What makes you think computers can't see the signs marking detours? It's perfectly within the possibilities of current OCR technology; in fact, there have been usable implementation of road sign processing for years.
Same for changed traffic pattern, especially if there's more than one autonomous car in the zone (since they can communicate in ways that humans can't).
They even understand the policeman who waves at them.
Yeah, and so can an Xbox with a $100 addon. It's really not that hard nowadays to track and recognize those kinds of movements.
Hum, in most large deployments, the databases are not even in the same machine, let alone VM, as the web server. This is the only way to ensure you can scale (adding more web servers dynamically) and optimize the systems for their workloads.
Well, as I said, with OpenID the providers knows exactly what sites you logged in to, while with Persona they just sign a certificate your browser gives them, vouching for your identity, without getting the site.
In terms of UI, Persona uses email addresses instead of URLs, which are easier for non-techies to grasp as an authentication identifier.
Problem is, a single growing quarter doesn't mean we've hit rock bottom. So, yes, technically this recession may be over, but that doesn't mean we won't have a new one half a year from now.
Sure, but what I was replying to was "Any sites you enable JS for will load Google's JS, even if NoScript prevents them from executing", which is simply not true.
Uh, none of those are scripts, which is what NoScript blocks. Whether images are loaded has nothing to do with "Google's JS" being loaded despite NoScript, as it was claimed.
No, it's not the same thing, because 1) you don't have to use Google to use Persona, and 2) with Persona, Google doesn't know where you're logging in to.
Persona only needs a "middle man" if the domain you use doesn't support it natively. It's a fallback, not a requirement.
If you used a provider that supported Persona natively, not only you wouldn't need Mozilla as the middle man, as (unlike with OpenID), that same provider wouldn't know where you were logging in to.
2) The first bridge was for Yahoo, not Google, and it's part of an authentication system (Persona) that is actually completely unbiased towards any provider.
Most people who don't eat meat do so because they don't like the taste, the texture
That makes no sense, because "meat" has no common taste or texture. A fillet of salmon and a pork steak are nothing alike, neither in taste nor texture.
And how does that client know the key hasn't been replaced by someone else's? Yes, the message can be signed. But if you don't have the key, you can't verify the signature either, so that can be faked too.
TLS is fine until you reach the MTA. Then you have no guarantee that the message won't be passed as plain text. And even if TLS is used on each hop (unlikely), you still don't have a real end-to-end secure connection, just a chain of many connections, with middle men who can see all the emails.
The problem with Bitcoin (and blockchain based currencies) is that they don't really deal well with microtransactions. Since each transaction has to be sent and confirmed by a bunch of nodes, they impose a lot of strain on the miners. Eventually we should see rising transaction fees, which will probably kill such systems.
They didn't just get made up because it was fun to regulate taxi drivers, they're there to protect people getting into the back of cars with strangers driving them.
Oh, please. They are there because the taxi drivers lobbied for it, going as far as rioting in the streets, beating the other drivers senseless and cutting off traffic in the financial districts, because during the great depression everyone who had a car was competing with them.
If they can't ensure the source is valid, they need to specify that in the contract with their provider, so that they can know demand a reimbursement from the costs of this action. Ignorance is not an excuse in many legal wrongs, and copyright infringement is no exception, otherwise all those people writing "NO COPYRIGHT INTENDED" on Youtube wouldn't be liable either.
Good. Let them spend their money reimplementing the wheel, it gives us Free Software developers a leg up. The company I work for has already replaced dozens of SAP installations thanks to community shared code.
There's plenty of good films being made outside of the hugely inflated machines of Hollywood. For example, Amour, winner of last year's Palme d'Or, had a budget of less than $9 million. Pulp Fiction had an even smaller budget ($8.5M).
Movies take millions of dollars because it all goes into their pockets (it's called Hollywood accounting - look it up). If we cut the government monopoly and forced them to compete, budgets would adjust without hurting quality significantly. Maybe you wouldn't have Avatar, but I'm sure we can live without it.
I earn a living writing copyrighted works (software), and I'm still against copyright. And it has nothing to do with not wanting to "pay a dollar for a song" - I'm more than happy to do so (as long as it doesn't feed the RIAA).
Slashdot Mirror
What makes you think computers can't see the signs marking detours? It's perfectly within the possibilities of current OCR technology; in fact, there have been usable implementation of road sign processing for years.
Same for changed traffic pattern, especially if there's more than one autonomous car in the zone (since they can communicate in ways that humans can't).
They even understand the policeman who waves at them.
Yeah, and so can an Xbox with a $100 addon. It's really not that hard nowadays to track and recognize those kinds of movements.
Hum, in most large deployments, the databases are not even in the same machine, let alone VM, as the web server. This is the only way to ensure you can scale (adding more web servers dynamically) and optimize the systems for their workloads.
For example, see the Stack Overflow architecture: http://blog.serverfault.com/2011/09/
Frankly, if you're running the RDBMS on the same server as the web service, you're - like me - running a toy database.
Well, as I said, with OpenID the providers knows exactly what sites you logged in to, while with Persona they just sign a certificate your browser gives them, vouching for your identity, without getting the site.
In terms of UI, Persona uses email addresses instead of URLs, which are easier for non-techies to grasp as an authentication identifier.
Problem is, a single growing quarter doesn't mean we've hit rock bottom. So, yes, technically this recession may be over, but that doesn't mean we won't have a new one half a year from now.
Sure, but what I was replying to was "Any sites you enable JS for will load Google's JS, even if NoScript prevents them from executing", which is simply not true.
Uh, none of those are scripts, which is what NoScript blocks. Whether images are loaded has nothing to do with "Google's JS" being loaded despite NoScript, as it was claimed.
No, it's not the same thing, because 1) you don't have to use Google to use Persona, and 2) with Persona, Google doesn't know where you're logging in to.
Persona only needs a "middle man" if the domain you use doesn't support it natively. It's a fallback, not a requirement.
If you used a provider that supported Persona natively, not only you wouldn't need Mozilla as the middle man, as (unlike with OpenID), that same provider wouldn't know where you were logging in to.
Uh, you haven't actually used it, have you? You can enable scripts for the main domain, while keeping Google services blocked.
1) This is not part of Firefox
2) The first bridge was for Yahoo, not Google, and it's part of an authentication system (Persona) that is actually completely unbiased towards any provider.
Most people who don't eat meat do so because they don't like the taste, the texture
That makes no sense, because "meat" has no common taste or texture. A fillet of salmon and a pork steak are nothing alike, neither in taste nor texture.
Yes, but that would need Adobe to implement such a feature, and why would they?
And how does that client know the key hasn't been replaced by someone else's? Yes, the message can be signed. But if you don't have the key, you can't verify the signature either, so that can be faked too.
TLS is fine until you reach the MTA. Then you have no guarantee that the message won't be passed as plain text. And even if TLS is used on each hop (unlikely), you still don't have a real end-to-end secure connection, just a chain of many connections, with middle men who can see all the emails.
The problem with Bitcoin (and blockchain based currencies) is that they don't really deal well with microtransactions. Since each transaction has to be sent and confirmed by a bunch of nodes, they impose a lot of strain on the miners. Eventually we should see rising transaction fees, which will probably kill such systems.
The unemployment rate in my country for my age bracket is 38%. The idea I can "just" move to a new a company is not realistic.
They didn't just get made up because it was fun to regulate taxi drivers, they're there to protect people getting into the back of cars with strangers driving them.
Oh, please. They are there because the taxi drivers lobbied for it, going as far as rioting in the streets, beating the other drivers senseless and cutting off traffic in the financial districts, because during the great depression everyone who had a car was competing with them.
Here's an article from 1934: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/17056337/
If they can't ensure the source is valid, they need to specify that in the contract with their provider, so that they can know demand a reimbursement from the costs of this action. Ignorance is not an excuse in many legal wrongs, and copyright infringement is no exception, otherwise all those people writing "NO COPYRIGHT INTENDED" on Youtube wouldn't be liable either.
Good. Let them spend their money reimplementing the wheel, it gives us Free Software developers a leg up. The company I work for has already replaced dozens of SAP installations thanks to community shared code.
If they're not distributing the source, good riddance. Let them pay to build their own proprietary implementations.
No, that's not the point of the GPL. The point of the GPL is to uphold the four software Freedoms, has defined by rms in the Free Software concept.
The GPL may be useful for saving money, but that's just an helpful side effect, not the main purpose.
And you may not need to adopt its principles, but you certainly need to adopt its requirements.
If you distribute any third-party code, you need to do that anyway. It's not the GPL, it's copyright.
Copyright is violence. The GPL is self-defense. There's no double standard, even if they use similar means.
There's plenty of good films being made outside of the hugely inflated machines of Hollywood. For example, Amour, winner of last year's Palme d'Or, had a budget of less than $9 million. Pulp Fiction had an even smaller budget ($8.5M).
Movies take millions of dollars because it all goes into their pockets (it's called Hollywood accounting - look it up). If we cut the government monopoly and forced them to compete, budgets would adjust without hurting quality significantly. Maybe you wouldn't have Avatar, but I'm sure we can live without it.
I earn a living writing copyrighted works (software), and I'm still against copyright. And it has nothing to do with not wanting to "pay a dollar for a song" - I'm more than happy to do so (as long as it doesn't feed the RIAA).