And yet, only in 2015, you were rather a fan of "Municipal WiFi"
Nice attempt to put words in my mouth but I've never said anything of the sort. You would see that if you bothered to follow the link you provided and actually read it. I've argued in the past that communities should have the RIGHT to install such telecom systems for their citizens if they want to, particularly in cases where the local telecom monopoly isn't providing the level of service they desire. I simply think it should be treated as a utility like water or electricity and communities should have the right to roll their own if the market isn't doing it for them.
Presumably because Google crossed a line for them on their personal moral compass. Might or might not be something you care about.
Did they think noone would step up and do it instead of them?
Why would that be a relevant consideration for them? The point is that THEY did not want to be a part of doing that job. They cannot control what others do. Other people do lots of jobs I don't want to do. When I've quit jobs the last thing I give a shit about is whether someone will take my place and do it for me since I don't control that. Furthermore if they work at Google they're probably pretty talented and well paid so it's not like they are stuck there if they don't want to be.
All top brass sees is maybe a 6 month setback hiring and training, and yeah that sucks, but that's not going to institute change.
No but quitting loudly and publicly sometimes has the effect of shaming the top brass into changing their behavior. No guarantee of course but doing nothing will definitely not change anything.
The single most annoying issue with WiFi providers today is the need to "Accept the Terms" and/or acknowledge their greatness (and generosity) before the WiFi actually works.
Which is why I almost never use such systems. I've got plenty of data on my cell phone and can use it more places. Usually faster and more secure too.
If we actually prioritized safety over practicality and freedom, then driving would be handled by professionals.
Nonsense. Stop making perfect the enemy of good. A large majority of the people can handle driving a car with reasonable safety. But doing so requires a certain standard of physical and mental ability to do it safely. One of the problems of growing older is that many people experience mental decline and slowing of reaction times. Other people for reasons beyond their control (genetics, disease, accidents, etc) never achieve this level of function. People in this category should not be driving under any circumstances because they are a hazard to themselves and those around them. Right now we have frankly set the bar too low. It's too easy to get a drivers license and we do not retest at reasonable intervals. I've seen far too many people who are able to retain their driver's license long beyond when they should.
But we don't prioritize safety over practicality and freedom, because that would be idiotic.
Idiotic is letting someone who is CLEARLY dangerous and incapable of safe operation drive. Drunk, senile, etc. If we let people who are clearly unable to operate a motor vehicle with a reasonable standard of performance then we are idiots.
To say that Time Travelers might exist opens the door to a lot of stupidity.
Only to those already likely to be stupid. No lack of those no matter what anyone actually says.
Then people will say that Jesus might have existed
It's almost certain Jesus existed or at least someone who filled the role. What is in doubt is that Jesus was anything more than an unusually successful cult leader who convinced people he was a deity. Happens all the time even today. See Joseph Smith or L Ron Hubbard for modern day examples of cult leaders founding churches. Christianity and Islam are just examples of the same thing several centuries earlier.
That'll work great in the rural towns where there is no public transport and the elderly population exceeds 50%
Then they have a choice to either move or work to install alternatives to cars. Instead of paying for cars we could pool together to have a subsidized taxi service for cases like these. The assumption that we should indulge them in the unsafe operation of a motor vehicle because the current public transit options suck is idiotic.
I don't understand this whining that we can't do anything that would change the status quo.
A more moderate version would be that cars give people mobility and that is worth a lot. Therefore the threshold for allowing people to drive should be as low as possible and a modest increase in death toll should be allowed
That's frankly an idiotic suggestion. If we want mobility it doesn't have to come in the form of a car. Heaven forbid we have a public transit system that doesn't suck. Stop thinking cars are the only possibility and the answers become obvious.
EVERYONE should have to take driving tests that are harder than the current ones and there should be a cognitive function test to go with them. If you cannot physically/mentally react fast enough to safely operate a motor vehicle then you should not have a license.
It's always tempting to put the bar as high as possible because it's good for the traffic deaths, but you have to balance it.
No you really do not have to balance it. You simply have to recognize that we've designed our infrastructure too heavily on the false presumption that anyone above the age of 16 is physically and mentally capable of driving a car. This is obviously and manifestly not true and therefore is stupid policy. The answer is to build our transport system to rely less on the presumption that everyone can drive. Public transit, subsidized taxi service, housing relocation assistance, etc. If this requires people to give up their car fetish and self indulgent assumption of a "right" to drive then so much the better.
That describes most everything about America a good proportion of the time. We spend more on our military than the next 8 largest military budget combined despite there being no objective reason to do so. We spend more on our health care than anyone else and get worse results. We spend more on prison than anyone else and get worse results. We went to the moon just to to beat the Russians for bragging rights and haven't gone back since. Whether something actually works or not never seems to dent the consciousness of our "leaders".
There should be a better way than waiting for "driving in the wrong lane", for example.
There is but we're too much of a bunch of self indulgent asshats to do it. The answer is EVERYONE should have to retest routinely (say every 3-5 years) and the test should actually be challenging to pass in a sense similar to a pilot's license. (doens't have to be as hard as a pilots license but it should be a lot harder than it is and include cognitive function testing and a physical exam) Do something stupid like drive drunk and your license gets revoked on the first offense because you have clearly demonstrated you cannot handle the responsibility. If you are getting older and lose the ability to cognitively react fast enough and properly while driving, that should result in your license being suspended. I don't see why that should even be controversial. Simple fact is that you become dangerous when that happens. I expect/hope I live long enough it happens to me someday.
Unfortunately we've designed far too much of our infrastructure around a presumed ability and "right" to drive a car so the other half of this is that we would have to actually invest in decent public transit for those who are unable to pass the test. I don't actually see this as a bad thing. A good public transit system is something worthwhile. If we need to have subsidized access to taxis (or Uber/Lyft) for those unable to drive themselves then let's do that or something similar. Probably some people to assist the elderly and disabled who need a little extra help getting around. Heaven forbid we actually act to help those who need a little extra assistance.
There are multiple cards that amount to 2% on everything everywhere. Most of these cards have sign up bonuses on top of their rewards. All of these are loss leaders to try and entice customers into a particular set of services.
I have one of those cards. They make money because they charge the merchant 3-4% on most transactions. And no they are not all loss leaders.
Sure, they could offer a good percentage towards itunes stuff, but itunes gift cards can already be had at an enormous discount from their face value.
You're wondering where Apple will find profit in selling data? Seriously? It has effectively ZERO marginal cost to copy. The answer to this is self evident.
I don't know where the money is here for Apple.
Literally every single transaction will be a cut for Apple. It won't be their primary line of business but they could easily make a tidy profit with good margins on it.
I use cash wherever I can, because not giving any personal data or any of my money to megacorps who don't pay their fucking taxes rocks.
Boy you are really sticking it to The Man there. I'm sure you never actually buy anything from a company that isn't a local mom and pop store that makes all their goods on their farm. Oh wait, you're using a computer made by a large megacorp that doesn't pay taxes to type this so I'm calling bullshit on your fake moralizing.
I do not find Apple Pay convenient to use for in-store transactions over standard plastic cards, though I understand that if I had an Apple Watch that it's pretty spiffy
I do. Reasons why? 1) I don't have to get out my wallet, 2) I don't have to show ID or (usually) sign anything, 3) the merchant never gets my account information and thus they cannot lose it or have it stolen, 4) It's generally as fast or faster than using a plastic card, 5) Stealing my phone doesn't result in someone getting access to my credit cards, bank cards and other wallet contents, 6) I don't have to make physical contact (germs) with a cashier.
Now if those things don't matter to you, that's fine. I'm not judging. What works for me might not work for you. But I REALLY like being able to use my phone to handle transactions like this and cannot wait for the day when I can leave my stupid wallet at home most of the time. Apple Pay (and google's equivalent) check the boxes for me on how I like to do things.
I know 2 people who use Apple pay and I'm fairly certain 1 of them has stopped completely. Both are hopeless fanboys who will jump through any hoop and take any abuse.
I use Apple Pay fairly routinely when possible. I like it quite a lot and use it preferentially over my credit cards. Personal preference of course. Anyway your (and my) anecdotal stories don't really mean anything.
However this could easily be the end of Apple Pay, Apple presently is maintaining the line it's not a bank, therefore does not need to comply with the myriad of banking regulations in the jurisdictions it operates this service in.
Apple isn't a bank. It doesn't even remotely resemble a bank. Facilitating financial transactions does not make a company a bank. I think you are letting your bias lead you to unsupported conclusions. Apple would have to do a LOT of things they don't do now to become a bank.
One Apple start issuing cards, it's going to be difficult to claim that they're not in the financial services industry and not subject to regulations.
Actually it wouldn't be hard at all since odds are Apple would not be the one actually issuing the cards. Most likely they'll partner with an actual bank who does the heavy lifting just like most companies. Amazon offers a credit card but they certainly aren't a bank and no one is accusing them of trying to be one.
Amazing how each generation thinks the one that follows it are a bunch of losers for wanting something different than what their parents want.
Nobody likes being forced to work long hours. China's economy is getting to the point where a lot of Chinese finally have a choice in the matter. That's a good thing.
Yeah, I feel sorry for that small, rural town, missing out on about $1B for their economy, just because of two assholes.
Why do you assume that money would go predominately to the local economy? Obviously they would capture some of it but it's unclear how much. Plus having a large company come in and dominate the local economy is the very definition of a two edged sword. It can bring a lot of positive economic benefits but it also makes the local economy beholden to that one company and can absolutely ruin the local economy if/when they leave.
Why should they? There is no logical reason for them to do so. If the bot works as well in reality as it did in the three demos, thern there is no reason to 'warn' the person on the other end that it is a bot.
Are you aware of the concepts of selection bias and survivorship bias? These are hand picked demos intended to make the technology look as good as possible. I'm deeply dubious it would perform as well under real world conditions.
While I actually prefer not having to talk to a person in a lot of cases, I've never seen a machine or program that could even come close to properly interpreting my requests using voice commands on a reliable basis outside of a few narrow use cases. Presumably this system is better than Siri and equivalents but that's a pretty low bar to set. And if I'm not talking to a human I want to know that fact up front so I can adjust my actions accordingly. Odds are I would figure it out quickly enough anyway but it should be disclosed.
Obviously power to weight ratio *matters*. The question is whether there's some unsolvable physics reason that someone can't make a street-legal airplane
If your only goal is to make a vehicle that is both street legal and can fly, that has already been done. If your goal is have one that is actually useful for much of anything beyond driving on a road (carefully) and flying (poorly) you need a power source that is FAR more compact and light than any technology available to us today or even anything reasonably plausible in the near future. Until you understand this point this further discussion on this topic is pointless.
You gave a lot of reasons of why it's a difficult engineering problem, but no reasons of why it's precluded by physics.
That is argument from ignorance in the sense of Russell's teapot. You are claiming because we haven't proved it impossible that it therefore must be possible. Engineering is applied physics. We know of no physics that would allow us to engineer a power supply small enough yet powerful enough to make a useful flying car. Not even in theory unless you want to invoke science fiction level advances in our technology in the near future. Even the most compact nuclear power sources are FAR too large and heavy (not to mention dangerous) and we have no known way to make them sufficiently small and light for this application. That's not to say we will never have a breakthrough someday but it will take a game changing scientific/engineering breakthrough to make this possible and we have no realistic known path to such a state of affairs currently.
Again, I'm not sure anyone said it was secured, it was certainly not adequately secured.
If it wasn't secured data then there is no basis for arresting the individual accessing the data. If it was secured data it was so badly secured as to not be secured and we are back to there being no basis for law enforcement to get involved. If this data was supposed to remain private the people who posted it to the internet without any meaningful security are the ones who should be speaking to a judge and retaining counsel.
As I wrote in another post, a deliberate attempt to circumvent a security feature may go to the issue of "fraudlently" obtaining. Apart from that it is difficult to see what relavance the concept of "security" has to this offence.
And my point is that once the "security" reaches are certain level of incompetence (like it did here) it ceases to be security and there is no basis for accusing the accessing party of any fraudulent attempt at access. Just because there wasn't a direct link to it doesn't mean it wasn't publicly accessible information. The failure of the party posting the data to realize this fact is not and should not be anyone else's problem.
Not anyone poked beyond the specific URL they were given to look at other people's information, it was the accused took the effort to do so.
"Effort" is a bit of a stretch description. A minor tweak to the URL hardly something that qualifies as effort. I've done that exact thing myself now and then and I'm hardly a genius hacker.
No, anyone can read everything posted on a billboard, indeed it would take effort to avert one's eyes and read only the notice(s) specifically addressed to you.
It's an analogy meant to illustrate the intent of a point, not the point itself. If something can be accessed by URL it will be. Just because many people cannot be bothered is irrelevant.
I'd prefer simply to work with the facts of the case: it's like he was given a url, realised that by making trivial changes to it he could view other people's information and did so... a lot like;)
And there is nothing wrong with that. There has to be some measure of standard of care on the part of the people charged with keeping private data private. If I put private documents in a place where someone can access them with minimal effort I should not be surprised when someone goes ahead and does that.
But show me *one* digital source device with any of the sex appeal of a Nakamichi Dragon..
If you think that has sex appeal you badly need to get laid so you can learn what the term actually means. That's the sort of device douchebags buy to impress other douchebags.
Are there many(any) studios that record primarily, in analog?
No because that would be a stupid and expensive thing to do.
Do many of them have analog components to them...ie tube amps, pre-amps, tape....etc?
No because that would be a stupid and expensive thing to do.
Wouldn't it really only sound the best on analog home play, if the source was also at least mostly recorded using analog technology?
The idea that analog sounds better is a myth. It's the sort of bullshit audiophiles tell themselves to justify spending outrageous amounts of money to pretend they can get "better" sound and impress their friends. It's the sort of bullshit hipsters spout to gain social points pretending they know something the rest of us don't.
Casette tapes SUCK. They need to die a permanent and gruesome death in a fire. I grew up with them so I should know. Anyone using one is just trying to gain social points by using retro tech. There is certainly no audio advantage to them. They are fragile, awkward to use, degrade easily, are bulky, hold little content.... The list of their failings is almost endless.
As sufficiently bad sex is ndistinguishable from no sex?
You'll have to speak from your own experience...;-) (joking)
You can see no difference between mistakenly posting to a deliberately non-secured service and purposely posting to a service with inffective security? You also missed the "insofar as this is relevant"...
There is no difference because someone can access it without any indication that it is "secured". One could bypass the security without even realizing it was intended to be secure or that any laws were being violated.
You also missed the "insofar as this is relevant"...
I didn't miss it and I actually thought your post was rather good. I just disagree that there is any basis (legal or technical) to say this data was "secured". They may as well have posted the data on a billboard and then tried to arrest anyone who read it.
Whether you choose to accept it or not, the NRA represents a significant block of grassroots voters.
The NRA represents gun industry interests under the guise of pretending to be a grassroots interest organization. This didn't used to be true but it is unquestionably true today. While it is true that there is a large block of voters who are members and who care strongly about 2nd amendment rights, the NRA is only indirectly represents their voice on the issue at this point. The organization has been co-opted by corporations to advocate primarily for them. Whether you think this is a good or bad thing I leave up to you but don't be mislead into misunderstanding where the money in the NRA comes from or what strings are attached.
It is entirely funded by its members and represents a large voting block.
The NRA is decidedly NOT "entirely funded by its members". Significantly less than half of the NRA's money comes from program fees and membership dues. This is not conjecture - it is a known fact. Most of the NRA revenue comes from corporations with financial interests in selling firearms and related products. The NRA is de-facto the lobbying organization for the gun industry. It hasn't been a grassroots organization for several decades though it pretends to be one as there is political value in maintaining that fig leaf of a lie. Sort of like the NCAA pretending to care about "amateurism" and "student athletes" while they rake in literally billions in revenue for the colleges.
Slashdot Mirror
And yet, only in 2015, you were rather a fan of "Municipal WiFi"
Nice attempt to put words in my mouth but I've never said anything of the sort. You would see that if you bothered to follow the link you provided and actually read it. I've argued in the past that communities should have the RIGHT to install such telecom systems for their citizens if they want to, particularly in cases where the local telecom monopoly isn't providing the level of service they desire. I simply think it should be treated as a utility like water or electricity and communities should have the right to roll their own if the market isn't doing it for them.
Why did they quit?
Presumably because Google crossed a line for them on their personal moral compass. Might or might not be something you care about.
Did they think noone would step up and do it instead of them?
Why would that be a relevant consideration for them? The point is that THEY did not want to be a part of doing that job. They cannot control what others do. Other people do lots of jobs I don't want to do. When I've quit jobs the last thing I give a shit about is whether someone will take my place and do it for me since I don't control that. Furthermore if they work at Google they're probably pretty talented and well paid so it's not like they are stuck there if they don't want to be.
All top brass sees is maybe a 6 month setback hiring and training, and yeah that sucks, but that's not going to institute change.
No but quitting loudly and publicly sometimes has the effect of shaming the top brass into changing their behavior. No guarantee of course but doing nothing will definitely not change anything.
The single most annoying issue with WiFi providers today is the need to "Accept the Terms" and/or acknowledge their greatness (and generosity) before the WiFi actually works.
Which is why I almost never use such systems. I've got plenty of data on my cell phone and can use it more places. Usually faster and more secure too.
If we actually prioritized safety over practicality and freedom, then driving would be handled by professionals.
Nonsense. Stop making perfect the enemy of good. A large majority of the people can handle driving a car with reasonable safety. But doing so requires a certain standard of physical and mental ability to do it safely. One of the problems of growing older is that many people experience mental decline and slowing of reaction times. Other people for reasons beyond their control (genetics, disease, accidents, etc) never achieve this level of function. People in this category should not be driving under any circumstances because they are a hazard to themselves and those around them. Right now we have frankly set the bar too low. It's too easy to get a drivers license and we do not retest at reasonable intervals. I've seen far too many people who are able to retain their driver's license long beyond when they should.
But we don't prioritize safety over practicality and freedom, because that would be idiotic.
Idiotic is letting someone who is CLEARLY dangerous and incapable of safe operation drive. Drunk, senile, etc. If we let people who are clearly unable to operate a motor vehicle with a reasonable standard of performance then we are idiots.
To say that Time Travelers might exist opens the door to a lot of stupidity.
Only to those already likely to be stupid. No lack of those no matter what anyone actually says.
Then people will say that Jesus might have existed
It's almost certain Jesus existed or at least someone who filled the role. What is in doubt is that Jesus was anything more than an unusually successful cult leader who convinced people he was a deity. Happens all the time even today. See Joseph Smith or L Ron Hubbard for modern day examples of cult leaders founding churches. Christianity and Islam are just examples of the same thing several centuries earlier.
That'll work great in the rural towns where there is no public transport and the elderly population exceeds 50%
Then they have a choice to either move or work to install alternatives to cars. Instead of paying for cars we could pool together to have a subsidized taxi service for cases like these. The assumption that we should indulge them in the unsafe operation of a motor vehicle because the current public transit options suck is idiotic.
I don't understand this whining that we can't do anything that would change the status quo.
A more moderate version would be that cars give people mobility and that is worth a lot. Therefore the threshold for allowing people to drive should be as low as possible and a modest increase in death toll should be allowed
That's frankly an idiotic suggestion. If we want mobility it doesn't have to come in the form of a car. Heaven forbid we have a public transit system that doesn't suck. Stop thinking cars are the only possibility and the answers become obvious.
EVERYONE should have to take driving tests that are harder than the current ones and there should be a cognitive function test to go with them. If you cannot physically/mentally react fast enough to safely operate a motor vehicle then you should not have a license.
It's always tempting to put the bar as high as possible because it's good for the traffic deaths, but you have to balance it.
No you really do not have to balance it. You simply have to recognize that we've designed our infrastructure too heavily on the false presumption that anyone above the age of 16 is physically and mentally capable of driving a car. This is obviously and manifestly not true and therefore is stupid policy. The answer is to build our transport system to rely less on the presumption that everyone can drive. Public transit, subsidized taxi service, housing relocation assistance, etc. If this requires people to give up their car fetish and self indulgent assumption of a "right" to drive then so much the better.
he indicated that this was confirmation that time travel was not possible.
All that would prove is that time travelers didn't come to the party.
Prisons help some by keeping criminals off the street
Not when you put FAR more people into the prisons than necessary. The notion that more prisons = fewer criminals is good politics but terrible policy.
The US system lacks a sense of proportion.
That describes most everything about America a good proportion of the time. We spend more on our military than the next 8 largest military budget combined despite there being no objective reason to do so. We spend more on our health care than anyone else and get worse results. We spend more on prison than anyone else and get worse results. We went to the moon just to to beat the Russians for bragging rights and haven't gone back since. Whether something actually works or not never seems to dent the consciousness of our "leaders".
There should be a better way than waiting for "driving in the wrong lane", for example.
There is but we're too much of a bunch of self indulgent asshats to do it. The answer is EVERYONE should have to retest routinely (say every 3-5 years) and the test should actually be challenging to pass in a sense similar to a pilot's license. (doens't have to be as hard as a pilots license but it should be a lot harder than it is and include cognitive function testing and a physical exam) Do something stupid like drive drunk and your license gets revoked on the first offense because you have clearly demonstrated you cannot handle the responsibility. If you are getting older and lose the ability to cognitively react fast enough and properly while driving, that should result in your license being suspended. I don't see why that should even be controversial. Simple fact is that you become dangerous when that happens. I expect/hope I live long enough it happens to me someday.
Unfortunately we've designed far too much of our infrastructure around a presumed ability and "right" to drive a car so the other half of this is that we would have to actually invest in decent public transit for those who are unable to pass the test. I don't actually see this as a bad thing. A good public transit system is something worthwhile. If we need to have subsidized access to taxis (or Uber/Lyft) for those unable to drive themselves then let's do that or something similar. Probably some people to assist the elderly and disabled who need a little extra help getting around. Heaven forbid we actually act to help those who need a little extra assistance.
There are multiple cards that amount to 2% on everything everywhere. Most of these cards have sign up bonuses on top of their rewards. All of these are loss leaders to try and entice customers into a particular set of services.
I have one of those cards. They make money because they charge the merchant 3-4% on most transactions. And no they are not all loss leaders.
Sure, they could offer a good percentage towards itunes stuff, but itunes gift cards can already be had at an enormous discount from their face value.
You're wondering where Apple will find profit in selling data? Seriously? It has effectively ZERO marginal cost to copy. The answer to this is self evident.
I don't know where the money is here for Apple.
Literally every single transaction will be a cut for Apple. It won't be their primary line of business but they could easily make a tidy profit with good margins on it.
I use cash wherever I can, because not giving any personal data or any of my money to megacorps who don't pay their fucking taxes rocks.
Boy you are really sticking it to The Man there. I'm sure you never actually buy anything from a company that isn't a local mom and pop store that makes all their goods on their farm. Oh wait, you're using a computer made by a large megacorp that doesn't pay taxes to type this so I'm calling bullshit on your fake moralizing.
I do not find Apple Pay convenient to use for in-store transactions over standard plastic cards, though I understand that if I had an Apple Watch that it's pretty spiffy
I do. Reasons why? 1) I don't have to get out my wallet, 2) I don't have to show ID or (usually) sign anything, 3) the merchant never gets my account information and thus they cannot lose it or have it stolen, 4) It's generally as fast or faster than using a plastic card, 5) Stealing my phone doesn't result in someone getting access to my credit cards, bank cards and other wallet contents, 6) I don't have to make physical contact (germs) with a cashier.
Now if those things don't matter to you, that's fine. I'm not judging. What works for me might not work for you. But I REALLY like being able to use my phone to handle transactions like this and cannot wait for the day when I can leave my stupid wallet at home most of the time. Apple Pay (and google's equivalent) check the boxes for me on how I like to do things.
I know 2 people who use Apple pay and I'm fairly certain 1 of them has stopped completely. Both are hopeless fanboys who will jump through any hoop and take any abuse.
I use Apple Pay fairly routinely when possible. I like it quite a lot and use it preferentially over my credit cards. Personal preference of course. Anyway your (and my) anecdotal stories don't really mean anything.
However this could easily be the end of Apple Pay, Apple presently is maintaining the line it's not a bank, therefore does not need to comply with the myriad of banking regulations in the jurisdictions it operates this service in.
Apple isn't a bank. It doesn't even remotely resemble a bank. Facilitating financial transactions does not make a company a bank. I think you are letting your bias lead you to unsupported conclusions. Apple would have to do a LOT of things they don't do now to become a bank.
One Apple start issuing cards, it's going to be difficult to claim that they're not in the financial services industry and not subject to regulations.
Actually it wouldn't be hard at all since odds are Apple would not be the one actually issuing the cards. Most likely they'll partner with an actual bank who does the heavy lifting just like most companies. Amazon offers a credit card but they certainly aren't a bank and no one is accusing them of trying to be one.
Amazing how each generation thinks the one that follows it are a bunch of losers for wanting something different than what their parents want.
Nobody likes being forced to work long hours. China's economy is getting to the point where a lot of Chinese finally have a choice in the matter. That's a good thing.
Yeah, I feel sorry for that small, rural town, missing out on about $1B for their economy, just because of two assholes.
Why do you assume that money would go predominately to the local economy? Obviously they would capture some of it but it's unclear how much. Plus having a large company come in and dominate the local economy is the very definition of a two edged sword. It can bring a lot of positive economic benefits but it also makes the local economy beholden to that one company and can absolutely ruin the local economy if/when they leave.
Why should they? There is no logical reason for them to do so. If the bot works as well in reality as it did in the three demos, thern there is no reason to 'warn' the person on the other end that it is a bot.
Are you aware of the concepts of selection bias and survivorship bias? These are hand picked demos intended to make the technology look as good as possible. I'm deeply dubious it would perform as well under real world conditions.
While I actually prefer not having to talk to a person in a lot of cases, I've never seen a machine or program that could even come close to properly interpreting my requests using voice commands on a reliable basis outside of a few narrow use cases. Presumably this system is better than Siri and equivalents but that's a pretty low bar to set. And if I'm not talking to a human I want to know that fact up front so I can adjust my actions accordingly. Odds are I would figure it out quickly enough anyway but it should be disclosed.
Obviously power to weight ratio *matters*. The question is whether there's some unsolvable physics reason that someone can't make a street-legal airplane
If your only goal is to make a vehicle that is both street legal and can fly, that has already been done. If your goal is have one that is actually useful for much of anything beyond driving on a road (carefully) and flying (poorly) you need a power source that is FAR more compact and light than any technology available to us today or even anything reasonably plausible in the near future. Until you understand this point this further discussion on this topic is pointless.
You gave a lot of reasons of why it's a difficult engineering problem, but no reasons of why it's precluded by physics.
That is argument from ignorance in the sense of Russell's teapot. You are claiming because we haven't proved it impossible that it therefore must be possible. Engineering is applied physics. We know of no physics that would allow us to engineer a power supply small enough yet powerful enough to make a useful flying car. Not even in theory unless you want to invoke science fiction level advances in our technology in the near future. Even the most compact nuclear power sources are FAR too large and heavy (not to mention dangerous) and we have no known way to make them sufficiently small and light for this application. That's not to say we will never have a breakthrough someday but it will take a game changing scientific/engineering breakthrough to make this possible and we have no realistic known path to such a state of affairs currently.
Again, I'm not sure anyone said it was secured, it was certainly not adequately secured.
If it wasn't secured data then there is no basis for arresting the individual accessing the data. If it was secured data it was so badly secured as to not be secured and we are back to there being no basis for law enforcement to get involved. If this data was supposed to remain private the people who posted it to the internet without any meaningful security are the ones who should be speaking to a judge and retaining counsel.
As I wrote in another post, a deliberate attempt to circumvent a security feature may go to the issue of "fraudlently" obtaining. Apart from that it is difficult to see what relavance the concept of "security" has to this offence.
And my point is that once the "security" reaches are certain level of incompetence (like it did here) it ceases to be security and there is no basis for accusing the accessing party of any fraudulent attempt at access. Just because there wasn't a direct link to it doesn't mean it wasn't publicly accessible information. The failure of the party posting the data to realize this fact is not and should not be anyone else's problem.
Not anyone poked beyond the specific URL they were given to look at other people's information, it was the accused took the effort to do so.
"Effort" is a bit of a stretch description. A minor tweak to the URL hardly something that qualifies as effort. I've done that exact thing myself now and then and I'm hardly a genius hacker.
No, anyone can read everything posted on a billboard, indeed it would take effort to avert one's eyes and read only the notice(s) specifically addressed to you.
It's an analogy meant to illustrate the intent of a point, not the point itself. If something can be accessed by URL it will be. Just because many people cannot be bothered is irrelevant.
I'd prefer simply to work with the facts of the case: it's like he was given a url, realised that by making trivial changes to it he could view other people's information and did so ... a lot like ;)
And there is nothing wrong with that. There has to be some measure of standard of care on the part of the people charged with keeping private data private. If I put private documents in a place where someone can access them with minimal effort I should not be surprised when someone goes ahead and does that.
Lots of negatives there, butch...
Yep and every one of them well deserved.
But show me *one* digital source device with any of the sex appeal of a Nakamichi Dragon..
If you think that has sex appeal you badly need to get laid so you can learn what the term actually means. That's the sort of device douchebags buy to impress other douchebags.
Are there many(any) studios that record primarily, in analog?
No because that would be a stupid and expensive thing to do.
Do many of them have analog components to them...ie tube amps, pre-amps, tape....etc?
No because that would be a stupid and expensive thing to do.
Wouldn't it really only sound the best on analog home play, if the source was also at least mostly recorded using analog technology?
The idea that analog sounds better is a myth. It's the sort of bullshit audiophiles tell themselves to justify spending outrageous amounts of money to pretend they can get "better" sound and impress their friends. It's the sort of bullshit hipsters spout to gain social points pretending they know something the rest of us don't.
Even the lowly cassette tape is regaining popularity as some millennials embrace analog music over digital downloads and streaming services.
Translation: "Some millennials" = "Hipster douche bags"
Casette tapes SUCK. They need to die a permanent and gruesome death in a fire. I grew up with them so I should know. Anyone using one is just trying to gain social points by using retro tech. There is certainly no audio advantage to them. They are fragile, awkward to use, degrade easily, are bulky, hold little content.... The list of their failings is almost endless.
As sufficiently bad sex is ndistinguishable from no sex?
You'll have to speak from your own experience... ;-) (joking)
You can see no difference between mistakenly posting to a deliberately non-secured service and purposely posting to a service with inffective security? You also missed the "insofar as this is relevant" ...
There is no difference because someone can access it without any indication that it is "secured". One could bypass the security without even realizing it was intended to be secure or that any laws were being violated.
You also missed the "insofar as this is relevant" ...
I didn't miss it and I actually thought your post was rather good. I just disagree that there is any basis (legal or technical) to say this data was "secured". They may as well have posted the data on a billboard and then tried to arrest anyone who read it.
Whether you choose to accept it or not, the NRA represents a significant block of grassroots voters.
The NRA represents gun industry interests under the guise of pretending to be a grassroots interest organization. This didn't used to be true but it is unquestionably true today. While it is true that there is a large block of voters who are members and who care strongly about 2nd amendment rights, the NRA is only indirectly represents their voice on the issue at this point. The organization has been co-opted by corporations to advocate primarily for them. Whether you think this is a good or bad thing I leave up to you but don't be mislead into misunderstanding where the money in the NRA comes from or what strings are attached.
It is entirely funded by its members and represents a large voting block.
The NRA is decidedly NOT "entirely funded by its members". Significantly less than half of the NRA's money comes from program fees and membership dues. This is not conjecture - it is a known fact. Most of the NRA revenue comes from corporations with financial interests in selling firearms and related products. The NRA is de-facto the lobbying organization for the gun industry. It hasn't been a grassroots organization for several decades though it pretends to be one as there is political value in maintaining that fig leaf of a lie. Sort of like the NCAA pretending to care about "amateurism" and "student athletes" while they rake in literally billions in revenue for the colleges.