"Mayhem appears to be the continuation of the Fort Disco brute-force password cracking attack"
So, it doesn't exploit any security vulnerabilities? Awesome. The UNIX family continues its extremely good record for security. It isn't perfect but it's pretty close.
If America ever again uses the draft, that will either be changed first or will be challenged successfully in court by the first draftee. But in general I agree with you, it's an obviously unconstitutional law.
"The way in which our representative communicated with them is unacceptable..."
True.
"The way in which our representative communicated with them is unacceptable and not consistent with how we train our customer service representatives."
I re-read my comments. Where did I say I didn't want it? If you quote my words, I'll concede you are right.
Here's a summary of our conversation
Question: "Does anyone want a smart watch?" Me: "Yes, and here are some uses." You: "You haven't done research, that exists." Me: "That was a non-sequitur. Me wanting it doesn't depend on its existence or non-existence." You "You said you don't want the watch that exists."
Both of your replies don't follow from any of my comments which is why both of your replies are so confusing.
Oh, shit, why didn't I think of that? Gosh, next all I have to do is not need to call people and I can get rid of my phone too. I wonder if I can not need shelter because that would really help me save on rent.
"Are we supposed to believe that you have a proper camera in your tight jeans pockets?"
Pods [cell phones] have cameras and having a pod in my pocket is both extremely common and a stated part of the hypothetical. So, yeah, you are supposed to believe that. You've never seen a person with a camera in their pocket? Even if you haven't, take it from me, it's common.
It's fair to point out that my tone is acerbic. It is. The essence of my comment wasn't the actual list of proposed applications, it is this:
"Have you guys paused to consider that there might be applications beyond your current imagination?"
With that, I am doing exactly the opposite of "assuming your reasons must apply to everyone else".
If you can't imagine why you would want a certain product, that doesn't mean you wouldn't want that product. People with no imagination make that mistake often.
I don't understand your reply. Why would the actual existence of a product change my level of desire to have the product? Is there something I don't understand such that I should no longer want a product if it exists?
Your cell phone can tell you when your cell phone is 50 feet away? Your cell phone can be answered when it is inside your tight jeans pocket (or, say, deep inside your handbag)? Wow, tell me more about your cell phone, I might want to upgrade from my S4.
1. You mean, people today under 50 don't wear jewelry. Fifty years ago, people under 50 didn't get tattoos. Ten years ago, people under 50 didn't wear tight pants. This may be news to you, but things change. (Also, you're just wrong. Young people wear jewelry.)
2. If you carefully read my comment you will see that I keep mentioning times when my phone isn't in my hand. That's a central use case for a smart watch, or a smart anything-but-phone for that matter. The reason you might want a computer on your wrist instead of in your pocket, is the same reason you might want a computer in your pocket instead of in your handbag, which is the same reason you might want a computer in your handbag instead of your house, which is the same reason you might want a computer in your house instead of at the office.
3. Wow, golly gosh, the rest of us wish we had your super magical perfect memory. Luckily, every single feature of a product doesn't have to appeal to every single user, for every single user to find the product valuable.
4. I don't know what this was responding to.
5. Sweet, so you like "smart earrings"? Nice. I don't wear earrings myself, and actually I don't wear a watch either, but I'd probably choose a smart watch before a smart earring. I think the market has room for both, though. You choose whatever you like.
6. Yep, that's a feature cameras have had for a long time. I described a superior feature which solves even more problems.
Me, too. Actually I haven't been watching the market closely. Maybe there are already some good ones, I don't know, but I can easily imagine one I would want.
"Why would a watch know where your kids are? in order for that to work each child would need to be tagged like an animal."
Yes, exactly. You're getting it now.
"Also if you can't track kids at a playground please stop breeding."
Thanks, I'll take your opinion under advisement.
"I watch my nieces on a regular basis at the playground"
All seventeen of them at once? You have better skills than I do.
"The mic on your watch won't give you better audio than pulling your phone out of your pocket."
Right. It would give equal audio in that case. But in the hypothetical proposed, the phone is in my pocket where its mic is muffled.
"remote camera control that is a decent idea. except that the display is tiny, won't show everything, and you have to be looking at your watch to press the button unless they use the whole screen for the take a picture button."
Yep. It would be good enough for framing the picture, as said in the hypothetical. And the button press starts the short timer, as explained in the hypothetical.
"I always consider that things are beyond what I can dream about.... You can't have a good looking smart watch."
These statements are in opposition. In my hypothetical the watch is attractive, as stated.
"Now give me smart watch that is about as wide as my thumb, that shows me the time all the time. have it use a micro projector to push the image on to my forearm, and a laser projector to pick up where I am touching. That will take off."
Nice! Now we're talking, and I accept your full agreement with my statement that, yes, you and I both want a smart watch given the right characteristics.
"Have you paused to consider that there might be other lifestyles than your own?"
Sure. I know there are ascetics. Then there are the other vast majority of us. You know, people without your magical 100% perfect memory, people who listen to music [or podcasts], people with children, people who take pictures, and most important people who have myriad other problems not discussed here because their needs are outside my imagination, and yours.
"Why would [using a mic on my watch] be better than the [mic on my] phone?"
Because the phone is in my pocket, as stated in the hypothetical. Before you ask your next question, here's the answer: for the same reason it's more convenient to have a phone in my pocket rather than tethered to my kitchen.
I want one. The specific thing I want my watch to do, besides be attractive manly jewelry and tell me the time faster than pulling the pod (cell phone) out of my pocket, is to vibrate or give alarms when certain things happen or to allow easier interaction with other of my nearby technology.
Oh, I forgot my pod in my car when I went into the shopping mall? I'll know because my watch will vibrate when I'm 50 feet away from the car instead of waiting an hour and wondering why my wife hasn't called me with the dinner plans like she promised.
Oh, I'm at a playground trying to manage multiple children safely? I'll know if one of my children starts to wander away, and the watch will point me in the direction they are wandering.
Oh, I'm listening to a podcast in earphones with my pod in my tight jeans pocket, and someone calls me? I can answer the call in one second by touching my watch, instead of trying to fish the pod out of my pocket and missing the call. I can also use the mic on my watch for better audio quality.
Oh, I want to take a 'selfie' from farther away than my arms reach? I can put the camera on a flat surface, go pose, look at my watch to see what the camera sees, get it framed up right, then touch my watch to start a three-second timer on the camera.
All you people saying NO have no imagination. You are the same people who would say "Why would I need my cell phone to have a big screen on it? All it has to do is show phone numbers and my flip phone already can do that." Have you guys paused to consider that there might be applications beyond your current imagination?
I understand your critique but if you read the story I think the police did what you want them to -- try to pull him over then retreat when he starts a high-speed chase. The article specifies that he continued at high speed even though he was not under pursuit. That is the same policy adopted by my hometown police department and I think it is pretty common.
I stopped paying attention to botnet stories a few years ago. Are botnets still always on Windows or do Unix users (Mac, Linux) have to worry too? If it's still all Windows then I'm going to stop paying attention again.
That has never been true. Never in human history has a class of people controlled the economy due to them being the source of economic output. I guess it's not impossible, but did garment workers control the economy? Were automobile assembly-line workers the richest people in the country? Did Roman iron smelters own the means of their own production?
The history of human economy has always been that rich assholes who do no labor lord over the workers who actually produce things. I don't see any reason to think that robots will be different.
Well, the historical answer is "because if they don't, we'll cut their heads off". Personally I think that's a lesson that needs to be re-learned every hundred years or so, and we're about a hundred years overdue.
Who said anything about losing jobs? Foxconn is replacing shitty low-end assembly line jobs with awesome high-end jobs making robots. Why would we keep people doing shitty jobs instead of creating awesome jobs for them to do? Even better the robot builders will be much more efficient so all of society will be richer. It's the miracle of economy.
Slashdot Mirror
"Mayhem appears to be the continuation of the Fort Disco brute-force password cracking attack"
So, it doesn't exploit any security vulnerabilities? Awesome. The UNIX family continues its extremely good record for security. It isn't perfect but it's pretty close.
If America ever again uses the draft, that will either be changed first or will be challenged successfully in court by the first draftee. But in general I agree with you, it's an obviously unconstitutional law.
When I saw this headline about ChickTech it made me rethink the company BroadCom, and wonder when we will have BitchWorks and HoGrammers.
Times must have changed because ten years ago when I was coming of age, "chick" was an unacceptable diminutive.
"Why the FCC Is Likely To Ignore Net Neutrality Comments and Listen To ISPs"
Because fuck you, peon.
"The way in which our representative communicated with them is unacceptable..."
True.
"The way in which our representative communicated with them is unacceptable and not consistent with how we train our customer service representatives."
Cough cough BULLSHIT cough cough
Yo!
I re-read my comments. Where did I say I didn't want it? If you quote my words, I'll concede you are right.
Here's a summary of our conversation
Question: "Does anyone want a smart watch?"
Me: "Yes, and here are some uses."
You: "You haven't done research, that exists."
Me: "That was a non-sequitur. Me wanting it doesn't depend on its existence or non-existence."
You "You said you don't want the watch that exists."
Both of your replies don't follow from any of my comments which is why both of your replies are so confusing.
"Have you guys paused to consider that there might be applications beyond your current imagination?"
"I can easily imagine all the things you mention, and more."
You can easily imagine all the things beyond your current imagination? I think we need to discuss tautologies.
"Don't have the problems you have"
Oh, shit, why didn't I think of that? Gosh, next all I have to do is not need to call people and I can get rid of my phone too. I wonder if I can not need shelter because that would really help me save on rent.
"Are we supposed to believe that you have a proper camera in your tight jeans pockets?"
Pods [cell phones] have cameras and having a pod in my pocket is both extremely common and a stated part of the hypothetical. So, yeah, you are supposed to believe that. You've never seen a person with a camera in their pocket? Even if you haven't, take it from me, it's common.
It's fair to point out that my tone is acerbic. It is. The essence of my comment wasn't the actual list of proposed applications, it is this:
"Have you guys paused to consider that there might be applications beyond your current imagination?"
With that, I am doing exactly the opposite of "assuming your reasons must apply to everyone else".
If you can't imagine why you would want a certain product, that doesn't mean you wouldn't want that product. People with no imagination make that mistake often.
I don't understand your reply. Why would the actual existence of a product change my level of desire to have the product? Is there something I don't understand such that I should no longer want a product if it exists?
Your cell phone can tell you when your cell phone is 50 feet away? Your cell phone can be answered when it is inside your tight jeans pocket (or, say, deep inside your handbag)? Wow, tell me more about your cell phone, I might want to upgrade from my S4.
1. You mean, people today under 50 don't wear jewelry. Fifty years ago, people under 50 didn't get tattoos. Ten years ago, people under 50 didn't wear tight pants. This may be news to you, but things change. (Also, you're just wrong. Young people wear jewelry.)
2. If you carefully read my comment you will see that I keep mentioning times when my phone isn't in my hand. That's a central use case for a smart watch, or a smart anything-but-phone for that matter. The reason you might want a computer on your wrist instead of in your pocket, is the same reason you might want a computer in your pocket instead of in your handbag, which is the same reason you might want a computer in your handbag instead of your house, which is the same reason you might want a computer in your house instead of at the office.
3. Wow, golly gosh, the rest of us wish we had your super magical perfect memory. Luckily, every single feature of a product doesn't have to appeal to every single user, for every single user to find the product valuable.
4. I don't know what this was responding to.
5. Sweet, so you like "smart earrings"? Nice. I don't wear earrings myself, and actually I don't wear a watch either, but I'd probably choose a smart watch before a smart earring. I think the market has room for both, though. You choose whatever you like.
6. Yep, that's a feature cameras have had for a long time. I described a superior feature which solves even more problems.
7. Evidently you don't.
Me, too. Actually I haven't been watching the market closely. Maybe there are already some good ones, I don't know, but I can easily imagine one I would want.
"Why would a watch know where your kids are? in order for that to work each child would need to be tagged like an animal."
Yes, exactly. You're getting it now.
"Also if you can't track kids at a playground please stop breeding."
Thanks, I'll take your opinion under advisement.
"I watch my nieces on a regular basis at the playground"
All seventeen of them at once? You have better skills than I do.
"The mic on your watch won't give you better audio than pulling your phone out of your pocket."
Right. It would give equal audio in that case. But in the hypothetical proposed, the phone is in my pocket where its mic is muffled.
"remote camera control that is a decent idea. except that the display is tiny, won't show everything, and you have to be looking at your watch to press the button unless they use the whole screen for the take a picture button."
Yep. It would be good enough for framing the picture, as said in the hypothetical. And the button press starts the short timer, as explained in the hypothetical.
"I always consider that things are beyond what I can dream about. ... You can't have a good looking smart watch."
These statements are in opposition. In my hypothetical the watch is attractive, as stated.
"Now give me smart watch that is about as wide as my thumb, that shows me the time all the time. have it use a micro projector to push the image on to my forearm, and a laser projector to pick up where I am touching. That will take off."
Nice! Now we're talking, and I accept your full agreement with my statement that, yes, you and I both want a smart watch given the right characteristics.
You don't want "applications beyond your current imagination"? Mmm hmm. I doubt it.
"Have you paused to consider that there might be other lifestyles than your own?"
Sure. I know there are ascetics. Then there are the other vast majority of us. You know, people without your magical 100% perfect memory, people who listen to music [or podcasts], people with children, people who take pictures, and most important people who have myriad other problems not discussed here because their needs are outside my imagination, and yours.
"Why would [using a mic on my watch] be better than the [mic on my] phone?"
Because the phone is in my pocket, as stated in the hypothetical. Before you ask your next question, here's the answer: for the same reason it's more convenient to have a phone in my pocket rather than tethered to my kitchen.
I want one. The specific thing I want my watch to do, besides be attractive manly jewelry and tell me the time faster than pulling the pod (cell phone) out of my pocket, is to vibrate or give alarms when certain things happen or to allow easier interaction with other of my nearby technology.
Oh, I forgot my pod in my car when I went into the shopping mall? I'll know because my watch will vibrate when I'm 50 feet away from the car instead of waiting an hour and wondering why my wife hasn't called me with the dinner plans like she promised.
Oh, I'm at a playground trying to manage multiple children safely? I'll know if one of my children starts to wander away, and the watch will point me in the direction they are wandering.
Oh, I'm listening to a podcast in earphones with my pod in my tight jeans pocket, and someone calls me? I can answer the call in one second by touching my watch, instead of trying to fish the pod out of my pocket and missing the call. I can also use the mic on my watch for better audio quality.
Oh, I want to take a 'selfie' from farther away than my arms reach? I can put the camera on a flat surface, go pose, look at my watch to see what the camera sees, get it framed up right, then touch my watch to start a three-second timer on the camera.
All you people saying NO have no imagination. You are the same people who would say "Why would I need my cell phone to have a big screen on it? All it has to do is show phone numbers and my flip phone already can do that." Have you guys paused to consider that there might be applications beyond your current imagination?
I understand your critique but if you read the story I think the police did what you want them to -- try to pull him over then retreat when he starts a high-speed chase. The article specifies that he continued at high speed even though he was not under pursuit. That is the same policy adopted by my hometown police department and I think it is pretty common.
Agreed. This news item had a lot of impact.
It left me with one burning question: what was the last thing to go through that guy's mind? I mean, other than a lamp pole.
I stopped paying attention to botnet stories a few years ago. Are botnets still always on Windows or do Unix users (Mac, Linux) have to worry too? If it's still all Windows then I'm going to stop paying attention again.
That has never been true. Never in human history has a class of people controlled the economy due to them being the source of economic output. I guess it's not impossible, but did garment workers control the economy? Were automobile assembly-line workers the richest people in the country? Did Roman iron smelters own the means of their own production?
The history of human economy has always been that rich assholes who do no labor lord over the workers who actually produce things. I don't see any reason to think that robots will be different.
"Why the hell would they?"
Well, the historical answer is "because if they don't, we'll cut their heads off". Personally I think that's a lesson that needs to be re-learned every hundred years or so, and we're about a hundred years overdue.
Who said anything about losing jobs? Foxconn is replacing shitty low-end assembly line jobs with awesome high-end jobs making robots. Why would we keep people doing shitty jobs instead of creating awesome jobs for them to do? Even better the robot builders will be much more efficient so all of society will be richer. It's the miracle of economy.
Interesting. What do you think would be clear evidence of planning which could not be explained as fuel for fantasies?