That fell apart because Sony didn't anticipate what direction things would take, letting Apple overtake them along with just about everyone else.
I don't think that's quite right. Sony did anticipate the direction things were going take, they just tried to control it too tightly and had an overinflated idea of their own power to steer things.
I think the Sony Network Walkman predates the iPod. I had an NW-MS9 and I think in many ways it (and the earlier versions) were ahead of their time. Tiny, digital, sleek, even the name "Network" hints and some anticipation of a future of medialess distribution.
However they utterly ballsed up the execution. Partly on the software side (the associated software was an absolute dog which seemed to go out of it's way to make things painful) but mostly because they were trying to own the future with their MagicGate DRM (which they even seemed to be trying to sell as something exciting for the consumer, though it was responsible for much of the pain in using the software) and codec restrictions.
Sony saw the future, they just wanted to own it and in trying to do so produced something that served them more than it served the buyer.
I don't think it's unbelievable that the FBI (or whoever) were called. If a crime is suspected then I don't think it's unreasonable to report that suspicion. (Similarly in this recently reported case, I don't think it's unreasonable for authorities to be informed, it would possibly be more outrageous if there was a possible breach that authorities weren't informed about).
However the 'authorities' in question should be capable of responding to those reports in a sensible fashion.
That seems like a somewhat pessimistic view, a glance through the historical results shows some pretty solid songs (and some quirky ones)
http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/...
If course, they aren't all Bohemian Rhapsody's, but there's only ever been one if them.
Picture this scenario. Ten guys and ten girls live together. All ten of the guys have slept with five of the girls in the house within the first ten days. That makes them promiscuous. However, five of the girls engaged in no sexual activity whatsoever. That gives us a 100% male promiscuity rate, and a 50% female promiscuity rate.
If we're going to discuss this properly then I think we need more info on any possible threesomes.
I think you are misunderstanding what I meant. In my example "Y" was the stationary AP, you as "A" can't see any packets from it directly because you are out of range, but you can see data being sent by "X" to "Y" (as "X" is in range of both you and "Y"). As I understand it by looking at the packets being sent to "Y" from "X" you can know enough about "Y" to add it to your geolocation data even if you haven't observed any data from it directly.
There's no need to ever actually connect to any network to map them, just slurp up SSID broadcasts, maybe channel and signal strength.
You don't need to 'connect' to them but IIRC there is some benefit to looking at the traffic beyond mere broadcasts. IE if you can see device X sending traffic to Y you can begin to imply the position of Y even if you can't see it that device yourself because it's too far away from you.
A <------ X <-------> Y
Moz might not be doing that and perhaps it isn't a "need" but if the goal is to get the best data it's not correct to say that deeper analysis than mere SSID broadcast doesn't have benefits. Of course if you are looking deeper then you should be paying attention to any possible privacy implications and avoiding recording anything that could be considered 'content'.
Right. With credit cards, you're basically getting free insurance paid for by people who keep loads of interest-bearing debt.
Don't be silly. That money stays with the financial institutions involved. Any money that needs to be refunded due to fraud comes from the merchants who accepted the card (with a hefty fee attached too).
It's not a fallacy, you didn't understand. People are saying that limited computation facilities will encourage innovation. If limited computation facilities encourage, nay, force innovation, then limiting it even more should force even more innovation.
Why should it? That seems like an obvious fallacy. Limiting us to abacuses would just mean people would be looking to improve on the abacus. Limitations in silicon means people looking at alternatives to silicon (just as limitations with vacuum tubes meant people looked for better alternatives and the transistor).
Perhaps in 60 years the basic components of today's technology will look as quaint and old timey as vacuum tubes do today. If we are just using iteratively improved versions of todays integrated circuits then that might be somewhat disappointing.....
That may have been the dumbest thing you've read all day but to be fair that was before your comment was written.
The intent behind that sentence seems fairly clear, that the end of predictable speed increases may lead to greater focus on whole other avenues of development and other unpredictable and exciting ideas popping up.
Centralizing control over analysis of student performance data --- taking the capability away from teachers to evaluate how a program is really working, and placing it in the hands of
You seem to view this as a zero sum game.
Additional central analytics doesn't necessarily take capabilities away from teachers. It could inform and help them.
Anything can be used badly, it seems to me the fight should be to use analytics well, not stop it being used.
For improving quality of the educational materials, all Code.org needs is aggregate summary data
I don't think that's necessarily true, or at least it's not true that more specific detail than aggregate data won't lend itself to additional useful insights.
For instance it's reasonable to imagine that different people learn better in different ways and that by accumulating data on individuals one might be able to determine different groups among them which might in turn lead to more tailored materials for different types of learners.
If you aggregate the data early around one factor (eg a class or school) that will vastly reduce your ability to come up with other ways to view the data or to have things emerge from the data that you didn't already anticipate.
It would be absurd to suggest that more fine-grained data wouldn't allow for more detailed analysis. The only question is where the line needs to be drawn for privacy or other reasons.
"I want a Sony plasma television for the house," said Amanda Lisboa, 34, a business administrator who waited seven hours outside a Caracas store... "It's going to be so cheap!"
I don't think he was suggesting that the minimum wage was responsible for prosperity.
He was merely pointing out that a (reasonable) minimum wage doesn't inevitably destroy prosperity the way the OP suggested it did.
If the system is designed right, forged cards, replay attacks (e.g. add $50 to the card, read its contents, spend the $50, write the old contents to get a free top-up) and other such things can be prevented.
What is the practical gain from that?
The reality is that 99.9% of people are honest and will pay what they should regardless of whether the cards are insecure and could be 'hacked'.
As such there isn't much to be gained from designing a system that protects against things almost no one is going to do anyway.
Which doesn't explain why these systems always seem to cost so much and get delivered late. I can only assume the companies that make these things do that so the problem seems harder than it is.
Usually the way this works with a company that spends the time to do it right is that the Payment Gateway/Processor will store the card in perpetuity and give you a token you can reauth against. Since the token itself is useless and can be revoked, it's vastly safer, barring any issues with the Gateway/Processor/Token (Heartland....)
It also means you are somewhat locked in to using that gateway.
If you are doing a lot of volume you will also probably want to use multiple gateways and process through whoever can give you the best rate at any point in time.
Day one server issues for a AAA release??? STOP THE PRESSES!
I think it is newsworthy. While it is inevitable from a technical perspective it seems strange to me that companies (whether Apple or Rockstar) aren't more creative at managing the demand side so that people don't have a bad experience.
How about:
1) Conservatively work out how many people you expect you can serve.
2) Auction off that many "Early Access" entry tokens with the proceeds going to charity.
3) Continue to sell more tokens (again with proceeds going to charity) for the rest of the week as you find you have spare capacity and work out any bottlenecks.
4) Let everyone in.
Everyone wins. Company gets good press rather than bad, people super keen to access the content get a good experience and a charity gets some resources.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think that's quite right. Sony did anticipate the direction things were going take, they just tried to control it too tightly and had an overinflated idea of their own power to steer things. I think the Sony Network Walkman predates the iPod. I had an NW-MS9 and I think in many ways it (and the earlier versions) were ahead of their time. Tiny, digital, sleek, even the name "Network" hints and some anticipation of a future of medialess distribution.
However they utterly ballsed up the execution. Partly on the software side (the associated software was an absolute dog which seemed to go out of it's way to make things painful) but mostly because they were trying to own the future with their MagicGate DRM (which they even seemed to be trying to sell as something exciting for the consumer, though it was responsible for much of the pain in using the software) and codec restrictions.
Sony saw the future, they just wanted to own it and in trying to do so produced something that served them more than it served the buyer.
(Sorry)
Black Mirror is an absolutely awesome series (though perhaps series isn't the right word as each episode is standalone). Well worth watching.
I don't think it's unbelievable that the FBI (or whoever) were called. If a crime is suspected then I don't think it's unreasonable to report that suspicion. (Similarly in this recently reported case, I don't think it's unreasonable for authorities to be informed, it would possibly be more outrageous if there was a possible breach that authorities weren't informed about).
However the 'authorities' in question should be capable of responding to those reports in a sensible fashion.
That seems like a somewhat pessimistic view, a glance through the historical results shows some pretty solid songs (and some quirky ones) http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/... If course, they aren't all Bohemian Rhapsody's, but there's only ever been one if them.
Cryptic Letter Algorithm?
If we're going to discuss this properly then I think we need more info on any possible threesomes.
I think you are misunderstanding what I meant. In my example "Y" was the stationary AP, you as "A" can't see any packets from it directly because you are out of range, but you can see data being sent by "X" to "Y" (as "X" is in range of both you and "Y"). As I understand it by looking at the packets being sent to "Y" from "X" you can know enough about "Y" to add it to your geolocation data even if you haven't observed any data from it directly.
You don't need to 'connect' to them but IIRC there is some benefit to looking at the traffic beyond mere broadcasts. IE if you can see device X sending traffic to Y you can begin to imply the position of Y even if you can't see it that device yourself because it's too far away from you.
A <------ X <-------> Y
Moz might not be doing that and perhaps it isn't a "need" but if the goal is to get the best data it's not correct to say that deeper analysis than mere SSID broadcast doesn't have benefits. Of course if you are looking deeper then you should be paying attention to any possible privacy implications and avoiding recording anything that could be considered 'content'.
Don't be silly. That money stays with the financial institutions involved. Any money that needs to be refunded due to fraud comes from the merchants who accepted the card (with a hefty fee attached too).
Why should it? That seems like an obvious fallacy. Limiting us to abacuses would just mean people would be looking to improve on the abacus. Limitations in silicon means people looking at alternatives to silicon (just as limitations with vacuum tubes meant people looked for better alternatives and the transistor).
Perhaps in 60 years the basic components of today's technology will look as quaint and old timey as vacuum tubes do today. If we are just using iteratively improved versions of todays integrated circuits then that might be somewhat disappointing.....
How I sound? You really should work on your reading comprehension, I was merely explaining what the article was saying.
That may have been the dumbest thing you've read all day but to be fair that was before your comment was written.
The intent behind that sentence seems fairly clear, that the end of predictable speed increases may lead to greater focus on whole other avenues of development and other unpredictable and exciting ideas popping up.
Indeed, a pedant would be right, you are just inventing a distinction where there is none.
You seem to view this as a zero sum game.
Additional central analytics doesn't necessarily take capabilities away from teachers. It could inform and help them.
Anything can be used badly, it seems to me the fight should be to use analytics well, not stop it being used.
I don't think that's necessarily true, or at least it's not true that more specific detail than aggregate data won't lend itself to additional useful insights.
For instance it's reasonable to imagine that different people learn better in different ways and that by accumulating data on individuals one might be able to determine different groups among them which might in turn lead to more tailored materials for different types of learners.
If you aggregate the data early around one factor (eg a class or school) that will vastly reduce your ability to come up with other ways to view the data or to have things emerge from the data that you didn't already anticipate.
It would be absurd to suggest that more fine-grained data wouldn't allow for more detailed analysis. The only question is where the line needs to be drawn for privacy or other reasons.
Or a kangaroo to ride, of course.
Didn't Sony stop making plasma TVs some time ago?
I don't think he was suggesting that the minimum wage was responsible for prosperity. He was merely pointing out that a (reasonable) minimum wage doesn't inevitably destroy prosperity the way the OP suggested it did.
What is the practical gain from that?
The reality is that 99.9% of people are honest and will pay what they should regardless of whether the cards are insecure and could be 'hacked'. As such there isn't much to be gained from designing a system that protects against things almost no one is going to do anyway.
Which doesn't explain why these systems always seem to cost so much and get delivered late. I can only assume the companies that make these things do that so the problem seems harder than it is.
That room sounds pretty secure, the perfect place to put the spare keys for safekeeping.
It also means you are somewhat locked in to using that gateway.
If you are doing a lot of volume you will also probably want to use multiple gateways and process through whoever can give you the best rate at any point in time.
I think it is newsworthy. While it is inevitable from a technical perspective it seems strange to me that companies (whether Apple or Rockstar) aren't more creative at managing the demand side so that people don't have a bad experience.
How about:
1) Conservatively work out how many people you expect you can serve.
2) Auction off that many "Early Access" entry tokens with the proceeds going to charity.
3) Continue to sell more tokens (again with proceeds going to charity) for the rest of the week as you find you have spare capacity and work out any bottlenecks.
4) Let everyone in.
Everyone wins. Company gets good press rather than bad, people super keen to access the content get a good experience and a charity gets some resources.
Next up is the 1000 blade shaver, perfectly moulded to your face. One quick stroke and your whole face is clean shaven.
Either that or you are bleeding to death.
\c obviously