Also, the transaction is taking nearly the same total time, the only difference is that before you would swipe the magstripe and then more stuff would happen whereas now you can't remove the chip until the last step. So granted it's more convenient to swipe and put the card away in your wallet while the terminals finishes up, but that's nothing to do with how long it actually takes to acquire the transaction.
Pay a proper wage and this "labor shortage" will disappear immediately.
And how much would you have to charge for a new starter home? Would that price be beyond the budget of most first time aspiring homebuyers?
The definition of a "proper wage" has always been competition between how much buyers are willing to pay for the final product and how much suppliers are willing to sell their goods/labor. You can't just point at one side and way "raise the wage" without explaining why buyers are going to pay more and what impact that will have on them. At least for me, keeping the barriers to homeownership low seems like a very worthy social goal, one that needs to be balanced against all the other worthy goals we have.
FWIW, we don't have an opt-in or an opt-out system. There is a clear dialog box that you must proceed through during first usage in which the user must chose. Neither choice is pre-selected, they are both presented in equal font with equal weight and equal screen placement.
So no need to evangelize to me dear AC, we are already doing what you suggest:-)
You didn't read what I wrote at all. I get it, and I said it is the user's choice but I would like to evangelize in favor of the ability to make better software.
Or are you claiming in ALL CAPS that because it's the user's choice I can't ask for that?
As the developer on a huge-scale application (and a fan of privacy), I really hope that people don't opt out of reporting crashes and other anonymous usage data. Collecting and analyzing that sort of data ("telemetry" but that's a bad word here on/.) is an essential part of the software development lifecycle.
I'm just saying, it's a tool that we use to make the software better. If you believe that the call stack where the application crashed is really that sensitive (and that I could de-anonymize it based on nothing more than the call stack and a per-application randomly generated UUID), go ahead and turn it off. That's the user's right, but I would just hope to evangelize and try to convince them otherwise:-)
or the proprietary drivers and firmware required for everything from the GPS to the cell modems to the wifi chips.
First, how else do you propose to deliver functionality from those peripherals? A company dedicated to making low-power high-throughput WiFi chips is already going to have trouble paying its engineers and keeping up with the process node changes and technology/standards upgrades in a low-margin business. Releasing the firmware code would reveal quite a bit of the technology and method used, both software and hardware, most of which would be instantly commandeered by cheap Asian knockoffs. If you believe that embedded engineers should be paid and that R&D should go into new standards and improvements, then you need to articulate a structure that would allow that to happen.
Second, do you think that Linux (or even BSD) let alone Windows is any different? We have barely-functional[1] open source drivers for GPUs, lets alone the firmware embedded on the chip. And likewise the firmware running on all the other peripherals (hard drives, keyboards, trackpads, WiFi adapters, battery chargers) is all bespoke and proprietary.
It's mostly used by shitty webhipster design startups, which are just way too lazy to learn a proper programming language, and it even doesn't fit well with the UI of your operating system.
Why waste developers with knowledge of a proper programming language on trivial tasks like this.
The whole point of "shitty hipster design startups" is that we lower the barrier of entry for uncomplicated tasks so that less talented people can still deliver a usable product. We don't need genius level assembly-level programmers putting together bespoke UI for various BS tasks like Uncle Frederick's Antique Shop and Ice Cream Parlor.
Tech was supposed to be democratizing and liberating. We were supposed to make the benefits of the Information Age available in every corner of the world and accessible to every person of mediocre intelligence by allowing them to build and customize.
That's not surprising. Everyone can easily have an opinion on social or political topics -- they are salient and most people can grasp them. It's much more difficult to comment on complicated technical matters.
Maybe they don't find that analogous. For instance, consider the following:
(1) There is a system that, if you grant it access to your browser history and email, will look over it algorithmically and will produce a set of advertising recommendations. Humans can program the algorithm, but they can never see the browser history or email themselves. So long as the system functions as designed, this is the only way the data can be used.
(2) An actual human being will review your browser history and email.
It's quite possible for a sane person to find those two situations very different. And, assuming they believe that the system in (1) functions as designed, they may in fact place very different values on those two scenarios.
I'm not saying you have to treat them the same, but you can't actually say that people are crazy or ignorant just because they came to a different conclusion in this respect. Or you can, but it's not too convincing.
People are cheap. They will happily trade their digital soul for a "free" price tag, and don't give a shit about privacy anymore when it comes to corporations asking for data because they trust them. Clearly the masses value ignorance. Must be blissful.
Or maybe we all assign different value to different things. You think people are ignorant for "under-pricing" this data, maybe they think you are being sentimental for "over-pricing" it. Some may have different notions of privacy, some may not care if Verizon or whoever has really good data to target them for ads. Some may believe so strongly in their own self-direction that they discount the possibility that the ads will strongly impact them. Some may even like targeted ads as a way to keep track of what's new in their particular demographic. These are just example mental states that I can imagine for someone that opts in to this program for reasons other than ignorance -- in fact, it's a good idea to try out (sincerely) adopting another person's mental state (not necessarily agreeing with it) just to see if you can pass the ideological Turing test in this case.
It seems to me that it's almost never a good idea to start from "people are trading X for Y, that seems grossly out of whack to me" and immediately conclude "therefore they are ignorant of X or Y". Maybe they are ignorant, maybe they have other reasons, maybe their value system and your value system don't align (it happens!). But at the very minimum we would need to actually ask the people making the decision in order to have any hope of answering the question accurately.
The word you are looking for, by the way, is 'defectors'. As soon as some drivers manipulate the market to increase fares, there is an incentive to defect from the manipulation and reap the additional profits. Of course, that would then counteract the increase. The higher the surge, the more pressure there is on each driver to defect, and so things will stabilize out.
What's more, other drivers have virtually no way to know who is actually participating and who is 'cheating' the manipulation. A driver can be on a text thread advocating the boycott while driving around getting surge fares. It's a lot like the OPEC oil production quotas. The ministers of all these countries would get together and promise quotas, it would work, the price would rise and then each member would slowly start cheating a bit on their quotas to sell oil at the inflated price. Of course, if confronted they would deny or fudge it, but eventually the oil market understood how many extra $/barrel it would take to "extract" that additional oil.
So yeah, if your understanding of the 'free market' has absorbed what we've learned about cartels, collusion and cheating, you'd have a pretty decent understanding of the dynamic going on here.
It's not unfortunate that natural gas is cheap, since it has also displaced a ton of oil and coal power. That has netted us a major reduction in carbon emissions.
It's unfortunate that it is also displacing nuclear, especially since natural gas prices may rise again but nuclear will remain stable for decades. And yes, agreed about the FUD and the unfortunate result. But still, cheap natural gas is an environmental win.
Actually, the smart and well organized protest groups have their own security and will warn violent people to behave and, if they cannot be persuaded, forcibly eject them from the group. There are a huge number of benefits:
(1) By nipping violence early, the (literal) 'mob mentality' doesn't get a chance to catalyze (2) By doing it it from within the protesting group itself, there is less reactionary violence against police intervention (3) It demonstrates to those watching that the protesters are serious about non-violence and not tacitly condoning vandalism (4) It demonstrates to the police that they can keep a safe distance and focus on separating protesters/counter-protesters (5) It discourages opportunists that will join any protest as a cover for their pre-existing desire to smash shit (whether for political or just anger issues) (6) It encourages people that might not feel safe or welcome in a violent protest to join in. A lot of people won't go out in the streets if people are smashing windows or if they fear being tear gassed by overreacting cops
So yeah, I don't advocate giving up and prosecuting everyone. Or shutting down the right to protest. But I also don't advocate allowing a very small percentage of the protesters to steal the spotlight and tar the entire thing as violent. Those folks ruin your public image, they ruin your relationship with the city, the police and the mainstream members of the group and they have no right to do so.
How in the world does it help to OWN your DNS yourself and then your company's two major shareholders get into a dispute with one another?
The fact of the matter is that for very small companies with >1 people, the "you" in YOURSELF is not an entity with temporal continuity. So doing it YOURSELF doesn't much help you when "you" shatters into two non-reconcilable halves:-(
Bitcoin has a few simple fucking rules. Chief among them is to treat your wallet with Bitcoin in it like your regular wallet with cash in it. You keep it secure yourself and you encrypt it and you don't hand it over to anyone else.
That's fine for the money in my wallet, but I don't expect it's fine for the money in my bank account. If I trip and fall in a river and lose my wallet, I expect to still be able to access my bank account. If my house burns down, I expect to still be able to access my bank account.
Availability is a fundamental security requirement.
Why do you say that? The average programmers perform at the level (and speed) that his organization requires of him. If you drop them a project to write Linux network driver for some obscure IoT hardware, they'll do just that. What will come out is (usually) a functional Linux network driver
If you stand up a CI service and reject changes that don't compile/test, then your trunk will never be (too) broken.
If you give them a fuzzer (or better yet, run it automatically in your CI) and time to investigate and repair the findings, you will likely get a more hardened driver.
If you have a test rack where the driver is run for thousands of hours with different scenarios, you will likely get a more stable driver.
If you have CI run all test cases using valgrind/ASAN/scribble, you will likely have fewer memory leaks/vulns.
An exceptional programmer will see which of these scaffolds are missing from the development team and work to build them up. A shitty programmer will just figure that if things don't have tests, then there's no reason to write them. A shitty management team will not see the lack of support.
(1) If an account is disabled, we have to believe it's possible that it is currently under a brute-force password attack. The attacker may be trying to learn the password or he may be trying to generate a list of valid usernames. Our goal is to prevent him for doing either.
(2) If an attacker is brute-forcing the password, we should make sure that correct and incorrect passwords give the same result so the attacker doesn't learn the correct one. In your example, the attacker would know when he got the password right because the response would switch from "Invalid Password" to "Account Disabled".
(3) Even if the system requires the user to change the password to something different, letting the attacker learn the password in his attack is dangerous because many users use the same or similar passwords (!!!) on various accounts.
An alternative approach, by the way, that might satisfy your requirement is to allow nonexistent usernames to be "disabled" with the same incorrect attempt policy as real accounts. So then you can safely return "Account Disabled" for every single login attempt after the 5th and you aren't an oracle for either the username or password correctness.
Your choice (or I should say, the collective choice between you and the party hosting the resource) has not been modified.
Google's choice about what resources to list in their own index does not deprive you of that choice.
And anyway, a site can have a HTTPS version that's indexed and a plain HTTP version that's not indexed. So the entire "problem" here is a whole bunch of nothing.
My client and his LLC did not sell, dispose of, or change beneficial ownership of his plugin. They did enter into a an arrangement in which a outside contractor performed some technical work in exchange for profit-sharing guarantee in which the LLC pays them a fraction of net revenue for a specified period.
Yours Truly, The first (but not the last) lawyer to poke a hole in your laughable terms.
[ Or, snark aside, there's plenty of ways for a plugin writer to change from good-guy to bad-guy without doing anything out of the ordinary business-wise. And I intentionally chose the contractor route because tons of companies contract out app/plugin development work, and so you can't even in theory ban the use of outside contractors to write code (let alone enforce it in practice). ]
Maybe there's some places to live that are not quite as dense as an urban city but not quite as remote as a village in northern Canada or Alaska that's only accessible by plane part of the year?
Actually, not maybe, I know and have visited many of these places. You can buy acres of land, never see your neighbors (if you don't want to) and quite literally do whatever you want. And you can be 2-3 hour drive from a small-to-mid-size city with all the stores, hospitals and other amenities, and probably about 20 minutes away from fire/police/EMT service.
Or you know, you can take that false dichotomy and whatever with it./snark
I mean, insofar as you are using the word 'should', that's fine. You are describing how you believe a browser ought to be, which is surely your right. If any particular piece of software does not behave as you believe a browser should, you likewise surely have the right not to run it on your machine.
But it remains absolutely true that someone else can write a browser that implements HTML5 plus a proprietary tag for OfficeWebâ. They are free to construct that piece of executable code. Endpoints are surely free to transmit over the internet pages that are decoded by that piece of executable code. You don't have to, but others might chose to.
You don't have to call it HTML5, I suppose. It hardly matter though what 'name' you give to the language. As far as the internet is concerned, the traffic between endpoints is opaque.
As everyone is fond of pointing out, the distribution of math skills among Asians is much wider than the distance between the mean Asian and the mean of another race. Similarly for most other features -- the differences between individuals is much larger than the differences between the groups. It is only when you aggregate a ton of data do you start to see disparities.
So it's not "ignoring the generalities" for the greater good, it's actually realizing that human-scale cognition and statistical-scale cognition are not at all the same thing. On the scale of an individual math teacher, it's actually true as a matter of the best available science that -- to the level of precision available to him -- it's a wash.
AI hasn't done anything different here than traditional statistical-scale analysis. We are only 'confronting' it here because we don't intuitively understand the difference between thinking in small number and large ones.
Wait what? The web is supposed to be about the freedom of the endpoints to interchange data in any format they want. How in the world do you arrogate to yourself the right to decide what belongs in a web browser or implements a 'web site'. You say "not in a web browser", as if browsers would be required (somehow?) that speak HTML would be required to then speak only HTML and nothing else. How you plan on enforcing such a rule on the endpoint software is indeed mysterious.
You are certainly free to write (or fork an OSS) browser that supports only HTML with no other plugins, extension or other protocols. And other entities are free to write browsers that extend HTML in various ways or allow for embedded other protocols with a web page. Every endpoint is free to interchange data however they like. It's sad that the internet community often starts to turn on this ideal as soon as endpoints start acting in a way they wouldn't act and don't approve of.
They cost 1/20th as much as manned missions and do at least as much (arguably much more) science.
For instance, look at WMAP, which contributed massively to cosmology and high energy physics and was launched on time and on budget. The results have been analyzed in thousands of papers, including the three most cited physics papers of the last few decades. It cost $150M (yes, M).
Meanwhile, the ISS is running about $150B (yes B), and it's absurd to think that somehow it's worth the relative cost. We could have hundreds (or at least many dozens) of WMAPs, Voyagers, Mars Rovers and other diligent automatons scouring the solar system, crash-landing into comets, and otherwise pushing the frontier of human knowledge, or we can have a few dudes sit around the ISS with their ant farms.
NASA was always confused about whether its mission was space exploration for the sake of aeronautics or for the sake of science. During Cold War, it was probably aeronautics with scientific exploration as a pretty-plausible veneer over the military applications. Today, it's likely the need for more public victories than a quiet-but-useful pursuit of knowledge.
Slashdot Mirror
Almost a minute? What are you smoking.
Also, the transaction is taking nearly the same total time, the only difference is that before you would swipe the magstripe and then more stuff would happen whereas now you can't remove the chip until the last step. So granted it's more convenient to swipe and put the card away in your wallet while the terminals finishes up, but that's nothing to do with how long it actually takes to acquire the transaction.
By the way, did you know that you can copy a magstripe card with a olde time two-cassette boombox?
Pay a proper wage and this "labor shortage" will disappear immediately.
And how much would you have to charge for a new starter home? Would that price be beyond the budget of most first time aspiring homebuyers?
The definition of a "proper wage" has always been competition between how much buyers are willing to pay for the final product and how much suppliers are willing to sell their goods/labor. You can't just point at one side and way "raise the wage" without explaining why buyers are going to pay more and what impact that will have on them. At least for me, keeping the barriers to homeownership low seems like a very worthy social goal, one that needs to be balanced against all the other worthy goals we have.
FWIW, we don't have an opt-in or an opt-out system. There is a clear dialog box that you must proceed through during first usage in which the user must chose. Neither choice is pre-selected, they are both presented in equal font with equal weight and equal screen placement.
So no need to evangelize to me dear AC, we are already doing what you suggest :-)
You didn't read what I wrote at all. I get it, and I said it is the user's choice but I would like to evangelize in favor of the ability to make better software.
Or are you claiming in ALL CAPS that because it's the user's choice I can't ask for that?
As the developer on a huge-scale application (and a fan of privacy), I really hope that people don't opt out of reporting crashes and other anonymous usage data. Collecting and analyzing that sort of data ("telemetry" but that's a bad word here on /.) is an essential part of the software development lifecycle.
I'm just saying, it's a tool that we use to make the software better. If you believe that the call stack where the application crashed is really that sensitive (and that I could de-anonymize it based on nothing more than the call stack and a per-application randomly generated UUID), go ahead and turn it off. That's the user's right, but I would just hope to evangelize and try to convince them otherwise :-)
or the proprietary drivers and firmware required for everything from the GPS to the cell modems to the wifi chips.
First, how else do you propose to deliver functionality from those peripherals? A company dedicated to making low-power high-throughput WiFi chips is already going to have trouble paying its engineers and keeping up with the process node changes and technology/standards upgrades in a low-margin business. Releasing the firmware code would reveal quite a bit of the technology and method used, both software and hardware, most of which would be instantly commandeered by cheap Asian knockoffs. If you believe that embedded engineers should be paid and that R&D should go into new standards and improvements, then you need to articulate a structure that would allow that to happen.
Second, do you think that Linux (or even BSD) let alone Windows is any different? We have barely-functional[1] open source drivers for GPUs, lets alone the firmware embedded on the chip. And likewise the firmware running on all the other peripherals (hard drives, keyboards, trackpads, WiFi adapters, battery chargers) is all bespoke and proprietary.
It's mostly used by shitty webhipster design startups, which are just way too lazy to learn a proper programming language, and it even doesn't fit well with the UI of your operating system.
Why waste developers with knowledge of a proper programming language on trivial tasks like this.
The whole point of "shitty hipster design startups" is that we lower the barrier of entry for uncomplicated tasks so that less talented people can still deliver a usable product. We don't need genius level assembly-level programmers putting together bespoke UI for various BS tasks like Uncle Frederick's Antique Shop and Ice Cream Parlor.
Tech was supposed to be democratizing and liberating. We were supposed to make the benefits of the Information Age available in every corner of the world and accessible to every person of mediocre intelligence by allowing them to build and customize.
That's not surprising. Everyone can easily have an opinion on social or political topics -- they are salient and most people can grasp them. It's much more difficult to comment on complicated technical matters.
This is related to Parkinson's Law.
Since the entire purpose of TLS is to provide security, then insecure equals broken.
Maybe they don't find that analogous. For instance, consider the following:
(1) There is a system that, if you grant it access to your browser history and email, will look over it algorithmically and will produce a set of advertising recommendations. Humans can program the algorithm, but they can never see the browser history or email themselves. So long as the system functions as designed, this is the only way the data can be used.
(2) An actual human being will review your browser history and email.
It's quite possible for a sane person to find those two situations very different. And, assuming they believe that the system in (1) functions as designed, they may in fact place very different values on those two scenarios.
I'm not saying you have to treat them the same, but you can't actually say that people are crazy or ignorant just because they came to a different conclusion in this respect. Or you can, but it's not too convincing.
People are cheap. They will happily trade their digital soul for a "free" price tag, and don't give a shit about privacy anymore when it comes to corporations asking for data because they trust them. Clearly the masses value ignorance. Must be blissful.
Or maybe we all assign different value to different things. You think people are ignorant for "under-pricing" this data, maybe they think you are being sentimental for "over-pricing" it. Some may have different notions of privacy, some may not care if Verizon or whoever has really good data to target them for ads. Some may believe so strongly in their own self-direction that they discount the possibility that the ads will strongly impact them. Some may even like targeted ads as a way to keep track of what's new in their particular demographic. These are just example mental states that I can imagine for someone that opts in to this program for reasons other than ignorance -- in fact, it's a good idea to try out (sincerely) adopting another person's mental state (not necessarily agreeing with it) just to see if you can pass the ideological Turing test in this case.
It seems to me that it's almost never a good idea to start from "people are trading X for Y, that seems grossly out of whack to me" and immediately conclude "therefore they are ignorant of X or Y". Maybe they are ignorant, maybe they have other reasons, maybe their value system and your value system don't align (it happens!). But at the very minimum we would need to actually ask the people making the decision in order to have any hope of answering the question accurately.
The word you are looking for, by the way, is 'defectors'. As soon as some drivers manipulate the market to increase fares, there is an incentive to defect from the manipulation and reap the additional profits. Of course, that would then counteract the increase. The higher the surge, the more pressure there is on each driver to defect, and so things will stabilize out.
What's more, other drivers have virtually no way to know who is actually participating and who is 'cheating' the manipulation. A driver can be on a text thread advocating the boycott while driving around getting surge fares. It's a lot like the OPEC oil production quotas. The ministers of all these countries would get together and promise quotas, it would work, the price would rise and then each member would slowly start cheating a bit on their quotas to sell oil at the inflated price. Of course, if confronted they would deny or fudge it, but eventually the oil market understood how many extra $/barrel it would take to "extract" that additional oil.
So yeah, if your understanding of the 'free market' has absorbed what we've learned about cartels, collusion and cheating, you'd have a pretty decent understanding of the dynamic going on here.
It's not unfortunate that natural gas is cheap, since it has also displaced a ton of oil and coal power. That has netted us a major reduction in carbon emissions.
It's unfortunate that it is also displacing nuclear, especially since natural gas prices may rise again but nuclear will remain stable for decades. And yes, agreed about the FUD and the unfortunate result. But still, cheap natural gas is an environmental win.
Actually, the smart and well organized protest groups have their own security and will warn violent people to behave and, if they cannot be persuaded, forcibly eject them from the group. There are a huge number of benefits:
(1) By nipping violence early, the (literal) 'mob mentality' doesn't get a chance to catalyze
(2) By doing it it from within the protesting group itself, there is less reactionary violence against police intervention
(3) It demonstrates to those watching that the protesters are serious about non-violence and not tacitly condoning vandalism
(4) It demonstrates to the police that they can keep a safe distance and focus on separating protesters/counter-protesters
(5) It discourages opportunists that will join any protest as a cover for their pre-existing desire to smash shit (whether for political or just anger issues)
(6) It encourages people that might not feel safe or welcome in a violent protest to join in. A lot of people won't go out in the streets if people are smashing windows or if they fear being tear gassed by overreacting cops
So yeah, I don't advocate giving up and prosecuting everyone. Or shutting down the right to protest. But I also don't advocate allowing a very small percentage of the protesters to steal the spotlight and tar the entire thing as violent. Those folks ruin your public image, they ruin your relationship with the city, the police and the mainstream members of the group and they have no right to do so.
How in the world does it help to OWN your DNS yourself and then your company's two major shareholders get into a dispute with one another?
The fact of the matter is that for very small companies with >1 people, the "you" in YOURSELF is not an entity with temporal continuity. So doing it YOURSELF doesn't much help you when "you" shatters into two non-reconcilable halves :-(
Bitcoin has a few simple fucking rules. Chief among them is to treat your wallet with Bitcoin in it like your regular wallet with cash in it.
You keep it secure yourself and you encrypt it and you don't hand it over to anyone else.
That's fine for the money in my wallet, but I don't expect it's fine for the money in my bank account. If I trip and fall in a river and lose my wallet, I expect to still be able to access my bank account. If my house burns down, I expect to still be able to access my bank account.
Availability is a fundamental security requirement.
Why do you say that? The average programmers perform at the level (and speed) that his organization requires of him. If you drop them a project to write Linux network driver for some obscure IoT hardware, they'll do just that. What will come out is (usually) a functional Linux network driver
If you stand up a CI service and reject changes that don't compile/test, then your trunk will never be (too) broken.
If you give them a fuzzer (or better yet, run it automatically in your CI) and time to investigate and repair the findings, you will likely get a more hardened driver.
If you have a test rack where the driver is run for thousands of hours with different scenarios, you will likely get a more stable driver.
If you have CI run all test cases using valgrind/ASAN/scribble, you will likely have fewer memory leaks/vulns.
An exceptional programmer will see which of these scaffolds are missing from the development team and work to build them up. A shitty programmer will just figure that if things don't have tests, then there's no reason to write them. A shitty management team will not see the lack of support.
Yes there is.
(1) If an account is disabled, we have to believe it's possible that it is currently under a brute-force password attack. The attacker may be trying to learn the password or he may be trying to generate a list of valid usernames. Our goal is to prevent him for doing either.
(2) If an attacker is brute-forcing the password, we should make sure that correct and incorrect passwords give the same result so the attacker doesn't learn the correct one. In your example, the attacker would know when he got the password right because the response would switch from "Invalid Password" to "Account Disabled".
(3) Even if the system requires the user to change the password to something different, letting the attacker learn the password in his attack is dangerous because many users use the same or similar passwords (!!!) on various accounts.
An alternative approach, by the way, that might satisfy your requirement is to allow nonexistent usernames to be "disabled" with the same incorrect attempt policy as real accounts. So then you can safely return "Account Disabled" for every single login attempt after the 5th and you aren't an oracle for either the username or password correctness.
Your choice (or I should say, the collective choice between you and the party hosting the resource) has not been modified.
Google's choice about what resources to list in their own index does not deprive you of that choice.
And anyway, a site can have a HTTPS version that's indexed and a plain HTTP version that's not indexed. So the entire "problem" here is a whole bunch of nothing.
My client and his LLC did not sell, dispose of, or change beneficial ownership of his plugin. They did enter into a an arrangement in which a outside contractor performed some technical work in exchange for profit-sharing guarantee in which the LLC pays them a fraction of net revenue for a specified period.
Yours Truly,
The first (but not the last) lawyer to poke a hole in your laughable terms.
[ Or, snark aside, there's plenty of ways for a plugin writer to change from good-guy to bad-guy without doing anything out of the ordinary business-wise. And I intentionally chose the contractor route because tons of companies contract out app/plugin development work, and so you can't even in theory ban the use of outside contractors to write code (let alone enforce it in practice). ]
Maybe there's some places to live that are not quite as dense as an urban city but not quite as remote as a village in northern Canada or Alaska that's only accessible by plane part of the year?
Actually, not maybe, I know and have visited many of these places. You can buy acres of land, never see your neighbors (if you don't want to) and quite literally do whatever you want. And you can be 2-3 hour drive from a small-to-mid-size city with all the stores, hospitals and other amenities, and probably about 20 minutes away from fire/police/EMT service.
Or you know, you can take that false dichotomy and whatever with it. /snark
I mean, insofar as you are using the word 'should', that's fine. You are describing how you believe a browser ought to be, which is surely your right. If any particular piece of software does not behave as you believe a browser should, you likewise surely have the right not to run it on your machine.
But it remains absolutely true that someone else can write a browser that implements HTML5 plus a proprietary tag for OfficeWebâ. They are free to construct that piece of executable code. Endpoints are surely free to transmit over the internet pages that are decoded by that piece of executable code. You don't have to, but others might chose to.
You don't have to call it HTML5, I suppose. It hardly matter though what 'name' you give to the language. As far as the internet is concerned, the traffic between endpoints is opaque.
As everyone is fond of pointing out, the distribution of math skills among Asians is much wider than the distance between the mean Asian and the mean of another race. Similarly for most other features -- the differences between individuals is much larger than the differences between the groups. It is only when you aggregate a ton of data do you start to see disparities.
So it's not "ignoring the generalities" for the greater good, it's actually realizing that human-scale cognition and statistical-scale cognition are not at all the same thing. On the scale of an individual math teacher, it's actually true as a matter of the best available science that -- to the level of precision available to him -- it's a wash.
AI hasn't done anything different here than traditional statistical-scale analysis. We are only 'confronting' it here because we don't intuitively understand the difference between thinking in small number and large ones.
Wait what? The web is supposed to be about the freedom of the endpoints to interchange data in any format they want. How in the world do you arrogate to yourself the right to decide what belongs in a web browser or implements a 'web site'. You say "not in a web browser", as if browsers would be required (somehow?) that speak HTML would be required to then speak only HTML and nothing else. How you plan on enforcing such a rule on the endpoint software is indeed mysterious.
You are certainly free to write (or fork an OSS) browser that supports only HTML with no other plugins, extension or other protocols. And other entities are free to write browsers that extend HTML in various ways or allow for embedded other protocols with a web page. Every endpoint is free to interchange data however they like. It's sad that the internet community often starts to turn on this ideal as soon as endpoints start acting in a way they wouldn't act and don't approve of.
They cost 1/20th as much as manned missions and do at least as much (arguably much more) science.
For instance, look at WMAP, which contributed massively to cosmology and high energy physics and was launched on time and on budget. The results have been analyzed in thousands of papers, including the three most cited physics papers of the last few decades. It cost $150M (yes, M).
Meanwhile, the ISS is running about $150B (yes B), and it's absurd to think that somehow it's worth the relative cost. We could have hundreds (or at least many dozens) of WMAPs, Voyagers, Mars Rovers and other diligent automatons scouring the solar system, crash-landing into comets, and otherwise pushing the frontier of human knowledge, or we can have a few dudes sit around the ISS with their ant farms.
NASA was always confused about whether its mission was space exploration for the sake of aeronautics or for the sake of science. During Cold War, it was probably aeronautics with scientific exploration as a pretty-plausible veneer over the military applications. Today, it's likely the need for more public victories than a quiet-but-useful pursuit of knowledge.