Interestingly, even if this type of fingerprinting doesn't 100% uniquely identify a user, for the purposes of marketing, that's probably okay. Users with the same fingerprints are likely similar demographically. At least as far as a target audience for a product is concerned. I'd almost prefer to be lumped anonymously into an "advertising bucket" than be tracked individually. Maybe we need a system for fingerprint sharing. I'm sure some firefox plugin could spoof or randomize this to some extent.
>> I was hired on to my first job because the engineers were tired of playing tech support for the rest of the company.
And Bless you for it! I'm an engineer, and I've fallen into that position before. I can program, but don't really know much about the Windows desktop post 98. And I know probably about as much about Windows networking. Still, I've answered many calls that prevented me from doing my actual job. Every time the solution was a mix of Google and Start->Control Panel. All to figure out "where to click". Something a trained IT person would have just known how to do.
> Like the slashdot of the spam underworld. Wait. Don't you want to encourage people to actually review the proposed scam site before posting their opinions?
One thing in all this that frightens me is the fact that by letting law enforcement pull someone over based on something that is not a clear moving violation, but something the can claim to witness happening inside a vehicle, we are effectively giving them a tool for racial profiling. This power seems ripe for abuse.
1) See someone who "looks" like they might be carrying something illegal 2) Pull them over, obtain cause to search vehicle 3) If successful, book them 4) If failure, cite them for cell phone use.
How easy is it for a customer to obtain proof that they were or were not texting at a given time? How easy is it for Law Enforcement? Is this proof permissible?
> Some people can drive and talk safely. Yeah. I hear this a lot. And it's true. Everyone seems to be able to use a cell phone and drive safely. Except for the ones that got into an accident. Though, up until that point, I suppose they considered themselves among that group. I personally despise cell phone drivers, but am not sure if I would go as far as a ban. I'm on the fence there. Texting though. Texting is bad. I drive about 45 miles of highway each way on my commute. It's amazing how many drivers I see looking down instead of forward. The ones doing it "safely" are going about 10 miles under the speed limit. If "safe" means it's not THEM that cause the accident, then fine.
It's up to the parent to decide whether or not these bribes actually add to the overall success of their child in the long run. It will take some convincing for me to think this is likely. If success means being a privileged snot or a poor loser, so be it. If success means happiness, self-worth, longevity or value to society.. Well, that's not as simple as choosing between a stick and a carrot.
Sure. The "couple of dudes" thing happens. But you're giving the impression that this is how the overall market works. "There's a small number of people driving the whole thing". "It's all rigged". No. For the most part, it's "rigged" by an amazing feedback system of entity-less market forces. These "couple of dudes" you speak of.. they might make out well, but, they hardly make a bump in the grand scheme. And most of these people fail. And the ones who succeed... I'd love to think that they are ruining the game for all of those "dumb investors". But I highly doubt it. Conspiracy exists in all aspects of the world, especially where there is money. But it's not running the stock market. The Market runs the stock market.
Interesting comparison to the fashion industry, though. It's definitely true with respect to the "demand" aspect.
I would love to see how your skills of counter-culture help you win big at the stock market! You're right. The people who really win big, tend to invest contrarily. However, I think the biggest losers are among the contrary. It's all risk-management. In stocks, you hear about the big winners and the big losers. But on average, most people do, well, average. I'd mod you up if I could. You got me thinking and rambling.
"we have you on tape shoplifting a candy bar at the store but [remove]you've[/remove] [replacement]someone else with the same job as you has[/replacement] been trustworthy before so it doesn't match up."
1) Flash allows mouse-overs, which a lit of apps take advantage of 2) Mouse-overs don't make much sense with a touch screen 3) Flash will not work on a touch screen.
Do we even know if the iPad is intended to be a "generic web-stuff-doer?" Or will apps be designed with the ipad in mind? If the latter, there's no reason the interface cannot be designed around touch-screen use.
An accessible app wouldn't have this issue in the first place. If a designer wants their flash app to be accessible, they shouldn't be thinking mouse-centrically. An interface should be semantically clear, allowing the client to make any necessary interpretations.
This isn't to say "all flash apps will work on the iPad", but ones designed with accessibility in mind shouldn't be an issue.
>> While it's true that some portion of your customers are going to lie when they say there has been no water intrusion, including, at extra cost a device aimed at proving that your customer is lying on every device is unfair. Let alone close to the external extremedies of the device.
Well said. Good contribution to the thread.
>> Here's a prediction: First they will deny the problem, and try to cast doubt on the testing methodolgy, then they will acknowledge the problem but claim that it only occurs in a very limited set of circumstances and offer restitution but only for those who complain loudest.
Decent editorial insight. The kind of thing that sparks great conversation.
>> Then they'll make a minor change that doesn't actually fix the problem and claim it is fixed (oh and raise prices to cover this change). They'll stall at every step. This seems to be right out of the Apple customer service manual, and they're not the only ones (but they are some of the worst). No different to scratchable iPod minis, or cracked laptop cases.
Still decent, but you're starting to get worked up!
>> Fucking horseshit.
Yep. You're working yourself up, son!
>> But it's Apple, it just works, right? Come on fanbois, mod me into oblivion. I don't give a shit. And then you just slide down hill. If you were to be modded down, I don't think it'd have been because of your opinions / insights above. It's the fact that you seem to be asking for it right here. Maybe you're proud of your dissent and want to think the comments are controversial? Sorry, no. They grabbed my attention and got me thinking. But now I've forgotten everything you've said because of your silly little outburst.
I'd love to ditch IE6. But where I work, it's not reasonable. Even if only 5% of our users are running it, quitting support for IE6 would mean tens of thousands of dollars a month. I think some sites have the clout to try and force the users to upgrade, but not us. They can simply go somewhere else.
There will definitely come a time when the cost of supporting those users will be less than the revenue they bring in. Soon, but not quite yet. So, I'm still spending the 11th hour before roll-out pathetically debugging some hard to get at IE Glitch.
At least our policy has gone from "IE6 must be pixel perfect" to "it just can't look like ass, at least where the site doesn't already". And for certain behind the scenes features (analytics, content tests) we do not have to support it.
I would argue that for more technical sites (ours is not from the point of view or the browser) ie6 will certainly hinder progress and is likely a liability. I don't mention ie7 here because, for the most part, it's okay. It works. At least for our sites.
Slashdot Mirror
You cannot have a hot new site without cliches. So, I offer: ETFE (eat the fucking entree)
Interestingly, even if this type of fingerprinting doesn't 100% uniquely identify a user, for the purposes of marketing, that's probably okay. Users with the same fingerprints are likely similar demographically. At least as far as a target audience for a product is concerned. I'd almost prefer to be lumped anonymously into an "advertising bucket" than be tracked individually. Maybe we need a system for fingerprint sharing. I'm sure some firefox plugin could spoof or randomize this to some extent.
And an article that came out when this began:
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS2013674721.html
If this is really as innocent as they claim... why not "just ask permission first". Oh. Didn't think so.
But, if you see another Rover. Wake me up before I fall in love with it.
>> I was hired on to my first job because the engineers were tired of playing tech support for the rest of the company.
And Bless you for it! I'm an engineer, and I've fallen into that position before. I can program, but don't really know much about the Windows desktop post 98. And I know probably about as much about Windows networking. Still, I've answered many calls that prevented me from doing my actual job. Every time the solution was a mix of Google and Start->Control Panel. All to figure out "where to click". Something a trained IT person would have just known how to do.
> Like the slashdot of the spam underworld.
Wait. Don't you want to encourage people to actually review the proposed scam site before posting their opinions?
--- I didn't rtfa
Not only that, but another requirement posted here is that they still have access to the internal network (i..e. to computers with external access).
>> but it does give them valuable real-world skills.
Indeed! If we don't give them the nudge, they're never going to take it upon themselves to learn the fine art of refrigerator hacking.
It's amazing what kids can figure out when it comes to getting by the restrictions their parents set forth.
They're going to learn about networking, proxies, virtual machines, ip spoofing etc. All because they want to get on Facebook. Which they will.
One thing in all this that frightens me is the fact that by letting law enforcement pull someone over based on something that is not a clear moving violation, but something the can claim to witness happening inside a vehicle,
we are effectively giving them a tool for racial profiling. This power seems ripe for abuse.
1) See someone who "looks" like they might be carrying something illegal
2) Pull them over, obtain cause to search vehicle
3) If successful, book them
4) If failure, cite them for cell phone use.
How easy is it for a customer to obtain proof that they were or were not texting at a given time?
How easy is it for Law Enforcement?
Is this proof permissible?
> Some people can drive and talk safely.
Yeah. I hear this a lot. And it's true. Everyone seems to be able to use a cell phone and drive safely. Except for the ones that got into an accident. Though, up until that point, I suppose they considered themselves among that group. I personally despise cell phone drivers, but am not sure if I would go as far as a ban. I'm on the fence there. Texting though. Texting is bad. I drive about 45 miles of highway each way on my commute. It's amazing how many drivers I see looking down instead of forward. The ones doing it "safely" are going about 10 miles under the speed limit. If "safe" means it's not THEM that cause the accident, then fine.
It's up to the parent to decide whether or not these bribes actually add to the overall success of their child in the long run. It will take some convincing for me to think this is likely. If success means being a privileged snot or a poor loser, so be it. If success means happiness, self-worth, longevity or value to society.. Well, that's not as simple as choosing between a stick and a carrot.
No.
Slightly less short:
Save online banking from what? Security, schmecurity. Online banking is here to stay.
A better question:
Can Ubuntu save US FROM the problems of online banking?
>> The guy bought a cheaper saw and then wanted to cry about the fact that Ryobi cut corners when he did exactly the same thing.
Uhm. Isn't the whole point of buying a saw to cut corners?
He considered buying it. But decided it just wouldn't cut it.
Sure. The "couple of dudes" thing happens. But you're giving the impression that this is how the overall market works. "There's a small number of people driving the whole thing". "It's all rigged".
No. For the most part, it's "rigged" by an amazing feedback system of entity-less market forces.
These "couple of dudes" you speak of.. they might make out well, but, they hardly make a bump in the grand scheme. And most of these people fail.
And the ones who succeed... I'd love to think that they are ruining the game for all of those "dumb investors". But I highly doubt it. Conspiracy exists in all aspects of the world, especially where there is money. But it's not running the stock market. The Market runs the stock market.
Interesting comparison to the fashion industry, though. It's definitely true with respect to the "demand" aspect.
I would love to see how your skills of counter-culture help you win big at the stock market! You're right. The people who really win big, tend to invest contrarily. However, I think the biggest losers are among the contrary. It's all risk-management. In stocks, you hear about the big winners and the big losers. But on average, most people do, well, average. I'd mod you up if I could. You got me thinking and rambling.
"we have you on tape shoplifting a candy bar at the store but [remove]you've[/remove] [replacement]someone else with the same job as you has[/replacement] been trustworthy before so it doesn't match up."
But according to my calculations, all we have to do is set our calendars back a day... ... in 188,253,750 (ish) years.
I wonder how the PS3 will handle this.
But what if that's nacho field of expertise?
(if it's a problem at all...)
I have trouble digesting this logic:
1) Flash allows mouse-overs, which a lit of apps take advantage of
2) Mouse-overs don't make much sense with a touch screen
3) Flash will not work on a touch screen.
Do we even know if the iPad is intended to be a "generic web-stuff-doer?" Or will apps be designed with the ipad in mind? If the latter, there's no reason the interface cannot be designed around touch-screen use.
An accessible app wouldn't have this issue in the first place. If a designer wants their flash app to be accessible, they shouldn't be thinking mouse-centrically. An interface should be semantically clear, allowing the client to make any necessary interpretations.
This isn't to say "all flash apps will work on the iPad", but ones designed with accessibility in mind shouldn't be an issue.
>> While it's true that some portion of your customers are going to lie when they say there has been no water intrusion, including, at extra cost a device aimed at proving that your customer is lying on every device is unfair. Let alone close to the external extremedies of the device.
Well said. Good contribution to the thread.
>> Here's a prediction: First they will deny the problem, and try to cast doubt on the testing methodolgy, then they will acknowledge the problem but claim that it only occurs in a very limited set of circumstances and offer restitution but only for those who complain loudest.
Decent editorial insight. The kind of thing that sparks great conversation.
>> Then they'll make a minor change that doesn't actually fix the problem and claim it is fixed (oh and raise prices to cover this change). They'll stall at every step. This seems to be right out of the Apple customer service manual, and they're not the only ones (but they are some of the worst). No different to scratchable iPod minis, or cracked laptop cases.
Still decent, but you're starting to get worked up!
>> Fucking horseshit.
Yep. You're working yourself up, son!
>> But it's Apple, it just works, right? Come on fanbois, mod me into oblivion. I don't give a shit.
And then you just slide down hill. If you were to be modded down, I don't think it'd have been because of your opinions / insights above. It's the fact that you seem to be asking for it right here. Maybe you're proud of your dissent and want to think the comments are controversial? Sorry, no. They grabbed my attention and got me thinking. But now I've forgotten everything you've said because of your silly little outburst.
Denial of Service is just about as old as marriage.
Only criminals will secretly be Terrorists. :( ...
PANIC!
I'd love to ditch IE6. But where I work, it's not reasonable. Even if only 5% of our users are running it, quitting support for IE6 would mean tens of thousands of dollars a month. I think some sites have the clout to try and force the users to upgrade, but not us. They can simply go somewhere else.
There will definitely come a time when the cost of supporting those users will be less than the revenue they bring in. Soon, but not quite yet. So, I'm still spending the 11th hour before roll-out pathetically debugging some hard to get at IE Glitch.
At least our policy has gone from "IE6 must be pixel perfect" to "it just can't look like ass, at least where the site doesn't already". And for certain behind the scenes features (analytics, content tests) we do not have to support it.
I would argue that for more technical sites (ours is not from the point of view or the browser) ie6 will certainly hinder progress and is likely a liability. I don't mention ie7 here because, for the most part, it's okay. It works. At least for our sites.