Owing to the fact that we will know the lander has already reached the surface (in unknown condition) by the time we get the first signal it has entered the atmosphere, the delay cannot *POSSIBLY* be considered real time because too many events that can or will affect the system will have occurred by then.
But since the information reaches us as quickly as reasonably possible it can still be considered real-time. (I said "reasonably possible", since there's some finite processing time that's incurred when an event is recorded, encoded for transmission to the earth, received, decoded, then broadcast to the world which means that it will take longer to receive the information at home than is physically possible if we all had telescopes that could resolve the landing in "real time").
Otherwise, where would you draw the line?
Does a solar satellite give us "real time" information about the sun even though any data it receives is already 8 minutes old? Do we have "real time" communications with a lunar lander, even though everything it sends has a 1.28 second radio delay? Can we watch events at the London Olympics in "real time" even if codec and satellite delays delay the signal by a second or two? If you watch a sporting event live, are you really seeing it in "real time" since you're not seeing the action 100m away for 833ns.
Never seen the time !! Does anybody really know what time it is ?? Does anybody really care ?? Know what time ??
If you'd have clicked through to the article, you'd see the whole timeline. Though I'm not sure why you were modded down as a troll, it's a valid question and it seems that many news sources only say "late Sunday night" without giving any times. in any case:
The landing stage separates from the cruise stage at 10:14:34pm PST.
Here's the last few seconds of the timeline (again, see the linked article for the full timeline):
10:31:08 PM: At about 20 meters above the surface, MSL keeps decelerating down to 0.75 m/s. 10:31:14 PM: Less than 20 meters from the surface, the sky crane shuts off four of its eight engines as the rover separates and begins to descend on cables. 10:31:15 PM: MSL releases its "bogie" wheels, getting ready for touchdown. 10:31:30 PM: TOUCHDOWN! WOOHOO!!! Curiosity knows when she's on the ground when the load on the tether that she used to get from the skycrane to the ground goes slack. 10:31:33 PM: Cables connecting Curiosity to the skycrane are cut, and the skycrane flies off for a crash landing./quote>
I wonder how much 2G equipment is out there. A few years ago I just deployed a 2G only data acquisition device (it was cheaper and had lower power requirements than the 3G device). It has very low bandwidth needs, a few hundred bytes every hour, so even 2G is more than fast enough.
I doubt this device will still be running 5 years from now, so maybe this shutdown really won't have much impact.
I find my ability to retain information increases greatly if I pay attention. If I'm writing, I'm not paying attention, I'm just a passive conduit for words going in my ears and out my fingers. If I do take notes, I generally find myself wondering what the hell I meant. Better to just pay attention in class and read the text. Notes are worthless.
For me it's the opposite - when I'm in a meeting, I write down anything that I feel is important and I find that I retain it better after the meeting. I almost never refer to my meeting notes after a meeting (and I have no real organization system that would let me easily find the notes a few weeks after the meeting aside from flipping through my notepad), but I tend to retain information much more after I write it down.
Or maybe I've trained myself to work that way so it's just the fact that I'm writing it down that makes my mind see it as "important", and has nothing to do with the actual act of writing it down.
I've tried taking notes by laptop, but I find that I quickly forget anything that I've typed in (with the plus side being that I can search for and find typed meeting notes later on if I need to)
If you're building a phone for executives ONLY, then make it a $1000 phone. These are people who drive 911's, M5's, Ferrari, or some other similarly high-end car. If these are the people willing to spend $300,000 for a top-of-the-line supercar, then they certainly should be willing to shell out $1 to 2 thousand for a phone. But it better be the best damn phone there is.
I mean, if you're paying 2k for a phone, not only should it make the iPhone look like a cheap toy, it should make almost all high-tech items look like cheap toys.
But the problem is that Apple, Samsung and HTC are all making really, really good hardware, and selling it for $200 -- a tenth of the cost. And for all of RIM's wizardry, they aren't going to beat Apple.
So, the executive who is paying enormous sums of money for a car is going to look at the Blackberry, then look at the iPhone, and still decide that the iPhone is the better product, even though it's cheaper.
RIM needs to get their act together and make some really smart decisions. Unfortunately, they are not.
A $1000 (or worse $2000) phone will be less capable than any iPhone or $500 Android since your sales will be in the hundreds of thousands, maybe low millions if you're lucky, versus the many millions of Android and iPhones sold.
The raw materials build a phone are a small part of the total costs -- estimates place the iPhone at around $200 for parts alone (of course, they can keep costs down by buying entire factory production runs). The biggest expense is the billions of dollars of R&D that goes into making a modern smartphone. If you spread it across many millions of phones it makes the R&D cost per device much lower than if you can only spread it across a hundred thousand devices.
And even if you have $1000 to spend on parts for your high end phone, you still have the exact same power, weight and size constraints that the guys building the more popular phones have. And 6 months after you release your phone, the other guys will have already leapfrogged you with a faster more capable device using faster, cheaper, smaller hardware.
The US Missile Defense agency doesn't have any sort of content filter that could block this type of thing? You'd think they could use a simple whitelisting system - there can't be that many sites outside of *.gov that Missile Defense workers legitmately need to access from work. Let them use a smart phone in the lunchroom (outside of secure areas) when they need to update Facebook (or browse porn).
I just don't post anything on my google+ account ever. If my google account was suspended i'd lose email, docs, drive, calendar etc.
Its too dangerous to use. Why risk it. F**k google+
Me too, this is why I've never used Google+ -- after reading stories about people that have had all of their Google services do to violating some unwritten policy on Google+ without any warning or explanation, I've stayed away from Google+.
Facebook could delete my account and I wouldn't notice for weeks, but I count on Google services everyday, and though I have workarounds for most things, it would be severely inconvenient. Not worth the risk.
They need to be more clear on what the policy is for Google+ suspensions, a transparent reinstatement policy, and make it clear under what circumstances they will shut down your Google+ account versus other Google services. Looks like they may already separate Google+ lockouts with general Google shutdowns since the author from the summary only had his Google+ service suspended, but who knows if that's formal policy.
When Google services work, they work great, but they suck at customer service and transparency. When I lost access to my archived emails, I never got a reply from Google, but a week later they were back with no explanation or indication that there was even a problem.
they don't get rid of it because it benefits the exchanges, the exchanges get to act as gatekeepers to the hubs with lowest latencies - you can bet that access isn't cheap. so the exchanges(and people associated with them) profit from the current system.
the fix is so easy and simple that you're not the only one who has thought about it. in fact in some trade like systems it's normally used(like pretty much all sports etc betting online systems).
I think it warrants repeating.
If only there were an agency that could regulate markets in the USA. Maybe some agency with a mission statement like this:
The mission of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation.
I still fail to see how giving preference to investors that are physically located closer to markets is "fair".
Why ignore inflation? [...] (ignoring adjustments for inflation)"
Thank you for restating my question without actually answering the question -- my question was why ignore the effects of inflation when it makes a big difference in the scale.
For example, the list of Highest Grossing Films of all time differs considerably depending on whether or not you factor in inflation:
US GDP is in BILLIONS not millions. You are off by a factor of 1000.
Ahh yes, you're right of course, in my haste to find a historical example, I didn't read the chart carefully enough. Originally I was looking for the market cap of IBM over the years, but was having trouble finding it and I found this GDP chart and completely glossed over the fact that it was in billions, not millions.
Why don't exchanges batch up all of the trades received in one second (or 5 or 10 or 60 second) intervals and execute them in random order?
There's no sane reason in a fair market why someone whose computers are located a few milliseconds (or nanoseconds) closer to the exchange should get his trades served before the guy who lives a bit farther away and is constrained by the speed of light.
Does HFT help the markets in any way?
Though I guess one benefit side effect of high frequency trading is that it'll help drive science since they'll be the first in line to pay for quantum entanglement enabled communication to get instantaneous data transfer.
Why make a comparison with an event 15 years ago and ignore the different in value of the dollar?
Intels FDIV bug costs of $475M in 1994 is equivalent to $735M in today's dollars. I guess it's just not as impressive as saying "The cost of this glitch was a bit over half of the $475 million charge Intel took for the Pentium FDIV Bug."
If you want to make it sound more impressive, go back further in time "This loss was greater than the entire GDP of the united states in 1955 (ignoring adjustments for inflation)"
Um, unless she had no testes, which I think she would have noticed, she didn't have ovaries. Ovaries and testes are the same organ. I've never come across a paper about a single case of an individual being born with an extra set of gonads (I'm sure there are some, but it's definitely not common!); even
It is possible to have one testicle and one ovary, which could be what this person was referring to.
There have been a number of cases of people born with duplicates of other organs (extra kidney, liver, pancreas, etc) so it seems within the realm of possibility (although rare) to be born with duplicate ovaries and/or testicles.
If the system is down, don't keep submitting orders.
Exactly. Absence of a confirmation is not confirmation that there is no order.
In that case, the transactionally correct action would be to cancel the original order, and receive confirmation of the cancel, before attempting to place another order.
That depends on what the protocol spec says. If NASDAQ acknowledged receiving the order but didn't confirm that the order was placed, it's entirely possible that the right thing to do was send the order again under the assumption that it didn't get filled.
Of course any system that doesn't use unique transaction ID's to prevent dupes is braindead, but I've been appalled at some of the brain dead protocols I've seen that are used to transfer large volumes of transactions amongst businesses (sometimes involving someone manually keying them in on both ends with no check digits or other verification.)
Of course... if Facebook stock had gone up instead, then they would complain that more orders were cancelled and not resubmitted than they intended.
That's why you better make sure your systems work correctly before you accept billions of dollars of orders since your liability can be measured in billions of dollars.
As someone currently trying to find a place to live - craigslist is a shithole. Everything except the by-owner apartment section is just horrible, with realtors keyword spamming and posting the same ads multiple times a day; nobody flags them.
And don't forget about the scammers. When I was looking for an apartment, out of 12 ads I replied to, 8 were scammers of the form "I'm an out of town landlord, I can't release the address to you until you submit an application at this website" (where the website asks for everything a credit app would ask for like social security number, current and previous addresses, etc). All 8 were worded almost identically with minor changes here and there, so I suspect it's a group of scammers using the same scheme. 2 of the responses were of the type "Thank you for responding, you are the first to respond so you can have the apartment, just western union a nominal $200 security deposit to me and I'll meet you at the apartment with the keys". The other 2 didn't answer at all.
Finally I ended up renting from a big apartment complex since I got tired of wading through the obvious CL scams and spams (like Luxury 3 bedroom apartment with large fenced yard for $1450/month (in downtown San Francisco)) only to have to wade through even more scammers that managed to put up a legitimate looking ad (which I found that they sometimes do by reposting a legitimate ad that expired from the site)
Most of the scammers get flagged down after a day or two, but by then it's too late.
If CL isn't going to do a better job of screening their ads (like maybe charging a fee to landlords), I wish they'd go away since "free" craigslist makes it harder for new and better services to start up - Landlords turn to CL first because it's free.
So if I read the article correctly, since they're no longer able to charge $20/mo for tethering, we should all brace for industry-wide data plan price increases of... about $20.
If they thought they could have already raised prices $20 without resulting in a backlash leading to loss of revenue or other undesirable outcome (i.e. price regulation), they would have already done so.
But in any case, if they want to make the same revenue the price increase would be lower than $20. If 1 out of 10 customers bought the tethering plan, then they'd only need to raise prices $2 for everyone to make the same amount of revenue.
It's really amazing watching all the idiots with "slave mentality" defending abuse of privacy and power.
Not only that, but they make excuses for it like "I have nothing to hide" and "there's nothing you can do about it so you might as well accept it". They defend abuse and make reasons why it's "ok". It's sickening.
It's more and more rare to see people stand up and fight against evil. It's just easier to be lazy, do nothing, and then watch a bunch of morons throw a ball around on TV while they become intoxicated with a six pack and pizza - without even a shred of worry for their children's future. It's just unbelievable.
Are license plate cameras really any worse than license plates themselves? If license plates were not required until now and the government wanted people to force people to use their real name to register their car, privacy advocates would be up in arms about it "How dare the government force me to put a unique identifier on my car tied to my real identity!" "This is a clear violation of free speech rights since it will let the police drive by a protected speech rally and collect the names of all of the attendees based on their car license numbers" "They won't have any effect on solving crime because criminals will just remove theirs or steal someone elses"
Yet, since cars are already required to have license plates, everyone accepts it as "normal". Few people would now argue that cars should not be registered with license plates, even though it's arguably more of a privacy violation than license plate cameras since it removes any anonymity from your car. And license plate numbers are regularly used to solve crimes involving cars. (car theft, hit-and-run, child abduction, etc)
Maybe if license plate cameras do become ubiquitous, they will become the new "normal" without any of the chilling effects or misuse that have been predicted.
they just released the source to something that can be turned into a ddos tool in like 5 minutes? seriously?
If someone else has the private keys that let them control your EC2 instances, then you probably have more to worry about than a tool that will randomly shut down your running instances.
That's correct. Bots were loading pages and driving up our advertising costs. So we tried contacting Facebook about this. Unfortunately, they wouldn't reply. Do we know who the bots belong too? No. Are we accusing Facebook of using bots to drive up advertising revenue. No. Is it strange? Yes. But let's move on, because who the bots belong to isn't provable.
If they'd publish their access log data from the bot hits, I bet someone out there can help track down the source.
People keep throwing around the word "censorship" like they think they know what it means, but it's obvious they don't. Censorship is when the government restricts your speech. Even if every single one of her claims is true, she is not being censored.
Where is censorship defined so narrowly?
From m-w.com:
Censorship: the institution, system, or practice of censoring
Censor: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable
From Wikipedia:
Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body. It can be done by governments and private organizations or by individuals who engage in self-censorship. It occurs in a variety of different contexts including speech, books, music, films and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children, to promote or restrict political or religious views, to prevent slander and libel, and to protect intellectual property. It may or may not be legal. Many countries provide strong protections against censorship by law, but none of these protections are absolute and it is frequently necessary to balance conflicting rights in order to determine what can and cannot be censored.
(emphasis mine)
If some portion of her potential market purchase content only through Apple's store, then she *is* being censored. Sure, there may be other workarounds (they can install a Kindle App, they can buy it in printed form, etc), but if Apple refuses to sell it because they don't like the content, they are censoring her.
I've found that moving from anonymity to real-identity based comments (i.e. Facebook) just makes comment board much less interesting.
The SJ Mercury News switched to FB comments a year or 2 ago, and after the switch, I stopped reading the comments (and the site) because the comments switched from controversial discussion (and yes, even some trolls and personal attacks) to boring "Yeah, me too buddy" comments.
On Slashdot, I often post anecdotes from current and past jobs, and I wouldn't do so if my name was attached to the post.
Slashdot Mirror
Owing to the fact that we will know the lander has already reached the surface (in unknown condition) by the time we get the first signal it has entered the atmosphere, the delay cannot *POSSIBLY* be considered real time because too many events that can or will affect the system will have occurred by then.
But since the information reaches us as quickly as reasonably possible it can still be considered real-time. (I said "reasonably possible", since there's some finite processing time that's incurred when an event is recorded, encoded for transmission to the earth, received, decoded, then broadcast to the world which means that it will take longer to receive the information at home than is physically possible if we all had telescopes that could resolve the landing in "real time").
Otherwise, where would you draw the line?
Does a solar satellite give us "real time" information about the sun even though any data it receives is already 8 minutes old? Do we have "real time" communications with a lunar lander, even though everything it sends has a 1.28 second radio delay? Can we watch events at the London Olympics in "real time" even if codec and satellite delays delay the signal by a second or two? If you watch a sporting event live, are you really seeing it in "real time" since you're not seeing the action 100m away for 833ns.
Just noticed a typo in the article -- it's actually PDT, not PST.
NASA has a convenient countdown timer here:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/index.html
Never seen the time !! Does anybody really know what time it is ?? Does anybody really care ?? Know what time ??
If you'd have clicked through to the article, you'd see the whole timeline. Though I'm not sure why you were modded down as a troll, it's a valid question and it seems that many news sources only say "late Sunday night" without giving any times. in any case:
The landing stage separates from the cruise stage at 10:14:34pm PST.
Here's the last few seconds of the timeline (again, see the linked article for the full timeline):
10:31:08 PM: At about 20 meters above the surface, MSL keeps decelerating down to 0.75 m/s. /quote>
10:31:14 PM: Less than 20 meters from the surface, the sky crane shuts off four of its eight engines as the rover separates and begins to descend on cables.
10:31:15 PM: MSL releases its "bogie" wheels, getting ready for touchdown.
10:31:30 PM: TOUCHDOWN! WOOHOO!!! Curiosity knows when she's on the ground when the load on the tether that she used to get from the skycrane to the ground goes slack.
10:31:33 PM: Cables connecting Curiosity to the skycrane are cut, and the skycrane flies off for a crash landing.
I wonder how much 2G equipment is out there. A few years ago I just deployed a 2G only data acquisition device (it was cheaper and had lower power requirements than the 3G device). It has very low bandwidth needs, a few hundred bytes every hour, so even 2G is more than fast enough.
I doubt this device will still be running 5 years from now, so maybe this shutdown really won't have much impact.
I find my ability to retain information increases greatly if I pay attention. If I'm writing, I'm not paying attention, I'm just a passive conduit for words going in my ears and out my fingers. If I do take notes, I generally find myself wondering what the hell I meant. Better to just pay attention in class and read the text. Notes are worthless.
For me it's the opposite - when I'm in a meeting, I write down anything that I feel is important and I find that I retain it better after the meeting. I almost never refer to my meeting notes after a meeting (and I have no real organization system that would let me easily find the notes a few weeks after the meeting aside from flipping through my notepad), but I tend to retain information much more after I write it down.
Or maybe I've trained myself to work that way so it's just the fact that I'm writing it down that makes my mind see it as "important", and has nothing to do with the actual act of writing it down.
I've tried taking notes by laptop, but I find that I quickly forget anything that I've typed in (with the plus side being that I can search for and find typed meeting notes later on if I need to)
If you're building a phone for executives ONLY, then make it a $1000 phone. These are people who drive 911's, M5's, Ferrari, or some other similarly high-end car. If these are the people willing to spend $300,000 for a top-of-the-line supercar, then they certainly should be willing to shell out $1 to 2 thousand for a phone. But it better be the best damn phone there is.
I mean, if you're paying 2k for a phone, not only should it make the iPhone look like a cheap toy, it should make almost all high-tech items look like cheap toys.
But the problem is that Apple, Samsung and HTC are all making really, really good hardware, and selling it for $200 -- a tenth of the cost. And for all of RIM's wizardry, they aren't going to beat Apple.
So, the executive who is paying enormous sums of money for a car is going to look at the Blackberry, then look at the iPhone, and still decide that the iPhone is the better product, even though it's cheaper.
RIM needs to get their act together and make some really smart decisions. Unfortunately, they are not.
A $1000 (or worse $2000) phone will be less capable than any iPhone or $500 Android since your sales will be in the hundreds of thousands, maybe low millions if you're lucky, versus the many millions of Android and iPhones sold.
The raw materials build a phone are a small part of the total costs -- estimates place the iPhone at around $200 for parts alone (of course, they can keep costs down by buying entire factory production runs). The biggest expense is the billions of dollars of R&D that goes into making a modern smartphone. If you spread it across many millions of phones it makes the R&D cost per device much lower than if you can only spread it across a hundred thousand devices.
And even if you have $1000 to spend on parts for your high end phone, you still have the exact same power, weight and size constraints that the guys building the more popular phones have. And 6 months after you release your phone, the other guys will have already leapfrogged you with a faster more capable device using faster, cheaper, smaller hardware.
The US Missile Defense agency doesn't have any sort of content filter that could block this type of thing? You'd think they could use a simple whitelisting system - there can't be that many sites outside of *.gov that Missile Defense workers legitmately need to access from work. Let them use a smart phone in the lunchroom (outside of secure areas) when they need to update Facebook (or browse porn).
I just don't post anything on my google+ account ever. If my google account was suspended i'd lose email, docs, drive, calendar etc.
Its too dangerous to use. Why risk it. F**k google+
Me too, this is why I've never used Google+ -- after reading stories about people that have had all of their Google services do to violating some unwritten policy on Google+ without any warning or explanation, I've stayed away from Google+.
Facebook could delete my account and I wouldn't notice for weeks, but I count on Google services everyday, and though I have workarounds for most things, it would be severely inconvenient. Not worth the risk.
They need to be more clear on what the policy is for Google+ suspensions, a transparent reinstatement policy, and make it clear under what circumstances they will shut down your Google+ account versus other Google services. Looks like they may already separate Google+ lockouts with general Google shutdowns since the author from the summary only had his Google+ service suspended, but who knows if that's formal policy.
When Google services work, they work great, but they suck at customer service and transparency. When I lost access to my archived emails, I never got a reply from Google, but a week later they were back with no explanation or indication that there was even a problem.
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
they don't get rid of it because it benefits the exchanges, the exchanges get to act as gatekeepers to the hubs with lowest latencies - you can bet that access isn't cheap. so the exchanges(and people associated with them) profit from the current system.
the fix is so easy and simple that you're not the only one who has thought about it. in fact in some trade like systems it's normally used(like pretty much all sports etc betting online systems).
I think it warrants repeating.
If only there were an agency that could regulate markets in the USA. Maybe some agency with a mission statement like this:
The mission of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation.
I still fail to see how giving preference to investors that are physically located closer to markets is "fair".
Why ignore inflation? [...] (ignoring adjustments for inflation)"
Thank you for restating my question without actually answering the question -- my question was why ignore the effects of inflation when it makes a big difference in the scale.
For example, the list of Highest Grossing Films of all time differs considerably depending on whether or not you factor in inflation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films
US GDP is in BILLIONS not millions.
You are off by a factor of 1000.
Ahh yes, you're right of course, in my haste to find a historical example, I didn't read the chart carefully enough. Originally I was looking for the market cap of IBM over the years, but was having trouble finding it and I found this GDP chart and completely glossed over the fact that it was in billions, not millions.
Why don't exchanges batch up all of the trades received in one second (or 5 or 10 or 60 second) intervals and execute them in random order?
There's no sane reason in a fair market why someone whose computers are located a few milliseconds (or nanoseconds) closer to the exchange should get his trades served before the guy who lives a bit farther away and is constrained by the speed of light.
Does HFT help the markets in any way?
Though I guess one benefit side effect of high frequency trading is that it'll help drive science since they'll be the first in line to pay for quantum entanglement enabled communication to get instantaneous data transfer.
Why make a comparison with an event 15 years ago and ignore the different in value of the dollar?
Intels FDIV bug costs of $475M in 1994 is equivalent to $735M in today's dollars. I guess it's just not as impressive as saying "The cost of this glitch was a bit over half of the $475 million charge Intel took for the Pentium FDIV Bug."
If you want to make it sound more impressive, go back further in time "This loss was greater than the entire GDP of the united states in 1955 (ignoring adjustments for inflation)"
Um, unless she had no testes, which I think she would have noticed, she didn't have ovaries. Ovaries and testes are the same organ. I've never come across a paper about a single case of an individual being born with an extra set of gonads (I'm sure there are some, but it's definitely not common!); even
It is possible to have one testicle and one ovary, which could be what this person was referring to.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001669.htm
http://www.gendercentre.org.au/ambiguous_genitalia.htm
http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90782/7108711.html
There have been a number of cases of people born with duplicates of other organs (extra kidney, liver, pancreas, etc) so it seems within the realm of possibility (although rare) to be born with duplicate ovaries and/or testicles.
XX = Woman
XY = Man
You missed a few:
XYY
XXY
XXYY
If the system is down, don't keep submitting orders.
Exactly. Absence of a confirmation is not confirmation that there is no order.
In that case, the transactionally correct action would be to cancel the original order,
and receive confirmation of the cancel, before attempting to place another order.
That depends on what the protocol spec says. If NASDAQ acknowledged receiving the order but didn't confirm that the order was placed, it's entirely possible that the right thing to do was send the order again under the assumption that it didn't get filled.
Of course any system that doesn't use unique transaction ID's to prevent dupes is braindead, but I've been appalled at some of the brain dead protocols I've seen that are used to transfer large volumes of transactions amongst businesses (sometimes involving someone manually keying them in on both ends with no check digits or other verification.)
Of course... if Facebook stock had gone up instead, then they would complain that more orders were cancelled and not resubmitted than they intended.
That's why you better make sure your systems work correctly before you accept billions of dollars of orders since your liability can be measured in billions of dollars.
As someone currently trying to find a place to live - craigslist is a shithole. Everything except the by-owner apartment section is just horrible, with realtors keyword spamming and posting the same ads multiple times a day; nobody flags them.
And don't forget about the scammers. When I was looking for an apartment, out of 12 ads I replied to, 8 were scammers of the form "I'm an out of town landlord, I can't release the address to you until you submit an application at this website" (where the website asks for everything a credit app would ask for like social security number, current and previous addresses, etc). All 8 were worded almost identically with minor changes here and there, so I suspect it's a group of scammers using the same scheme. 2 of the responses were of the type "Thank you for responding, you are the first to respond so you can have the apartment, just western union a nominal $200 security deposit to me and I'll meet you at the apartment with the keys". The other 2 didn't answer at all.
Finally I ended up renting from a big apartment complex since I got tired of wading through the obvious CL scams and spams (like Luxury 3 bedroom apartment with large fenced yard for $1450/month (in downtown San Francisco)) only to have to wade through even more scammers that managed to put up a legitimate looking ad (which I found that they sometimes do by reposting a legitimate ad that expired from the site)
Most of the scammers get flagged down after a day or two, but by then it's too late.
If CL isn't going to do a better job of screening their ads (like maybe charging a fee to landlords), I wish they'd go away since "free" craigslist makes it harder for new and better services to start up - Landlords turn to CL first because it's free.
So if I read the article correctly, since they're no longer able to charge $20/mo for tethering, we should all brace for industry-wide data plan price increases of... about $20.
If they thought they could have already raised prices $20 without resulting in a backlash leading to loss of revenue or other undesirable outcome (i.e. price regulation), they would have already done so.
But in any case, if they want to make the same revenue the price increase would be lower than $20. If 1 out of 10 customers bought the tethering plan, then they'd only need to raise prices $2 for everyone to make the same amount of revenue.
It's really amazing watching all the idiots with "slave mentality" defending abuse of privacy and power.
Not only that, but they make excuses for it like "I have nothing to hide" and "there's nothing you can do about it so you might as well accept it". They defend abuse and make reasons why it's "ok". It's sickening.
It's more and more rare to see people stand up and fight against evil. It's just easier to be lazy, do nothing, and then watch a bunch of morons throw a ball around on TV while they become intoxicated with a six pack and pizza - without even a shred of worry for their children's future. It's just unbelievable.
Are license plate cameras really any worse than license plates themselves? If license plates were not required until now and the government wanted people to force people to use their real name to register their car, privacy advocates would be up in arms about it "How dare the government force me to put a unique identifier on my car tied to my real identity!" "This is a clear violation of free speech rights since it will let the police drive by a protected speech rally and collect the names of all of the attendees based on their car license numbers" "They won't have any effect on solving crime because criminals will just remove theirs or steal someone elses"
Yet, since cars are already required to have license plates, everyone accepts it as "normal". Few people would now argue that cars should not be registered with license plates, even though it's arguably more of a privacy violation than license plate cameras since it removes any anonymity from your car. And license plate numbers are regularly used to solve crimes involving cars. (car theft, hit-and-run, child abduction, etc)
Maybe if license plate cameras do become ubiquitous, they will become the new "normal" without any of the chilling effects or misuse that have been predicted.
Don't the cell phone companies already have this type of data (but at an individual level, not just tied to your car). What do they do with the data?
Also, doesn't the indecent or obscene part effectively and unambiguously outlaw basically any form of cybersex?
You need to look at the second paragraph of the act:
A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—
So two lovers having cybersex wouldn't be guilty since they aren't trying to annoy each other.
they just released the source to something that can be turned into a ddos tool in like 5 minutes? seriously?
If someone else has the private keys that let them control your EC2 instances, then you probably have more to worry about than a tool that will randomly shut down your running instances.
That's correct. Bots were loading pages and driving up our advertising costs. So we tried contacting Facebook about this. Unfortunately, they wouldn't reply. Do we know who the bots belong too? No. Are we accusing Facebook of using bots to drive up advertising revenue. No. Is it strange? Yes. But let's move on, because who the bots belong to isn't provable.
If they'd publish their access log data from the bot hits, I bet someone out there can help track down the source.
People keep throwing around the word "censorship" like they think they know what it means, but it's obvious they don't. Censorship is when the government restricts your speech. Even if every single one of her claims is true, she is not being censored.
Where is censorship defined so narrowly?
From m-w.com:
Censorship: the institution, system, or practice of censoring
Censor: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable
From Wikipedia:
Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body. It can be done by governments and private organizations or by individuals who engage in self-censorship. It occurs in a variety of different contexts including speech, books, music, films and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children, to promote or restrict political or religious views, to prevent slander and libel, and to protect intellectual property. It may or may not be legal. Many countries provide strong protections against censorship by law, but none of these protections are absolute and it is frequently necessary to balance conflicting rights in order to determine what can and cannot be censored.
(emphasis mine)
If some portion of her potential market purchase content only through Apple's store, then she *is* being censored. Sure, there may be other workarounds (they can install a Kindle App, they can buy it in printed form, etc), but if Apple refuses to sell it because they don't like the content, they are censoring her.
I've found that moving from anonymity to real-identity based comments (i.e. Facebook) just makes comment board much less interesting.
The SJ Mercury News switched to FB comments a year or 2 ago, and after the switch, I stopped reading the comments (and the site) because the comments switched from controversial discussion (and yes, even some trolls and personal attacks) to boring "Yeah, me too buddy" comments.
On Slashdot, I often post anecdotes from current and past jobs, and I wouldn't do so if my name was attached to the post.