I have two non-negotiable requirements for just about every hotel I stay in: must allow dogs without fee and must have free wifi. In the rare case I go somewhere without my dog then of course free wifi. I haven't stayed in a hotel without free wifi in almost five years.
Technology and all the options it brings will never change the very human fact that people in emotional distress will always feel there is no one to talk to, no one who will understand, and nothing that can be done about it. The facts being otherwise do nothing to change those facts. And I can assure you our UAS pilots do not want to go home and tell their family about it.
Only if it is an actual company. Applying for a business account doesn't mean he is anything more than a person doing enough sales to qualify for, or desiring the benefits that, require a business acount. And for a sole proprietorship your SSN is also your taxID.
your logic is flawed. You most certainly can take away a right. Or is going to prison actually considered losing the privilege of freedom?
Driving is a right just like everything else we consider our selves free to do. But like all our other rights it does have limits in a civilized society. We as a society have agreed that for safety reasons it needs to be regulated to some degree and that it can be denied if you fail to use it properly. Just like the right to free speech does have its limits when it is used incorrectly (liable and slander), to keep and bear arms (you're a felon, no gun for you)... etc
Ask yourself this: when did driving become a privilege? when the first car was made? after 100 people owned them? a million? at what point did your right to purchase a product with your own money and operate it in a safe and legal manner go from something a free person does until he is told by society explicitly that he cannot, to something he is told explicitly that he can? When did that shift occur in history?
hmmm I could be wrong but he was converting to a business account. I'm pretty sure SSN is required for tax documents etc associated with business accounts. Don't get me wrong, I agree in general with your sentiments about mis/over-use of the SSN but in this case it seems like SSN use isn't that out of the norm [shrug]
To put this simply: You are wrong. Costs always matter. And decisions are always made based on a balance of risk vs cost. There are other factors but those are huge. Even speed still comes down to balancing risk vs. cost.
Or to put this all in the simplest of terms: when the program was in its early days and we wanted to field it FAST we applied the basic rules of engineering and aquisition. Fast, Cheap, Good - Pick Two.
IANAL and perhaps a real lawyer can pipe up here. But if the intent at the moment is to "maintain order" as you say then what stops the police from detaining and restraining the individual(s) required to maintain order and then release them. Nothing says they need to be officially arrested and charged at that point does it?
I would still think it would suck to have that happen when you are still not committing an actual crime that you could be charged and convicted of, but it seems like that is the middle ground between not controlling a situation and coming up with some bullshit charge that will never stick as an excuse.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the police already have this ability. Of course they are SUPPOSED to have a good reason to detain, restrain, and maybe even pat search, but again, I contend that if the cops are already to the point of arresting for bullshit reasons (which includes detain, restrain and pat search) I'd rather see them stop short of the official arrest and criminal charges [shrug]
I actually find myself using ebay to search for products sold by those big vendors (with good ratings) and then go to those big vendors own store fronts and buy the stuff there. Sort of like how I use Travelocity to find out who flies to my destination and then go to the individual airline sites.
so in that respect, thank you ebay for proving me a clearing house in which to search for my preferred vendor... for free >;-)
Its funny this is coming up now as I was recently thiking along these lines recently.
I am PHILOSOPHICALLY agnostic because I do believe that it is unknowable / there is little chance we will ever prove one way or the other. In fact I feel that it is just as arrogant to say there IS NO god as it is to say there IS a god.
I am IN PRACTICE an Athiest because I choose to blieve there is/are no supreme being(s). I also believe that even if there is some form of a creator, diety, etc that I have no need to worship them and that they have no concern with how I actually live my day to day life. It is almost the Stargate maxim that any "higher being" / creator is simply one that is more evolved and not neccesarily worthy of worship.
A person could just as easily reason like an agnostic but choose to believe that there is in fact some diety out there. I don't see any inherent hypocricy in that situation.
But isn't the point being made that anecdotally we can assume that the upper case and numbers ARE ending up in specific positions even if they aren't being prescribed as such? I mean lets face it, most people will capitalize the first letter and put the numbers at the end. Thus you can modify your brute force attack to only the upper case letters at the front and only 0-9 at the end. Again, if anecdotal evidence is to be believed, that should result in more target rich search space than if the uppercase/numbers where assumed to be anywhere else. As for special characters... well again those might be reasonably assumed to be at the end since to a user they aren't special characters, they are numbers where you press the shift key at the same time and those will likely be at the end.
So... again I don't think it is an issue of ACTUALLY limiting the keyspace so much as it is searching a portion of the keyspace where you are more likely to find a password.
it would seem easy enough with correct site coding / browser tabs [I admit to NOT being an html / css expert] to force the ads to load last so that at least the content loads regardless of the ads being slow / non-responsive. Of course the advertisers would rather be first so they get your eyeballs before all that uber-distracting content:-\
is how much will it be as an "OEM" version from the likes of Newegg when I purchase it with a HD? Because anyone paying Brick and Mortor retail pricing is just paying an ignorance-tax.
All a very intersting discussion about the merits and impact on viability of a resale market, but in the end here is my thought: So What! I'm sorry but I don't care if it is harder to make money in the game market because the time cycle is shorter blah blah blah. I bought a game, I should be able to turn around and sell it without being restricted by the content creator. That is all there is to it. The market WILL sort it out and there will be winners and losers based on the QUALITY of the games and not on the quality of DRM. If you can't make money against the back drop of a resale market then you don't deserve to survive as a company and someone else better should take your place.
This still comes down to government protecting a bad business model since DRM requires government backing to prevent it from being circumvented (ala DCMA). Thus you have the government in essence using its threat of force to block resale and protect a business model that can't survive in an open market system.
custom parts sure, ok, I get that. But, but, but... there still has to be savings in time and cost to not having to come up with a completely new design, isn't there? I mean take all the time and money spent to spec and design the replacement parts (which are also custom themselves I'm sure), and then to figure out how to do it in space and train the astronauts etc etc etc and instead spend the time and money to spec and design Hubble 2 and launch it with an unmanned. [shrug]
And for that matter, just how far along is the current replacement?
I will say this though, I find it amusing that there is all this concern about not having anything up there for some given time frame. I mean yes I know it would leave a lot of people without new data for some time (not that there isn't enough old data to plow through) but let's put this in a cosmic perpective: 1 year, 2, 5, 10... is not even a drop in the bucket of time. Somehow I doubt we're going to miss some fleeting once in a universe's-lifetime event that would give us the answer to everything. But I do think it would be a shame not to have something out there collecting the type of data Hubble and its successor collect.
I'm curious, can anyone tell me why a good, cheap, quick solution to replacing the current Hubble isn't to take that same design + upgrades that are even too complicated to accomplish in space, and launch it? I mean sure it might not be as spiffy as a completely new blank-sheet design but I have to believe it wouldn't cost that much more money, if at all, than a shuttle launch + a shuttle on standbye as a life boat. I mean what am I missing that makes building Hubble-2 a bad option compared to a risky/costly repair mission? It can't take that long to build another.
No matter how it is done the news generating and publishing industries (they are in many cases separate and might need to be even more clearly separated) do need to generate revenue. Historically that has been through print ad and subscription. Those sources of revenue have not translated into the digital domain.
Blame whomever or whatever you want for it, it is happening. Personally I'm not inclined to think that aggregators / search engines should pay for the right to do what they are doing because they drive traffic. The fact that the generators / publisher have not figured out how to monetize that traffic is not the fault of the aggregators / search engine nor is it their job.
From an ad revenue POV a direct link to a news story from a search engine still gets you the ad impressions from that page; contrary to what I heard yesterday during the live testimony a direct link to a story does not deprive a website of a single penny of ad revenue that would otherwise be generated BY THAT PAGE... only from any revenue that would be gained if the reader had gotten there instead from the front page. In addition, if the page is designed well enough it can drive more clicks within the website (i.e. once you 've got them you try to keep them with appropriate links to other stories or the front page).
But even that might be enough, and clearly it isn't yet or online revenue would be enough to keep the lights on. Clearly one avenue the publishers are trying is to push to get the "leeches" to pay; that is the search engine and aggregators. Well you know where I stand on that. So subscriptions are the way but the industry is right, if one publisher does it, then everyone just goes to the other free ones rather than pay until there is only one free one left and who knows maybe that one can get enough traffic to survive on ad revenue alone. But that doesn't sound like a good state of affairs.
So, after all this rambling now what... well... one thing I know *I* hate about the idea of a subscrption is that I don't want to subscribe to 10 different places and I don't want to only be subscribed to one. I like that right now I can easily view any source I want and I can easily seek out additional sources of reporting to get other opinions and other points of view.
And here is where I get to the "Not sure how it could best be done but..." part... but they all need to go subscription at basically the same time and they all need to do it so that I only have to pay one entity daily/weekly/monthly/annualy. I don't know how to do it fairly, apolitically, inclusively, honestly, and securly, but IMO that is what is needed. A way for me to pay for my news (and that means everyone from the foreign correspondant, to the local beat reporter, to the Editor) without being limited to my sources and without having to actively pay every website I visit.
Well now that is an interesting point. But I have to ask you this:
Is it really "because of piracy"? or is it "because you can't make money?"
If it is the former my answer is: get over it, stop whining and worry about the latter because THAT is more important.
If your answer is the latter then that changes the conversation to the correct topic. Then you have to start asking questions like WHY can't you make money? Sure, there are lost sales from piracy, but that is a red herring. The real question is what is it about the platform that is not drawing large enough numbers of paying customers. All platforms have some form of piracy going on, yet they make money. So what is different? Or let me put it this way, would you develope for a mythical platform that had ZERO piracy yet still did not generate revenue? Of course not.
None of this changes that developers like you make the final determination that developing for PSP is not worth your time; but please, stop calling it piracy (one possible FACTOR) and call it what it is, lack of revenue (the real determining factor). The blame, in fact, sits with Sony who could/would not provide their customers with a product that they wanted and fostered a robust ecosystem. A few other posters have, IMO, hit it right on the head when they spoke of proprietary media, lack of homebrew, lock-in, etc.
Perhaps, as a logic problem, but I still contend that that level of rationalization is not going on. Even your most thoughtful, "professional" criminals are not going to make the choice to not attempt covering their tracks because the punishment is greater.
Take it to the extreme: hacking a banking system w/o using a proxy is 5-10 years in jail; and that might not even be realistic but it has to be close enough. Hacking a banking system through a proxy to hide your identity is **death by hanging**. Well yeah ok chances are no one will use a proxy, despite its ability to prevent being caught at all. In reality I hope we can agree that that level of added punishment would never fly. So now what are you left with? 25% Well I ask you... 5-10 or 6.25 - 12.5... does anyone really believe that is going to be the tipping point for using a proxy or not? I mean after all we're already working under the premise that 5-10 isn't enough to deter the criminal or we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.
The problem with your answer is that everything you just said is, in and of itself, a crime as well. Fake (fraud)/stolen(theft) licence plates, creating gloves with fake fingerprints (ok questionable but I suppose fraud or ID theft might apply)... so again charge, convict and sentance for THAT crime. Don't use the logic that sophistication / non-criminal actions to evade capture is an additional / aggrevating crime itself. It is not.
Again, if the action is truly a crime on its own then fine, deal with this on their own (though at the same trial of course) but it is IMO, BS to call wearing a mask during a robbery worse than not wearing a mask just as using a TOR router should not be either.
It might not be different (and that is a decent analogy IMO), but of course I don't accept your premise. I don't accept that wearing a mask during the commission of a crime should increase the penalty for committing that crime. There is no legitimate purpose to such laws / sentencing guidelines. It does not deter people from using a mas. What it does is allow for a way to increase penalties using false logic where otherwise increasing the penalty for the actual crime (robbing a bank) would seem excessive.
Hell I could use my own logic to say that ALL Crimes should be commited with a mask on and ones without should be punished harsher. Not wearing one puts the innocent at risk because, by wearing a mask the victim doesn't know the perp's identity, and the perp is less likely to want to kill them to prevent identification. But I digress.
Slashdot Mirror
I have two non-negotiable requirements for just about every hotel I stay in: must allow dogs without fee and must have free wifi. In the rare case I go somewhere without my dog then of course free wifi. I haven't stayed in a hotel without free wifi in almost five years.
"If he is the face of the next generation entrepreneurs, then [insert imaginary friend(s)] save the industry"
There. Fixed that for ya.
Annoying having someone tell you about your own beliefs isn't it?
Technology and all the options it brings will never change the very human fact that people in emotional distress will always feel there is no one to talk to, no one who will understand, and nothing that can be done about it. The facts being otherwise do nothing to change those facts. And I can assure you our UAS pilots do not want to go home and tell their family about it.
Only if it is an actual company. Applying for a business account doesn't mean he is anything more than a person doing enough sales to qualify for, or desiring the benefits that, require a business acount. And for a sole proprietorship your SSN is also your taxID.
your logic is flawed. You most certainly can take away a right. Or is going to prison actually considered losing the privilege of freedom?
Driving is a right just like everything else we consider our selves free to do. But like all our other rights it does have limits in a civilized society. We as a society have agreed that for safety reasons it needs to be regulated to some degree and that it can be denied if you fail to use it properly. Just like the right to free speech does have its limits when it is used incorrectly (liable and slander), to keep and bear arms (you're a felon, no gun for you) ... etc
Ask yourself this: when did driving become a privilege? when the first car was made? after 100 people owned them? a million? at what point did your right to purchase a product with your own money and operate it in a safe and legal manner go from something a free person does until he is told by society explicitly that he cannot, to something he is told explicitly that he can? When did that shift occur in history?
hmmm I could be wrong but he was converting to a business account. I'm pretty sure SSN is required for tax documents etc associated with business accounts. Don't get me wrong, I agree in general with your sentiments about mis/over-use of the SSN but in this case it seems like SSN use isn't that out of the norm [shrug]
To put this simply: You are wrong. Costs always matter. And decisions are always made based on a balance of risk vs cost. There are other factors but those are huge. Even speed still comes down to balancing risk vs. cost.
Or to put this all in the simplest of terms: when the program was in its early days and we wanted to field it FAST we applied the basic rules of engineering and aquisition. Fast, Cheap, Good - Pick Two.
You are confused. Dye-Sub Wax. Do a little searching before you show your ignorance.
Oh yeah and someone mod parent down since it isn't informative, it is incorrect.
IANAL and perhaps a real lawyer can pipe up here. But if the intent at the moment is to "maintain order" as you say then what stops the police from detaining and restraining the individual(s) required to maintain order and then release them. Nothing says they need to be officially arrested and charged at that point does it?
I would still think it would suck to have that happen when you are still not committing an actual crime that you could be charged and convicted of, but it seems like that is the middle ground between not controlling a situation and coming up with some bullshit charge that will never stick as an excuse.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the police already have this ability. Of course they are SUPPOSED to have a good reason to detain, restrain, and maybe even pat search, but again, I contend that if the cops are already to the point of arresting for bullshit reasons (which includes detain, restrain and pat search) I'd rather see them stop short of the official arrest and criminal charges [shrug]
I actually find myself using ebay to search for products sold by those big vendors (with good ratings) and then go to those big vendors own store fronts and buy the stuff there. Sort of like how I use Travelocity to find out who flies to my destination and then go to the individual airline sites.
so in that respect, thank you ebay for proving me a clearing house in which to search for my preferred vendor ... for free >;-)
[queue article about malware distributing video magazine ad in 3...2...1...]
or does evil bear a striking resemblance to Sylar?
Its funny this is coming up now as I was recently thiking along these lines recently.
I am PHILOSOPHICALLY agnostic because I do believe that it is unknowable / there is little chance we will ever prove one way or the other. In fact I feel that it is just as arrogant to say there IS NO god as it is to say there IS a god.
I am IN PRACTICE an Athiest because I choose to blieve there is/are no supreme being(s). I also believe that even if there is some form of a creator, diety, etc that I have no need to worship them and that they have no concern with how I actually live my day to day life. It is almost the Stargate maxim that any "higher being" / creator is simply one that is more evolved and not neccesarily worthy of worship.
A person could just as easily reason like an agnostic but choose to believe that there is in fact some diety out there. I don't see any inherent hypocricy in that situation.
But isn't the point being made that anecdotally we can assume that the upper case and numbers ARE ending up in specific positions even if they aren't being prescribed as such? I mean lets face it, most people will capitalize the first letter and put the numbers at the end. Thus you can modify your brute force attack to only the upper case letters at the front and only 0-9 at the end. Again, if anecdotal evidence is to be believed, that should result in more target rich search space than if the uppercase/numbers where assumed to be anywhere else. As for special characters ... well again those might be reasonably assumed to be at the end since to a user they aren't special characters, they are numbers where you press the shift key at the same time and those will likely be at the end.
So ... again I don't think it is an issue of ACTUALLY limiting the keyspace so much as it is searching a portion of the keyspace where you are more likely to find a password.
it would seem easy enough with correct site coding / browser tabs [I admit to NOT being an html / css expert] to force the ads to load last so that at least the content loads regardless of the ads being slow / non-responsive. Of course the advertisers would rather be first so they get your eyeballs before all that uber-distracting content :-\
is how much will it be as an "OEM" version from the likes of Newegg when I purchase it with a HD? Because anyone paying Brick and Mortor retail pricing is just paying an ignorance-tax.
All a very intersting discussion about the merits and impact on viability of a resale market, but in the end here is my thought: So What! I'm sorry but I don't care if it is harder to make money in the game market because the time cycle is shorter blah blah blah. I bought a game, I should be able to turn around and sell it without being restricted by the content creator. That is all there is to it. The market WILL sort it out and there will be winners and losers based on the QUALITY of the games and not on the quality of DRM. If you can't make money against the back drop of a resale market then you don't deserve to survive as a company and someone else better should take your place.
This still comes down to government protecting a bad business model since DRM requires government backing to prevent it from being circumvented (ala DCMA). Thus you have the government in essence using its threat of force to block resale and protect a business model that can't survive in an open market system.
custom parts sure, ok, I get that. But, but, but ... there still has to be savings in time and cost to not having to come up with a completely new design, isn't there? I mean take all the time and money spent to spec and design the replacement parts (which are also custom themselves I'm sure), and then to figure out how to do it in space and train the astronauts etc etc etc and instead spend the time and money to spec and design Hubble 2 and launch it with an unmanned. [shrug]
And for that matter, just how far along is the current replacement?
I will say this though, I find it amusing that there is all this concern about not having anything up there for some given time frame. I mean yes I know it would leave a lot of people without new data for some time (not that there isn't enough old data to plow through) but let's put this in a cosmic perpective: 1 year, 2, 5, 10 ... is not even a drop in the bucket of time. Somehow I doubt we're going to miss some fleeting once in a universe's-lifetime event that would give us the answer to everything. But I do think it would be a shame not to have something out there collecting the type of data Hubble and its successor collect.
I'm curious, can anyone tell me why a good, cheap, quick solution to replacing the current Hubble isn't to take that same design + upgrades that are even too complicated to accomplish in space, and launch it? I mean sure it might not be as spiffy as a completely new blank-sheet design but I have to believe it wouldn't cost that much more money, if at all, than a shuttle launch + a shuttle on standbye as a life boat. I mean what am I missing that makes building Hubble-2 a bad option compared to a risky/costly repair mission? It can't take that long to build another.
No matter how it is done the news generating and publishing industries (they are in many cases separate and might need to be even more clearly separated) do need to generate revenue. Historically that has been through print ad and subscription. Those sources of revenue have not translated into the digital domain.
Blame whomever or whatever you want for it, it is happening. Personally I'm not inclined to think that aggregators / search engines should pay for the right to do what they are doing because they drive traffic. The fact that the generators / publisher have not figured out how to monetize that traffic is not the fault of the aggregators / search engine nor is it their job.
From an ad revenue POV a direct link to a news story from a search engine still gets you the ad impressions from that page; contrary to what I heard yesterday during the live testimony a direct link to a story does not deprive a website of a single penny of ad revenue that would otherwise be generated BY THAT PAGE ... only from any revenue that would be gained if the reader had gotten there instead from the front page. In addition, if the page is designed well enough it can drive more clicks within the website (i.e. once you 've got them you try to keep them with appropriate links to other stories or the front page).
But even that might be enough, and clearly it isn't yet or online revenue would be enough to keep the lights on. Clearly one avenue the publishers are trying is to push to get the "leeches" to pay; that is the search engine and aggregators. Well you know where I stand on that. So subscriptions are the way but the industry is right, if one publisher does it, then everyone just goes to the other free ones rather than pay until there is only one free one left and who knows maybe that one can get enough traffic to survive on ad revenue alone. But that doesn't sound like a good state of affairs.
So, after all this rambling now what ... well ... one thing I know *I* hate about the idea of a subscrption is that I don't want to subscribe to 10 different places and I don't want to only be subscribed to one. I like that right now I can easily view any source I want and I can easily seek out additional sources of reporting to get other opinions and other points of view.
And here is where I get to the "Not sure how it could best be done but ..." part ... but they all need to go subscription at basically the same time and they all need to do it so that I only have to pay one entity daily/weekly/monthly/annualy. I don't know how to do it fairly, apolitically, inclusively, honestly, and securly, but IMO that is what is needed. A way for me to pay for my news (and that means everyone from the foreign correspondant, to the local beat reporter, to the Editor) without being limited to my sources and without having to actively pay every website I visit.
Well now that is an interesting point. But I have to ask you this:
Is it really "because of piracy"? or is it "because you can't make money?"
If it is the former my answer is: get over it, stop whining and worry about the latter because THAT is more important.
If your answer is the latter then that changes the conversation to the correct topic. Then you have to start asking questions like WHY can't you make money? Sure, there are lost sales from piracy, but that is a red herring. The real question is what is it about the platform that is not drawing large enough numbers of paying customers. All platforms have some form of piracy going on, yet they make money. So what is different? Or let me put it this way, would you develope for a mythical platform that had ZERO piracy yet still did not generate revenue? Of course not.
None of this changes that developers like you make the final determination that developing for PSP is not worth your time; but please, stop calling it piracy (one possible FACTOR) and call it what it is, lack of revenue (the real determining factor). The blame, in fact, sits with Sony who could/would not provide their customers with a product that they wanted and fostered a robust ecosystem. A few other posters have, IMO, hit it right on the head when they spoke of proprietary media, lack of homebrew, lock-in, etc.
Perhaps, as a logic problem, but I still contend that that level of rationalization is not going on. Even your most thoughtful, "professional" criminals are not going to make the choice to not attempt covering their tracks because the punishment is greater.
Take it to the extreme: hacking a banking system w/o using a proxy is 5-10 years in jail; and that might not even be realistic but it has to be close enough. Hacking a banking system through a proxy to hide your identity is **death by hanging**. Well yeah ok chances are no one will use a proxy, despite its ability to prevent being caught at all. In reality I hope we can agree that that level of added punishment would never fly. So now what are you left with? 25% Well I ask you ... 5-10 or 6.25 - 12.5 ... does anyone really believe that is going to be the tipping point for using a proxy or not? I mean after all we're already working under the premise that 5-10 isn't enough to deter the criminal or we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.
So we are in agreement then? ;-)
The problem with your answer is that everything you just said is, in and of itself, a crime as well. Fake (fraud)/stolen(theft) licence plates, creating gloves with fake fingerprints (ok questionable but I suppose fraud or ID theft might apply) ... so again charge, convict and sentance for THAT crime. Don't use the logic that sophistication / non-criminal actions to evade capture is an additional / aggrevating crime itself. It is not.
Again, if the action is truly a crime on its own then fine, deal with this on their own (though at the same trial of course) but it is IMO, BS to call wearing a mask during a robbery worse than not wearing a mask just as using a TOR router should not be either.
It might not be different (and that is a decent analogy IMO), but of course I don't accept your premise. I don't accept that wearing a mask during the commission of a crime should increase the penalty for committing that crime. There is no legitimate purpose to such laws / sentencing guidelines. It does not deter people from using a mas. What it does is allow for a way to increase penalties using false logic where otherwise increasing the penalty for the actual crime (robbing a bank) would seem excessive.
Hell I could use my own logic to say that ALL Crimes should be commited with a mask on and ones without should be punished harsher. Not wearing one puts the innocent at risk because, by wearing a mask the victim doesn't know the perp's identity, and the perp is less likely to want to kill them to prevent identification. But I digress.