I'm curious to see what it says about me, but not so curious I'll give them access to the entirety of my Facebook account. Do they say what they'll do with your data afterwards? They must be sucking everything they can out of your account, and I doubt they destroy it afterwards even if you revoke permissions for their app.
It's the same deal with photo printers. It's much easier and cheaper to go down to Walmart or Costco when you need to print out your photos and get them to use their professional quality machines to do the job. I think that 3D printers will end up in the same sport. You'll go down to Walmart, and get them to print out an item for you. You'll only need it maybe 5 times a year, so there's no point in owning your own 3D printer. There's already services where you can send a 3D file and somebody will print it out and ship it to you.
I think this is accurate. I'm not ready to buy a 3D printer but I'd drive over to The UPS Store and have them print something out.
See, that's exactly why I'd like to acquire one - there's money to be made printing stuff for other people.
I wanna be the guy making that money.
There are web sites where you can find folks nearby with 3D printers and their costs. There were half a dozen within 10 or so miles. For me, though, that's not how I want to transact business.
It's the same deal with photo printers. It's much easier and cheaper to go down to Walmart or Costco when you need to print out your photos and get them to use their professional quality machines to do the job. I think that 3D printers will end up in the same sport. You'll go down to Walmart, and get them to print out an item for you. You'll only need it maybe 5 times a year, so there's no point in owning your own 3D printer. There's already services where you can send a 3D file and somebody will print it out and ship it to you.
I think this is accurate. I'm not ready to buy a 3D printer but I'd drive over to The UPS Store and have them print something out.
I read the entire transcript but had a hard time grasping the nuances. My favorite quote, though, was this:
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: All I'm trying to get at, and I'm not saying it's outcome determinative or necessarily bad, I'm just saying your technological model is based solely on circumventing legal prohibitions that you don't want to comply with, which is fine. I mean, that's you know, lawyers do that. But I'm just wondering why-- (Laughter.)
Except, of course, open source code also contains horrific security vulnerabilities.
Everyone raise your hand if you know the difference between proprietary software that's closed source, and open source with viewable binaries! That's right kiddies, if you have open source with viewable binaries you can even compile your own, and fix any bugs you find. You can even fork it! You can't do that with closed source, you're at their mercy for patches, fixes, and security holes.
As you seem to be unfamiliar with the difference between source code and compiled binaries, I will assume you don't yet have the required skillset to do what you're suggesting. That's ok, I don't either. I can write code, to a point, but I don't have the skills needed to audit it for security vulnerabilities.
FOSS _can_ be more secure than proprietary code, but that doesn't mean it is, or that it is not. It merely has the potential, and in that respect is superior to proprietary code. Potential isn't the same as reality, though. Perhaps in the future the EFF or something similar will come along and make its mission the independent review of source code for major projects.
Except, of course, open source code also contains horrific security vulnerabilities.
But you know about those, and can fix them if you want. That's the difference between open and closed source.
It's not that simple. My point, before it was moderated into oblivion, is that there is no implied additional security just because something is FOSS. I've contributed code to FOSS projects from time to time and I know I am not qualified to audit source for security vulnerabilities. There's appears to be an assumption that "someone" is doing this, but the reality is this doesn't happen often. TrueCrypt is an example of where this is being addressed, but how many projects have had an independant code review? Hardly any. So when you say you know about [vulnerabilities]... maybe you do, and maybe you don't. And when you say you can fix them if you want, maybe you can and maybe you can't.
Look, everyone seemed to assume I was attacking FOSS for some reason. I'm not. I like FOSS, I use it every day, and I contribute to it when I am capable of doing so. The OP's position that simply installing FOSS firmware instead of proprietary firmware somehow magically equated to a secure platform is severely flawed and should be examined critically and objectively.
Just load OpenWRT or some other open source firmware, problem solved.
What do you mean there isn't a port for your hardware? Why did you buy it in the first place? Throw it away (or donate it to someone who can do the port) and buy something that has been ported.
NEVER buy hardware without a open source port at least in progress.. You have been warned!
Except, of course, open source code also contains horrific security vulnerabilities.
No way. I can still remember the collective gasp that echoed through cyberspace when Apple announced the price for an entry grade iPad will cost $499. People were expecting something much closer to $1000.
At the time there was no basis of comparison except for netbooks and the iPod Touch.
He said he predicted failure for their SECOND tablet. Which was the iPad.
Yes, this is what I meant, and I was far from the only one saying so. Those who weren't Apple fanbois mostly predicted the iPad to be nothing more than an oversized iPod Touch filling a small niche that could only cannibalize from Apple's existing portfolio.
10" touchscreen tablets were totally unheard of, the Newton was a flop, and everyone hated laptops with touchscreens. A tablet, keyboardless computer had, in the history of mankind, never been successful. Plus the iPad was _expensive_. People would buy the cheaper Kindle or netbooks (remember those?) instead. The concept of carrying around a tablet instead of a laptop was ludicrous, because the apps that would enable you to do that did not yet exist. Four years later it's easy to look back and say "well, duh", but in 2010 it was seen as a risky move for Apple.
My point is that it's easy to be wrong about what people will buy, and it's too early to know what will happen with wearable computing. The right product at the right time could change everything.
Anything that makes "wearables" die out faster is good in my book. Keep releasing different models all running different OSes and all doing different versions of nothing useful. Manufactured product pushes are like diarrhea. The sooner all the products exit the pipeline, the sooner corporate sees that marketing was blowing smoke up their ass when they told them "wearables" were going to be hot, the sooner I don't have to hear about them and, hopefully, the sooner that marketing dipshit is fired.
The same goes for the asshole who decided that Wendy's, Carl's Jr/Hardees, and Sonic all had to jump on the non-existent pretzel bun bandwagon. Oh wait, nobody actually wanted those? Better jump on the ciabatta bandwagon! That failed too?! Well what about brioche? Still no boost in sales? Revert back to our "classic" buns to save money and leverage our brand!
Sometimes the product vision is right but the timing or state of technology is wrong. I think wearables might fall into that category but it's too soon to tell. Groundwork and thought leadership today could reap rewards later. Apple's first tablet was such a colossal failure that many, including me, predicted the same for their second attempt. I was definitely wrong.
Because when I have to go somewhere that parking is tricky, I'm always on two wheels. And there's always somewhere to park it. Plus it's often quicker in busy cities, cheaper, gets you fit(If you don't have an engine) and above all, is fun!
"And here's why it matters to you even if you ride a granola-powered bike to work: I think this is a confirming instance of what I've been arguing for years, that the marketplace for ideas, inventions, and intellectual property is far less efficient than most people think it is."
This isn't about parking, except as an example of the problem.
I don't think you bothered to do more than skim the summary, if that. Although to be fair, the summary could have simply said that good apps are getting drowned out in white noise of not-so-good apps because the review/curation system in the app stores is completely ineffective.
A contract signed under duress and harassment is not necessarily legally binding...
It's not duress. It isn't "if you don't sign this you're fired", but instead "if you go away quietly and promise not to sue us we will give you a bunch of money, plus we'll let everyone think it's your idea so you can tell your next employer whatever you like".
Obviously you're free not to accept the deal, and often that's a tactic during negotiation of the package, and they won't fire you unless they can legally do so. At that point the writing is on the wall anyway, and sooner or later you are going to part ways. At least with a package you get money, the company avoids litigation, everyone wins.
Did you even read the summery: "'It's clear that Brendan cannot lead Mozilla in this setting,' Baker was quoted as saying."
So basically, the only reason he was not fired, was because he was given the option to resign, before they fired him. This is a quote taken directly from the mouth of the Mozilla Executive Chairman.
Generally speaking when you want someone to resign but lack the legal means to fire them, you offer them a severance package to so that they'll decide to leave on their own. The terms usually call for non-disclosure of the deal elements (or possibly that there was a deal at all), and also some kind of legal protection for the company. Nothing illegal about that.
Or you know, a well known totalitarian government stamping out a black market currency, you know, to control their citizens, like they've been doing forever.
This move has nothing to do with controlling their citizens and has everything to do with their continued manipulation of their currency. RMB is very tightly controlled by their government and they have a model that's working for them.
If he opposed Prop 8 he would have been in support of gay marriage, not opposed to it. Prop 8 was a California constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. I assume he was in support of Prop 8 and not opposed to it as indicated in the summary.
The method is new. Most (all?) current systems use the lane departure warning system and steering wheel input to determine if the driver is drowsy, but they do not put a camera on the driver themselves. The current system on my Ford doesn't seem to work very well.
Because building for my family's future is one of my primary motivators. I'm not just in it for myself. If I die I want my kids to receive the same education they would if I were still alive. The government already takes half of what I earn, and I will do everything legally possible to give them nothing more when I die.
Maybe the real issue is that your goverment isn't actually providing education for your own children. Your dependency on being able to leave capital to you descendants is merely a symptom of that actual problem.
I used education as an example, but there are many others. Helping with a down-payment for a starter home is another. Or perhaps they need some seed capital for a purpose I can't predict.
Yes, I did. You care about others, just not as much as you do about your own. Of course you're right, this is human nature. Much like fucking anything that moves, taking that juicy steak from the cripple, or killing anything that seems like it might one day pose a threat to you. Personally, I think that appeals to human nature are a bit played out, as the kids say.
You made a conscious decision to have kids knowing full well that you'd be raising them at the expense of the rest of the human race. That you'd be helping your daughter pay for college, but not helping some other little girl get a hot meal. Of course, you could've decided to do the truly selfless thing and not have kids, so that you could be a better human, so that your little girl wouldn't distract you from the rest of the world. But no, human nature stopped you from being selfless, and you were powerless to resist. Woe is you.
Your daughter is not special. She is one of billions of people suffering through this world. I'll pay for her college just as soon as I can pay for everyone's college, because I don't believe that preferential treatment is fair, by definition. Your entire argument stems from emotion (and appeals to "human nature") and lacks any substance of logic. Don't be offended by the allegations of greed. After all, it's just human nature.
Let me make sure I understand your argument:
1) Caring about and providing for your family is the same thing as rape, theft, and murder. 2) Every child is nothing but a burden to society. Or was it just mine in particular? 3) No one should go to college unless everyone can go to college. When I die everything should be taken from my family to further that goal.
Because building for my family's future is one of my primary motivators. I'm not just in it for myself. If I die I want my kids to receive the same education they would if I were still alive. The government already takes half of what I earn, and I will do everything legally possible to give them nothing more when I die.
That's a sadly greedy way to go through life. I understand that "fuck you, I got mine" is a popular motto today, but seriously, have you no shame?
You seriously read it that way? Of course I care about others. That is my responsibility as a human being. I care about my family more than strangers. That is my responsibility as a husband and father. It's also human nature.
Tell you what, you sign up to put my kid through the college of her choice, help her with her first home purchase, generally make sure he has a better life than I do, and make sure my wife doesn't lose her home without my income, and in return I'll happily let the government take whatever they want from what I've managed to scrape up. No? Then fuck off, you sanctimonious prick.
If you make $50K a year, you are in the 25% Federal bracket,and if you are in California another 9.3%, then don't forget social security and medicare - 7.65%, and if you go thru the trouble of being self employed, you get to pay that twice, or 15.3%... OK you're right. It is ONLY 49.6% tax, for a self employed person in California. But, with what you have left you still have sales tax, gas tax, taxes on phone bills, cable bills, car tax (annual vehicle license fee), real-estate taxes... you get the idea.
I was going to respond but you did a much better job than I would have.
Quite a few billionaires (Buffet, Trump) would disagree with you.
If I am a brilliant man and create a company (and create value), I deserve to keep that. But why should my descendants, who are by virtue of their birth part of a "lucky sperm club," entitled to all that wealth?
True capitalism should require a level playing field when you start, and to really do that, when the final score is tallied, the slate should be wiped clean.
That's why such super high estate taxes exist. And typically they're not for you and me, it's for people over a certain threshold (say $1 mio + in assets)
Because building for my family's future is one of my primary motivators. I'm not just in it for myself. If I die I want my kids to receive the same education they would if I were still alive. The government already takes half of what I earn, and I will do everything legally possible to give them nothing more when I die.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd be pissed if my phone started ringing incessantly because it was in a video on /.
I'm curious to see what it says about me, but not so curious I'll give them access to the entirety of my Facebook account. Do they say what they'll do with your data afterwards? They must be sucking everything they can out of your account, and I doubt they destroy it afterwards even if you revoke permissions for their app.
This scam is a marketer's wet dream.
It's the same deal with photo printers. It's much easier and cheaper to go down to Walmart or Costco when you need to print out your photos and get them to use their professional quality machines to do the job. I think that 3D printers will end up in the same sport. You'll go down to Walmart, and get them to print out an item for you. You'll only need it maybe 5 times a year, so there's no point in owning your own 3D printer. There's already services where you can send a 3D file and somebody will print it out and ship it to you.
I think this is accurate. I'm not ready to buy a 3D printer but I'd drive over to The UPS Store and have them print something out.
See, that's exactly why I'd like to acquire one - there's money to be made printing stuff for other people.
I wanna be the guy making that money.
There are web sites where you can find folks nearby with 3D printers and their costs. There were half a dozen within 10 or so miles. For me, though, that's not how I want to transact business.
It's the same deal with photo printers. It's much easier and cheaper to go down to Walmart or Costco when you need to print out your photos and get them to use their professional quality machines to do the job. I think that 3D printers will end up in the same sport. You'll go down to Walmart, and get them to print out an item for you. You'll only need it maybe 5 times a year, so there's no point in owning your own 3D printer. There's already services where you can send a 3D file and somebody will print it out and ship it to you.
I think this is accurate. I'm not ready to buy a 3D printer but I'd drive over to The UPS Store and have them print something out.
I read the entire transcript but had a hard time grasping the nuances. My favorite quote, though, was this:
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: All I'm trying to get at, and I'm not saying it's outcome determinative or necessarily bad, I'm just saying your technological model is based solely on circumventing legal prohibitions that you don't want to comply with, which is fine. I mean, that's you know, lawyers do that. But I'm just wondering why--
(Laughter.)
Except, of course, open source code also contains horrific security vulnerabilities.
Everyone raise your hand if you know the difference between proprietary software that's closed source, and open source with viewable binaries! That's right kiddies, if you have open source with viewable binaries you can even compile your own, and fix any bugs you find. You can even fork it! You can't do that with closed source, you're at their mercy for patches, fixes, and security holes.
As you seem to be unfamiliar with the difference between source code and compiled binaries, I will assume you don't yet have the required skillset to do what you're suggesting. That's ok, I don't either. I can write code, to a point, but I don't have the skills needed to audit it for security vulnerabilities.
FOSS _can_ be more secure than proprietary code, but that doesn't mean it is, or that it is not. It merely has the potential, and in that respect is superior to proprietary code. Potential isn't the same as reality, though. Perhaps in the future the EFF or something similar will come along and make its mission the independent review of source code for major projects.
Except, of course, open source code also contains horrific security vulnerabilities.
But you know about those, and can fix them if you want. That's the difference between open and closed source.
It's not that simple. My point, before it was moderated into oblivion, is that there is no implied additional security just because something is FOSS. I've contributed code to FOSS projects from time to time and I know I am not qualified to audit source for security vulnerabilities. There's appears to be an assumption that "someone" is doing this, but the reality is this doesn't happen often. TrueCrypt is an example of where this is being addressed, but how many projects have had an independant code review? Hardly any. So when you say you know about [vulnerabilities]... maybe you do, and maybe you don't. And when you say you can fix them if you want, maybe you can and maybe you can't.
Look, everyone seemed to assume I was attacking FOSS for some reason. I'm not. I like FOSS, I use it every day, and I contribute to it when I am capable of doing so. The OP's position that simply installing FOSS firmware instead of proprietary firmware somehow magically equated to a secure platform is severely flawed and should be examined critically and objectively.
I say tomato..
Just load OpenWRT or some other open source firmware, problem solved.
What do you mean there isn't a port for your hardware? Why did you buy it in the first place? Throw it away (or donate it to someone who can do the port) and buy something that has been ported.
NEVER buy hardware without a open source port at least in progress.. You have been warned!
Except, of course, open source code also contains horrific security vulnerabilities.
Plus the iPad was _expensive_.
No way. I can still remember the collective gasp that echoed through cyberspace when Apple announced the price for an entry grade iPad will cost $499. People were expecting something much closer to $1000.
At the time there was no basis of comparison except for netbooks and the iPod Touch.
He said he predicted failure for their SECOND tablet. Which was the iPad.
Yes, this is what I meant, and I was far from the only one saying so. Those who weren't Apple fanbois mostly predicted the iPad to be nothing more than an oversized iPod Touch filling a small niche that could only cannibalize from Apple's existing portfolio.
10" touchscreen tablets were totally unheard of, the Newton was a flop, and everyone hated laptops with touchscreens. A tablet, keyboardless computer had, in the history of mankind, never been successful. Plus the iPad was _expensive_. People would buy the cheaper Kindle or netbooks (remember those?) instead. The concept of carrying around a tablet instead of a laptop was ludicrous, because the apps that would enable you to do that did not yet exist. Four years later it's easy to look back and say "well, duh", but in 2010 it was seen as a risky move for Apple.
My point is that it's easy to be wrong about what people will buy, and it's too early to know what will happen with wearable computing. The right product at the right time could change everything.
Anything that makes "wearables" die out faster is good in my book. Keep releasing different models all running different OSes and all doing different versions of nothing useful. Manufactured product pushes are like diarrhea. The sooner all the products exit the pipeline, the sooner corporate sees that marketing was blowing smoke up their ass when they told them "wearables" were going to be hot, the sooner I don't have to hear about them and, hopefully, the sooner that marketing dipshit is fired.
The same goes for the asshole who decided that Wendy's, Carl's Jr/Hardees, and Sonic all had to jump on the non-existent pretzel bun bandwagon. Oh wait, nobody actually wanted those? Better jump on the ciabatta bandwagon! That failed too?! Well what about brioche? Still no boost in sales? Revert back to our "classic" buns to save money and leverage our brand!
Sometimes the product vision is right but the timing or state of technology is wrong. I think wearables might fall into that category but it's too soon to tell. Groundwork and thought leadership today could reap rewards later. Apple's first tablet was such a colossal failure that many, including me, predicted the same for their second attempt. I was definitely wrong.
Because when I have to go somewhere that parking is tricky, I'm always on two wheels. And there's always somewhere to park it.
Plus it's often quicker in busy cities, cheaper, gets you fit(If you don't have an engine) and above all, is fun!
"And here's why it matters to you even if you ride a granola-powered bike to work: I think this is a confirming instance of what I've been arguing for years, that the marketplace for ideas, inventions, and intellectual property is far less efficient than most people think it is."
This isn't about parking, except as an example of the problem.
Stop this.
Seriously.
Just stop.
I don't think you bothered to do more than skim the summary, if that. Although to be fair, the summary could have simply said that good apps are getting drowned out in white noise of not-so-good apps because the review/curation system in the app stores is completely ineffective.
A contract signed under duress and harassment is not necessarily legally binding...
It's not duress. It isn't "if you don't sign this you're fired", but instead "if you go away quietly and promise not to sue us we will give you a bunch of money, plus we'll let everyone think it's your idea so you can tell your next employer whatever you like".
Obviously you're free not to accept the deal, and often that's a tactic during negotiation of the package, and they won't fire you unless they can legally do so. At that point the writing is on the wall anyway, and sooner or later you are going to part ways. At least with a package you get money, the company avoids litigation, everyone wins.
Did you even read the summery: "'It's clear that Brendan cannot lead Mozilla in this setting,' Baker was quoted as saying."
So basically, the only reason he was not fired, was because he was given the option to resign, before they fired him. This is a quote taken directly from the mouth of the Mozilla Executive Chairman.
Generally speaking when you want someone to resign but lack the legal means to fire them, you offer them a severance package to so that they'll decide to leave on their own. The terms usually call for non-disclosure of the deal elements (or possibly that there was a deal at all), and also some kind of legal protection for the company. Nothing illegal about that.
Do people really not read these things. No subletting is a common clause.
http://www.sfrb.org/index.aspx...
QFT. I rent out a property and screen my tenants carefully. If I learned they were subleasing to random Internet strangers it would not be ok with me.
Or you know, a well known totalitarian government stamping out a black market currency, you know, to control their citizens, like they've been doing forever.
This move has nothing to do with controlling their citizens and has everything to do with their continued manipulation of their currency. RMB is very tightly controlled by their government and they have a model that's working for them.
4/1. Pray that it's gone on 4/2.
If he opposed Prop 8 he would have been in support of gay marriage, not opposed to it. Prop 8 was a California constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. I assume he was in support of Prop 8 and not opposed to it as indicated in the summary.
The method is new. Most (all?) current systems use the lane departure warning system and steering wheel input to determine if the driver is drowsy, but they do not put a camera on the driver themselves. The current system on my Ford doesn't seem to work very well.
Because building for my family's future is one of my primary motivators. I'm not just in it for myself. If I die I want my kids to receive the same education they would if I were still alive. The government already takes half of what I earn, and I will do everything legally possible to give them nothing more when I die.
Maybe the real issue is that your goverment isn't actually providing education for your own children. Your dependency on being able to leave capital to you descendants is merely a symptom of that actual problem.
I used education as an example, but there are many others. Helping with a down-payment for a starter home is another. Or perhaps they need some seed capital for a purpose I can't predict.
Yes, I did. You care about others, just not as much as you do about your own. Of course you're right, this is human nature. Much like fucking anything that moves, taking that juicy steak from the cripple, or killing anything that seems like it might one day pose a threat to you. Personally, I think that appeals to human nature are a bit played out, as the kids say.
You made a conscious decision to have kids knowing full well that you'd be raising them at the expense of the rest of the human race. That you'd be helping your daughter pay for college, but not helping some other little girl get a hot meal. Of course, you could've decided to do the truly selfless thing and not have kids, so that you could be a better human, so that your little girl wouldn't distract you from the rest of the world. But no, human nature stopped you from being selfless, and you were powerless to resist. Woe is you.
Your daughter is not special. She is one of billions of people suffering through this world. I'll pay for her college just as soon as I can pay for everyone's college, because I don't believe that preferential treatment is fair, by definition. Your entire argument stems from emotion (and appeals to "human nature") and lacks any substance of logic. Don't be offended by the allegations of greed. After all, it's just human nature.
Let me make sure I understand your argument:
1) Caring about and providing for your family is the same thing as rape, theft, and murder.
2) Every child is nothing but a burden to society. Or was it just mine in particular?
3) No one should go to college unless everyone can go to college. When I die everything should be taken from my family to further that goal.
Did I get that right? You're an idiot. Bye.
Because building for my family's future is one of my primary motivators. I'm not just in it for myself. If I die I want my kids to receive the same education they would if I were still alive. The government already takes half of what I earn, and I will do everything legally possible to give them nothing more when I die.
That's a sadly greedy way to go through life. I understand that "fuck you, I got mine" is a popular motto today, but seriously, have you no shame?
You seriously read it that way? Of course I care about others. That is my responsibility as a human being. I care about my family more than strangers. That is my responsibility as a husband and father. It's also human nature.
Tell you what, you sign up to put my kid through the college of her choice, help her with her first home purchase, generally make sure he has a better life than I do, and make sure my wife doesn't lose her home without my income, and in return I'll happily let the government take whatever they want from what I've managed to scrape up. No? Then fuck off, you sanctimonious prick.
If you make $50K a year, you are in the 25% Federal bracket,and if you are in California another 9.3%, then don't forget social security and medicare - 7.65%, and if you go thru the trouble of being self employed, you get to pay that twice, or 15.3%... OK you're right. It is ONLY 49.6% tax, for a self employed person in California. But, with what you have left you still have sales tax, gas tax, taxes on phone bills, cable bills, car tax (annual vehicle license fee), real-estate taxes... you get the idea.
I was going to respond but you did a much better job than I would have.
Quite a few billionaires (Buffet, Trump) would disagree with you.
If I am a brilliant man and create a company (and create value), I deserve to keep that. But why should my descendants, who are by virtue of their birth part of a "lucky sperm club," entitled to all that wealth?
True capitalism should require a level playing field when you start, and to really do that, when the final score is tallied, the slate should be wiped clean.
That's why such super high estate taxes exist. And typically they're not for you and me, it's for people over a certain threshold (say $1 mio + in assets)
Because building for my family's future is one of my primary motivators. I'm not just in it for myself. If I die I want my kids to receive the same education they would if I were still alive. The government already takes half of what I earn, and I will do everything legally possible to give them nothing more when I die.