Considering many of his actions, I don't think you're helping the point...
Fact is, BOTH sides are idiots behaving like 4 year olds throwing temper tantrums when they don't get their way. The government in my country is often seen as dysfunctional, and the politicians as ego-centric jerks, but they have nothing on US politics!
Health care in Canada is the responsibility of the provinces, not federal (though the federal government does throw some money at it and sets the overall ground rules) As for the population, that's irrelevant. Think of the economies of scale the USA could get in comparison. Run properly, almost anything should cost less per-capita if serving more people.
When we bought computers we thought we wouldn't have to be stuck with a format that's thousands of years old... I'm tired of UI designers who want everything to look like something we used hundreds or thousands of years ago. We don't have to do that on computers, and it holds us back!
Face Unlock on Android has been hacked with a photo. If you're talking about how it should be done, that's a different matter. Of course the more angles it needs, or the more faces you have to make (blink, smile, frown, whatever) to make it work, the more difficult it is to use, and the less likely people will bother, especially when it sounds like it's not much more secure (or maybe less so) then a PIN to start with (and therefore must also be much easier/quicker to use to justify the lower security)
except that, just like the fingerprint scanner on the iphone, the face unlock feature on android has also been hacked. I don't remember the details, maybe they had a way to fake the blink? Biometric authentication is either cheap and inefective, or expensive and... somewhat effective... there are no cheap and effective biometrics yet. That may change, but we just aren't there yet.
well so far we have a marketing droid saying it does, and a documented hack proving otherwise. If you have better proof I'd suggest you post it because right now your case is pretty weak.
it's relatively secure, and completely unreasonable to expect someone to use every time they access the phone.
The nice part about the fingerprint scanner isn't the security offered (because we've just seen that it isn't that secure) it's the convenience of not having to enter a pin every time you use the device while still retaining some small measure of security. But then again, Apple is (to my knowledge) only the second major cell phone manufacturer to implement this technology, so it may improve with time.
This is targetted as a way to get people to use some form of security instead of none. And the best way to do that is to make the security as unobtrusive as possible. (even if not as secure as more intrusive methods)
You mean like the android face unlock that can be defeated by a photo of the user? (at least you don't leave your photo on the glass surface of the phone when you put it down...)
Let's face it though, unless companies are willing to spend a fair amount more on these biometric sensors, they'll always be trivial to hack, there are good fingerprint readers (that actually don't use the prints, but subdermal tissue) but they cost a lot more than the ones taht are defeated in such trivial ways..
I'm still looking for the retraction from all those people who posted to the original fingerprint reader on iphone thread last week saying this wasn't a simple fingerprint reader on the iphones and wouldn't be susceptible to this form of attack...
Nope, not the case here. Basically it boiled down to the fact that in the residential market there were 2 competing ISPs, the cable monopoly, and the telephone monopoly. But the cable company hadn't run lines in to most of the business zoned areas, so there was really only 1 ISP there. To be fair, this was a few years ago now, and the lanscape has changed. More and more businesses can now be served by cable, and as a result the telco has had to start competing better, they now offer business plans just as fast as the residential ones (though no faster, and no more guaranteed) and they now have longer hours on tech support (though I'm not sure if it's 24/7 like the residential side) and the prices are more like double residential instead of quadruple.
I still maintain though that for the majority of purposes it works out better to buy a residential connection and a VPS then a business connection around here.
Actually around here the ISPs usually have "introductory rates" that are lower than the normal rates to try to lure customers from the other monopoly. As a result you can save some money by switching back and forth every year (the intro rates last 3-6 months, but you usually aren't eligible for them if you've had them within the past year or so) It is somewhat of a hassle though...
I dropped my business plan when I discovered that: - Business tech support was mon-fri 8-4, residential tech support was 24/7 - The highest business plan was half the speed of the average residential plan - The business plan cost 4 times as much as that residential plan - Data caps were the same on both - Uptime guarantees were the same on both (none)
In the end, I went from a 4Mbps 2 static IP business plan to a 15Mbps 2 dynamic IP residential plan + a good VPS, and still saved about $80 a month. And on the upside I don't have to pay for electricity or physical maintenance on my server any more, and my server no longer cuts in to my home bandwidth allocation. (not to mention it's on a faster link than it was in my house)
Apparently the business model of ISPs in my area for business customers amounts to "screw them"
Considering the calls seen by EMTs... I have no worry about people using their self driving cars as a substitute for an ambulance. There are 2 classes of people who call an ambulance. 1) people who are too ill or injured to get to a hospital by any other means. 2) people who have medical coverage and will call an Ambulance because after their insurance it's cheaper than the gas to drive there or the parking at the hospital. (and they often mistakenly think that if they go by ambulance they won't have to wait as long when they get there)
Spoken as someone who isn't an EMT. Sure EMTs respond to motor vehicle collisions, but it's a very small part of the job. the vast majority of calls are to people's houses for general illness type complaints. Most EMS work is medical, not trauma. But the ability for an ambulance to drive itself to the hospital would certainly make life a lot easier if it would allow both practitioners to be in the back helping the patient on a particularly acute call.
The "HOW" part isn't that hard... They could switch to a video on demand model allowing you to choose only the individual shows you want, when you want them and available worldwide at the same time. The problem isn't "how" to compete, it's the realization that they have to compete... that's the part they haven't got to yet.
Best references are from the supervisor at the employer before last. If they say "bob who?" the either it was a really long time ago, or he was relatively mediocre, if they say he was excellent, or poor, they have nothing to gain or loose.
My point isn't that I should obtain royalties, it's that nobody else should either. Once the work is done, there's no reason to pay for the same work again. Copyrighted material is every bit as much of a comodity resource, there's so much content made very minute of every day that a person couldn't watch it all in their lifetime, and most of it is created with no expectation of any compensation.
Your statement that someone should make money over and over again for the same work just because it generates revenue for a long period is circular logic. You're stating that because it is that way, it should stay that way. That's not logic, that's just a love for the status quo. That said, the network infrastructure I install today will generate revenue for the company I install it for for years to come. How is that different? Just because we've, relatively recently, made this absurd set of rules for copyright that are out of touch with how the rest of the world works, doesn't mean that things "should" work that way.
Artistic works have existed long before copyright. and they will exist long after it. There are 2 ways these things happen. 1) love. This, and this alone is what makes the best works, and it requires no money at all. No matter what you do, you can't stop people from creating for the love of their art. 2) patronage, artists are hired for specific projects. Once upon a time only the wealthy could afford to hire someone for a specific work, but with things like kickstarter that's no longer the case, it's easy now for a group of people to pool their resources to commission something they want.
Considering that the last couple movies I went to involved watching the guy in front of me post to facebook while in the middle of the movie. I'm sure the reviews do get out there quite quickly.... but is it really too much to ask that these people wait until the closing credits????
Perhaps you haven't been to the same theatres I have, because after paying an exhorbitant rate to be allowed in to the theatre, I'm then assaulted with more ads than you would normally get in a full 2 hours of broadcast television (and at a volume level that makes the ears bleed), all for the priviledge of watching a remake of a movie that wasn't good the first time either... Seems to me the experience is more than just at the end...
I've always thought rating movies by dollars earned wasn't really fair because of the difference in ticket prices, so that is definitely an interesting list. I do wonder however if it should maybe be taken even further? What would it look like if you also adjusted the numbers for population growth and/or theatre availability? I have a feeling some of those older movies would really soar.
Of course we could argue the other direction too. what would happen if you adjusted for the level of competition? a lot of those older movies were shown at a time when theatres only had 1 or 2 screens, and a movie ran for half a year in that theatre. These days each theatre has a dozen or more screens and the theatre run is only a couple months. In the old days if you wanted to "go to the movies" you were going to see whatever was showing at that time. Now you have a large selection to choose from. So capturing 100% of movie goers isn't much of a feat if you're the only show. but capturing 30% is an accomplishment if there are 12 different movies playing at the time.
Either way I think it's safe to say that simply listing movies by gross sales is highly innacurate (though probably the easiest metric to pull out of a hat)
I believe the authors should get exactly the same type of protection I do on their livelihood. I get paid hourly, once I have completed an hour of work I will never be paid for that same hour again. Why should it be different for someone who makes something copyrighted? I am not able to obtain any future royalties on the ethernet cables I install today, and the end customer gets full control of them to do whatever they want. They will never have to compensate me further if they want to move them, re-terminate them, sell them, or put data signals accross them. Once I've installed them, and they've paid me, we're done and I no longer have any say whatsoever in what they do. Authors created work for thousands of years before copyright was invented. I don't see them stopping even if copyright were to vanish altogether.
Slashdot Mirror
From my understanding, 2000 lashes pretty much is a death sentence.
Considering many of his actions, I don't think you're helping the point...
Fact is, BOTH sides are idiots behaving like 4 year olds throwing temper tantrums when they don't get their way. The government in my country is often seen as dysfunctional, and the politicians as ego-centric jerks, but they have nothing on US politics!
Health care in Canada is the responsibility of the provinces, not federal (though the federal government does throw some money at it and sets the overall ground rules)
As for the population, that's irrelevant. Think of the economies of scale the USA could get in comparison. Run properly, almost anything should cost less per-capita if serving more people.
When we bought computers we thought we wouldn't have to be stuck with a format that's thousands of years old... I'm tired of UI designers who want everything to look like something we used hundreds or thousands of years ago. We don't have to do that on computers, and it holds us back!
Face Unlock on Android has been hacked with a photo. If you're talking about how it should be done, that's a different matter. Of course the more angles it needs, or the more faces you have to make (blink, smile, frown, whatever) to make it work, the more difficult it is to use, and the less likely people will bother, especially when it sounds like it's not much more secure (or maybe less so) then a PIN to start with (and therefore must also be much easier/quicker to use to justify the lower security)
except that, just like the fingerprint scanner on the iphone, the face unlock feature on android has also been hacked. I don't remember the details, maybe they had a way to fake the blink? Biometric authentication is either cheap and inefective, or expensive and... somewhat effective... there are no cheap and effective biometrics yet. That may change, but we just aren't there yet.
well so far we have a marketing droid saying it does, and a documented hack proving otherwise. If you have better proof I'd suggest you post it because right now your case is pretty weak.
it's relatively secure, and completely unreasonable to expect someone to use every time they access the phone.
The nice part about the fingerprint scanner isn't the security offered (because we've just seen that it isn't that secure) it's the convenience of not having to enter a pin every time you use the device while still retaining some small measure of security. But then again, Apple is (to my knowledge) only the second major cell phone manufacturer to implement this technology, so it may improve with time.
This is targetted as a way to get people to use some form of security instead of none. And the best way to do that is to make the security as unobtrusive as possible. (even if not as secure as more intrusive methods)
You mean like the android face unlock that can be defeated by a photo of the user? (at least you don't leave your photo on the glass surface of the phone when you put it down...)
Let's face it though, unless companies are willing to spend a fair amount more on these biometric sensors, they'll always be trivial to hack, there are good fingerprint readers (that actually don't use the prints, but subdermal tissue) but they cost a lot more than the ones taht are defeated in such trivial ways..
I'm still looking for the retraction from all those people who posted to the original fingerprint reader on iphone thread last week saying this wasn't a simple fingerprint reader on the iphones and wouldn't be susceptible to this form of attack...
Nope, not the case here. Basically it boiled down to the fact that in the residential market there were 2 competing ISPs, the cable monopoly, and the telephone monopoly. But the cable company hadn't run lines in to most of the business zoned areas, so there was really only 1 ISP there.
To be fair, this was a few years ago now, and the lanscape has changed. More and more businesses can now be served by cable, and as a result the telco has had to start competing better, they now offer business plans just as fast as the residential ones (though no faster, and no more guaranteed) and they now have longer hours on tech support (though I'm not sure if it's 24/7 like the residential side) and the prices are more like double residential instead of quadruple.
I still maintain though that for the majority of purposes it works out better to buy a residential connection and a VPS then a business connection around here.
Both major ISPs offer free install to woo customers from the other one.
Actually around here the ISPs usually have "introductory rates" that are lower than the normal rates to try to lure customers from the other monopoly. As a result you can save some money by switching back and forth every year (the intro rates last 3-6 months, but you usually aren't eligible for them if you've had them within the past year or so) It is somewhat of a hassle though...
I dropped my business plan when I discovered that:
- Business tech support was mon-fri 8-4, residential tech support was 24/7
- The highest business plan was half the speed of the average residential plan
- The business plan cost 4 times as much as that residential plan
- Data caps were the same on both
- Uptime guarantees were the same on both (none)
In the end, I went from a 4Mbps 2 static IP business plan to a 15Mbps 2 dynamic IP residential plan + a good VPS, and still saved about $80 a month. And on the upside I don't have to pay for electricity or physical maintenance on my server any more, and my server no longer cuts in to my home bandwidth allocation. (not to mention it's on a faster link than it was in my house)
Apparently the business model of ISPs in my area for business customers amounts to "screw them"
Considering the calls seen by EMTs... I have no worry about people using their self driving cars as a substitute for an ambulance. There are 2 classes of people who call an ambulance. 1) people who are too ill or injured to get to a hospital by any other means. 2) people who have medical coverage and will call an Ambulance because after their insurance it's cheaper than the gas to drive there or the parking at the hospital. (and they often mistakenly think that if they go by ambulance they won't have to wait as long when they get there)
Spoken as someone who isn't an EMT.
Sure EMTs respond to motor vehicle collisions, but it's a very small part of the job. the vast majority of calls are to people's houses for general illness type complaints. Most EMS work is medical, not trauma.
But the ability for an ambulance to drive itself to the hospital would certainly make life a lot easier if it would allow both practitioners to be in the back helping the patient on a particularly acute call.
And those 2 are just living the dream life, completely unaffected by the government's reaction to their releases....
The "HOW" part isn't that hard... They could switch to a video on demand model allowing you to choose only the individual shows you want, when you want them and available worldwide at the same time.
The problem isn't "how" to compete, it's the realization that they have to compete... that's the part they haven't got to yet.
Best references are from the supervisor at the employer before last. If they say "bob who?" the either it was a really long time ago, or he was relatively mediocre, if they say he was excellent, or poor, they have nothing to gain or loose.
Somehow other manufacturers get around this limitation of USB. Samsung includes a 2A USB charger and a micro-usb cable with all their latest phones.
Both my Samsung Galaxy Note 2, and my wife's Samsung Galaxy S4 come with micro-usb connectors and 2A chargers...
My point isn't that I should obtain royalties, it's that nobody else should either. Once the work is done, there's no reason to pay for the same work again. Copyrighted material is every bit as much of a comodity resource, there's so much content made very minute of every day that a person couldn't watch it all in their lifetime, and most of it is created with no expectation of any compensation.
Your statement that someone should make money over and over again for the same work just because it generates revenue for a long period is circular logic. You're stating that because it is that way, it should stay that way. That's not logic, that's just a love for the status quo. That said, the network infrastructure I install today will generate revenue for the company I install it for for years to come. How is that different? Just because we've, relatively recently, made this absurd set of rules for copyright that are out of touch with how the rest of the world works, doesn't mean that things "should" work that way.
Artistic works have existed long before copyright. and they will exist long after it. There are 2 ways these things happen. 1) love. This, and this alone is what makes the best works, and it requires no money at all. No matter what you do, you can't stop people from creating for the love of their art. 2) patronage, artists are hired for specific projects. Once upon a time only the wealthy could afford to hire someone for a specific work, but with things like kickstarter that's no longer the case, it's easy now for a group of people to pool their resources to commission something they want.
Considering that the last couple movies I went to involved watching the guy in front of me post to facebook while in the middle of the movie. I'm sure the reviews do get out there quite quickly.... but is it really too much to ask that these people wait until the closing credits????
Perhaps you haven't been to the same theatres I have, because after paying an exhorbitant rate to be allowed in to the theatre, I'm then assaulted with more ads than you would normally get in a full 2 hours of broadcast television (and at a volume level that makes the ears bleed), all for the priviledge of watching a remake of a movie that wasn't good the first time either... Seems to me the experience is more than just at the end...
I've always thought rating movies by dollars earned wasn't really fair because of the difference in ticket prices, so that is definitely an interesting list. I do wonder however if it should maybe be taken even further? What would it look like if you also adjusted the numbers for population growth and/or theatre availability? I have a feeling some of those older movies would really soar.
Of course we could argue the other direction too. what would happen if you adjusted for the level of competition? a lot of those older movies were shown at a time when theatres only had 1 or 2 screens, and a movie ran for half a year in that theatre. These days each theatre has a dozen or more screens and the theatre run is only a couple months. In the old days if you wanted to "go to the movies" you were going to see whatever was showing at that time. Now you have a large selection to choose from. So capturing 100% of movie goers isn't much of a feat if you're the only show. but capturing 30% is an accomplishment if there are 12 different movies playing at the time.
Either way I think it's safe to say that simply listing movies by gross sales is highly innacurate (though probably the easiest metric to pull out of a hat)
I believe the authors should get exactly the same type of protection I do on their livelihood. I get paid hourly, once I have completed an hour of work I will never be paid for that same hour again. Why should it be different for someone who makes something copyrighted? I am not able to obtain any future royalties on the ethernet cables I install today, and the end customer gets full control of them to do whatever they want. They will never have to compensate me further if they want to move them, re-terminate them, sell them, or put data signals accross them. Once I've installed them, and they've paid me, we're done and I no longer have any say whatsoever in what they do.
Authors created work for thousands of years before copyright was invented. I don't see them stopping even if copyright were to vanish altogether.