To answer your question and to copypaste myself from above:
Well, it's not publicly-available material if it's behind a paywall or some other restrictions. You're changing the content's audience by introducing it to people that wouldn't have accessed it, and that's the part that constitutes copyright-infringement in this ruling, the changing the content's audience. On a similar note, there are plenty of sites with poorly-implemented paywalls that do grant access to the material even when it's supposed to be paywalled. The intent is important here; the court ignores implementation-specific failures, but recognizes intent.
Well, it's not publicly-available material if it's behind a paywall or some other restrictions. You're changing the content's audience by introducing it to people that wouldn't have accessed it, and that's the part that constitutes copyright-infringement in this ruling, the changing the content's audience. On a similar note, there are plenty of sites with poorly-implemented paywalls that do grant access to the material even when it's supposed to be paywalled. The intent is important here; the court ignores implementation-specific failures, but recognizes intent.
This ruling only applies to copyrighted content that is legally and publicly available. Linking to content that is behind e.g. a paywall would constitute a copyright-infringement. Similarly, it doesn't rule that linking to publicly available, but unauthorized content would be legal, that is an entirely different matter.
Why is this ruling important, then? Well, it could be used as a stepping-stone for more in-depth ruling about linking to content, like e.g. the aforementioned unauthorized content. Similarly, many journalists, newspapers and whatnot have been sued in the recent past for copyright-infringement simply for linking to an article on another newspapers' website. Some companies are even trying to extort money from Google and other search-engines for the same thing, so now they could possibly use this ruling as a defense. Search-engines aren't journalists, that's true, but a new ruling could be based on this one and grant search-engines the same rights in hyperlinking.
The one, single biggest weakness with the whole IoT movement is the lack of any sort of use.
I did mention that, too. I can't think of much use for IoT-devices myself, either, except for the fridge: it'd be handy if it reminded me of groceries that will be going bad in a day or two. I did read a blog-post from someone who bought a bunch of those smart-bulbs and programmed them to follow a specific schedule, like e.g. slowly rising in brightness when it's time to wake up in the morning, turning off automatically during work-hours, automatically setting a specific mood in the workroom and so on, but all that really works only for people who have very strict schedules. It's hard to think of cases where all the hassles of keeping the things working, updated and secure is worth the trouble in our daily lives.
And I certainly don't want all those things open to remote access hacks.
That's the thing I worry the most about. With lax security someone could just drive by your house, turn everything on, crank your thermostat to max. and so on, resulting in possibly burned-out machines, higher electrical bills, terrible nuisance when you're trying to sleep and so on. If IoT-devices were ever to become mainstream these kinds of things should first have to be solved in a standard, global manner.
The one, single biggest weakness with the whole IoT-movement is the lack of any sorts of standards. Devices from one manufacturer use this protocol to talk to one another, the devices from another manufacturer use another protocol, neither of them can communicate with one another, and to top it off many devices even within a single manufacturer's own line of products don't know how to communicate amongst themselves. This means a huge, tangled mess of dozens of controlling applications and physical control-panels and whatnot, and it's all ripe with security-issues, too. With no standards or anything there's no logical way of controlling all of your IoT-devices in a unified way, let alone to control their security and updates.
On a similar note, there was recently talk on Ars Technica about this subject when the CEO of WIFI Alliance tried to make the case that all IoT-devices should simply use WIFI, but that would be folly. His primary argument was that even though WIFI uses more power than e.g. Bluetooth-LE it provides more bandwidth and that the amount of power WIFI uses is irrelevant. That argument obviously ignores the fact that if, on average, every household in the future had e.g. approximately 50 IoT-devices in their homes we would then see the power-drain on the electric-networks increase by 50 * 117M ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) * WIFI-power-drain just within the United States alone -- a definitely non-neglibigle amount. Also, your fridge, coffee-maker and the likes have absolutely zero need for all the bandwidth WIFI would bring, so Bluetooth-LE or something similar would be the saner choice -- less power-usage, still more than enough bandwidth for the small amount of data being transferred. However, you'd again need some sort of a bridge for bringing the WIFI-devices and Bluetooth-LE-devices together, and again, you'd need sane standards in order to come up with such bridges.
I'm ranting a little, I haven't been sleeping too well and my thoughts are racing, but my point here is that even if the tech was there for the big push for IoT-devices we lack standardisation efforts, we lack the need for such devices, and I'm not sure the environmental costs would be worth the advantages either at this point in time.
You're right. The past 24 hours has turned into a kindergarten of sorts and I'm shouting too, but I don't think it will last long. I don't want to leave Slashdot and most others don't either.
I was actually surprised to get a reply to the feedback I left them. They thanked me for the feedback and for the fact that instead of just complaining I actually provided some concrete examples they could do to make things better. The guy did mention that the beta-version is still very much under construction and they are, indeed, looking at the feedback they're getting. I felt rather encouraged by the personally-addressed e-mail I got so I provided them with some more ideas they could possibly look into. Hopefully it all means the beta will be more pleasant and useable in the long run.
There are many of us who have been providing *constructive* criticism for *many months* only to have it fall on deaf ears. Now that the beta is being forced on users in a graduated rollout you're going to be hearing these complaints more and more often until either:
And that's an excuse for this rampant idiocy? Because last I heard the mature approach would be to provide constructive criticism, wait and see what happens, and then simply leave if the outcome is unbearable and the feedback is ignored, all without turning the whole place into a fucking kindergarten. I voiced my opinion to them and if they do nothing to alleviate my concerns I'll simply stop using the site. Alas, I suppose I just have better things to do with my time than spamming here.
2. There is utility in my second approach, as there is utility in the first.
Sure, if you're looking for other childish, immature people. But if you think your behaviour is going to change anything here you got another think coming; there is no good reason for why the people behind Slashdot would want to keep someone like that around, they're more likely to continue with their plan just to get more mature people here and to drive your kind out. But oh, don't let that stop you.
How exceedingly constructive of you. I took a look at the beta and I provided constructive feedback through the official channels, but I suppose that's simply too much. Thankfully I've seen the light and can now totally commit to finding my inner child, going all the way back to kindergarten and then to proceed to spam the comments section and tags associated to the articles with all sorts of stuff my new-found inner 5-year old would come up with.
While the general goal is noteworthy, the obvious problem here is that the security will be just as lack-luster as all the other car-related tech, ie. it'll be broken pretty fast and then it'll spread everywhere. And you won't be able to disable this V2V, either. Then it's just a matter of terrorists/kiddies/bored/plain, old evil people installing black boxes on the sides of the roads or whatever that send false V2V-messages, causing all sorts of hickups, stalling traffic, causing accidents and so on. And then *that* will be used as an excuse for even more regulation, monitoring and even less privacy.
Or is there some other reason why it is ridiculous?
Yes, it is ridiculous.
w3schools is as good as any other site.
No, it definitely isn't. w3schools is representative of the tastes of generally tech-inclined people and even there it's only representative of the people visiting that single site. eBay, for example, is used by both tech-inclined people and the luddites and therefore it would be a much better gauge for browser-share, however it would still only track browser-share on eBay's sites. The link that I gave you, however, tracks browser-share across multiple sites and networks and places IE at 22.85% share. You'd be a moron not to see why tracking browser-share only on a single, tech-oriented website that no luddites will ever visit is not going to be representative of the overall market.
The current story doesn't say that IE has a huge number of users, it says it is the most prevalent browser. That can only align with having 10% market share if all competing browsers have less than 10% share.
I'd like to point out that the article you're referring to was only about w3schools -- ie. for web-developers and the likes. It was a totally ridiculous way of measuring browser market-share and a thinly-veiled attempt at mocking IE. http://gs.statcounter.com/ provides a much better measure and as you can see, IE is still 2nd up there. On any website that's actually used by Average Jane and Joe IE shows up much higher than "single-digit" numbers.
No, this is all still highly theoretical and you cannot state that this hypothesis is absolutely, definitely correct. It may be correct, it may well be the best theory we have and all that, but it's still a theory.
I was under the impression that the tricolour-mendel can print in 3 colours, whereas this one uses 3 base-colours to create any of the millions of different combinations, very much like regular printers and RGB-displays and the likes.
I don't quite agree. I get what you mean, but a whistleblower releases information to those who it isn't supposed to go in order to improve the security their country and the lives of their fellow countrymen, whereas spies release information to those who it isn't supposed to go in order to undermine the security of said country. While the methods and results may even be the same the intent is different.
I know it's popular for people to immediately start with all the Terminator-claims and whatnot, but that's not the first thing that comes to my mind when reading stuff like this. Personally, I think of coupling this with something like e.g. Google Glass, so that you can tell the system to identify the item in the center of the view and then ask for it to automatically search for instructions on use or repair or whatnot. Even better if you have a device that covers both of your eyes so that the system can overlay things in your whole visual field, identifying things and showing their connections and whatnot.
Because while Androids outsell Apple 4:1 or more, there's a very strange thing going on. Mobile web traffic has iOS using TWICE the amount of data over Android. Or, put another way, 1 iOS user consumes as much data as 8 Android users.
That's rather easy to explain: iDevices are expensive and the people buying them likely can afford to pay for all this mobile traffic. Android-devices, on the other hand, go all the way as low as $30, and the people buying low-end Android-devices most likely can't afford to pay for mobile traffic or will be able to only pay for small amounts of it. The price-range and the wealth of the end-users on Android-end of things is much, much wider.
"New treatment kills some but not all metastatic cancer cells in mice, but only while they're traversing the bloodstream
A situation that is very dangerous and often leads to untreatable, fatal cancerous growth.
and so far only when the cells are injected into the mice in the first place".
That is also explained rather well in the article: there is no good way of predicting when or if a cancerous growth would ever become metastatic and enter the bloodstream, so the only way of actually testing the treatment is to inject the cells there. I mean, they can't really just sit on their thumbs hoping for the cancer to enter the bloodstream when it could be anything between 1 week to 10 years of waiting or it could simply not happen at all, now can they? The cells entering the bloodstream via ordinary methods or via an injection, however, don't change the results of the treatment -- the delivery method of the cells inside the body and the effects of them remain the same.
You probably should read the article before you start spouting things about genomes, it's rather clear you don't really understand what's happening or why.
Well, Sweden is totally bought out by the US government. Has been for a long time now. They openly inspect all traffic that goes through Sweden's border, including the traffic from Finland and Russia and report everything back to the US, and they themselves admit to doing this. That's why we have plans here to build a pipe to Germany or somewhere instead and stop using the pipe through Sweden.
Slashdot Mirror
To answer your question and to copypaste myself from above:
Well, it's not publicly-available material if it's behind a paywall or some other restrictions. You're changing the content's audience by introducing it to people that wouldn't have accessed it, and that's the part that constitutes copyright-infringement in this ruling, the changing the content's audience. On a similar note, there are plenty of sites with poorly-implemented paywalls that do grant access to the material even when it's supposed to be paywalled. The intent is important here; the court ignores implementation-specific failures, but recognizes intent.
Well, it's not publicly-available material if it's behind a paywall or some other restrictions. You're changing the content's audience by introducing it to people that wouldn't have accessed it, and that's the part that constitutes copyright-infringement in this ruling, the changing the content's audience. On a similar note, there are plenty of sites with poorly-implemented paywalls that do grant access to the material even when it's supposed to be paywalled. The intent is important here; the court ignores implementation-specific failures, but recognizes intent.
This ruling only applies to copyrighted content that is legally and publicly available. Linking to content that is behind e.g. a paywall would constitute a copyright-infringement. Similarly, it doesn't rule that linking to publicly available, but unauthorized content would be legal, that is an entirely different matter.
Why is this ruling important, then? Well, it could be used as a stepping-stone for more in-depth ruling about linking to content, like e.g. the aforementioned unauthorized content. Similarly, many journalists, newspapers and whatnot have been sued in the recent past for copyright-infringement simply for linking to an article on another newspapers' website. Some companies are even trying to extort money from Google and other search-engines for the same thing, so now they could possibly use this ruling as a defense. Search-engines aren't journalists, that's true, but a new ruling could be based on this one and grant search-engines the same rights in hyperlinking.
The one, single biggest weakness with the whole IoT movement is the lack of any sort of use.
I did mention that, too. I can't think of much use for IoT-devices myself, either, except for the fridge: it'd be handy if it reminded me of groceries that will be going bad in a day or two. I did read a blog-post from someone who bought a bunch of those smart-bulbs and programmed them to follow a specific schedule, like e.g. slowly rising in brightness when it's time to wake up in the morning, turning off automatically during work-hours, automatically setting a specific mood in the workroom and so on, but all that really works only for people who have very strict schedules. It's hard to think of cases where all the hassles of keeping the things working, updated and secure is worth the trouble in our daily lives.
And I certainly don't want all those things open to remote access hacks.
That's the thing I worry the most about. With lax security someone could just drive by your house, turn everything on, crank your thermostat to max. and so on, resulting in possibly burned-out machines, higher electrical bills, terrible nuisance when you're trying to sleep and so on. If IoT-devices were ever to become mainstream these kinds of things should first have to be solved in a standard, global manner.
The one, single biggest weakness with the whole IoT-movement is the lack of any sorts of standards. Devices from one manufacturer use this protocol to talk to one another, the devices from another manufacturer use another protocol, neither of them can communicate with one another, and to top it off many devices even within a single manufacturer's own line of products don't know how to communicate amongst themselves. This means a huge, tangled mess of dozens of controlling applications and physical control-panels and whatnot, and it's all ripe with security-issues, too. With no standards or anything there's no logical way of controlling all of your IoT-devices in a unified way, let alone to control their security and updates.
On a similar note, there was recently talk on Ars Technica about this subject when the CEO of WIFI Alliance tried to make the case that all IoT-devices should simply use WIFI, but that would be folly. His primary argument was that even though WIFI uses more power than e.g. Bluetooth-LE it provides more bandwidth and that the amount of power WIFI uses is irrelevant. That argument obviously ignores the fact that if, on average, every household in the future had e.g. approximately 50 IoT-devices in their homes we would then see the power-drain on the electric-networks increase by 50 * 117M ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) * WIFI-power-drain just within the United States alone -- a definitely non-neglibigle amount. Also, your fridge, coffee-maker and the likes have absolutely zero need for all the bandwidth WIFI would bring, so Bluetooth-LE or something similar would be the saner choice -- less power-usage, still more than enough bandwidth for the small amount of data being transferred. However, you'd again need some sort of a bridge for bringing the WIFI-devices and Bluetooth-LE-devices together, and again, you'd need sane standards in order to come up with such bridges.
I'm ranting a little, I haven't been sleeping too well and my thoughts are racing, but my point here is that even if the tech was there for the big push for IoT-devices we lack standardisation efforts, we lack the need for such devices, and I'm not sure the environmental costs would be worth the advantages either at this point in time.
You're right. The past 24 hours has turned into a kindergarten of sorts and I'm shouting too, but I don't think it will last long. I don't want to leave Slashdot and most others don't either.
I was actually surprised to get a reply to the feedback I left them. They thanked me for the feedback and for the fact that instead of just complaining I actually provided some concrete examples they could do to make things better. The guy did mention that the beta-version is still very much under construction and they are, indeed, looking at the feedback they're getting. I felt rather encouraged by the personally-addressed e-mail I got so I provided them with some more ideas they could possibly look into. Hopefully it all means the beta will be more pleasant and useable in the long run.
There are many of us who have been providing *constructive* criticism for *many months* only to have it fall on deaf ears. Now that the beta is being forced on users in a graduated rollout you're going to be hearing these complaints more and more often until either:
And that's an excuse for this rampant idiocy? Because last I heard the mature approach would be to provide constructive criticism, wait and see what happens, and then simply leave if the outcome is unbearable and the feedback is ignored, all without turning the whole place into a fucking kindergarten. I voiced my opinion to them and if they do nothing to alleviate my concerns I'll simply stop using the site. Alas, I suppose I just have better things to do with my time than spamming here.
2. There is utility in my second approach, as there is utility in the first.
Sure, if you're looking for other childish, immature people. But if you think your behaviour is going to change anything here you got another think coming; there is no good reason for why the people behind Slashdot would want to keep someone like that around, they're more likely to continue with their plan just to get more mature people here and to drive your kind out. But oh, don't let that stop you.
post anymore FUCK BETAs today.
How exceedingly constructive of you. I took a look at the beta and I provided constructive feedback through the official channels, but I suppose that's simply too much. Thankfully I've seen the light and can now totally commit to finding my inner child, going all the way back to kindergarten and then to proceed to spam the comments section and tags associated to the articles with all sorts of stuff my new-found inner 5-year old would come up with.
Who is this "we" you're talking about and why should the rest of us care where you're going?
While the general goal is noteworthy, the obvious problem here is that the security will be just as lack-luster as all the other car-related tech, ie. it'll be broken pretty fast and then it'll spread everywhere. And you won't be able to disable this V2V, either. Then it's just a matter of terrorists/kiddies/bored/plain, old evil people installing black boxes on the sides of the roads or whatever that send false V2V-messages, causing all sorts of hickups, stalling traffic, causing accidents and so on. And then *that* will be used as an excuse for even more regulation, monitoring and even less privacy.
Or is there some other reason why it is ridiculous?
Yes, it is ridiculous.
w3schools is as good as any other site.
No, it definitely isn't. w3schools is representative of the tastes of generally tech-inclined people and even there it's only representative of the people visiting that single site. eBay, for example, is used by both tech-inclined people and the luddites and therefore it would be a much better gauge for browser-share, however it would still only track browser-share on eBay's sites. The link that I gave you, however, tracks browser-share across multiple sites and networks and places IE at 22.85% share. You'd be a moron not to see why tracking browser-share only on a single, tech-oriented website that no luddites will ever visit is not going to be representative of the overall market.
The current story doesn't say that IE has a huge number of users, it says it is the most prevalent browser. That can only align with having 10% market share if all competing browsers have less than 10% share.
I'd like to point out that the article you're referring to was only about w3schools -- ie. for web-developers and the likes. It was a totally ridiculous way of measuring browser market-share and a thinly-veiled attempt at mocking IE. http://gs.statcounter.com/ provides a much better measure and as you can see, IE is still 2nd up there. On any website that's actually used by Average Jane and Joe IE shows up much higher than "single-digit" numbers.
No, this is all still highly theoretical and you cannot state that this hypothesis is absolutely, definitely correct. It may be correct, it may well be the best theory we have and all that, but it's still a theory.
I was under the impression that the tricolour-mendel can print in 3 colours, whereas this one uses 3 base-colours to create any of the millions of different combinations, very much like regular printers and RGB-displays and the likes.
Is "Stratasys" really so difficult to write?
I don't quite agree. I get what you mean, but a whistleblower releases information to those who it isn't supposed to go in order to improve the security their country and the lives of their fellow countrymen, whereas spies release information to those who it isn't supposed to go in order to undermine the security of said country. While the methods and results may even be the same the intent is different.
Just you wait, they'll raise all speeds to that, but then slap a datacap of 500MB on it.
I know it's popular for people to immediately start with all the Terminator-claims and whatnot, but that's not the first thing that comes to my mind when reading stuff like this. Personally, I think of coupling this with something like e.g. Google Glass, so that you can tell the system to identify the item in the center of the view and then ask for it to automatically search for instructions on use or repair or whatnot. Even better if you have a device that covers both of your eyes so that the system can overlay things in your whole visual field, identifying things and showing their connections and whatnot.
No, it just means the sample period is 100 years.
Because while Androids outsell Apple 4:1 or more, there's a very strange thing going on. Mobile web traffic has iOS using TWICE the amount of data over Android. Or, put another way, 1 iOS user consumes as much data as 8 Android users.
That's rather easy to explain: iDevices are expensive and the people buying them likely can afford to pay for all this mobile traffic. Android-devices, on the other hand, go all the way as low as $30, and the people buying low-end Android-devices most likely can't afford to pay for mobile traffic or will be able to only pay for small amounts of it. The price-range and the wealth of the end-users on Android-end of things is much, much wider.
May I introduce you to leukaemia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leukemia ) ?
"New treatment kills some but not all metastatic cancer cells in mice, but only while they're traversing the bloodstream
A situation that is very dangerous and often leads to untreatable, fatal cancerous growth.
and so far only when the cells are injected into the mice in the first place".
That is also explained rather well in the article: there is no good way of predicting when or if a cancerous growth would ever become metastatic and enter the bloodstream, so the only way of actually testing the treatment is to inject the cells there. I mean, they can't really just sit on their thumbs hoping for the cancer to enter the bloodstream when it could be anything between 1 week to 10 years of waiting or it could simply not happen at all, now can they? The cells entering the bloodstream via ordinary methods or via an injection, however, don't change the results of the treatment -- the delivery method of the cells inside the body and the effects of them remain the same.
You probably should read the article before you start spouting things about genomes, it's rather clear you don't really understand what's happening or why.
Well, Sweden is totally bought out by the US government. Has been for a long time now. They openly inspect all traffic that goes through Sweden's border, including the traffic from Finland and Russia and report everything back to the US, and they themselves admit to doing this. That's why we have plans here to build a pipe to Germany or somewhere instead and stop using the pipe through Sweden.