People have a visceral dislike of space-based advertising," adds schwit1.
No, people have a visceral dislike of ANY advertising - and the more obnoxious and unavoidable, the more they hate it.
In a way, I wish Pepsi had gone through with their stupid plan: it might have provoked a real backlash against the ubiquitous brain pollution that is advertising. People bear with it because of things like Adblock on the internet, fast-forward on TV boxes, and looking the other way on the road. But there's no avoiding a disfigured night sky.
Oh that's easy: just ask verification questions such as
- What's the capital of Yugoslavia?
- Difference between a pound sterling and a ruble? [1/ one is a dead currency, the other soon to be] [2/ One quid]
- What's TRON? [1/ a great movie starring Jeff Bridges from 1982] [2/ a shitty movie starring Jeff Bridges from 1982 with an unexpectedly cool sequel in 2010]
and you have your robust age verification right there.
There's another kind of heavy diesel-electric vehicle that's been around for decades: diesel locomotives.
I keep wondering how light passenger cars got the hybrid treatment first and long-haul trucks still haven't, when the first successful experience in the field clearly pointed to the latter being the ideal candidate.
What this bill proposes is to replace the real, actual bias with another, artificial bias that is more desirable / politically correct / whatever.
Not saying this is a bad thing - combating centuries-old entrenched preconceived ideas is probably a good thing more often than not - but please stop saying we're *removing* bias.
We might have a fighting chance against resistant bugs if pharmas did fundamental research on possible cures. But they're much happier putting out endless low-risk, high profit margin respins on aspiring, paracetamol , ibuprofen or prozac.
Also, they don't have much incentive to create one-off cures. That's why we still don't have an AIDS vaccine or an affordable cure for malaria. Selling litetime drugs is a much more attractive business proposition.
I weep for the most important thing Google has killed with them: the right to privacy and anonymity.
As for the products, they *have* to keep only the best ones: they're the trojan horses into people's lives. The products have to be so compelling that everybody feels they can't do without them, even at the cost of feeding Google their most intimate details. Excellent products are the keystone of their business model: no good products, no data.
Logic today seems to dictate that all the input data is sent over to a server somewhere, and the control commands come back down from the server over the internet, with zero local control between the two. Isn't that how things should be done these days?
Unfortunately, this basic rule isn't enough to handle every situation. For various reasons, Windows allows exceptions to the basic user-mode/kernel-mode split
Telemetry needs it, I suspect is 90% of the various reasons.
Yes, but the automatic copyright violation detector thingy doesn't trip over bad singing. Youtube needs real human moderators to detect this kind of violation, meaning it's costly and about impossible to scale up for Youtube - which is is exactly the point of this tactic.
"By bringing F5's world-class application security and rich application services portfolio for improving performance, availability, and management together with NGINX's leading software application delivery and API management solutions, unparalleled credibility and brand recognition in the DevOps community, and massive open source user base, we bridge the divide between NetOps and DevOps with consistent application services across an enterprise's multi-cloud environment,"
That's quite a sizeable collection of buzzwords in one single sentence. The reality of course is, nobody knows who F5 is, and nobody cares about Nginx non-free offerings. So in short, nobody cares.
Probably more than that: people who get off on pictures of elderly folks, disabled folks - even full clothed - feet, cars (yes, that's a thing - google "mechaphilia") and whatnot can still get their kicks on Tumblr. It's not even discreet: some Tumblr pages I've seen clearly have "Sexy XYZ" in the title.
- Facebook and Zuck are all about the money. That's not judgmental, it's just what corporations and business owners do: they only care about their pockets and that of shareholders, not morals or ethics.
- Facebook and Zuck have been making out like bandits from dataraping people so far.
So why would they suddenly announce a policy change that's detrimental to an existing, proven business model? Well, here's why:
- People are more and more concerned that Facebook is dataraping them. They don't know how exactly, as most of them are computer idiots, but they're getting the idea that FB might not actually be as customer-oriented as they claim.
- Therefore, Zuck announces FB's new "focus on privacy". What does it mean in actual technical and privacy terms? Nothing. What does it mean in marketing terms? The users' concerns are put to rest for a few months or years, and FB bleed out fewer customers, hence keep collecting data, thereby keeping on making money.
I predict Zuck's annoucemnent is just that - an annoucement. Over time, we'll learn that FB hasn't implemented any of it. But the company will have made extra cash from anesthetized users who might otherwise have fled the platform.
I have a feeling you're implying startups should somehow be immune from stringent rules and regulations because that would stifle innovation and new business ideas. Well, when startups' business model consists in filling the streets with dangerous vehicles, I'm all for killing them outright.
Slashdot Mirror
People have a visceral dislike of space-based advertising," adds schwit1.
No, people have a visceral dislike of ANY advertising - and the more obnoxious and unavoidable, the more they hate it.
In a way, I wish Pepsi had gone through with their stupid plan: it might have provoked a real backlash against the ubiquitous brain pollution that is advertising. People bear with it because of things like Adblock on the internet, fast-forward on TV boxes, and looking the other way on the road. But there's no avoiding a disfigured night sky.
Oh that's easy: just ask verification questions such as
- What's the capital of Yugoslavia?
- Difference between a pound sterling and a ruble? [1/ one is a dead currency, the other soon to be] [2/ One quid]
- What's TRON? [1/ a great movie starring Jeff Bridges from 1982] [2/ a shitty movie starring Jeff Bridges from 1982 with an unexpectedly cool sequel in 2010]
and you have your robust age verification right there.
There's another kind of heavy diesel-electric vehicle that's been around for decades: diesel locomotives.
I keep wondering how light passenger cars got the hybrid treatment first and long-haul trucks still haven't, when the first successful experience in the field clearly pointed to the latter being the ideal candidate.
What this bill proposes is to replace the real, actual bias with another, artificial bias that is more desirable / politically correct / whatever.
Not saying this is a bad thing - combating centuries-old entrenched preconceived ideas is probably a good thing more often than not - but please stop saying we're *removing* bias.
We might have a fighting chance against resistant bugs if pharmas did fundamental research on possible cures. But they're much happier putting out endless low-risk, high profit margin respins on aspiring, paracetamol , ibuprofen or prozac.
Also, they don't have much incentive to create one-off cures. That's why we still don't have an AIDS vaccine or an affordable cure for malaria. Selling litetime drugs is a much more attractive business proposition.
Funny how well the set of hateful nefarious big corporations and the set of companies that get into big data seem to intersect.
I weep for the most important thing Google has killed with them: the right to privacy and anonymity.
As for the products, they *have* to keep only the best ones: they're the trojan horses into people's lives. The products have to be so compelling that everybody feels they can't do without them, even at the cost of feeding Google their most intimate details. Excellent products are the keystone of their business model: no good products, no data.
Logic today seems to dictate that all the input data is sent over to a server somewhere, and the control commands come back down from the server over the internet, with zero local control between the two. Isn't that how things should be done these days?
Normally I would quickly read an AC post such as yours and dismiss it as a troll post, but in this case you're dead right.
I can't wait to be able to install security software from a company with as sterling a track record as Microsoft's on my servers!
Also, totally unrelated, today is World Down Syndrome Day, and I have a MCSE.
is yet another bane the world didn't need.
What kind of fixes do I know about for electronics? Alright. Turn it all off and back on.
Millenial pilots do a scandisk and a defrag also. But that takes time, which there's precious little of at takeoff time - hence the crash
Unfortunately, this basic rule isn't enough to handle every situation. For various reasons, Windows allows exceptions to the basic user-mode/kernel-mode split
Telemetry needs it, I suspect is 90% of the various reasons.
Yes, but the automatic copyright violation detector thingy doesn't trip over bad singing. Youtube needs real human moderators to detect this kind of violation, meaning it's costly and about impossible to scale up for Youtube - which is is exactly the point of this tactic.
Yep, and the idiots are milked for all they're worth. That's what monetization is.
They were SO stupid they gave up on Apollo 18 before it even happened (and vacuum-sealed bits of rocks from the front lawn, probably...)
Read this, straight from PR Newswire hell:
"By bringing F5's world-class application security and rich application services portfolio for improving performance, availability, and management together with NGINX's leading software application delivery and API management solutions, unparalleled credibility and brand recognition in the DevOps community, and massive open source user base, we bridge the divide between NetOps and DevOps with consistent application services across an enterprise's multi-cloud environment,"
That's quite a sizeable collection of buzzwords in one single sentence. The reality of course is, nobody knows who F5 is, and nobody cares about Nginx non-free offerings. So in short, nobody cares.
are a threat to everybody and everything: smaller companies, but also data security, personal privacy and liberty.
is a much of giant megacorps making a lot of money leveraging open-source work they paid virtually nothing for.
yet nothing ever changes.
Also: /. is FB's availability page now? What gives?
Probably more than that: people who get off on pictures of elderly folks, disabled folks - even full clothed - feet, cars (yes, that's a thing - google "mechaphilia") and whatnot can still get their kicks on Tumblr. It's not even discreet: some Tumblr pages I've seen clearly have "Sexy XYZ" in the title.
You use Foursquare all the time without knowing it. And they use you all the time without you knowing it also.
- Facebook and Zuck are all about the money. That's not judgmental, it's just what corporations and business owners do: they only care about their pockets and that of shareholders, not morals or ethics.
- Facebook and Zuck have been making out like bandits from dataraping people so far.
So why would they suddenly announce a policy change that's detrimental to an existing, proven business model? Well, here's why:
- People are more and more concerned that Facebook is dataraping them. They don't know how exactly, as most of them are computer idiots, but they're getting the idea that FB might not actually be as customer-oriented as they claim.
- Therefore, Zuck announces FB's new "focus on privacy". What does it mean in actual technical and privacy terms? Nothing. What does it mean in marketing terms? The users' concerns are put to rest for a few months or years, and FB bleed out fewer customers, hence keep collecting data, thereby keeping on making money.
I predict Zuck's annoucemnent is just that - an annoucement. Over time, we'll learn that FB hasn't implemented any of it. But the company will have made extra cash from anesthetized users who might otherwise have fled the platform.
The CDC has conducted numerous studies on lead poisoning.
There's an idea.
I have a feeling you're implying startups should somehow be immune from stringent rules and regulations because that would stifle innovation and new business ideas. Well, when startups' business model consists in filling the streets with dangerous vehicles, I'm all for killing them outright.