That would require some form of privacy legislation.
And I have my doubts about the willingness of lawmakers to do that.
Not the least of which because it would limit the ability of companies to make use of your private data, put the onus on them to be competent at data security, and actually bear some responsibility.
We couldn't possibly curtail what companies do for profit.
There are barely any laws about what they're allowed to store, and what they're allowed to do with it. Nobody is going to pass laws making them legally responsible for their own terrible security.
More like no Freedom of Defamation. Doesn't the US have laws against slander too?
See, the problem with this statement is that a bad restaurant review isn't defamation, and isn't the same as slander.
So, if I post a restaurant review which says "the service was terrible, the food had a hair in it". That's an honest review.
If I say the chef is a Nazi sympathizer who serves dead babies and cat, sure, that might be defamation.
This stupid notion that you should be free from someone posting negative reviews against your business is just a frightening trend. It undermines factual reporting. It undermines people providing honest feedback. It basically says people can only say nice things about you even if your restaurant sucked.
It basically says "waaah, I'm a child who can't take any criticism without going to the courts".
Slander and Libel have very specific legal definitions. And a bad restaurant review doesn't even come close to that.
But, I'll tell you what, if it makes you feel better... I think people who think negative restaurant reviews are the same as Defamation must be absolute morons with no clue about how the legal system works.
I'm fairly certain they'd all drop the obsession with lossless formats that they had when a large image was 640 x 480.
In 1994, more than a few of us were using dialup modems, and we wouldn't have believed you.
Or, more accurately, we wouldn't have been willing to wait 20 years for porn at that resolution.
Like so many things, people who say "in 20 years we'll be doing this" tend to get laughed at. Because the track record of people predicting what we'll be doing in 20 years is pretty sketchy.
Yes, but this is still 2014, not the future, silly!
Correct, now is now.
But back then, now was then, and now was in the future. Of course, now 'then' was back then, and was the past. In the future, now will also be in the past, as will then. But by then, then will be now and then will be the present. The future present, not the current present.
So, soon, when now is later, the then now will be then, and now will still be in the past. But by then we won't have to worry, because it will be now, and I've already told you what happened.
Every now and then you need to remember which now, which then, how long until then is now, or how long ago then then was now.
Then you can say that you did know now what you knew then. Of course, when you say now then, it will be a different now than now, because it will be then.
It's all very complicated now, but by then it will make perfect sense.
In relation to the power draw of most houses and the amount of electricity you actually reveive... it's massive enough that you likely couldn't actually power it up.
So, sure, if you have a huge space, and a 1950's jet engine hooked up to a generator you can trivially generate this power.
For anything resembling domestic use, it's still not gonna happen.
Does your electrical supply to your house allow you to plug in something requiring 150kW?
But my adblockers tell me Slashdot has references to gstatic.com, googleanalytics.com, google-adservices.com and googletagservices.com. All of which I universally block.
The fact of the matter is, Google hasn't been the good guys in several years now. Google has come full circle, and is just your garden variety greedy mega-corp.
Heck, I believe Google pioneered some of the techniques for bypassing cookie controls in several major browsers, and then later on said it was an accident.
I no longer believe Google does anything for altruistic purposes, even if that's what they claim to be doing.
And yet, they are still making gobs of money. In fact, they are more profitable than ever.
That doesn't mean that all business units are profitable, or profitable enough.
since the massive cuts crush morale
Despite lip service to the contrary, I've never actually seen a corporation which really gave a damn about morale. Because they all seem to go out of their way to do it.
It's all executives bonuses, and cutting back on perks.
It took an international team to sort this out? Come on!
That's kind of what I was thinking.
I heard about this in Geology class 20+ years ago. It's why farmers fields keep producing rocks, because the bigger pieces move up and work their way to the surface.
I thought this was pretty well understood for quite some time.
Slashdot Mirror
Why, when it's so much more profitable to "securitize" it and sell it off to other people as if it had value?
Making companies take on their own liability sounds un-American.
That would require some form of privacy legislation.
And I have my doubts about the willingness of lawmakers to do that.
Not the least of which because it would limit the ability of companies to make use of your private data, put the onus on them to be competent at data security, and actually bear some responsibility.
We couldn't possibly curtail what companies do for profit.
There are barely any laws about what they're allowed to store, and what they're allowed to do with it. Nobody is going to pass laws making them legally responsible for their own terrible security.
See, the problem with this statement is that a bad restaurant review isn't defamation, and isn't the same as slander.
So, if I post a restaurant review which says "the service was terrible, the food had a hair in it". That's an honest review.
If I say the chef is a Nazi sympathizer who serves dead babies and cat, sure, that might be defamation.
This stupid notion that you should be free from someone posting negative reviews against your business is just a frightening trend. It undermines factual reporting. It undermines people providing honest feedback. It basically says people can only say nice things about you even if your restaurant sucked.
It basically says "waaah, I'm a child who can't take any criticism without going to the courts".
Slander and Libel have very specific legal definitions. And a bad restaurant review doesn't even come close to that.
But, I'll tell you what, if it makes you feel better ... I think people who think negative restaurant reviews are the same as Defamation must be absolute morons with no clue about how the legal system works.
Good luck in the court system.
I am aware of that fact, yes.
However, never having seen or given a damn about Instagram ... I have no idea of it supports videos or not.
I would have to take extra steps to watch videos on the internet.
Like installing Flash or caring. Thus far, I've done a remarkable job of doing neither.
Bah, you could replace 33% of all Facebook pictures with cute cat photos, and nobody would even know the difference.
Or, alternately, Google introduces the suck faster than anybody else can counterbalance it.
Just sayin'.
Ad revenue.
Not a problem if you don't use G+. Certainly not my problem.
In 1994, more than a few of us were using dialup modems, and we wouldn't have believed you.
Or, more accurately, we wouldn't have been willing to wait 20 years for porn at that resolution.
Like so many things, people who say "in 20 years we'll be doing this" tend to get laughed at. Because the track record of people predicting what we'll be doing in 20 years is pretty sketchy.
Totally, going from 12pt to 10pt is a 20% savings. Got for a 6pt font and you can save 50%.
Add that to the 5% savings in the jpegs, and that's a lot of extra porn you can download before you fill the tubes.
But what fraction of videos on Facebook are actually served by Facebook?
Most of what I see on Facebook is just links to external sites, and Facebook doesn't host it at all.
Correct, now is now.
But back then, now was then, and now was in the future. Of course, now 'then' was back then, and was the past. In the future, now will also be in the past, as will then. But by then, then will be now and then will be the present. The future present, not the current present.
So, soon, when now is later, the then now will be then, and now will still be in the past. But by then we won't have to worry, because it will be now, and I've already told you what happened.
Every now and then you need to remember which now, which then, how long until then is now, or how long ago then then was now.
Then you can say that you did know now what you knew then. Of course, when you say now then, it will be a different now than now, because it will be then.
It's all very complicated now, but by then it will make perfect sense.
And yet, you're posting that on a web site which is mostly text.
I suspect a 5% decrease in size yields a very large percentage in bandwidth savings over time.
And there will always be people with slower links who will benefit from this.
When you build it, point it at Washington. ;-)
You're all missing the point.
The computer wasn't shipped there, it decided it wanted to go there. It manipulated people into giving it a new home. It's sentient, man.
Now it looks out the window, and watches hurds of gnu run by. ;-)
In relation to the power draw of most houses and the amount of electricity you actually reveive ... it's massive enough that you likely couldn't actually power it up.
So, sure, if you have a huge space, and a 1950's jet engine hooked up to a generator you can trivially generate this power.
For anything resembling domestic use, it's still not gonna happen.
Does your electrical supply to your house allow you to plug in something requiring 150kW?
Well, sure, maybe.
But my adblockers tell me Slashdot has references to gstatic.com, googleanalytics.com, google-adservices.com and googletagservices.com. All of which I universally block.
The fact of the matter is, Google hasn't been the good guys in several years now. Google has come full circle, and is just your garden variety greedy mega-corp.
Heck, I believe Google pioneered some of the techniques for bypassing cookie controls in several major browsers, and then later on said it was an accident.
I no longer believe Google does anything for altruistic purposes, even if that's what they claim to be doing.
So, are they planning on buying copies of said software, and testing it in house?
Or do they think they're going to be doing penetration testing without permission? Because, the last I heard, that was actually illegal.
That doesn't mean that all business units are profitable, or profitable enough.
Despite lip service to the contrary, I've never actually seen a corporation which really gave a damn about morale. Because they all seem to go out of their way to do it.
It's all executives bonuses, and cutting back on perks.
Intuitively, which we all know is probably wrong, you'd think a smaller gravity would magnify it, no?
The bigger pieces can move more, the smaller pieces still settle.
The mechanism is that the smaller pieces fall down through the cracks between the bigger pieces, and eventually push the bigger pieces upwards.
Yes, it's space, so it's all new ... but I should think the mechanism is pretty universal, and was already widely understood.
That's kind of what I was thinking.
I heard about this in Geology class 20+ years ago. It's why farmers fields keep producing rocks, because the bigger pieces move up and work their way to the surface.
I thought this was pretty well understood for quite some time.
Teledildonics?
Years of practice, now it no longer takes effort.
Oh, and a world which constantly reinforces that outlook as being a good choice. ;-)
I see what you did there. ;-)
Or, as penis implants for old men. ;-)