Of course, then you would say, $50/year is outrageous, and you're not going to pay
So in REALITY, the site would have 0 customers, and would be shutdown
Really? I'm paying $50/year subscription to Orson Scott Cards e-zine. I'm doing it for a second year already, and... yes... it is still there, haven't been shutdown.
How's that as the single counterexample necessary to show the falsity of your statement?
I've attended a couple of Tech conferences where the presenters seem to assume that
- everyone is, or will be on Facebook
- everyone has, or will have an Apple device (iphone or ipad)
All rather short-sighted.
Short-sighted you say? Well, what more sort-sighted do you want when a big company (not related with the defense sector) assumes that TSA is forever or at least for long enough to construct a business case on its existence.
The worst is not that Apple would be wrong... on the contrary, the worst is that it makes business sense already to capitalize on the "sheepness factor" of the consumers (can't even be called customers) which will accept the govt invasion on their rights without limits (at least, no temporal limits in sight). If they accept the govt, accepting Apple's control or letting themselves fleeced by Facebook is a piece of cake: with such a reaction, chances are Apple and Facebook will exist forever.
(yeah... what do I expect? The 3 different pigs have won long ago - I suppose they are no longer just 3 - and we are zigzagging through boredom and pain looking for pigs on the wing).
Nuclear energy research has been funded the same way the internet was funded, the usual way research gets publicly funded in the US (or for that matter, elsewhere): The promise of military applications.
Fortunately, the internet brought a thing called Kickstarter... anyone willing to start a campaign?
Also, I think they should modify all future browsers to use extra caution when opening a file called "exploit.html" . In retrospect, it seems so obvious...
No need... a properly configured firewall will do it before the browser gets the page
I have so much desire to order from Alibaba, but I can't quite figure out how to verify that I won't be screwed. It seems almost guaranteed.
Try aliexpress.com first. I used them about 3-5 times this year, haven't been screwed in any of the occasions. (seems the funds are held in escrow until you get the goods and confirm or until you don't do anything for about 2 months - they assume in 2 months either you got the goods or you'll be triggering an incident with them).
For only $xx.99/mo you can cloudify it, CEO's will be 500% more impressed than if you pointed to a Dell in the forgotten corner because the cloud is so abstract, so future, so new and...
There is a group of guys at my workplace who do it every day on their lunch hour.
And not a one of them would understand this story
Or how to make a baby.
make baby
As you can see above, baby making is not hard. Even the deployment, painful as it is, is an one-off per child. What should worry anyone is: keeping input feed at right levels and correlated with "running"/"longjump"-ing/whatever, anti-malware protection, constant patching (as in: a new iGadget to keep in sync with the other "daemons" in the scho... err... system) and all other maintenance activities. These letting aside no possible way of hardware upgrades for the tens of years of lifetime and not manufacturer warranty from the very first day.
I would not hire anybody who is "Self Taught"... etc
Ambiguous criterion detected. Case the criterion fails to answer: having a formal degree in a non related field, with relevant experience for the position being self-taught (my case: graduated physics, have 20+ years professing as a software engineer/programmer, team lead, tech manager, etc).
Best practice from my perspective: do not collect the data at all.
More detailed:
Rule 1. don't do it Rule 2. if for some reasons, rule 1 cannot be followed, collect them but discard them immediately Rule 3. if for some reasons, the prev 2 rules cannot be obeyed, after collection put them on a WORN storage (that is: "Write Only, Read Never" media)
Yeap... my thoughts exactly... like in "copyright junkies, with their all-rights-reserved habit, opening the gateway to dangerously addictive world of open source and free culture"... right? Right!!!
(where was I?...Oy, pot heat... pass on that spliff, will yea?)
(I'm thinking of the sun's 11-year cycle and the recent larger-than-normal volcano activity)
Well, some say that the recent larger-than-normal volcano activity may be an effect rather than a cause (or, anyway, contribute in a positive feedback to GW). And it's possible they are right.
the trigger was a brief clip from the Doctor Who episode itself
In itself, the tech has shown an impressive quality if a brief clip was recognized in realtime...
I suppose you define "impressive" a bit differently than I do. I see nothing but overzealous idiots drunk on power and control abusing the shit out of any system that can react THAT fast...(sorry, it's a rather nasty side effect of being overexposed to Government abuse)
There are two aspects of this (the "technology" and "the (ab)use of the technology") and both of them can be categorized on the "impressive" dimension/axis. It just happens that I'd classify both of them as "impressive" in their absolute value, but... when I add also the "sign for the value", the things change into:
1. the technology - has a large positive value - to detect a short clip in realtime while streaming is a feat in my opinion
2. the use of the technology - has a large but negative value, like in "I'm exceptionally but unpleasantly impressed by the stupidity of using a powerful technology under the absolutely moronic assumption that any detection of a copyrighted sequence in a stream constitutes a copyright violation and must be terminated".
Last, but important enough to repeat myself: it is crucial to make the distinction between a technology and a particular use of the technology: fail to make this distinction and you will "terminate" a technology instead of "terminate an immoral/illegitimate use of the technology". E.g.Internet is the main technology used nowadays for infringing copyright; how about banning Internet in all its uses? What about encryption/Tor?
Whether something is infringing or NOT infringing, cannot be determined by matching content alone. Anything that only looks for matching content is intrinsically and fundamentally broken. Anyone who would design it that way and claim it to be correct is a liar and a fraud.
Correct. But that's exactly my point: the anyone who would etc is to blame and the reason for the blame is not because they designed the technology, but the way they use it (or claim it can be used) - is the second part of the logical conjunction that renders them liars.
This technology was designed to find infringement. It was not designed to find cute images of puppies. There is nothing in the code to recognize fair use. The technology is intrinsically broken.
Correction: as demonstrated, the technology is excellent (in its recognition capabilities). Also as demonstrated, the use of the technology for certain purposes (police copyright infringement) is broken. It doesn't mean that for other purposes (finding images of cute puppies included) the same technology cannot be excellent.
My point: don't blame the "robots", blame those who use them as "overlords". Otherwise, you'd be only adopting the same position to those who would very much like to ban/criminalize a technology (e.g. encryption? The use of Tor?) only because they can be used for copyright infringement or drug trafficking.
Developed world labor has its own massive hidden costs, and it starts several times more expensive. How come I never hear "How can we make our labor more competitive with the Chinese?"
Well, there's little an employee can do to work cheaper than a robot, which is the only way to beat the Chinese in manufacturing costs.
Instead, it's "How can we fuck over our employers for more money and benefits while simultaneously forcing them to keep employing us?"
When it should be" "How can I do something to earn my living without being employed on a wage".
Yes, I got the joke just fine thanks... My own response was a lot less serious before Slashdot commenting ate my own sarcastic closing tag because I forgot to add/code...
My apologies... (a typical case of Poe's law being alive and kicking).
I mean, Apple invented near slave labor conditions in China to build iProducts. Pretty sure Apple should take them to court for infringing on the "method of using Chinese for slave labor to build electronic devices while also increasing the suicide rate" patent
Dam'd if Samsung does it, dam'd if it doesn't.
You see, Apple was also the first to look into the working conditions and do something to improve them; highly likely they also patented this as well. I'd say Samsung is better not to do anything about it: it will infringe on only one Apple's patent instead of two (additionally to whatever benefits slave labor already provides).
Slashdot Mirror
I also know they're going into a debt crises, ...
Well... it's not like US have a monopoly on QE - Japan is at its eight already.
And apparently when my dad was my age and learning it it was a long steep curve, uphill, both ways, in the snow.
I concur... supplementary, the wind was always blowing in your face.
Of course, then you would say, $50/year is outrageous, and you're not going to pay
So in REALITY, the site would have 0 customers, and would be shutdown
Really? I'm paying $50/year subscription to Orson Scott Cards e-zine. I'm doing it for a second year already, and... yes... it is still there, haven't been shutdown.
How's that as the single counterexample necessary to show the falsity of your statement?
Someone find him and get a statement.
Can you buy a dinner with Kevin Bacon with bacon?
I guess it depends on the Bacon degree of separation - the lower, the better chances.
I've attended a couple of Tech conferences where the presenters seem to assume that
- everyone is, or will be on Facebook
- everyone has, or will have an Apple device (iphone or ipad)
All rather short-sighted.
Short-sighted you say? Well, what more sort-sighted do you want when a big company (not related with the defense sector) assumes that TSA is forever or at least for long enough to construct a business case on its existence.
The worst is not that Apple would be wrong... on the contrary, the worst is that it makes business sense already to capitalize on the "sheepness factor" of the consumers (can't even be called customers) which will accept the govt invasion on their rights without limits (at least, no temporal limits in sight).
If they accept the govt, accepting Apple's control or letting themselves fleeced by Facebook is a piece of cake: with such a reaction, chances are Apple and Facebook will exist forever.
(yeah... what do I expect? The 3 different pigs have won long ago - I suppose they are no longer just 3 - and we are zigzagging through boredom and pain looking for pigs on the wing).
Nuclear energy research has been funded the same way the internet was funded, the usual way research gets publicly funded in the US (or for that matter, elsewhere): The promise of military applications.
Fortunately, the internet brought a thing called Kickstarter... anyone willing to start a campaign?
Also, I think they should modify all future browsers to use extra caution when opening a file called "exploit.html" . In retrospect, it seems so obvious...
No need... a properly configured firewall will do it before the browser gets the page
I have so much desire to order from Alibaba, but I can't quite figure out how to verify that I won't be screwed. It seems almost guaranteed.
Try aliexpress.com first.
I used them about 3-5 times this year, haven't been screwed in any of the occasions. (seems the funds are held in escrow until you get the goods and confirm or until you don't do anything for about 2 months - they assume in 2 months either you got the goods or you'll be triggering an incident with them).
For only $xx.99/mo you can cloudify it, CEO's will be 500% more impressed than if you pointed to a Dell in the forgotten corner because the cloud is so abstract, so future, so new and ...
What if somebody trips on the power cord?
There is a group of guys at my workplace who do it every day on their lunch hour. And not a one of them would understand this story
Or how to make a baby.
make baby
As you can see above, baby making is not hard. Even the deployment, painful as it is, is an one-off per child.
What should worry anyone is: keeping input feed at right levels and correlated with "running"/"longjump"-ing/whatever, anti-malware protection, constant patching (as in: a new iGadget to keep in sync with the other "daemons" in the scho... err... system) and all other maintenance activities.
These letting aside no possible way of hardware upgrades for the tens of years of lifetime and not manufacturer warranty from the very first day.
I would not hire anybody who is "Self Taught"... etc
Ambiguous criterion detected.
Case the criterion fails to answer: having a formal degree in a non related field, with relevant experience for the position being self-taught (my case: graduated physics, have 20+ years professing as a software engineer/programmer, team lead, tech manager, etc).
Best practice from my perspective: do not collect the data at all.
More detailed:
Rule 1. don't do it
Rule 2. if for some reasons, rule 1 cannot be followed, collect them but discard them immediately
Rule 3. if for some reasons, the prev 2 rules cannot be obeyed, after collection put them on a WORN storage (that is: "Write Only, Read Never" media)
Can't it be both?
Yeap... my thoughts exactly... like in "copyright junkies, with their all-rights-reserved habit, opening the gateway to dangerously addictive world of open source and free culture"... right? Right!!!
(where was I?...Oy, pot heat... pass on that spliff, will yea?)
Seriously? Increased carbon emissions increase volcanoes? This I've never heard before.
Shifting mass distribution on the Earth crust causing adjustments in plate tectonics?
Un-possible! </grin>
(I'm thinking of the sun's 11-year cycle and the recent larger-than-normal volcano activity)
Well, some say that the recent larger-than-normal volcano activity may be an effect rather than a cause (or, anyway, contribute in a positive feedback to GW).
And it's possible they are right.
the trigger was a brief clip from the Doctor Who episode itself
In itself, the tech has shown an impressive quality if a brief clip was recognized in realtime...
I suppose you define "impressive" a bit differently than I do. I see nothing but overzealous idiots drunk on power and control abusing the shit out of any system that can react THAT fast...(sorry, it's a rather nasty side effect of being overexposed to Government abuse)
There are two aspects of this (the "technology" and "the (ab)use of the technology") and both of them can be categorized on the "impressive" dimension/axis.
It just happens that I'd classify both of them as "impressive" in their absolute value, but... when I add also the "sign for the value", the things change into:
1. the technology - has a large positive value - to detect a short clip in realtime while streaming is a feat in my opinion
2. the use of the technology - has a large but negative value, like in "I'm exceptionally but unpleasantly impressed by the stupidity of using a powerful technology under the absolutely moronic assumption that any detection of a copyrighted sequence in a stream constitutes a copyright violation and must be terminated".
Last, but important enough to repeat myself: it is crucial to make the distinction between a technology and a particular use of the technology: fail to make this distinction and you will "terminate" a technology instead of "terminate an immoral/illegitimate use of the technology".
E.g.Internet is the main technology used nowadays for infringing copyright; how about banning Internet in all its uses? What about encryption/Tor?
Whether something is infringing or NOT infringing, cannot be determined by matching content alone. Anything that only looks for matching content is intrinsically and fundamentally broken. Anyone who would design it that way and claim it to be correct is a liar and a fraud.
Correct. But that's exactly my point: the anyone who would etc is to blame and the reason for the blame is not because they designed the technology, but the way they use it (or claim it can be used) - is the second part of the logical conjunction that renders them liars.
This technology was designed to find infringement. It was not designed to find cute images of puppies. There is nothing in the code to recognize fair use. The technology is intrinsically broken.
Correction: as demonstrated, the technology is excellent (in its recognition capabilities). Also as demonstrated, the use of the technology for certain purposes (police copyright infringement) is broken.
It doesn't mean that for other purposes (finding images of cute puppies included) the same technology cannot be excellent.
My point: don't blame the "robots", blame those who use them as "overlords". Otherwise, you'd be only adopting the same position to those who would very much like to ban/criminalize a technology (e.g. encryption? The use of Tor?) only because they can be used for copyright infringement or drug trafficking.
the trigger was a brief clip from the Doctor Who episode itself
In itself, the tech has shown an impressive quality if a brief clip was recognized in realtime.
Would anyone blame the hammer because it's an excellent tool to drive nails under one's... well... nails?
Developed world labor has its own massive hidden costs, and it starts several times more expensive. How come I never hear "How can we make our labor more competitive with the Chinese?"
Well, there's little an employee can do to work cheaper than a robot, which is the only way to beat the Chinese in manufacturing costs.
Instead, it's "How can we fuck over our employers for more money and benefits while simultaneously forcing them to keep employing us?"
When it should be" "How can I do something to earn my living without being employed on a wage".
really? Whenever i try that it just exacerbates the problem.
You should try it with elderly women.
Yes, I got the joke just fine thanks... My own response was a lot less serious before Slashdot commenting ate my own sarcastic closing tag because I forgot to add /code...
My apologies... (a typical case of Poe's law being alive and kicking).
Yes, would you mind if they copied Apple for an altruistic reason for once?
What?!? This is an attack to free market, freedom and other high values in someone's constitution! That's commie think!!
</very_large_grin> (warning: if you continue down this path, I'll feel compelled to issue a whooosh! ticket)
I mean, Apple invented near slave labor conditions in China to build iProducts. Pretty sure Apple should take them to court for infringing on the "method of using Chinese for slave labor to build electronic devices while also increasing the suicide rate" patent
Dam'd if Samsung does it, dam'd if it doesn't.
You see, Apple was also the first to look into the working conditions and do something to improve them; highly likely they also patented this as well.
I'd say Samsung is better not to do anything about it: it will infringe on only one Apple's patent instead of two (additionally to whatever benefits slave labor already provides).
Should we not expect ... XYZ... paid for by Samsung?
All of these are things Apple has done with FoxConn.
If Samsung would do the same, won't it risk suits of... ripping off what Apple did?
</grin>