So you're saying TSA don't do a good job?
Then tell me how many buildings terrorists have flown airplanes into recently. Name one!
Oh no the TSA has done an excellent job. Mind, their job has very little to do with terrorists or safety, and everything to do with making Americans feel safe (with a nice side order of funneling money to certain congress/senatorial districts), and they have done a quite good job at that. After all, very few people want a government that looks like it isn't doing anything (Democrat or Republican), no matter what it actually should be, or is, doing.
Given the mostly fixed number of neurons available to any single individual, the talent for physics must have come from somewhere... obviously, the aesthetics circuits got the short end of the deal.
Or perhaps it is a rather clever method of weeding out people who look beyond the aesthetics towards the actual content (i.e. people who are actually capable of understanding the presentation in the first place) from those who are unable to distinguish appearance from content and thus are unlikely to contribute much of anything of note towards the scientific discussion. Probably not, but maybe.
17 U.S.C. 512(f) Misrepresentations. – Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section —
(1) that material or activity is infringing, or
(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,
shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.
Take that as you will, I imagine it depends on a case by case basis but lost revenue should be included, in at least some cases (IANAL, of course).
The DMCA (which I assume the takedown requests are filed under) already includes a provision that states the claimant is liable for all costs associated with false takedown requests. People just haven't bothered to push them on it.
Looks like it was Asimov's Mysteries, I very clearly remember The Singing Bell (only one I do clearly remember). I'll have to try to find some of them: I must admit my classic Sci-fi is a bit lacking, aside from Jules Verne.
I've read some of his actual mystery stories once: they were fantastic. Unfortunately, I've not been able to find another copy and was only able to read them for a short while a few years ago at a house I was visiting. I don't even remember what the collection was called.
I am not aware of a single instance of someone being banned from Steam for cheating. Banned from VAC servers, yes, multiplayer in certain games, yes, but not from Steam in general. Now, users have gotten banned for things like trying to activate a hacked game or phishing, but I've never heard of an account ban for cheating or other minor offenses.
Because it might have relevance in appeals, which Oracle has shown a clear intention of pursuing. This judge has actually been very careful about creating a thorough result so that there isn't a lot to appeal, and this seems to be in that same vein.
He seems to be assuming that demand will continue to grow at current and historical rate. I'd say that isn't a very good assumption: the jump from people using a text-based web to a video/flash/image one was significant, but the demands of each individual user aren't likely to increase much beyond that. Adding more people will increase demand somewhat, but not by an order of magnitude like Youtube, Netflix et al. do, and since people are already watching those just fine, it is hardly an insurmountable issue. Of course, that assumes video bandwidth requirements don't expand to something like streaming 4k, but considering that most people can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p, I doubt that will ever happen.
It's a decent measure, but not a great one, since it adds a time-based component. Saying that being the best competitive programmer is a measure of overall skill is like saying the best speed-chess player is the best overall chess player. It simply isn't true (although it could be, it usually isn't), although the speed-chess player is undoubtedly very good.
If the attacked has lengthy, exclusive access to the chip and sufficiently advanced resources, basically nothing will stop them cracking it. This technique is simply a software added trick that can be used with cheap existing RFID technology to prevent drive-by attacks, not dedicated cracking. The key is "cheap": nearly free, in fact, rather than a more complicated method (my first thought was to use a simple RCI circuit to detect if the card has had power in the last few seconds to achieve the same effect as this, but that of course would add complexity and cost and most importantly couldn't be used with existing chips. Also potentially crackable, but it would help).
SRAM looses coherency in a statistically predictable pattern for a few seconds/minutes after it looses power. That means an otherwise powerless and clockless RFID chip can detect when it was powered on recently, and deny access attempts until at least a few seconds after the last access, rendering brute-force attempts vastly less practical (those normally use thousands of access attempts a second). Also, potentially annoying the hell out of anyone for whom the card doesn't work the first time, but security has always been a tradeoff with practicality (and if it is just a matter of seconds, not a huge deal).
Have you ever seen a glass of ice water that showed condensation? Bingo, you should be able to figure out who powering on freezing cold electronics is a bad idea. I'm pretty sure everyone working at a data center is familiar with the idea of condensation, certainly anyone working in any situation where it would be an actual issue.
Bad analogy. The piano is an instrument that has been around for centuries and one that you can measure yourself by players of past/future generations, we are talking about being the best at manipulating a computer program that won't be around in five years.
The piano has only been around for centuries because someone started mastering it when it hadn't been around for centuries.
Blogs like Prochronisms look at 'historical changes in language by algorithmically checking historical TV shows and movies.' They utilize tools like Google Ngram viewer to bust Mad Men, for example, for using terms or phrases in dialogue that didn't yet exist.
Really, no offense (ok, maybe a little offense), but this comes across (to me anyways) as slightly... sad. It's one thing if you are looking up a fact about the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere last year. But this is another thing completely. I think Ratatouille actually put it quite well:
In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so.
The grammar nazi or the fact checker is essentially a critic: someone who is basically incapable, or simply too lazy, to bother creating something worthwhile, so they spend their time criticizing other people's work instead. I think they do it largely to inflate their feeling of self-worth: after all, if they can see the flaws in other peoples' work, it must not be all that great.
The fact is in many of these cases, whatever "problem" they find is really totally and utterly insignificant. Honestly, I don't care if Mad Men uses phrases that weren't around in the 1960s: it's an enjoyable show with great characters, in my opinion. It would be one thing if it was horribly unrealistic or created a culture radically different from the real culture of the 60s, but the mere fact that they are "busting" Mad Men for using anachronistic phrases... I mean, I suppose you could complain about something more shallow than that, but I can't think of anything off the top of my head (wait, nevermind, speaking of the top of the head gave me an idea: they could complain about the hairstyles being just slightly off. Yeah, that'd be a bit more shallow). Can it be that there are people who literally have nothing better to do than find tiny errors in phrases in a critically acclaimed show? I suppose there is, but there really shouldn't be.
Of course, this is nowhere near as bad as the people seriously complaining on the Internet about the use of Comic Sans in the presentation announcing the discovery of the Higgs Boson. I don't even have a comment about that, really, besides that it's almost unbelievable, but that's the Internet, I guess.
No offense but maybe your brain just fails to multitask.
Assuming he is a human, of course his brain does. As does yours, mine, and Stephen Hawking's. No human brain can actually multitask. Some people are just faster at switching between one task and another than others.
Obviously, the $1 trillion figure is made up. The real figure is more likely in the tens of millions, maybe a little higher, but probably even less than that. The thing is, and the reason people can get away with citing a number that ridiculous, is because it is so large. People simply have no concept of scale that large. You can't hold a number that large in your head, not insofar as it applies to something real. As a pure number, sure, but not as a number of something. The human brain can comprehend tens, even thousands: but trillions are simply too large for the mind to hold, which means that as a talking point, a couple billion is about the same as a trillion for your average human: it basically just ends up meaning "a really really really lot."
If you approach rebuking the number as "well what should the number really be", you aren't countering the key point behind those figures, which is simply to express a massive quantity. If you respond by saying the number should really be in the millions, people will usually scoff at you ("no way McAfee could have been that wrong") or at best simply take the average of the two numbers, which still yields a massive number in their head. The point of such studies isn't to be scientific: it's to be rhetorical. So ultimately, to the people citing that number, it doesn't matter in the slightest if it is true, or how it was a arrived at. All it matters is they have a really big number to cite that they can say is "scientific" or "proof that we need to take action."
All of those "balkanizations" are performed by the provider themselves. There is no separation between two parties that want to communicate, except for places like China and Iran. In other words, nothing is stopping Netflix from providing their services to everyone in the world aside from Netflix themselves (and of course their agreements with other people). The Internet itself is not fragmented: certain websites are, but that is their problem and their doing.
First of all, not sure how that is relevant since most space exploration is and has always been unmanned (largely of necessity), and second, NASA's commercial contracts are for both unmanned and manned missions. The CCP contracts mentioned in TFA are specifically for manned (being the Commercial Crew Program), but the CRS includes unmanned supply missions such as that recently carried out by the Dragon capsule, developed partially by funding from the COTS program.
Realistically, there never was much demand for manned missions, scientific or otherwise, and frankly given the extreme cost I think we would have been better to simply invest it in more advanced robotic "telepresence" systems.
If L4D2 was using the latest DX11.1 implementation and the latest technique, I'm not so sure it would be faster on OpenGL.
That's really not true. Google for performance of DX11 vs DX9: in many cases, DX11 is actually slower (20% slower or so seems to be the trend). Crysis 2, Dragon Age 2, Lost Planet 2: all slower in DX11. A lot of this is the fact that they are simply tacking on DX11 features, since they have to support DX9 for legacy hardware and OSes (which Source definitely would), but DX11 is not necessarily faster simply because it is newer. Indeed, it is often slower because of that: graphics card support for it is no-where near as good as it is for DX9.0c.
First of all, no it doesn't. Steam offers more than just a store. Aside from the obvious fact that everyone who owns games on it already will stick with it, it offers cloud support, chat and gaming with friends, etc. MS tried the same with GFWL: I know of not one single person, not even on the Internet, who liked it. Oh I'm sure there is someone out there, but it was nearly universally despised by gamers. I have little doubt the Windows 8 store will suffer the same fate, probably by actually using GFWL for the games part (MS for some reason refuses to let it die).
And second, of course, there are anti-trust issues. Massive ones. Much much much bigger than the ones that came with IE, since very very serious money is on the line with digital stores. And it isn't just Valve, either: EA (Origin), Gamestop (Impulse), and CD Projekt Red (Good Old Games) et alia will all be after Microsoft's head if they try to use their first-party advantage to undercut them.
This article is based on Left4Dead 2, which use DirectX9. It's not relevant anymore. It's from years ago. Microsoft improved DirectX A LOT since then.
It is very relevant to anyone using Windows XP and/or many older and especially integrated graphics cards. Which is a lot of people. Most modern games include a DX9 rendering mode (or only use DX9, period) for that exact reason.
Not what Samsung is saying in the slightest (did you even read the second sentence of the summary, or did you just jump into the comments?). What Samsung is claiming is that they developed the F700 independently of Apple. Apple is claiming Samsung copied them (in fact, they specifically point to the F700 as an example). In other words, Samsung is the one who would have needed the time machine, to make an iPhone-like device before the iPhone was ever revealed and possibly before the iPhone design was even finalized.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're saying TSA don't do a good job? Then tell me how many buildings terrorists have flown airplanes into recently. Name one!
Oh no the TSA has done an excellent job. Mind, their job has very little to do with terrorists or safety, and everything to do with making Americans feel safe (with a nice side order of funneling money to certain congress/senatorial districts), and they have done a quite good job at that. After all, very few people want a government that looks like it isn't doing anything (Democrat or Republican), no matter what it actually should be, or is, doing.
Given the mostly fixed number of neurons available to any single individual, the talent for physics must have come from somewhere... obviously, the aesthetics circuits got the short end of the deal.
Or perhaps it is a rather clever method of weeding out people who look beyond the aesthetics towards the actual content (i.e. people who are actually capable of understanding the presentation in the first place) from those who are unable to distinguish appearance from content and thus are unlikely to contribute much of anything of note towards the scientific discussion. Probably not, but maybe.
17 U.S.C. 512(f) Misrepresentations. – Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section —
(1) that material or activity is infringing, or
(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,
shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.
Take that as you will, I imagine it depends on a case by case basis but lost revenue should be included, in at least some cases (IANAL, of course).
"This was just the equivalent of a book club"
The first rule of book club is: You do not talk about book club.
The second rule of book club is: YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT BOOK CLUB...
It'd be a little ironic if you couldn't write about it, though.
The DMCA (which I assume the takedown requests are filed under) already includes a provision that states the claimant is liable for all costs associated with false takedown requests. People just haven't bothered to push them on it.
Looks like it was Asimov's Mysteries, I very clearly remember The Singing Bell (only one I do clearly remember). I'll have to try to find some of them: I must admit my classic Sci-fi is a bit lacking, aside from Jules Verne.
I've read some of his actual mystery stories once: they were fantastic. Unfortunately, I've not been able to find another copy and was only able to read them for a short while a few years ago at a house I was visiting. I don't even remember what the collection was called.
I am not aware of a single instance of someone being banned from Steam for cheating. Banned from VAC servers, yes, multiplayer in certain games, yes, but not from Steam in general. Now, users have gotten banned for things like trying to activate a hacked game or phishing, but I've never heard of an account ban for cheating or other minor offenses.
Because it might have relevance in appeals, which Oracle has shown a clear intention of pursuing. This judge has actually been very careful about creating a thorough result so that there isn't a lot to appeal, and this seems to be in that same vein.
He seems to be assuming that demand will continue to grow at current and historical rate. I'd say that isn't a very good assumption: the jump from people using a text-based web to a video/flash/image one was significant, but the demands of each individual user aren't likely to increase much beyond that. Adding more people will increase demand somewhat, but not by an order of magnitude like Youtube, Netflix et al. do, and since people are already watching those just fine, it is hardly an insurmountable issue. Of course, that assumes video bandwidth requirements don't expand to something like streaming 4k, but considering that most people can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p, I doubt that will ever happen.
It's a decent measure, but not a great one, since it adds a time-based component. Saying that being the best competitive programmer is a measure of overall skill is like saying the best speed-chess player is the best overall chess player. It simply isn't true (although it could be, it usually isn't), although the speed-chess player is undoubtedly very good.
If the attacked has lengthy, exclusive access to the chip and sufficiently advanced resources, basically nothing will stop them cracking it. This technique is simply a software added trick that can be used with cheap existing RFID technology to prevent drive-by attacks, not dedicated cracking. The key is "cheap": nearly free, in fact, rather than a more complicated method (my first thought was to use a simple RCI circuit to detect if the card has had power in the last few seconds to achieve the same effect as this, but that of course would add complexity and cost and most importantly couldn't be used with existing chips. Also potentially crackable, but it would help).
SRAM looses coherency in a statistically predictable pattern for a few seconds/minutes after it looses power. That means an otherwise powerless and clockless RFID chip can detect when it was powered on recently, and deny access attempts until at least a few seconds after the last access, rendering brute-force attempts vastly less practical (those normally use thousands of access attempts a second). Also, potentially annoying the hell out of anyone for whom the card doesn't work the first time, but security has always been a tradeoff with practicality (and if it is just a matter of seconds, not a huge deal).
Have you ever seen a glass of ice water that showed condensation? Bingo, you should be able to figure out who powering on freezing cold electronics is a bad idea. I'm pretty sure everyone working at a data center is familiar with the idea of condensation, certainly anyone working in any situation where it would be an actual issue.
Bad analogy. The piano is an instrument that has been around for centuries and one that you can measure yourself by players of past/future generations, we are talking about being the best at manipulating a computer program that won't be around in five years.
The piano has only been around for centuries because someone started mastering it when it hadn't been around for centuries.
Blogs like Prochronisms look at 'historical changes in language by algorithmically checking historical TV shows and movies.' They utilize tools like Google Ngram viewer to bust Mad Men, for example, for using terms or phrases in dialogue that didn't yet exist.
Really, no offense (ok, maybe a little offense), but this comes across (to me anyways) as slightly... sad. It's one thing if you are looking up a fact about the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere last year. But this is another thing completely. I think Ratatouille actually put it quite well:
In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so.
The grammar nazi or the fact checker is essentially a critic: someone who is basically incapable, or simply too lazy, to bother creating something worthwhile, so they spend their time criticizing other people's work instead. I think they do it largely to inflate their feeling of self-worth: after all, if they can see the flaws in other peoples' work, it must not be all that great.
The fact is in many of these cases, whatever "problem" they find is really totally and utterly insignificant. Honestly, I don't care if Mad Men uses phrases that weren't around in the 1960s: it's an enjoyable show with great characters, in my opinion. It would be one thing if it was horribly unrealistic or created a culture radically different from the real culture of the 60s, but the mere fact that they are "busting" Mad Men for using anachronistic phrases... I mean, I suppose you could complain about something more shallow than that, but I can't think of anything off the top of my head (wait, nevermind, speaking of the top of the head gave me an idea: they could complain about the hairstyles being just slightly off. Yeah, that'd be a bit more shallow). Can it be that there are people who literally have nothing better to do than find tiny errors in phrases in a critically acclaimed show? I suppose there is, but there really shouldn't be.
Of course, this is nowhere near as bad as the people seriously complaining on the Internet about the use of Comic Sans in the presentation announcing the discovery of the Higgs Boson. I don't even have a comment about that, really, besides that it's almost unbelievable, but that's the Internet, I guess.
No offense but maybe your brain just fails to multitask.
Assuming he is a human, of course his brain does. As does yours, mine, and Stephen Hawking's. No human brain can actually multitask. Some people are just faster at switching between one task and another than others.
Obviously, the $1 trillion figure is made up. The real figure is more likely in the tens of millions, maybe a little higher, but probably even less than that. The thing is, and the reason people can get away with citing a number that ridiculous, is because it is so large. People simply have no concept of scale that large. You can't hold a number that large in your head, not insofar as it applies to something real. As a pure number, sure, but not as a number of something. The human brain can comprehend tens, even thousands: but trillions are simply too large for the mind to hold, which means that as a talking point, a couple billion is about the same as a trillion for your average human: it basically just ends up meaning "a really really really lot."
If you approach rebuking the number as "well what should the number really be", you aren't countering the key point behind those figures, which is simply to express a massive quantity. If you respond by saying the number should really be in the millions, people will usually scoff at you ("no way McAfee could have been that wrong") or at best simply take the average of the two numbers, which still yields a massive number in their head. The point of such studies isn't to be scientific: it's to be rhetorical. So ultimately, to the people citing that number, it doesn't matter in the slightest if it is true, or how it was a arrived at. All it matters is they have a really big number to cite that they can say is "scientific" or "proof that we need to take action."
All of those "balkanizations" are performed by the provider themselves. There is no separation between two parties that want to communicate, except for places like China and Iran. In other words, nothing is stopping Netflix from providing their services to everyone in the world aside from Netflix themselves (and of course their agreements with other people). The Internet itself is not fragmented: certain websites are, but that is their problem and their doing.
First of all, not sure how that is relevant since most space exploration is and has always been unmanned (largely of necessity), and second, NASA's commercial contracts are for both unmanned and manned missions. The CCP contracts mentioned in TFA are specifically for manned (being the Commercial Crew Program), but the CRS includes unmanned supply missions such as that recently carried out by the Dragon capsule, developed partially by funding from the COTS program.
Realistically, there never was much demand for manned missions, scientific or otherwise, and frankly given the extreme cost I think we would have been better to simply invest it in more advanced robotic "telepresence" systems.
No. This is not commercial spaceflight, because the only customer is the government.
No true. SpaceX already has several private-sector contracts, to launch various communications satellites (for Iridium and SES, most notably).
If L4D2 was using the latest DX11.1 implementation and the latest technique, I'm not so sure it would be faster on OpenGL.
That's really not true. Google for performance of DX11 vs DX9: in many cases, DX11 is actually slower (20% slower or so seems to be the trend). Crysis 2, Dragon Age 2, Lost Planet 2: all slower in DX11. A lot of this is the fact that they are simply tacking on DX11 features, since they have to support DX9 for legacy hardware and OSes (which Source definitely would), but DX11 is not necessarily faster simply because it is newer. Indeed, it is often slower because of that: graphics card support for it is no-where near as good as it is for DX9.0c.
First of all, no it doesn't. Steam offers more than just a store. Aside from the obvious fact that everyone who owns games on it already will stick with it, it offers cloud support, chat and gaming with friends, etc. MS tried the same with GFWL: I know of not one single person, not even on the Internet, who liked it. Oh I'm sure there is someone out there, but it was nearly universally despised by gamers. I have little doubt the Windows 8 store will suffer the same fate, probably by actually using GFWL for the games part (MS for some reason refuses to let it die).
And second, of course, there are anti-trust issues. Massive ones. Much much much bigger than the ones that came with IE, since very very serious money is on the line with digital stores. And it isn't just Valve, either: EA (Origin), Gamestop (Impulse), and CD Projekt Red (Good Old Games) et alia will all be after Microsoft's head if they try to use their first-party advantage to undercut them.
This article is based on Left4Dead 2, which use DirectX9. It's not relevant anymore. It's from years ago. Microsoft improved DirectX A LOT since then.
It is very relevant to anyone using Windows XP and/or many older and especially integrated graphics cards. Which is a lot of people. Most modern games include a DX9 rendering mode (or only use DX9, period) for that exact reason.
Not what Samsung is saying in the slightest (did you even read the second sentence of the summary, or did you just jump into the comments?). What Samsung is claiming is that they developed the F700 independently of Apple. Apple is claiming Samsung copied them (in fact, they specifically point to the F700 as an example). In other words, Samsung is the one who would have needed the time machine, to make an iPhone-like device before the iPhone was ever revealed and possibly before the iPhone design was even finalized.