ray itself would be hard to defeat. But that does not make the method foolproof.
Remedies like whitelisting might be effective, but if you've ever worked in a corporation--typically large ones--that use it, you know that it's a nightmare to manage. When you need to get something done, waiting for your whitelist request to be approved can take so long that you might as well not try to use the tool.
It's interesting that the author said NOTHING about password complexity. This is one of the stupidest security measures, at least in the way it is typically implemented. For example, you must change your password every month, it must have three different punctuation characters, numbers, upper, and lower case, and can't be any one of your last 50 passwords. All this type of rule list does is make people write down their passwords (because they can't remember them) or find some pattern that defeats the system. Two-factor authentication is far better and more secure.
Kind of like how the NFL checked the pressure of footballs just before the Super Bowl.
No matter what system is used to try to catch cheaters, cheaters will find a weakness in the system and exploit it.
There are two kinds of investors:
1. People who trade on the ups and downs, hoping to outsmart the market. If you're in this game, the computers will always win. They can do it much faster, and much more accurately, than you can.
2. People who buy stocks because they want to own a piece of a company they believe in. These kinds of investors are in it for the long haul, and if they do their homework, they will beat the computers every time.
The blockchain isn't even on the list of important inventions of our age.
To ask whether it's the most important, is like asking if Ryan Hoyer is the most important quarterback in the NFL. He's really important to one city, but he couldn't handle prime time.
What are the chances they are all using hashes? Just about nil.
Still, I use a similar system. I use the same base password with minor variations, and email myself a password hint so I can look it up later.
I thought that the reason Iranian leaders hate America so much is because it is a nation of infidels. How would Russia--with its atheist views--not be considered infidels too?
There might be times when it's nice to have the second person helping pedal up a long hill. But you're certainly not going to double your speed or your stamina with two people on one bicycle.
Pair programming is like that. There are specific situations where it's useful, especially when you're dealing with a tricky algorithm or intricate business requirements. But much of the time, the second person is just dead weight.
There is nothing about Nielson ratings that wouldn't work equally well--or poorly--compared to traditional TV or cable. Broadcast TV doesn't share viewer numbers at all, because they can't. So the fact that Netflix doesn't share numbers doesn't hinder Nielson at all, compared to broadcast TV. If they want those numbers, pay Nielson for them!
A "fundamentally unknowable" might fall into the "known unknowns" category.
Then of course there are unknown unknowns.
It's preposterous to suppose that we could know everything. It's akin to the patent office wanting to shut down a hundred years ago because everything had already been invented.
Tim Cook says Apple pays every tax dollar it owes. Maybe the key word is dollar here. He never said Apple pays every euro it owes!
OK, so $150 billion went to corporations. In that same time, $2.1 trillion went to health care and social programs. It's pretty clear who is the big winner here.
Not if you're any good at what you do. Resumes or not, it costs a business a LOT of money to hire a new person, generally equivalent to 25-50% of the person's annual salary. Businesses do think hard about keeping good people.
It is possible to tell your boss you will not give up your life because they won't hire more people. It's all in the presentation. I know, I've done it many times, and have yet to be fired over it. I haven't been passed over for promotions or pay raises. AND my life has been relatively free of overtime, while many of my co-workers fell into the overtime treadmill.
That's funny, I'm pretty sure my money isn't being transferred to the 1%. But a whole lot of my money--thousands per year--is being transferred via taxes to the people less fortunate than I. Don't get me wrong, some of these people do need the help. But let's be clear about where the money is being "transferred."
The 1% in the US generally get rich by selling things, especially, a lot of things. If that's what you mean by "transferring," then fine, but I won't fault them for that. When you sell something, you should get money in return, and if you can make a profit, so much the better!
In any case, we have not reached the limit of our money supply. There is plenty of money to go around. If you want more of it, there are ways you can work more, or sell more, to get some of it. If you want to live on 20 hours of work a week, you can do that, it just won't be a life with multiple cars, loads of electronics, a big house, etc.
Like other solutions, this one is temporary at best. Sites are already starting to serve third-party ads from their own sites. They'll get better at it with time, until self-hosted ads will be as obnoxious as the third-party ads are now. Many sites have already succeeded in reaching this goal.