I thought Apple had, in a fairly recent iOS update, made it so that an app couldn't just silently query a person's contact data... that the application would need to declare to the OS that it was going to do this, the OS would then check with the user to see if it was okay. If the user hadn't given permission, I thought trying to access the contact data from an app would be futile.
Again, this was just my understanding here... so either this is only an issue with older iOS versions, or else my understanding is completely borked, and I have no idea what I'm talking about.
If they really want to ensure that their ad gets views, then they should be horrified at the notion that the player which plays back the video actually runs on the client, and can, with some amount of technical skill, be modified by the client to save the entire video to a person's hard drive in the same definition that it is being viewed.
Is having the skill to accomplish this task illegal?
If not, then what about teaching others how to do it?
In other words, at what point does the mere *KNOWLEDGE* of something like that become illegal? And when did copyright law start governing what information other people are allowed to know?
I'm not saying that everything online is or should be public domain. I'm suggesting that absolutely ANYONE who watches a video is, inherently, downloading a copy of that video, and that there is absolutely no means that the provider can detect whether the recipient might be saving a copy of any part or parts of that work for their own personal and private use. If it's really not just for their own use, then I can see *THAT* activity being discouraged, but then they should go after them for *THAT* activity, not for simply copying stuff they download from Youtube.
I'll see your banning of stereo cables and raise with mandatory lobotomies so that people can't retain any "unauthorized non-digital copies" in their brains.
Why would it matter to Youtube if somebody rips the sound track from a video? If it's an issue of unauthorized copies, then shouldn't the video with the unauthorized soundtrack on itin the first place be taken down?
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I read the article and I really don't see what difference it should make to Google, since they have *NO* ability to even *know* whether or not a user might be ripping the sound track from a video in the first place.
And really... how hard would have been to give a response more like > this?
Of course... it's far easier to criticize and insult somebody than it is to come up with constructive responses. I asked a genuine question, and the above poster (who I cannot even credit, since he posted AC) managed to address it without being either condescending or insulting.
Thank you... that's exactly the sort of response that I was looking for... it explains, in everyday terms, why this accomplishment matters, and why people who might not be affected by it now might still be interested in knowing about it.
Your sarcasm has not gone unnoticed... but perhaps you thought that I too was being sarcastic when I said "it's not my intent to downplay the accomplishmeent". I wasn't. I was asking either why anybody outside the field of theoretical physics would care about this, or else be impacted by this discovery.... Presumably, there must be *SOME* perceived impact, or else why would it be all over the news like Apple announcing a new consumer product?
Really, if that's about as much as any regular person can be expected to care about this, and if it's really not such a big deal outside of the theoretical physics community, then why is it all over the news and assorted venues that may have a passing association with the popular science culture, but are not actually impacted by the discovery?
Perhaps you missed reading the second sentence of my post, above. Please do so.
I ask because this is making headline news like everybody and their dog needs to know about it, and while I can agree that it could be very exciting for people who are actually *IN* that sort of field, I really want to understand why it is such a big deal that it makes front page headline news in NON-scientific venues.
I write computer games for a living, and I've been hearing several people talk about it around me at work all day, but there's not a one of us who's liable to be impacted by this discovery in any way that I can foresee.
Okay... they've discovered a particle that confirms existing theories about the universe are actually correct. That's really cool, and it's not my intent to downplay that accomplishment.
But now what happens?
I mean, it's all well and good to know that it exists, but what can we actually *DO* with that knowledge?
What does the existence of the "God Particle" actually mean for the future science? Will it actually ever make any difference to anybody's future who isn't into theoretical physics?
The CLI shines brightest when it used for tasks that could not have been reasonably anticipated by system designers, and so there is no GUI approach to the problem. They are the exception, to be sure... perhaps accounting for less than 1/100th of a percent a person's workflow, but it is not a flaw in the design of a GUI that it cannot accommodate every possible thing a person might ever want to do with a possibly very brief script, because to my understanding, you cannot make a GUI Turing complete.
Water molecule size, roughly 0.340 nm
Salt molecule size, roughly 0.500 nm
Graphene molecule size, roughly 0.142 nm
Difference in size between water and salt molecule, roughly 0.160 nm
The difference in size between water and salt is just barely more than the size of a single graphene molecule, so that leaves absolutely *NO* margin for error when designing the graphene sheet with those holes.
This might very well have already been proven to really work... but I expect it would be extremely cost ineffective at larger scales owing to the consistent and extremely accurate precision that would be needed when trying to do this at a macroscopic scale.
Do you have any idea how many times duplicate patent applications happen? The mere notion that two people could come up with the same idea and produce a similar enough specification for it should render it obvious and non-patentable would, I dare say, render virtually *ALL* patents as invalid, including many things that are entirely reasonable to have a patent on.
"if you can implement the patent without access to the written description, them it is obvious to anyone sufficiently skilled in the art" and thus invalid.
I understand where you are coming form with this point of view, but that also means that anything which is independently invented by two or more people can't be patented.
Any person's claim, however correct the assessment may happen to be, that they are a perfectly safe driver if they've only had a little to drink is completely indistinguishable from self-delusion to anyone else.
I see absolutely no compelling reason to take anybody's word for it, and I don't.
So it's not the insurance that's a scam... it's denial of coverage *AFTER* paying that is a scam.
They are, in fact, two entirely different things. I know more people who've received the benefits they've needed when they needed them than those who have been denied coverage, in spite of paying into the program.
I offer my sincere condolences for your situation, but your experience does not render the concept of health insurance invalid, since people can, and often do, benefit. I expect it's hardly any consolation, but your experience is actually the exception, and not the rule. The reason you hear about it happening as much as you do is because that's not how the system is supposed to function. When a system is working correctly, it's not news... nobody notices. It's only when the system breaks that people make noise, which artificially can make the problem seem more widespread than it actually is.
According to a census taken in, I think, 2000, roughly 80% of Americans live in in urban, not rural areas. And unless a job actually involves driving, in such areas, a drivers license is not generally a strict requirement to find a job... it only becomes necessary on a practical level if public transit is ineffective in the area (which I know does happen, but is worse in some cities than others).
Slashdot Mirror
If they have only fractions of the mass of conventional buildings, then how are they massive in the first place?
I thought Apple had, in a fairly recent iOS update, made it so that an app couldn't just silently query a person's contact data... that the application would need to declare to the OS that it was going to do this, the OS would then check with the user to see if it was okay. If the user hadn't given permission, I thought trying to access the contact data from an app would be futile.
Again, this was just my understanding here... so either this is only an issue with older iOS versions, or else my understanding is completely borked, and I have no idea what I'm talking about.
If they really want to ensure that their ad gets views, then they should be horrified at the notion that the player which plays back the video actually runs on the client, and can, with some amount of technical skill, be modified by the client to save the entire video to a person's hard drive in the same definition that it is being viewed.
Is having the skill to accomplish this task illegal?
If not, then what about teaching others how to do it?
In other words, at what point does the mere *KNOWLEDGE* of something like that become illegal? And when did copyright law start governing what information other people are allowed to know?
I'm not saying that everything online is or should be public domain. I'm suggesting that absolutely ANYONE who watches a video is, inherently, downloading a copy of that video, and that there is absolutely no means that the provider can detect whether the recipient might be saving a copy of any part or parts of that work for their own personal and private use. If it's really not just for their own use, then I can see *THAT* activity being discouraged, but then they should go after them for *THAT* activity, not for simply copying stuff they download from Youtube.
I'll see your banning of stereo cables and raise with mandatory lobotomies so that people can't retain any "unauthorized non-digital copies" in their brains.
Why would it matter to Youtube if somebody rips the sound track from a video? If it's an issue of unauthorized copies, then shouldn't the video with the unauthorized soundtrack on itin the first place be taken down?
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I read the article and I really don't see what difference it should make to Google, since they have *NO* ability to even *know* whether or not a user might be ripping the sound track from a video in the first place.
And really... how hard would have been to give a response more like > this?
Of course... it's far easier to criticize and insult somebody than it is to come up with constructive responses. I asked a genuine question, and the above poster (who I cannot even credit, since he posted AC) managed to address it without being either condescending or insulting.
Thank you... that's exactly the sort of response that I was looking for... it explains, in everyday terms, why this accomplishment matters, and why people who might not be affected by it now might still be interested in knowing about it.
Your sarcasm has not gone unnoticed... but perhaps you thought that I too was being sarcastic when I said "it's not my intent to downplay the accomplishmeent". I wasn't. I was asking either why anybody outside the field of theoretical physics would care about this, or else be impacted by this discovery.... Presumably, there must be *SOME* perceived impact, or else why would it be all over the news like Apple announcing a new consumer product?
"So?"
Really, if that's about as much as any regular person can be expected to care about this, and if it's really not such a big deal outside of the theoretical physics community, then why is it all over the news and assorted venues that may have a passing association with the popular science culture, but are not actually impacted by the discovery?
Perhaps you missed reading the second sentence of my post, above. Please do so.
I ask because this is making headline news like everybody and their dog needs to know about it, and while I can agree that it could be very exciting for people who are actually *IN* that sort of field, I really want to understand why it is such a big deal that it makes front page headline news in NON-scientific venues.
I write computer games for a living, and I've been hearing several people talk about it around me at work all day, but there's not a one of us who's liable to be impacted by this discovery in any way that I can foresee.
Okay... they've discovered a particle that confirms existing theories about the universe are actually correct. That's really cool, and it's not my intent to downplay that accomplishment.
But now what happens?
I mean, it's all well and good to know that it exists, but what can we actually *DO* with that knowledge?
What does the existence of the "God Particle" actually mean for the future science? Will it actually ever make any difference to anybody's future who isn't into theoretical physics?
The CLI shines brightest when it used for tasks that could not have been reasonably anticipated by system designers, and so there is no GUI approach to the problem. They are the exception, to be sure... perhaps accounting for less than 1/100th of a percent a person's workflow, but it is not a flaw in the design of a GUI that it cannot accommodate every possible thing a person might ever want to do with a possibly very brief script, because to my understanding, you cannot make a GUI Turing complete.
Which means he is suggesting that taking it out altogether would be just as good a solution as keeping it only as an option.
Water molecule size, roughly 0.340 nm
Salt molecule size, roughly 0.500 nm
Graphene molecule size, roughly 0.142 nm
Difference in size between water and salt molecule, roughly 0.160 nm
The difference in size between water and salt is just barely more than the size of a single graphene molecule, so that leaves absolutely *NO* margin for error when designing the graphene sheet with those holes.
This might very well have already been proven to really work... but I expect it would be extremely cost ineffective at larger scales owing to the consistent and extremely accurate precision that would be needed when trying to do this at a macroscopic scale.
Do you have any idea how many times duplicate patent applications happen? The mere notion that two people could come up with the same idea and produce a similar enough specification for it should render it obvious and non-patentable would, I dare say, render virtually *ALL* patents as invalid, including many things that are entirely reasonable to have a patent on.
I understand where you are coming form with this point of view, but that also means that anything which is independently invented by two or more people can't be patented.
You are, I presume, being deliberately ironic. The notion that the Apollo lunar landings were faked does not stand up to even modest logical scrutiny.
Not that it makes any real difference to me, I guess... It's not like I have a spare $150 mill.
Any person's claim, however correct the assessment may happen to be, that they are a perfectly safe driver if they've only had a little to drink is completely indistinguishable from self-delusion to anyone else.
I see absolutely no compelling reason to take anybody's word for it, and I don't.
What's going to happen when Netflix starts showing ads? Slowly at first, but over the years, just as much as any commercial network today.
Oh... duh. Of course... people will just go back to pirating content like they always did.
I had initially misread it as "The long death of fat cats".
My brain was all like, "What the hell?" Then when I opened the page to read comments I read the headline correctly.
Weird.
So it's not the insurance that's a scam... it's denial of coverage *AFTER* paying that is a scam.
They are, in fact, two entirely different things. I know more people who've received the benefits they've needed when they needed them than those who have been denied coverage, in spite of paying into the program.
I offer my sincere condolences for your situation, but your experience does not render the concept of health insurance invalid, since people can, and often do, benefit. I expect it's hardly any consolation, but your experience is actually the exception, and not the rule. The reason you hear about it happening as much as you do is because that's not how the system is supposed to function. When a system is working correctly, it's not news... nobody notices. It's only when the system breaks that people make noise, which artificially can make the problem seem more widespread than it actually is.
According to a census taken in, I think, 2000, roughly 80% of Americans live in in urban, not rural areas. And unless a job actually involves driving, in such areas, a drivers license is not generally a strict requirement to find a job... it only becomes necessary on a practical level if public transit is ineffective in the area (which I know does happen, but is worse in some cities than others).
Just how screwed over would you be if somebody who was (doubtlessly) mentally unstable wanted to take you up on that offer?