Proxies evade attempts to restrict Internet content by geographic location. I had to use one on our big trip to Europe this spring, when I needed to stream a few missed network TV episodes from their conventional US sites. Not that I particularly wanted to watch TV on vacation, but these episodes would have "expired" and been removed by the time we got back. But not only is there a stupid nonsensical time restriction on accessing TV content, but a stupid nonsensical restriction against accessing them outside the US. This is what I evaded by using a proxy. So why is Airstrip One joining the War On Proxies? Because the BBC offers a georestricted app called iPlayer to its TV customers, and they don't want people from being able to access their content from outside the country any more than Hollywood does.
...Is that in most cases the decision to 'give cert' for Supreme Court review of given lower-court cases vests with the Justices' law clerks. This may be as weird as that decision to give the Librarian of Congress veto power over unlocking our cellphones, but that's the way it is. How accurate can any model be at delving into the minds of law clerks?
DO we even know at what business(es) or bureau(s) the breach occurred? Every database of logons should contain some intentionally faked entries that can be used to fingerprint the database, just like those imaginary towns that are put on maps to expose copyright dodgers.
All of these considerations are exactly what a development effort is supposed to address. But because the Greens' goal is busting civilization back to the Stone Age, not developing a safe reactor, the effort will need to be in some offshore location where they can't sabotage the project
Yes, if this zone were far offshore, so that dying algae would sink to the deep bottom, rather than killing littoral fish and crustaceans. It's a good object of study though, to learn more about the effect of algal blooms on the ecosystem.
Great idea! But we would probably need more labor for this to work. To soak up the unemployed pool in the US, we could send them to Africa in an ecologically sound fleet of wind-powered ships built from natural nonmetallic materials.
$2 million is enough to re-market the electrical grid as a nuclear reactor that can be 'friended' with other generating stations ("Like Facebook, but with thorium!"). That's when the California billions and billions of dollars will flood in.
Which means that if this is really going to happen, the effort has to take place offshore, perhaps literally. So finally, there will be a real-world use for those daffy country-on-a-ship plans that Silicon Valley people keep making.
The real problem is going to be those Skype users with long-term subscription plans. They may have to invest in VMWare Fusion, which allows infidel operating systems, including any version of Windows, to be run in "sandboxes" on OS X. You can then install a Windows version of Skype on the sandboxed OS.
That's because cocaine trades in a free market. Despite the high distribution costs of a recreational drug, you're getting the best deal possible in a competitive market.
When Swiss drug companies (Novartis, et. al.) sell in the US market, they can take advantage of our pharma-lobbied laws to screw us over in exactly the same manner as domestic companies. You need to go overseas to start seeing the advantages of an open drug market. And no, we are not "subsidizing drug costs for the rest of the world." We occupy a bubble of high prices enforced by our legal system.
Hatred for pharma companies is easy to understand just by looking at a single metric, US prices in comparison to prices in other countries. There's an ongoing myth that American drugs are given away to the rest of the world, this act of charitable beneficence being paid for by high domestic prices. Actually, pharma companies make money in every single market in which they sell, regardless of the pricing in that market. The market bears a lot less in Mexico than it does in the US but manufacture/advertising/distribution costs are lower, so pharma still makes money in Mexico even at those prices that seem so low to US border shoppers.
There's no discounting in that much-discussed Canadian market, either. The Canadian system is single payer: the health organization puts out bids for large quantities of each new drug, and accepts corporate offers from around the world that it considers a good value. Canada has no magical powers to force US drug companies to sell for less; if a US offer is too high for a given drug, the Canadians just skip that medication and take a better offer for some different compound elsewhere. Because of the lower advertising and distribution costs of single payer, US companies can sell for less to the Canadian system and still make money.
The US pharma mess is the result of a generations-long monopoly culture in medicine, which today contrasts so sharply with the open-market mindset of the electronics industry. Electronics companies have the same advertising and distribution costs, the same very high R&D fraction and operate in the same legal system as pharma. It's the difference in industry culture that makes the pharma consumer experience so horrible.
Google Wallet, PayPal and Uber Credit all involve identifying the customer. And how long does the average stolen credit card sit outthere on the street before it gets reported and canceled?
If you steal a credit card, you're not going to spend it on cab rides for a service that, unlike street hail cabs, no longer carries cash. You're goingto buy jewelry and other high-value fenceable items in the brief time the card can be used.
The same people who develop drugs elsewhere in the developed world, that's who. Switzerland, for example, has a research-intensive pharma industry rivaling the US in size, and it prospers just fine without having to screw its citizens with fixed prices and special laws against shopping around.
What I want to see is a pharma industry that operates like that other industry that has a special need to invest such a large percentage of corporate operating budget into research and development - electronics. Somehow Intel manages to keep cranking out new processors at steadily increasing ratios of functionality to price, and yet still reap billions while its customers freely shop the world market for the best bargain. Why can't Pfizer do the same without having to wheedle special legal privileges from Washington?
Slashdot Mirror
Proxies evade attempts to restrict Internet content by geographic location. I had to use one on our big trip to Europe this spring, when I needed to stream a few missed network TV episodes from their conventional US sites. Not that I particularly wanted to watch TV on vacation, but these episodes would have "expired" and been removed by the time we got back. But not only is there a stupid nonsensical time restriction on accessing TV content, but a stupid nonsensical restriction against accessing them outside the US. This is what I evaded by using a proxy.
So why is Airstrip One joining the War On Proxies? Because the BBC offers a georestricted app called iPlayer to its TV customers, and they don't want people from being able to access their content from outside the country any more than Hollywood does.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
...Is that in most cases the decision to 'give cert' for Supreme Court review of given lower-court cases vests with the Justices' law clerks. This may be as weird as that decision to give the Librarian of Congress veto power over unlocking our cellphones, but that's the way it is. How accurate can any model be at delving into the minds of law clerks?
It would be more accurate to train with all the data available up to, say, year 2000 and then see what the model 'predicts'.
DO we even know at what business(es) or bureau(s) the breach occurred? Every database of logons should contain some intentionally faked entries that can be used to fingerprint the database, just like those imaginary towns that are put on maps to expose copyright dodgers.
All of these considerations are exactly what a development effort is supposed to address. But because the Greens' goal is busting civilization back to the Stone Age, not developing a safe reactor, the effort will need to be in some offshore location where they can't sabotage the project
Yes, if this zone were far offshore, so that dying algae would sink to the deep bottom, rather than killing littoral fish and crustaceans. It's a good object of study though, to learn more about the effect of algal blooms on the ecosystem.
As a bonus, that would also kill off every insurance company in the country.
Great idea! But we would probably need more labor for this to work. To soak up the unemployed pool in the US, we could send them to Africa in an ecologically sound fleet of wind-powered ships built from natural nonmetallic materials.
OR we could just develop methods of farming with less runoff.
$2 million is enough to re-market the electrical grid as a nuclear reactor that can be 'friended' with other generating stations ("Like Facebook, but with thorium!"). That's when the California billions and billions of dollars will flood in.
No, the flat-earth lobby has already decided that Desalination Would Be Bad, for some reason.
Which means that if this is really going to happen, the effort has to take place offshore, perhaps literally. So finally, there will be a real-world use for those daffy country-on-a-ship plans that Silicon Valley people keep making.
Somebody actually did this? I thought the gag was ridiculously over the top when I saw it on "Anchorman 2."
Yes, Fusion has to run on an Intel Mac. Shoulda mentioned that.
The real problem is going to be those Skype users with long-term subscription plans. They may have to invest in VMWare Fusion, which allows infidel operating systems, including any version of Windows, to be run in "sandboxes" on OS X. You can then install a Windows version of Skype on the sandboxed OS.
Right here:
http://cnedelcu.blogspot.com/2...
Are we sure this exploit only affects Synology users who have the web access feature turned on?
That's because cocaine trades in a free market. Despite the high distribution costs of a recreational drug, you're getting the best deal possible in a competitive market.
When Swiss drug companies (Novartis, et. al.) sell in the US market, they can take advantage of our pharma-lobbied laws to screw us over in exactly the same manner as domestic companies. You need to go overseas to start seeing the advantages of an open drug market. And no, we are not "subsidizing drug costs for the rest of the world." We occupy a bubble of high prices enforced by our legal system.
Hatred for pharma companies is easy to understand just by looking at a single metric, US prices in comparison to prices in other countries. There's an ongoing myth that American drugs are given away to the rest of the world, this act of charitable beneficence being paid for by high domestic prices. Actually, pharma companies make money in every single market in which they sell, regardless of the pricing in that market. The market bears a lot less in Mexico than it does in the US but manufacture/advertising/distribution costs are lower, so pharma still makes money in Mexico even at those prices that seem so low to US border shoppers.
There's no discounting in that much-discussed Canadian market, either. The Canadian system is single payer: the health organization puts out bids for large quantities of each new drug, and accepts corporate offers from around the world that it considers a good value. Canada has no magical powers to force US drug companies to sell for less; if a US offer is too high for a given drug, the Canadians just skip that medication and take a better offer for some different compound elsewhere. Because of the lower advertising and distribution costs of single payer, US companies can sell for less to the Canadian system and still make money.
The US pharma mess is the result of a generations-long monopoly culture in medicine, which today contrasts so sharply with the open-market mindset of the electronics industry. Electronics companies have the same advertising and distribution costs, the same very high R&D fraction and operate in the same legal system as pharma. It's the difference in industry culture that makes the pharma consumer experience so horrible.
Thereby proving the point that branding and marketing are not what makes medicine expensive. Monopoly powers granted by the government does that.
Google Wallet, PayPal and Uber Credit all involve identifying the customer. And how long does the average stolen credit card sit outthere on the street before it gets reported and canceled?
If you steal a credit card, you're not going to spend it on cab rides for a service that, unlike street hail cabs, no longer carries cash. You're goingto buy jewelry and other high-value fenceable items in the brief time the card can be used.
The same people who develop drugs elsewhere in the developed world, that's who. Switzerland, for example, has a research-intensive pharma industry rivaling the US in size, and it prospers just fine without having to screw its citizens with fixed prices and special laws against shopping around.
What I want to see is a pharma industry that operates like that other industry that has a special need to invest such a large percentage of corporate operating budget into research and development - electronics. Somehow Intel manages to keep cranking out new processors at steadily increasing ratios of functionality to price, and yet still reap billions while its customers freely shop the world market for the best bargain. Why can't Pfizer do the same without having to wheedle special legal privileges from Washington?
This will be Uncle Chuck's way of getting Luddites out of the gene pool.