As soon as someone uses words like that it's a sign that you probably don't give a crap what they have to say.
I've found it quite effective for the last 20 years.
The moment you find yourself thinking "wow, I just won bullshit buzzword bingo", you know it's time to stop listening, because nothing intelligent or useful will be forthcoming.
Me, I will never type anything even resembling "small indonesian bananas" into a search field.
Rule #34 and all that.
But seriously, if you wish to find communities of random people you'd never have known about on the intertubes who feel the need to comment on random crap nobody actually cares about, well, it sounds like Twitter is perfect for you.
And if someone build tried to build this "classic twitter" which has none of the content, and is therefore an empty system with no users, no data, no tweets... no NOTHING.
You're right, the value is in the user base. Which means a new competitor is starting with an empty system nobody will want.
Which means they'll continue to do as they please, and gamble that the value is in things people have already posted or been following. And nobody will leave because an empty system which gives you a reverse chronology is pretty worthless.
A competitor to Twitter will simply never grow the same as the existing one. Which will make it some Twitter-like thing with no inherent value.
Your analogy is flawed, because Coke created New Coke. You can't have someone created "Twaddle, mostly kinda like Twitter, but new and utterly lacking in content" and expect it to suddenly replace something which years of history like Twitter.
These things grew because they were the first/most popular. And then they have their own inertia and momentum; simply creating something which mostly works the same doesn't give you the data which is now the value of Twitter.
A brand new social media platform nobody has adopted yet isn't a magic thing which suddenly has the same users and same content. Which means you'd be hoping the world recreates the way in which Twitter became popular and adopt it.
All for, what? A reverse chronological timeline? Yeah, good luck with that.
The problem with laws around technology is the people writing them don't care how reality differs from what they've put in their law.
Lack of understanding of technology has never really stopped people passing laws about technology.
I agree with holding companies to some level of accountability instead of letting them just say "oops, we were lazy and incompetent and got hacked" -- I just have no idea how governments expect to reconcile that with demanding security exceptions to bypass security.
Why, anywhere you choose... it's a show about a time traveler, you don't need to see it in order.;-)
Though, you'll probably find starting with the modern reboot with Christopher Eccleston is probably most available. Since it was a reboot it had to establish some of the things for a fresh audience.
But for some of us, Tom Baker is the nostalgic Doctor because it's the one we saw first and who we think of as the most iconic Doctor. But I think that largely depends on just how long you've been watching it.
It's never too late to binge watch a TV show if you're interested in it.
Ultimately, there's probably a more-than-just-implied idea that your ass will get dragged off to jail or shot if you fail to comply.
The same thing which happens in all such regimes, and the same thing the US is trying to achieve -- failure to comply with state security is a crime.
Make no mistake about it, this is the exact same direction Western countries are heading, because they all make the same argument that the state requires unfettered access to monitor us.
The B-52 is a feat of engineering which I question could be replicated these days.
The F-35 is a bloated, over-budget plane which tries to be 10 different things and apparently does none of them well.
Meanwhile things like the B-52 and the A-10 continue to work, fly, and do what they were built to do. Absolutely NOTHING we have now can readily replace either of them.
I very much doubt anybody is building things which will still be operational in 60 years... so much crap made nowadays is essentially intended to be disposable when something breaks.
Nowadays we just focus on cheap IoT crap, apparently.
Ah, but here's where patents screw up everything: Once you have your patent rubber stamped by the idiots at the patent office whose sole job is to ensure the check cleared, it's a valid patent.
The patent system is so horribly that once the design patent was awarded, things like facts and reality became irrelevant -- because design patents are just as broken as patents on inventions; first guy to get it accepted wins.
What people miss here is that this is a situation created ENTIRELY by the way the patent system works, and how it's not designed to weigh to merit of anything, just the paperwork and collecting the fees.
Patents are now just tools for big business to keep small business out of the game, and to be used as ammunition to try to keep the other big businesses from competing.
As they exist now, patents are preventing innovation and invention, in favor of letting asshole lawyers wring out licensing fees and stop competition.
Who did what in what order is meaningless until someone revokes a patent.
As has been pointed out, some of these places are things like the favelas in Brazil... there's no numbering, it's a chaotic mass of shacks.
The whole point of this is there often isn't a street name, or a street number, or a street, or anything which could otherwise be thought of as an address.
But, hey, keep thinking your 'simple' fix of just including the unit number actually has anything to do with a complex problem.
I can't imagine this being useful for a post office in developed countries
Well, think this is an example from TFA (Japanese characters removed):
Here is just one example, an address in Tokyo. 100-8994 (zip code), (Tokyo-to, i.e. Tokyo prefecture or state) (Chuo-ku, i.e. Chuo Ward) (Yaesu 1-chome, i.e. Yaesu district 1st subdistrict) (block 5 lot 3), (Tokyo Central Post Office).
Apparently, in some places addresses can get pretty screwed up.
One of the major logical flaws that moon conspiracists
Is that logic has nothing at all to do with it.
The reality is, these kind of conspiracy people are going to believe whatever stupid shit they've convinced themselves of... and logic, evidence, proof, common sense, or anything which refutes their stupid notion is something they will just simply not accept.
Certain kinds of beliefs are no longer subject to logic. And the it becomes so utterly pointless to try to change their mind that there is no point.
Irrational beliefs based on unfounded things can't be combated with logic.
Well... let's see... first you could have a vulnerable cable modem your ISP gave you... and a lot of people might not have a firewall behind that and connect directly to it. Hell, you could even have a modem from your ISP which does the wifi you use in your house.
The level of network security in most households probably means that the number of people who could easily have devices exploitable by this is likely not small.
The problem is that consumer adoption of the "internet of stuff" is growing FAR faster than the quality of security they have. Many people simply won't even know they're at risk, because they just took it out of the box and did the easiest bit of configuration.
That millions and millions of consumer devices have been rushed to market are riddled with security holes should be common knowledge by now.
They have no standards, no penalty, and just want to get products out the door. And then they probably spend zero time maintaining the OS on those products or fixing security holes.
The same as we've heard at least twice a week for a while.
Honestly, if companies aren't going to change, and consumers are still going to keep buying insecure crap because it's got Netflix in it... well, this will keep happening.
Me, I'll keep refusing to buy this stuff knowing full well it's likely to have huge security and privacy issues.
But let's stop acting surprised. People having been warning of this stuff since these things became available. The security defects were almost inevitable.
Well, I was thinking more in terms of grading and slope of places which would affect the driving.
But if they're both just on a flat track, then it's less of a deal.
I was just picturing trying to simulate something like the famous corkscrew turn at Laguna Seca -- and there's no way in hell you can simulate that on a track laid out with cones.
I would call real-time, high speed driving relying entirely on the VR is fairly impressive in terms of the quality of the system.
If they can navigate a real car around the track, networking people into a simulation is probably much easier.
It's fairly cool, and involved a lot of technology. It may end up just being a PR stunt, but such technology has a way of having someone say "hey, wait a minute, if I had one of those, I could..."
I should think being able to do this and have it work means you are tracking the real car and the VR car exceedingly well... which suddenly means there's probably lots of places where remote operation becomes possible.
How do you do that? I should think building a second track which is identical to the first would be a hell of a feat.
All it would take it relatively small differences in the track and it's going to make a huge difference.
I've never heard of such a thing, any civil engineers who could tell us how hard it is to have two identical race tracks? I just can't see it being easy to get the same grading and all that in two separate places.
And, of course, just how batshit crazy and screwed up is your dog going to be after 300 years?
All those little psycho dogs which have been ruined by their overly anxious 'parents' and the dog is now a neurotic little ball of hate? Someone is going to need to take that dog out long before 300 years.
So damned many pets exhibit behavior only their owners can possibly tolerate or find cute.
Assuming we also have longer life spans, you still have to deal with the issue you describe in case someone dies.
I guess this is for when we live hundreds of years and want to keep our pets. But who the hell knows how messed up a dog or cat will be after that much time?
Imagine that stupid dog which can't ever be trained to stop barking or not pee on the floor living for 300 years.
Slashdot Mirror
Bah, just use it as a "bullshit filter".
As soon as someone uses words like that it's a sign that you probably don't give a crap what they have to say.
I've found it quite effective for the last 20 years.
The moment you find yourself thinking "wow, I just won bullshit buzzword bingo", you know it's time to stop listening, because nothing intelligent or useful will be forthcoming.
Me, I will never type anything even resembling "small indonesian bananas" into a search field.
Rule #34 and all that.
But seriously, if you wish to find communities of random people you'd never have known about on the intertubes who feel the need to comment on random crap nobody actually cares about, well, it sounds like Twitter is perfect for you.
Sure, people could do that.
And if someone build tried to build this "classic twitter" which has none of the content, and is therefore an empty system with no users, no data, no tweets ... no NOTHING.
You're right, the value is in the user base. Which means a new competitor is starting with an empty system nobody will want.
Which means they'll continue to do as they please, and gamble that the value is in things people have already posted or been following. And nobody will leave because an empty system which gives you a reverse chronology is pretty worthless.
A competitor to Twitter will simply never grow the same as the existing one. Which will make it some Twitter-like thing with no inherent value.
Your analogy is flawed, because Coke created New Coke. You can't have someone created "Twaddle, mostly kinda like Twitter, but new and utterly lacking in content" and expect it to suddenly replace something which years of history like Twitter.
These things grew because they were the first/most popular. And then they have their own inertia and momentum; simply creating something which mostly works the same doesn't give you the data which is now the value of Twitter.
A brand new social media platform nobody has adopted yet isn't a magic thing which suddenly has the same users and same content. Which means you'd be hoping the world recreates the way in which Twitter became popular and adopt it.
All for, what? A reverse chronological timeline? Yeah, good luck with that.
Oh, we're sorry, but only officially approved half-wits are allowed to make such monumental decisions.
Because the reality is those decisions are being made to optimize ad revenue. What you want is irrelevant.
How much do you pay for Twitter? Because that's how much Twitter gives a crap about what you want.
Non-chronological timelines sounds like something out of Dr Who.
I think the big problem here is the world feels it needs to get all breathless and concerned over Twitter changing this.
On behalf of those of us who have never used Twitter ... whatever. Do let us know if they change the font, too.
Likely both.
The problem with laws around technology is the people writing them don't care how reality differs from what they've put in their law.
Lack of understanding of technology has never really stopped people passing laws about technology.
I agree with holding companies to some level of accountability instead of letting them just say "oops, we were lazy and incompetent and got hacked" -- I just have no idea how governments expect to reconcile that with demanding security exceptions to bypass security.
Why, anywhere you choose ... it's a show about a time traveler, you don't need to see it in order. ;-)
Though, you'll probably find starting with the modern reboot with Christopher Eccleston is probably most available. Since it was a reboot it had to establish some of the things for a fresh audience.
But for some of us, Tom Baker is the nostalgic Doctor because it's the one we saw first and who we think of as the most iconic Doctor. But I think that largely depends on just how long you've been watching it.
It's never too late to binge watch a TV show if you're interested in it.
No, the real de facto law of the land still boils down to men with guns and how willing they are to use them.
And I'm pretty sure in Kazakhstan, the law is being enforced by technical illiterates.
Beware the clever guy who thinks his technical literacy will trump the men with guns who don't give a crap about your own perceived awesomeness.
Even in the US, that won't get you very far.
Ultimately, there's probably a more-than-just-implied idea that your ass will get dragged off to jail or shot if you fail to comply.
The same thing which happens in all such regimes, and the same thing the US is trying to achieve -- failure to comply with state security is a crime.
Make no mistake about it, this is the exact same direction Western countries are heading, because they all make the same argument that the state requires unfettered access to monitor us.
Yeah, no kidding.
The B-52 is a feat of engineering which I question could be replicated these days.
The F-35 is a bloated, over-budget plane which tries to be 10 different things and apparently does none of them well.
Meanwhile things like the B-52 and the A-10 continue to work, fly, and do what they were built to do. Absolutely NOTHING we have now can readily replace either of them.
I very much doubt anybody is building things which will still be operational in 60 years ... so much crap made nowadays is essentially intended to be disposable when something breaks.
Nowadays we just focus on cheap IoT crap, apparently.
And that we get China to make for us.
You're obviously not new here, but really?
People have been lamenting the quality of the editors as long as there has been a Slashdot. At least that's how I remember it.
A moose bit my sister once ... it was very painful.
Ah, but here's where patents screw up everything: Once you have your patent rubber stamped by the idiots at the patent office whose sole job is to ensure the check cleared, it's a valid patent.
The patent system is so horribly that once the design patent was awarded, things like facts and reality became irrelevant -- because design patents are just as broken as patents on inventions; first guy to get it accepted wins.
What people miss here is that this is a situation created ENTIRELY by the way the patent system works, and how it's not designed to weigh to merit of anything, just the paperwork and collecting the fees.
Patents are now just tools for big business to keep small business out of the game, and to be used as ammunition to try to keep the other big businesses from competing.
As they exist now, patents are preventing innovation and invention, in favor of letting asshole lawyers wring out licensing fees and stop competition.
Who did what in what order is meaningless until someone revokes a patent.
The same thing everybody makes money from these days: ads, analytics, access to your data, and the attempt to further lock you into their platform.
Microsoft have decided that your computer is now their computer, and that they will decide what happens to it.
Windows 10 is the point at which Microsoft decides to openly state they don't give a crap what their "customers" want.
Welcome to the future, where corporate interests means they have more control over the products you buy than you do.
I figure Microsoft is going to create Linux and Mac users as everyone gets pissed off and leaves.
As has been pointed out, some of these places are things like the favelas in Brazil ... there's no numbering, it's a chaotic mass of shacks.
The whole point of this is there often isn't a street name, or a street number, or a street, or anything which could otherwise be thought of as an address.
But, hey, keep thinking your 'simple' fix of just including the unit number actually has anything to do with a complex problem.
Well, think this is an example from TFA (Japanese characters removed):
Apparently, in some places addresses can get pretty screwed up.
Is that logic has nothing at all to do with it.
The reality is, these kind of conspiracy people are going to believe whatever stupid shit they've convinced themselves of ... and logic, evidence, proof, common sense, or anything which refutes their stupid notion is something they will just simply not accept.
Certain kinds of beliefs are no longer subject to logic. And the it becomes so utterly pointless to try to change their mind that there is no point.
Irrational beliefs based on unfounded things can't be combated with logic.
Well ... let's see ... first you could have a vulnerable cable modem your ISP gave you ... and a lot of people might not have a firewall behind that and connect directly to it. Hell, you could even have a modem from your ISP which does the wifi you use in your house.
The level of network security in most households probably means that the number of people who could easily have devices exploitable by this is likely not small.
The problem is that consumer adoption of the "internet of stuff" is growing FAR faster than the quality of security they have. Many people simply won't even know they're at risk, because they just took it out of the box and did the easiest bit of configuration.
Yawn, wake us up when something new happens.
That millions and millions of consumer devices have been rushed to market are riddled with security holes should be common knowledge by now.
They have no standards, no penalty, and just want to get products out the door. And then they probably spend zero time maintaining the OS on those products or fixing security holes.
The same as we've heard at least twice a week for a while.
Honestly, if companies aren't going to change, and consumers are still going to keep buying insecure crap because it's got Netflix in it ... well, this will keep happening.
Me, I'll keep refusing to buy this stuff knowing full well it's likely to have huge security and privacy issues.
But let's stop acting surprised. People having been warning of this stuff since these things became available. The security defects were almost inevitable.
Well, I was thinking more in terms of grading and slope of places which would affect the driving.
But if they're both just on a flat track, then it's less of a deal.
I was just picturing trying to simulate something like the famous corkscrew turn at Laguna Seca -- and there's no way in hell you can simulate that on a track laid out with cones.
I would call real-time, high speed driving relying entirely on the VR is fairly impressive in terms of the quality of the system.
If they can navigate a real car around the track, networking people into a simulation is probably much easier.
It's fairly cool, and involved a lot of technology. It may end up just being a PR stunt, but such technology has a way of having someone say "hey, wait a minute, if I had one of those, I could ..."
I should think being able to do this and have it work means you are tracking the real car and the VR car exceedingly well ... which suddenly means there's probably lots of places where remote operation becomes possible.
How do you do that? I should think building a second track which is identical to the first would be a hell of a feat.
All it would take it relatively small differences in the track and it's going to make a huge difference.
I've never heard of such a thing, any civil engineers who could tell us how hard it is to have two identical race tracks? I just can't see it being easy to get the same grading and all that in two separate places.
And, of course, just how batshit crazy and screwed up is your dog going to be after 300 years?
All those little psycho dogs which have been ruined by their overly anxious 'parents' and the dog is now a neurotic little ball of hate? Someone is going to need to take that dog out long before 300 years.
So damned many pets exhibit behavior only their owners can possibly tolerate or find cute.
Assuming we also have longer life spans, you still have to deal with the issue you describe in case someone dies.
I guess this is for when we live hundreds of years and want to keep our pets. But who the hell knows how messed up a dog or cat will be after that much time?
Imagine that stupid dog which can't ever be trained to stop barking or not pee on the floor living for 300 years.
If you need to take a screenshot of everything you get to prove you got it ... you either need a better job or better friends.
Constantly having to document that something happened means you're in a pretty hostile situation.
Well, it will take someone in marketing to arrive at an interpretation of "reality" which coincides with how you used it. ;-)
Slapping a sticker on a normal car to call it a hovercar, well, let's just say that's not "reality".