There are services that already do this. Go sign up for netflicks for unlimited movies every month. I'm sure there are music ones too. We don't need the government getting involved with the private music industry any more than it is.
This is Canada. Netflix' offerings are sparse at best. Also, please review what I said and what this story is about. If I can obtain my music from any source I can, there is incredible value in that $10/mo. I don't care if the Beatles have stopped squabbling with iTunes or not. I don't care if Pink Floyd will offer singles or not. I don't care if an artist's work isn't offered for sale in my country. I don't care if purchasing a track can only be done with DRM. Instead I could do whatever I want, however I want, and what's available to me would be dramatically greater than what I could manage any other way.
To a degree this isn't about getting government involved. It's about getting law-enforcement uninvolved.
>>>this would likely be good for the unknown performers
Why should I have to pay another $128 (taxes) just to listen to crappy pop music? Frak that. This is nothing more than Government tyranny to subsidize megacorporations (Sony, Warners, et cetera).
Megacorps == Dirty pieces of shit. Let Sony and the rest of them die.
On the other hand, if I was offered the option of paying said $128/year for the utter and complete assurance that I cannot and will not ever be prosecuted for obtaining and using any and all music I can get my hands on, regardless of source, I'd absolutely go for it. For the price of no more than ten CDs a year I can - without any personal risk or moral compunction - open the floodgates and download anything I want?
Yes, please.
In fact, make it $20/month and let me download all the movies and TV I want too.
Simplifying the patronage concept is absolutely fine by me.
I've been hearing "The only reason every Mac isn't infested with malware is that they're not a big enough chunk of the market for it to be worth the effort." for so many years the effect has worn off. Year after year - You know, it really gets old hearing that excuse. If that really is the case, I hope it continues.
I completely sympathize. I've become tired of the same old excuses why faster-than-light travel isn't possible, just like you and the Apple malware thing. I mean, come on. Why don't they come up with new material?
10% of the personal computing market is Apple. That's it. Now, sure some of the remaining 90% aren't running Windows, but we know that since 2011 is The Year of Linux, the conversion isn't complete, so as of today the majority are.
Some excuses are repeated because they're... valid.
I am sure that with the money they spend in Windows licenses, they could have bought new compatible printers and scanners. Come on, most high grade, networked all-in-one printers and scanners are compatible with Linux.
You're assuming that's the sort of gear that's at issue. My bank in Canada uses small receipt printers at each teller's desk. They've also had cheque scanners that read the codes at the bottom, often printed in MICR toner.
While I don't know that the decision isn't ridiculous, I'm not going to assume it is. They may not be having problems with large-scale group printers that we all know can be made to work (well). It may be smaller, industry-specific gear that has lead to this problem. We don't know. So I refuse to play couch-rocket-scientist and tell them how they're doing it wrong and don't know their jobs.
BES should be in the US, the data will flow through the foreign carrier but it will be encrypted. So unless you are a high value target, I don't think they'll spend the resources to decrypt that data. It would take a little while.
The correct answer is that the BES should be wherever it isn't like to be be seized. I'm not entirely sure given some of the entertaining news in the last year or so that the US qualifies. Still, ultimately the model is that BES is one end of a secure transmission system. If a government seizes that server, they've already got access to your datacenter and can just hit the mail server itself.
Having BES exist in a foreign country isn't any less secure.
and.... you'll need a SQL server too - all that BES environment is Microsoft server based. Not sure how much that is. Once you have the server, you'll need access to mobile network for your device(s) from BES - assume that's not free either. Good luck!
It includes an MSSQL Express Instance. Which is free.
So, okay, let's be real. If you're one random paranoid guy looking to encrypt his phone transmission this platform isn't for you. On the other hand if you're like a huge portion of the business world and already have some Windows infrastructure, this is a really, really good solution.
BES Express is free and estimated scalable to 3,000 users on one box assuming a hefty box. One of the things I like about BES the most as an IT guy is the easy of individual phone setup. Tell users: run Enterprise Activation, put in your e-mail address and the following (throwaway) password. That's it. No concern that the device needs to have your certificate installed, or that it's not going to detect what port your IMAP/POP server is running on, or that there's going to be some weird interoperability issue with TLS on or off or SSL on or off, or any of the surmountable but ANNOYING things that go wrong on the Android and Apple (I refuse to call the iPhone's OS by what Apple wants me to, sorry... IOS is a Cisco OS) platforms.
As a fellow game developer, I can assure you that your accusation is absolutely unfounded.
...
There are other sources of leaks, but in this case (since it's a beta release), I've no doubt about the source.
From the fine summary, "and the master key for the online authentication".
Absolutely unfounded? No doubt? Let me get this straight... you're telling me that you're utterly confident that no developer could possibly be the source for this leak and that it's completely a given that it's a journalist? Seriously?
Maybe at your place of employ everyone's highly gruntled, but at a lot of other game houses employees are positively disgruntled. Don't let your personal experience convince you the entire world shares that experience when the evidence is strongly against that.
Wish I could tell you some of the horror stories I'm aware of.
Who are you using? I've lived in three major Canadian cities and never had trouble finding an ISP with unlimited bandwidth. Hell, even when Shaw had a 20GB limit back in 2000 they only got mad when I downloaded about 250GB in a month. No extra fees, just a sternly worded letter.
It doesn't matter anymore. January 25th the CRTC screwed us. Their ruling sets a standard that applies across all DSL resellers. Bell paid for this ruling, and it applies to anyone who is connected to a Bell DSLAM. (That is... everyone except customers of MNSi here in Windsor. MNSi has their own DSLAMs in four COs.)
This applies to dry-loop customers as well. It doesn't currently apply to business customers, although what I've been seeing is that a 300G per month cap has been placed on Business DSL customers. Given 5Mbps service allows download of a good 1.5TB or so of data, being allowed to use 20% of your available ability kind of sucks.
Currently this doesn't apply to cable Internet service. Expect Shaw, Rogers and their kin to petition the CRTC for similar rules regarding 3rd-party ISPs on their network. It's probably only a few months before this applies to cable as well, potentially with different specific numbers.
Final detail... we're talking Ontario and Quebec at the moment.
In Canada that would be a DSL Lite tier. Up to 512kbps downchannel and 2G/mo cap. Then you get to pay $2.50/mo for every 1G over that cap, up to the 42G mark ($60 overage). Overages above 42G but below 300G are "free". Anything over 300G is $1.10 per 1G.
The standard DSL tier is now a 25G cap, $2/G up to the 55G mark ($60 overage), then "free" between 55G and 300G, and the same $1.10 per 1G thereafter.
Consumers can buy "insurance". $5/mo raises your cap by 40G. It does not raise any other figure. So if you buy one package of "insurance", you get 65G as your cap. The next 30G costs you $2/G to a maximum of $60, same as always, until (in this case) you hit 95G. Between 95G and 300G is "free".
Are we really so weak that we absolutely cannot do without a smart phone until manufacturers actually start giving us what we want?
As with most things in life, it's not that simple.
This isn't a question about what we want versus what we don't want. It's a question about what we want versus what we want more. If there's a product out that does most of what I'd like it to do, in most of the ways I'd like it to do them, do you really expect me to not purchase it in the hope that the manufacturer will read my mind and somehow know I'm holding out for a couple function changes? Boycott doesn't work in and of itself.
About how hard it was for Apple to the their iPhone 4 through normal use case scenarios for things like antenna reception. Sometimes random things are missed, mixed with what was the testing area like? Might have caused unforeseen fixes (a la iPhone 4 was tested near a cell tower if I remember right, why they missed the antenna reception issue.). Also, it seems most of the complaints are from US users, not global users so it could be something up with how the US carriers are handling the phones, which wouldn't come up in a normal use scenario. Maybe US carriers are trying to ping the phones and the pings are accidentally sending more information then they should?
I call bullshit.
If you test your device in best-case-scenarios, you're incompetent. In the case of a cell phone, whose main purpose is to transmit and receive data (be it voice or other), it's inherently obvious that due-diligence requires you to test it extensively in marginal and poor-reception areas. You also test it extensively in high temperature and low temperature environments as well as any other common but extreme circumstances that historic evidence shows impacts battery life. You test it with all radios (Bluetooth, Wifi, 3G) enabled and stepped up to maximum power due to range issues. You extensively test its operation at extremes such as when the memory is almost entirely full due to someone having taken photos without a memory card, or voice memos. You extensively test when bandwidth is limited due to network saturation. You extensively test in crappy markets where more sand is likely to get in your phone than RF signal. You monitor all the important metrics of your phone (battery life, reliability and speed of link, efficiency of data transmission, use of storage memory and so on) in all the miserable hellish, abusive, real-life scenarios that your (hopefully) millions of units shipped will experience day-to-day.
Once you've tested in all those cases, then you can do whatever you want next door to a cell tower, in climate-controlled circumstances, with empty RAM and plugged into a nuclear power plant for unlimited power and in the single country of your choice.
Note: yes, I realize proof-of-concept and lab testing comes first. I refer to product-quality and suitability-for-sale testing. The stuff that Apple (and possibly MS) got wrong. -- Hey, those are both the companies that decided it was more important to ship "now, now, now!" than include Cut & Paste in their 1.0 products. They're not cutting corners at all.
Waters wrote great lyrics and penned great hits but Gilmour made beauty. The two post-Waters albums are works of art in a completely different way than the previous ones. I would kill to be able to compose and play the guitar like Gilmour but I can't say the same about being able to write lyrics like Roger. I love both stages of Floyd's catalog but musically... without Gilmour there isn't a Pink Floyd.
Devil's advocate and I'm going to not post AC because I think there's another way of looking at this and I'm willing to stand behind my views.
Let's go with "yes".
If you create an artificial supply of something that may or may not exist and you advertise its availability and a sick person takes advantage of that offer, I think there's a bigger problem than the person being sick. To Catch a Predator creates an artificially enticing "kid" then trolls for someone willing to take advantage of that "kid". My problem is that the show really should be called "To Create a Predator". What they're revealing is willingness, not inclination. Given the opportunity presented by the show's fake "kid", yes the sick guys shown are evidently willing to become pedophiles. That doesn't necessarily mean that given other opportunities presented differently they would.
When the majority of sexual abuses are conducted by relatives and other known-people, this show is missing the point by a huge factor, for ratings. That disgusts me more than the willing men involved.
Don't create new predators. Instead, focus a show on somehow exposing and stopping those that already exist.
Never in recent memory have I so strongly wished I had mod points to throw you some Insightful. But no. I had them expire yesterday, with nothing I felt was appropriate to mod. Sigh.
Only on Slashdot could this be considered so insightful.
All this tells us is about the type of women you are more bias to noticing.
Seriously? I'll admit that in my attempt to be brief I didn't apply any limits to the generalization I was drawing. For instance, take it as a given that that I'm referring to North American women.
Here's your task, Mr. (or Mrs.) Men-And-Women-Are-Identical. Go to a large bookstore. Go to the magazine section. Watch men. Watch women. Note which sections women browse in. Note which sections men browse in. Stay long enough to determine on average which sections are more heavily trafficked by each sex. Next step. Go to those sections, and actually [i]browse[/i] the contents of the magazines on offer. You're going to find remarkable support for my supposition.
I don't know. It sounds like men just fall for macho advertising by Business School Product. Men aren't inherently any smarter or dumber than women.
Not once did I say or even imply that either sex is smarter or dumber than the other. I pointed out a difference in the focus of advertisement; fashion is a primary focus for women. It is not for men. Men tend to be marketed to by lengthy lists of features.
All things considered, I was pretty careful to point out that men get green, women get red, and there's a reddish tinge to iPhone while there's a greenish tinge to Android. Neither red nor green have anything to do with intelligence.
I'll agree with your generalization and offer you another. Women tend to be marketed to for purposes of fashion more than men. iPhones are "cool", "hip", and "trendy". Android phones have a larger feature list which is inherently none of those three things.
So, being a US citizen here, and presently in the US, if I offer up a personal box, how much trouble am I in legally?
If I do get 'hauled in' what could I possibly be charged with?
As someone who isn't a US politician, I'm not equipped to fully answer your question. They're the ones with the power. They're the ones whose wrongdoings are being revealed. That's a really grim combination. I'm guessing that you're in exactly as much trouble as they decide and you'll be charged with whatever they feel like. Probably treason or some trumped up terrorism charge.
Understand this: patriotism in the US now means supporting the government, not the constitution.
The only thing you can do to protect yourself is educate as many fellow citizens as possible and vote for anyone who isn't in favor of the idiocy going on. If there are no non-idiot candidates left, frankly it's time to rebel. But that's just my opinion.
That's a fine opinion, but look at the research. The data don't agree with you. Driving while talking on a cell phone turns out worse than all the things you mention, when actually measured. There seems to be something special about the way the brain handles a phone conversation that impairs the ability to multitask more severely.
Don't take my word for it. Read the research.
Where's the research regarding having a screaming baby in the back seat?
Look, cell phone use is distracting. Lots of things are distracting. I'm not promoting cell phone use while driving. What does bother me is the idea that this particular distracting behaviour is or should be technologically stopped.
Wear a helmet while driving. Make that a law and [i]then[/i] we can dick around with things like cell phone use.
The public support for this is purely because Joe Average [i]sees[/i] a cell phone in use and ascribes it causal involvement. Contributory, sure. Causal? Not necessarily. But we like having an excuse why the jackass in front of us is driving erratically. Maybe it's because he's a jackass? Maybe it's because he's lactose intolerant, having a reaction, and has about three minutes to get home before he shits himself and his leather seats. Dunno. But as soon as you see the cell in his hand, you [i]know[/i] that's the cause in that particular case. Maybe it is. Again, I don't argue that it's not contributing. You'll just never convince me that there aren't about a dozen more heavy contributors in the typical "cell phone did it" collision. Studies are good. Great. And yes, I've read a few papers over the last decade. Strangely they omit an awful lot of other factors when they compare distraction levels. Radio? Sure. Being drunk? Sure. Four toddlers? Never.
Again. Helmets. Armor your head and then you can have my (hands-free) phone.
Personally, I'm against abortion in principle unless it's an unusually dangerous pregnancy for the mother or the result of rape or incest.
How about in the case of a 15-year-old girl whose Christian parents who wouldn't talk about sex at all with her for fear that her hearing about it would encourage her to do it? So the girl doesn't know the fundamentals and trusts her new boyfriend who insists "condoms don't feel good" and "I'll pull out".
What I'm asking is: how do you feel about unwanted and highly personally destructive pregnancies ultimately enabled by ignorance due to religion?
IBM does not build PCs nowadays. Or at least nothing other than server-platform high end workstations.
IBM basically "never" did. They had Lenovo build them. Interestingly enough they sold off the desktop/laptop business to Lenovo about six or seven years ago. Lenovo has in turn maintained the same high standards of product quality and design. Further, IBM techs are the ones dispatched when and if you have a warranty claim. The line is very blurry here as the two companies work together very well.
Excuse me? Because I'm unaltered I'm somehow unqualified to make observations regarding people who are? Sorry, that argument's rubbish and it always has been. Same as the one saying that non-parents can't possibly have valid observations on how child-rearing should be done because "you can't possibly know".
It's even more obvious that you haven't a clue what you're talking about when you try to group alcohol in with cannabis as if it has a similar effect on the mind. They have completely different effects.
Completely? No. Not even almost completely. The original assertion was that people are dumbed down and stupid when smoking pot. Guess what. Alcohol makes you stupid (while under it's influence). Same effect. Sure, one's also a sedative. One's a mild hallucinogen. Sure. But completely different? No.
A term often used when talking about creativity is "thinking outside the box". That's exactly what cannabis helps one to do. That's not the same as random. What it does is to suppress the more obvious, everyday links between concepts, and makes you more likely to come up with less obvious links. This is stuff that makes for creativity.
Ran. Dom. Outside the box? No, man. More of the so-called "thinking" is total nonsense that you're admitting (or remembering, since evidently you're a user [else you can't possibly be any more an expert than I, remember?]) Objectively speaking, fact is that a large quantity of the non-obvious concepts that come up are non-obvious because they're nonsensical. Seriously, bring up something like physics with someone who's stoned on pot. Or politics. Or anything that requires the ability to process facts. Kiss any shadow of the conversation making sense goodbye.
Alcohol isn't like that. I think, through lack of experience, only observing it from the outside, you think that being stoned must be something like being drunk. It's not.
Again, in the sense that in both cases you tend to act, talk, and think like half of your brain was transplanted from a Rhesus monkey yes, it is.
The anecdotes of particular creatives is pointless as will just end with me matching your Douglas Adams with my John Lennon. However it is interesting that you pick that particular one, and assume he didn't smoke cannabis. I don't know if he did or he didn't, and neither do you, but either way I suspect he knew more about it's effects than you. In 1992, he put his name to a campaign for the legalisation of it. http://www.ukcia.org/politicsandlaw/times92a.html
Friend, I'd argue for its legalization and I've literally never once partaken. My politics aren't germane any more than his were. As for Lennon, that's a complicated example. You've got a self-fulfilling situation. To a certain degree while an artist is "hot", they can do no wrong. I'm of the age where most of my peers appreciate the Beatles and his solo catalogue, so you're not dealing with a youngun who Just Doesn't Get It. My personal favourite band is Pink Floyd. This is useful information for one simple reason. Their earliest works (ie. the spaced-out clearly stoned albums) suck. Dark Side and WYWH are roughly when they started to pull their crap together and make music though a lot of the individual elements in there suck too. Newer albums than those just got increasingly musical. There's strong evidence in their history and biographies that by then they were seriously cranking back on drug use.
What I'm saying here is that frankly a lot of Lennon's library is junk. Not a popular view, but it's simply not done to criticize him. His work must be genius because it's his. And he's genius because of his work. Um? No. Some was great, some was mediocre and some was plain old stoner ramblings that should have stayed on the cutting room floo
Slashdot Mirror
There are services that already do this. Go sign up for netflicks for unlimited movies every month. I'm sure there are music ones too. We don't need the government getting involved with the private music industry any more than it is.
This is Canada. Netflix' offerings are sparse at best. Also, please review what I said and what this story is about. If I can obtain my music from any source I can, there is incredible value in that $10/mo. I don't care if the Beatles have stopped squabbling with iTunes or not. I don't care if Pink Floyd will offer singles or not. I don't care if an artist's work isn't offered for sale in my country. I don't care if purchasing a track can only be done with DRM. Instead I could do whatever I want, however I want, and what's available to me would be dramatically greater than what I could manage any other way.
To a degree this isn't about getting government involved. It's about getting law-enforcement uninvolved.
>>>this would likely be good for the unknown performers
Why should I have to pay another $128 (taxes) just to listen to crappy pop music? Frak that. This is nothing more than Government tyranny to subsidize megacorporations (Sony, Warners, et cetera).
Megacorps == Dirty pieces of shit.
Let Sony and the rest of them die.
On the other hand, if I was offered the option of paying said $128/year for the utter and complete assurance that I cannot and will not ever be prosecuted for obtaining and using any and all music I can get my hands on, regardless of source, I'd absolutely go for it. For the price of no more than ten CDs a year I can - without any personal risk or moral compunction - open the floodgates and download anything I want?
Yes, please.
In fact, make it $20/month and let me download all the movies and TV I want too.
Simplifying the patronage concept is absolutely fine by me.
I've been hearing "The only reason every Mac isn't infested with malware is that they're not a big enough chunk of the market for it to be worth the effort." for so many years the effect has worn off. Year after year - You know, it really gets old hearing that excuse. If that really is the case, I hope it continues.
I completely sympathize. I've become tired of the same old excuses why faster-than-light travel isn't possible, just like you and the Apple malware thing. I mean, come on. Why don't they come up with new material?
10% of the personal computing market is Apple. That's it. Now, sure some of the remaining 90% aren't running Windows, but we know that since 2011 is The Year of Linux, the conversion isn't complete, so as of today the majority are.
Some excuses are repeated because they're... valid.
I am sure that with the money they spend in Windows licenses, they could have bought new compatible printers and scanners. Come on, most high grade, networked all-in-one printers and scanners are compatible with Linux.
You're assuming that's the sort of gear that's at issue. My bank in Canada uses small receipt printers at each teller's desk. They've also had cheque scanners that read the codes at the bottom, often printed in MICR toner.
While I don't know that the decision isn't ridiculous, I'm not going to assume it is. They may not be having problems with large-scale group printers that we all know can be made to work (well). It may be smaller, industry-specific gear that has lead to this problem. We don't know. So I refuse to play couch-rocket-scientist and tell them how they're doing it wrong and don't know their jobs.
That's for BIS, which is basically where you use your Blackberry without having your own server infrastructure.
BES should be in the US, the data will flow through the foreign carrier but it will be encrypted. So unless you are a high value target, I don't think they'll spend the resources to decrypt that data. It would take a little while.
The correct answer is that the BES should be wherever it isn't like to be be seized. I'm not entirely sure given some of the entertaining news in the last year or so that the US qualifies. Still, ultimately the model is that BES is one end of a secure transmission system. If a government seizes that server, they've already got access to your datacenter and can just hit the mail server itself.
Having BES exist in a foreign country isn't any less secure.
and.... you'll need a SQL server too - all that BES environment is Microsoft server based. Not sure how much that is. Once you have the server, you'll need access to mobile network for your device(s) from BES - assume that's not free either.
Good luck!
It includes an MSSQL Express Instance. Which is free.
So, okay, let's be real. If you're one random paranoid guy looking to encrypt his phone transmission this platform isn't for you. On the other hand if you're like a huge portion of the business world and already have some Windows infrastructure, this is a really, really good solution.
BES Express is free and estimated scalable to 3,000 users on one box assuming a hefty box. One of the things I like about BES the most as an IT guy is the easy of individual phone setup. Tell users: run Enterprise Activation, put in your e-mail address and the following (throwaway) password. That's it. No concern that the device needs to have your certificate installed, or that it's not going to detect what port your IMAP/POP server is running on, or that there's going to be some weird interoperability issue with TLS on or off or SSL on or off, or any of the surmountable but ANNOYING things that go wrong on the Android and Apple (I refuse to call the iPhone's OS by what Apple wants me to, sorry... IOS is a Cisco OS) platforms.
As a fellow game developer, I can assure you that your accusation is absolutely unfounded.
There are other sources of leaks, but in this case (since it's a beta release), I've no doubt about the source.
From the fine summary, "and the master key for the online authentication".
Absolutely unfounded? No doubt? Let me get this straight... you're telling me that you're utterly confident that no developer could possibly be the source for this leak and that it's completely a given that it's a journalist? Seriously?
Maybe at your place of employ everyone's highly gruntled, but at a lot of other game houses employees are positively disgruntled. Don't let your personal experience convince you the entire world shares that experience when the evidence is strongly against that.
Wish I could tell you some of the horror stories I'm aware of.
Such as perhaps those fine people who produced "Who's Nailin' Palin".
Who are you using? I've lived in three major Canadian cities and never had trouble finding an ISP with unlimited bandwidth. Hell, even when Shaw had a 20GB limit back in 2000 they only got mad when I downloaded about 250GB in a month. No extra fees, just a sternly worded letter.
It doesn't matter anymore. January 25th the CRTC screwed us. Their ruling sets a standard that applies across all DSL resellers. Bell paid for this ruling, and it applies to anyone who is connected to a Bell DSLAM. (That is... everyone except customers of MNSi here in Windsor. MNSi has their own DSLAMs in four COs.)
This applies to dry-loop customers as well. It doesn't currently apply to business customers, although what I've been seeing is that a 300G per month cap has been placed on Business DSL customers. Given 5Mbps service allows download of a good 1.5TB or so of data, being allowed to use 20% of your available ability kind of sucks.
Currently this doesn't apply to cable Internet service. Expect Shaw, Rogers and their kin to petition the CRTC for similar rules regarding 3rd-party ISPs on their network. It's probably only a few months before this applies to cable as well, potentially with different specific numbers.
Final detail... we're talking Ontario and Quebec at the moment.
Here's some info.
http://openmedia.ca/meter
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2011/2011-44.htm
In Canada that would be a DSL Lite tier. Up to 512kbps downchannel and 2G/mo cap. Then you get to pay $2.50/mo for every 1G over that cap, up to the 42G mark ($60 overage). Overages above 42G but below 300G are "free". Anything over 300G is $1.10 per 1G.
The standard DSL tier is now a 25G cap, $2/G up to the 55G mark ($60 overage), then "free" between 55G and 300G, and the same $1.10 per 1G thereafter.
Consumers can buy "insurance". $5/mo raises your cap by 40G. It does not raise any other figure. So if you buy one package of "insurance", you get 65G as your cap. The next 30G costs you $2/G to a maximum of $60, same as always, until (in this case) you hit 95G. Between 95G and 300G is "free".
The idea that 100 people are responsible for even 10% of all content on P2P networks is laughable. Let's just consider torrents.
Yes, let us just consider torrents. Yesterday http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/01/25/1643241/Third-of-Content-On-Popular-BT-Portals-Are-Fake we learned that 33% of torrents are fake. Today we're told that 25% isn't coming from these mysterious 100 people. That leaves an 8% overlap where the 100 contributors are also providing fake content.
Perhaps one, the other, or both of these studies are... I dunno... full of shit?
Not much cause to burn any more calories cogitating on the topic at that point.
Are we really so weak that we absolutely cannot do without a smart phone until manufacturers actually start giving us what we want?
As with most things in life, it's not that simple.
This isn't a question about what we want versus what we don't want. It's a question about what we want versus what we want more. If there's a product out that does most of what I'd like it to do, in most of the ways I'd like it to do them, do you really expect me to not purchase it in the hope that the manufacturer will read my mind and somehow know I'm holding out for a couple function changes? Boycott doesn't work in and of itself.
About how hard it was for Apple to the their iPhone 4 through normal use case scenarios for things like antenna reception. Sometimes random things are missed, mixed with what was the testing area like? Might have caused unforeseen fixes (a la iPhone 4 was tested near a cell tower if I remember right, why they missed the antenna reception issue.). Also, it seems most of the complaints are from US users, not global users so it could be something up with how the US carriers are handling the phones, which wouldn't come up in a normal use scenario. Maybe US carriers are trying to ping the phones and the pings are accidentally sending more information then they should?
I call bullshit.
If you test your device in best-case-scenarios, you're incompetent. In the case of a cell phone, whose main purpose is to transmit and receive data (be it voice or other), it's inherently obvious that due-diligence requires you to test it extensively in marginal and poor-reception areas. You also test it extensively in high temperature and low temperature environments as well as any other common but extreme circumstances that historic evidence shows impacts battery life. You test it with all radios (Bluetooth, Wifi, 3G) enabled and stepped up to maximum power due to range issues. You extensively test its operation at extremes such as when the memory is almost entirely full due to someone having taken photos without a memory card, or voice memos. You extensively test when bandwidth is limited due to network saturation. You extensively test in crappy markets where more sand is likely to get in your phone than RF signal. You monitor all the important metrics of your phone (battery life, reliability and speed of link, efficiency of data transmission, use of storage memory and so on) in all the miserable hellish, abusive, real-life scenarios that your (hopefully) millions of units shipped will experience day-to-day.
Once you've tested in all those cases, then you can do whatever you want next door to a cell tower, in climate-controlled circumstances, with empty RAM and plugged into a nuclear power plant for unlimited power and in the single country of your choice.
Note: yes, I realize proof-of-concept and lab testing comes first. I refer to product-quality and suitability-for-sale testing. The stuff that Apple (and possibly MS) got wrong. -- Hey, those are both the companies that decided it was more important to ship "now, now, now!" than include Cut & Paste in their 1.0 products. They're not cutting corners at all.
Insightful +1
Waters wrote great lyrics and penned great hits but Gilmour made beauty. The two post-Waters albums are works of art in a completely different way than the previous ones. I would kill to be able to compose and play the guitar like Gilmour but I can't say the same about being able to write lyrics like Roger. I love both stages of Floyd's catalog but musically... without Gilmour there isn't a Pink Floyd.
Devil's advocate and I'm going to not post AC because I think there's another way of looking at this and I'm willing to stand behind my views.
Let's go with "yes".
If you create an artificial supply of something that may or may not exist and you advertise its availability and a sick person takes advantage of that offer, I think there's a bigger problem than the person being sick. To Catch a Predator creates an artificially enticing "kid" then trolls for someone willing to take advantage of that "kid". My problem is that the show really should be called "To Create a Predator". What they're revealing is willingness, not inclination. Given the opportunity presented by the show's fake "kid", yes the sick guys shown are evidently willing to become pedophiles. That doesn't necessarily mean that given other opportunities presented differently they would.
When the majority of sexual abuses are conducted by relatives and other known-people, this show is missing the point by a huge factor, for ratings. That disgusts me more than the willing men involved.
Don't create new predators. Instead, focus a show on somehow exposing and stopping those that already exist.
Never in recent memory have I so strongly wished I had mod points to throw you some Insightful. But no. I had them expire yesterday, with nothing I felt was appropriate to mod. Sigh.
Only on Slashdot could this be considered so insightful.
All this tells us is about the type of women you are more bias to noticing.
Seriously? I'll admit that in my attempt to be brief I didn't apply any limits to the generalization I was drawing. For instance, take it as a given that that I'm referring to North American women.
Here's your task, Mr. (or Mrs.) Men-And-Women-Are-Identical. Go to a large bookstore. Go to the magazine section. Watch men. Watch women. Note which sections women browse in. Note which sections men browse in. Stay long enough to determine on average which sections are more heavily trafficked by each sex. Next step. Go to those sections, and actually [i]browse[/i] the contents of the magazines on offer. You're going to find remarkable support for my supposition.
I don't know. It sounds like men just fall for macho advertising by Business School Product. Men aren't inherently any smarter or dumber than women.
Not once did I say or even imply that either sex is smarter or dumber than the other. I pointed out a difference in the focus of advertisement; fashion is a primary focus for women. It is not for men. Men tend to be marketed to by lengthy lists of features.
All things considered, I was pretty careful to point out that men get green, women get red, and there's a reddish tinge to iPhone while there's a greenish tinge to Android. Neither red nor green have anything to do with intelligence.
Males tend to be more tech-savvy.
I'll agree with your generalization and offer you another. Women tend to be marketed to for purposes of fashion more than men. iPhones are "cool", "hip", and "trendy". Android phones have a larger feature list which is inherently none of those three things.
So, being a US citizen here, and presently in the US, if I offer up a personal box, how much trouble am I in legally?
If I do get 'hauled in' what could I possibly be charged with?
As someone who isn't a US politician, I'm not equipped to fully answer your question. They're the ones with the power. They're the ones whose wrongdoings are being revealed. That's a really grim combination. I'm guessing that you're in exactly as much trouble as they decide and you'll be charged with whatever they feel like. Probably treason or some trumped up terrorism charge.
Understand this: patriotism in the US now means supporting the government, not the constitution.
The only thing you can do to protect yourself is educate as many fellow citizens as possible and vote for anyone who isn't in favor of the idiocy going on. If there are no non-idiot candidates left, frankly it's time to rebel. But that's just my opinion.
That's a fine opinion, but look at the research. The data don't agree with you. Driving while talking on a cell phone turns out worse than all the things you mention, when actually measured. There seems to be something special about the way the brain handles a phone conversation that impairs the ability to multitask more severely.
Don't take my word for it. Read the research.
Where's the research regarding having a screaming baby in the back seat?
Look, cell phone use is distracting. Lots of things are distracting. I'm not promoting cell phone use while driving. What does bother me is the idea that this particular distracting behaviour is or should be technologically stopped.
Wear a helmet while driving. Make that a law and [i]then[/i] we can dick around with things like cell phone use.
The public support for this is purely because Joe Average [i]sees[/i] a cell phone in use and ascribes it causal involvement. Contributory, sure. Causal? Not necessarily. But we like having an excuse why the jackass in front of us is driving erratically. Maybe it's because he's a jackass? Maybe it's because he's lactose intolerant, having a reaction, and has about three minutes to get home before he shits himself and his leather seats. Dunno. But as soon as you see the cell in his hand, you [i]know[/i] that's the cause in that particular case. Maybe it is. Again, I don't argue that it's not contributing. You'll just never convince me that there aren't about a dozen more heavy contributors in the typical "cell phone did it" collision. Studies are good. Great. And yes, I've read a few papers over the last decade. Strangely they omit an awful lot of other factors when they compare distraction levels. Radio? Sure. Being drunk? Sure. Four toddlers? Never.
Again. Helmets. Armor your head and then you can have my (hands-free) phone.
Personally, I'm against abortion in principle unless it's an unusually dangerous pregnancy for the mother or the result of rape or incest.
How about in the case of a 15-year-old girl whose Christian parents who wouldn't talk about sex at all with her for fear that her hearing about it would encourage her to do it? So the girl doesn't know the fundamentals and trusts her new boyfriend who insists "condoms don't feel good" and "I'll pull out".
What I'm asking is: how do you feel about unwanted and highly personally destructive pregnancies ultimately enabled by ignorance due to religion?
IBM does not build PCs nowadays. Or at least nothing other than server-platform high end workstations.
IBM basically "never" did. They had Lenovo build them. Interestingly enough they sold off the desktop/laptop business to Lenovo about six or seven years ago. Lenovo has in turn maintained the same high standards of product quality and design. Further, IBM techs are the ones dispatched when and if you have a warranty claim. The line is very blurry here as the two companies work together very well.
Well that hardly makes you an expert then.
Excuse me? Because I'm unaltered I'm somehow unqualified to make observations regarding people who are? Sorry, that argument's rubbish and it always has been. Same as the one saying that non-parents can't possibly have valid observations on how child-rearing should be done because "you can't possibly know".
It's even more obvious that you haven't a clue what you're talking about when you try to group alcohol in with cannabis as if it has a similar effect on the mind. They have completely different effects.
Completely? No. Not even almost completely. The original assertion was that people are dumbed down and stupid when smoking pot. Guess what. Alcohol makes you stupid (while under it's influence). Same effect. Sure, one's also a sedative. One's a mild hallucinogen. Sure. But completely different? No.
A term often used when talking about creativity is "thinking outside the box". That's exactly what cannabis helps one to do. That's not the same as random. What it does is to suppress the more obvious, everyday links between concepts, and makes you more likely to come up with less obvious links. This is stuff that makes for creativity.
Ran. Dom. Outside the box? No, man. More of the so-called "thinking" is total nonsense that you're admitting (or remembering, since evidently you're a user [else you can't possibly be any more an expert than I, remember?]) Objectively speaking, fact is that a large quantity of the non-obvious concepts that come up are non-obvious because they're nonsensical. Seriously, bring up something like physics with someone who's stoned on pot. Or politics. Or anything that requires the ability to process facts. Kiss any shadow of the conversation making sense goodbye.
Alcohol isn't like that. I think, through lack of experience, only observing it from the outside, you think that being stoned must be something like being drunk. It's not.
Again, in the sense that in both cases you tend to act, talk, and think like half of your brain was transplanted from a Rhesus monkey yes, it is.
The anecdotes of particular creatives is pointless as will just end with me matching your Douglas Adams with my John Lennon. However it is interesting that you pick that particular one, and assume he didn't smoke cannabis. I don't know if he did or he didn't, and neither do you, but either way I suspect he knew more about it's effects than you. In 1992, he put his name to a campaign for the legalisation of it.
http://www.ukcia.org/politicsandlaw/times92a.html
Friend, I'd argue for its legalization and I've literally never once partaken. My politics aren't germane any more than his were. As for Lennon, that's a complicated example. You've got a self-fulfilling situation. To a certain degree while an artist is "hot", they can do no wrong. I'm of the age where most of my peers appreciate the Beatles and his solo catalogue, so you're not dealing with a youngun who Just Doesn't Get It. My personal favourite band is Pink Floyd. This is useful information for one simple reason. Their earliest works (ie. the spaced-out clearly stoned albums) suck. Dark Side and WYWH are roughly when they started to pull their crap together and make music though a lot of the individual elements in there suck too. Newer albums than those just got increasingly musical. There's strong evidence in their history and biographies that by then they were seriously cranking back on drug use.
What I'm saying here is that frankly a lot of Lennon's library is junk. Not a popular view, but it's simply not done to criticize him. His work must be genius because it's his. And he's genius because of his work. Um? No. Some was great, some was mediocre and some was plain old stoner ramblings that should have stayed on the cutting room floo