Of course you're right... if you zoom in, you can see a lot more, but then you diminish your field of view, so unless you know where to look, you still aren't going to see anything that probably isn't also quite visible from the ground with a telescope.
Any stealth satellites or the like that they want to put up there must necessarily be fairly small or, you know, we'd be able to see them if we just happened to be looking the right way at the time.
Although I can think in words when I explicitly want to, I find that the most accurate way to describe how I normally think is in terms of either images or else general concepts that I have an intuitive understanding of or at least the ability to imagine.
Argh.... I hit submit instead of preview, and said the exact opposite of what I meant to type. I meant you can see these largest objects from the ground when you are simply looking up at the night sky, even if you didn't exactly know where to look and when.
Do you know how tiny those man-made things are in comparison?
While it's possible to pick out man made objects, you certainly aren't going to image them with enough fidelity to be able to tell what they are unless you are actively trying to zoom in for a closer look.
And the objects that are big enough to see from a good distance away aren't unknown in the first place because you can see them from the ground if you know where to look and when.
Well, I'm not in the USA for one... I live in Canada. Although I wouldn't have expected US banks to be very different in that regard. Both the Toronto Dominion bank and Royal Bank of Canada require the customer to set up their PIN in a branch before they can use their card for the first time. After that, any replacement card they send will be on the same PIN until you go and change it. I think you can change your PIN anytime you want at the bank ATM's as well, but setting it up for the first time definitely requires seeing a teller. I would expect that the policy for resetting a forgotten PIN would be similar.
My point was that although there aren't many, that hasn't stopped some from becoming successful, while repealing net neutrality could be catastrophic for the little guy in the future who might have otherwise been quite successful.
The bank won't mail you a PIN. In my experience, you have to go into a branch and set up your PIN at least once. After that, any replacement card they send will use the same PIN until you go to a branch and change it.
If he'd kept the mining down to a high-but-not-suspicious level he could've mined for weeks and sold his Verge for USD nd walked away with tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars by summer and maybe millions by Christmas.
Do you seriously think that even that rate would not have gone unnoticed? A million dollars in only a few weeks? That's conspicuous.
Also, since this was a bug, there's every chance that it would have been fixed during that time, and any further attempt would be blocked cold. If the attacker were actually working at a rate that was below suspicion, he might have only walked away with a few bucks.
True... but at the same time, if this was the result of a bug, then that bug could have been fixed at any time, possibly before the person attempting the attack had an opportunity to make a decent amount from it, and negating the point of doing it in the first place... He might have gotten away with it, but all he may have walked away with before the bug got fixed was a few bucks.
And just how spread out do you think he would have to have done that to not be detected, while at the same time still generating enough currency to be seriously profitable? He generated $780,000 in only 3 hours, but honestly even generating that much over 3 years might still raise eyebrows. And that's even assuming that the bug remained unfixed after all that time, which it probably wouldn't.
I don't think so, but should that matter? The fact that there aren't many doesn't mean that they have an insignificant impact. Minecraft started as an indy game, for example.
That sucks for the indy game developer though, because their traffic would get relegated to the slow lane until they got big enough to be able to afford to pay for it. With high latency, their games might not ever become popular enough for them to get big because the latency would interfere with play enjoyment.
If there was no observable indication that the number appeared to be increasing at alarming rates, as is the case with the other statistics you cited, then your sarcastically delivered point about panicking about this would be well made.
If you are observing an exponential growth in the number of cases from year to year, however, then the fact that its observed impact so far may not yet have grown to be even anywhere nearly as significant as the impact of other factors is not sufficient cause to be so dismissive.
In fact, capacity and production levels are still down significantly from pre-2008 levels as well... if automation were a significant contributing factor to the lack of recovery in unemployment over the past decade, capacity and production levels from before the recession would have long since been exceeded by now, but they have not.
Suggesting that automation is somehow to blame, or even largely to blame for the lack of recovery is an oversimplification to the point of being factually wrong.
I'm not sure why you'd say that... leaving aside its ad-hominem nature, it's a grossly inaccurate assessment. I'm just someone who objects to historical revisionism. I'm not suggesting that any of the above people I mentioned invented the term "open source" either... I'm only saying it sure as heck wasn't coined in 1998.
The problem I think people are having is not that OSI did not initiate the open source movement as they claim, but that they somehow actually coined the very term "open source" as it applies to software.
The word was in use in that context long before 1998...
One can also without too much difficulty find references to the term "open source" simply by searching old *.programmer groups on usenet.
Here's a couple that I found without too much difficulty using google from 1993
and 1996.
Also, here's another one from the comp.os.linux newsgroup from 1993 when discussing binary-only software for Linux.
Speaking for myself, I first heard the term in the late 1980's, in connection with an MSDOS game called Moria. No link for that one I'm afraid, though... that was on a dial-up BBS, and not on the Internet. Perhaps a record of this usage exists somewhere online whose date can be verified, but I wouldn't know where or how to search for it.
Anyways, I think what people might be getting their shorts in a knot about is that OSI's claiming to have coined the term comes across as some form of attempted history revisionism, by repeating a factually untrue statement that might require a modest effort to verify frequently enough that people start believing it without checking because they've simply heard it so often.
Well... the sharp unemployment rise in '09 that the chart on that page refers to was because of a recession... not because of automation.
And I call it baseless because it is speculative on the hypothesis that somehow automation that manages to replace more than a certain threshold of jobs we currently have would somehow mean that we'd have large scale permanent unemployment when historically that has not been the case even on a smaller scale in the cases of smaller instances of automation.
We won't have nearly as clear picture what happens when industrial society develops start-to-finish automation.
Not nearly as clear, no... but there's not any reason beyond baseless paranoia to expect that it will be significantly different from any other historically deployed form of automation either.
Also, although I can't find a link to it with a verified date, I remember playing an MSDOS game in the late 1980's called Moria that was also released as "open source". The term was, in fact, in widespread usage even before this.
OSI might be credited with the term "open source movement", but they did not invent the term "open source". The only reason why it's likely hard to find a lot of evidence of this on the internet prior to that time has more to do with that most of it wasn't yet even using the internet back then... but was largely on message boards of private or public BBS's.
Slashdot Mirror
Any stealth satellites or the like that they want to put up there must necessarily be fairly small or, you know, we'd be able to see them if we just happened to be looking the right way at the time.
Although I can think in words when I explicitly want to, I find that the most accurate way to describe how I normally think is in terms of either images or else general concepts that I have an intuitive understanding of or at least the ability to imagine.
Argh.... I hit submit instead of preview, and said the exact opposite of what I meant to type. I meant you can see these largest objects from the ground when you are simply looking up at the night sky, even if you didn't exactly know where to look and when.
Do you know how big space is?
Do you know how tiny those man-made things are in comparison?
While it's possible to pick out man made objects, you certainly aren't going to image them with enough fidelity to be able to tell what they are unless you are actively trying to zoom in for a closer look.
And the objects that are big enough to see from a good distance away aren't unknown in the first place because you can see them from the ground if you know where to look and when.
Well, I'm not in the USA for one... I live in Canada. Although I wouldn't have expected US banks to be very different in that regard. Both the Toronto Dominion bank and Royal Bank of Canada require the customer to set up their PIN in a branch before they can use their card for the first time. After that, any replacement card they send will be on the same PIN until you go and change it. I think you can change your PIN anytime you want at the bank ATM's as well, but setting it up for the first time definitely requires seeing a teller. I would expect that the policy for resetting a forgotten PIN would be similar.
My point was that although there aren't many, that hasn't stopped some from becoming successful, while repealing net neutrality could be catastrophic for the little guy in the future who might have otherwise been quite successful.
The bank won't mail you a PIN. In my experience, you have to go into a branch and set up your PIN at least once. After that, any replacement card they send will use the same PIN until you go to a branch and change it.
Simpler solution:
You activate it by putting it into an ATM for you bank and entering your current PIN.
If you don't have a PIN, you go to your bank and set one up. They should be able to spot a tampered card even if you can't.
How would they do that, exactly, when you set your own pin at the bank branch?
I'm not sure why you don't see that as a problem.
Unless you figure that everything that ever needs to exist to support what might get created in the future already is here.
Do you seriously think that even that rate would not have gone unnoticed? A million dollars in only a few weeks? That's conspicuous.
Also, since this was a bug, there's every chance that it would have been fixed during that time, and any further attempt would be blocked cold. If the attacker were actually working at a rate that was below suspicion, he might have only walked away with a few bucks.
True... but at the same time, if this was the result of a bug, then that bug could have been fixed at any time, possibly before the person attempting the attack had an opportunity to make a decent amount from it, and negating the point of doing it in the first place... He might have gotten away with it, but all he may have walked away with before the bug got fixed was a few bucks.
And just how spread out do you think he would have to have done that to not be detected, while at the same time still generating enough currency to be seriously profitable? He generated $780,000 in only 3 hours, but honestly even generating that much over 3 years might still raise eyebrows. And that's even assuming that the bug remained unfixed after all that time, which it probably wouldn't.
That forces people to distribute their game through Steam who might otherwise have their own distribution channels.
It's like requiring book creators who want to self-publish to use just one particular print-on-demand service.
I don't think so, but should that matter? The fact that there aren't many doesn't mean that they have an insignificant impact. Minecraft started as an indy game, for example.
Perhaps you have failed to notice that the FCC are not game developers.
It's not the people ever who wanted neutrality repealed that are complaining here..
That sucks for the indy game developer though, because their traffic would get relegated to the slow lane until they got big enough to be able to afford to pay for it. With high latency, their games might not ever become popular enough for them to get big because the latency would interfere with play enjoyment.
Why would you believe I deny it?
If there was no observable indication that the number appeared to be increasing at alarming rates, as is the case with the other statistics you cited, then your sarcastically delivered point about panicking about this would be well made.
If you are observing an exponential growth in the number of cases from year to year, however, then the fact that its observed impact so far may not yet have grown to be even anywhere nearly as significant as the impact of other factors is not sufficient cause to be so dismissive.
Uh... no.
In fact, capacity and production levels are still down significantly from pre-2008 levels as well... if automation were a significant contributing factor to the lack of recovery in unemployment over the past decade, capacity and production levels from before the recession would have long since been exceeded by now, but they have not.
Suggesting that automation is somehow to blame, or even largely to blame for the lack of recovery is an oversimplification to the point of being factually wrong.
I'm not sure why you'd say that... leaving aside its ad-hominem nature, it's a grossly inaccurate assessment. I'm just someone who objects to historical revisionism. I'm not suggesting that any of the above people I mentioned invented the term "open source" either... I'm only saying it sure as heck wasn't coined in 1998.
The problem I think people are having is not that OSI did not initiate the open source movement as they claim, but that they somehow actually coined the very term "open source" as it applies to software.
The word was in use in that context long before 1998...
One can also without too much difficulty find references to the term "open source" simply by searching old *.programmer groups on usenet.
Here's a couple that I found without too much difficulty using google from 1993 and 1996.
Also, here's another one from the comp.os.linux newsgroup from 1993 when discussing binary-only software for Linux.
Speaking for myself, I first heard the term in the late 1980's, in connection with an MSDOS game called Moria. No link for that one I'm afraid, though... that was on a dial-up BBS, and not on the Internet. Perhaps a record of this usage exists somewhere online whose date can be verified, but I wouldn't know where or how to search for it.
Anyways, I think what people might be getting their shorts in a knot about is that OSI's claiming to have coined the term comes across as some form of attempted history revisionism, by repeating a factually untrue statement that might require a modest effort to verify frequently enough that people start believing it without checking because they've simply heard it so often.
Well... the sharp unemployment rise in '09 that the chart on that page refers to was because of a recession... not because of automation.
And I call it baseless because it is speculative on the hypothesis that somehow automation that manages to replace more than a certain threshold of jobs we currently have would somehow mean that we'd have large scale permanent unemployment when historically that has not been the case even on a smaller scale in the cases of smaller instances of automation.
Not nearly as clear, no... but there's not any reason beyond baseless paranoia to expect that it will be significantly different from any other historically deployed form of automation either.
From 1993, using "Open Source" (capitalized, no less):
https://groups.google.com/foru...
Also, although I can't find a link to it with a verified date, I remember playing an MSDOS game in the late 1980's called Moria that was also released as "open source". The term was, in fact, in widespread usage even before this.
OSI might be credited with the term "open source movement", but they did not invent the term "open source". The only reason why it's likely hard to find a lot of evidence of this on the internet prior to that time has more to do with that most of it wasn't yet even using the internet back then... but was largely on message boards of private or public BBS's.
Historical precedent. That's how science works.... you make observations, record them, and use those results to predict how things will go next time.