(however I wonder if some of them backed the age verification requirement, knowing that the smaller sites would crumble under the paperwork)
Um. Zero. Because it's just not that hard to keep the paperwork. We're not talking rocket science here. Jesus a single form that the model fills out, hits a couple of check boxes, you photograph their drivers license and SSC with your digital camera and you're done.
Those are some interesting points you have there. Why don't you go read the ruling and come back and make some points that have even a little bit to do with it. I mean come on, this isn't about verifying that seventeen year olds are not browsing your porn site. It's about keeping track of the age and identity of the young gal who is being double penetrated and face fucked whose picture you are putting on your website. Seriously. How hard is it to read a pdf?
Well, if it's been demonstrated time and again that Google has hacked and user data has been stolen, you shouldn't have any trouble citing examples. Since I'm sure such events would have made the press, please post from reputable sources.
Might I also add that Google's text ads are quite a bit less annoying (and less bandwidth heavy) than the now-common Flash, video, audio, and animated GIFs. Are a dozen 20-word ads really slowing down your internet connection and taking up a large portion of your bandwidth?
I'm curious as to why you think a dozen 20-word ads are not bandwidth heavy? You do realize that those 20-word ads include an awful lot of markup so that Google can properly direct you to the correct site if you click on them? And so Google can bill the correct advertiser. And so they can build a profile of users' browsing habits.
And don't forget the major impact they have on the environment with all the infrastructure to support their advertising programs. Of course they don't have to pay that bill either.
It's not like they are indexing publicly available records and placing them out there in one easy to locate spot for everyone to see.
They would if there were any such records. And it'd only bother them when you put in "Eric Schmidt medical records". Then they'd throw a bit of a tantrum and not talk to you for a year.
I guarantee that Google, even in its infinitely undetermined future evil ways will be less so than 99% of the rest of the companies out there.
So what is your guarantee worth? Seriously. Because anyone with even a modicum of a brain would be able to recognize that there are thousands and thousands of small companies in the world that are busy enough just staying in business and even if they wanted to be "evil" they lack the necessary resources.
The funny thing is that anybody would think that giving Google any significantly person information about themselves would be smart. It's been demonstrated time and again that Google isn't any more capable at keeping the asshats out than any other web service.
And they've really only managed to hit two home runs in all the efforts that they have made: Advertising, and a distance second, search. I suppose you could throw in the fact that they are really good at externalizing costs. We all pay for our internet connection and then a significant portion of our bandwidth is used solely for the benefit and profit of Google to stream ads all over your screen.
We're already paying an internet tax and it's going to Google.
Given that Orange County California has a population of about 3 million, I would imagine that the county sheriff might have four or five hundred uniformed officers. Add in being sandwiched between San Diego and Los Angeles, I think it makes a lot of sense to have a SWAT team. What surprises me is that this isn't obvious to anyone who even has a minor bit of a clue about geography.
I keep seeing people use the word "geek" outside of it's traditional circus meaning of the dude who bites the head off live chickens. What is this idea that "geeks" are some kind of computer experts? Shouldn't Richard "Pedantic" Stallman be here bitching about the abuse of the language?
Actually, I'd say for a search like "shipping", the top retail shippers are a pretty good operationalization of "most relevant".
No, because the purpose of a search engine is to find things relevant to what you are looking for. Anyone who actually goes to a search engine is doing so because they don't want www.fedex.com or www.ups.com. Those are simple enough that no one needs to search for them. So anyone who puts in a generic "shipping" search doesn't want those, if they did they would have just put those in the address bar on their browser.
Why? One of the things people are most likely to be interested in when searching for a term is information about whatever that term is, and one of the most popular on-line sources for such information is often Wikipedia.
I don't claim that wikipedia doesn't have lots of information. I claim that a generic search will never be usefully answered by a link to wikipedia. A search that shows some indication of someone trying to find out the kind of information that wikipedia contains will show that in the search terms.
Go learn some economics before you get all righteous. And also pull your head out of your ass and take a look at your "natural rights." The only right you have is existence. Beyond that, things like life and liberty are only there to the extent that you can make them happen. The most common way for that is to agree to live by a code of conduct if those around you agree as well. But don't act like you have an actual "natural right" to not be killed and eaten by whatever or whoever can carry out the act.
There's an expression, the punishment should fit the crime.
First, that's a stupid expression because the punishment almost never fits the crime.
If the statutory fine for stealing a candy bar was $6,000 per candy bar, you'd sure as hell see people fighting it in court.
Second, no you wouldn't. Because most people are smart enough to not want to pay $6,000 for a candy bar.
Third, this isn't a case of civil disobedience. This is a case of some dumb, self centered, ethically bankrupt bitch trying to get something for nothing.
If you want to argue civil disobedience then why don't you show us a defendant who actually commits the crime and doesn't deny it in court.
Because Google isn't a tool for maintaining the status quo. It's a search engine that returns the most relevant results. At least that's what they tell us. For a search like "shipping" the top retail shippers aren't necessarily the best or most relevant matches. What's more is wikipedia should almost never be a match for a search that doesn't explicitly include phrases like "what is" or "definition" or "encyclopedia".
Unless latencies are stunningly bad on the 3G networks, I'm not sure that the argument that low latency/low bandwidth beats higher latency/high bandwidth is true.
Consider this. Let's say that EDGE has 50 ms RTT and 200 Kbps bandwidth. And let's say the 3G are running 200 ms RTT and 1000 Kbps bandwidth. Now you hit cnn.com and load the front page. Currently that is 133 KB of just the html. So you get your connection setup in three packets and then send your request and wait to receive your reply.
So for EDGE, your three-way handshake takes 150 ms, then send your request and wait another 50 ms before data starts arriving. Then the time for just the text to load is a little over five seconds. Then, depending on if your browser supports keep-alives, etc. you tear down the connection or not. Anyway the total time from start of the request to receiving the last of the data is about 5.2 seconds.
For 3G, the handshake is about 600 ms, send your request and wait 200 ms before data starts arriving. Now the 133 KB page takes about 1.3 seconds on your 3G network. Total time, about 2 seconds.
If your average webpage is built up of lots of itty bitty images served from lots of different servers, then it's possible that EDGE might be able to game some advantage, but you'd have to have all your objects being no more than 15 or 20 KB before the bandwidth penalty kicks in and the 3G networks stomp all over you.
But if the images are being streamed from a single server, then it's a very different situation since you don't have to keep repeating the handshake. Turn on keep-alives and woot, your handshakes go down by a factor of ten or more. Turn on pipelining and you don't even have the lock step request/response cycle to contend with. In that situation bandwidth is king.
----
Oh hell. I just hit Google to see if the numbers that I pulled out of my ass above are at all attached to reality. And I'm afraid to point out that they're not. EDGE latency is around 500 ms to BBR's test page. My EVDO phone comes in at way less than that. And bandwidth is much higher.
Honestly I'm not into following cell standards and technologies, but I can tell you this. I'm currently attached via a samsung A900 phone via sprint's evdo network tethered with a USB cable.
A speed test via dslreports tells me I have 167 ms latency to Speak Easy, I have 979 Kbps incoming and 97 Kbps outgoing. I'd not want to play Quake at 167 ms latency, but it's perfectly usable for a remote shell, IM and web browsing. I dunno if EDGE has latencies better or worse. It'd be interesting to know.
I understand the "idea behind it", but I'm talking about the reality. If defense attorney's were allowed to argue for it instead of having to argue the facts of the case, they'd just spend a lot of time trying to show how this particular law applied to this particular defendant is "unjust". And it will be a popularity contest.
I'm curious. Do you really want court rooms to be popularity contests? That's what jury nullification is. There's this whole noble and just argument made about it but at the end of the day, people being people, the hot chicks and celebrities will get off and the ugly and unknown won't. Do you want lawyers arguing over what a nice guy the defendant or arguing over the actual crime that took place?
Financially ruining a life of (is she a single mother?) a person with the idea to doing something "right" shows an overwhelming degree of insensitivity.
Um. Do you think that's what she was figuring when she was breaking the law:
"I've got a good job and two kids. But you know, I want to get music for free instead of paying for it. So I'll go ahead and break the law and if they catch me I'll tell them I'm a single mother."
Ultimately it's her job to make sure that she provides a good home for her kids. I mean, having kids doesn't suddenly mean that all criminal punishments are reduced because you have to take care of children.
Re:It doesn't "remotely shut down vehicles"
on
Stalling Cars Via OnStar
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Or perhaps the police would abuse the system. For... for what exactly?
I dunno. Maybe they want to murder their ex-girlfriend who is running away in her 2009 GM automobile. Or perhaps they want to stalk their ex-girlfriend.
Government officials aren't exactly super human. They are people like everybody else and they will abuse anything they have available to them.
Similarly with this stop button. Instead of a driver speeding away from the police, potentially killing himself or a family in the opposite lane, the chase can come to a quick and safe (for everyone) halt.
In some jurisdictions they have solved this problem by not giving chase. This way citizens could decide which they are more concerned with, an abusive government employee or a crook stealing their car.
Second, surely you've heard of a "class action" lawsuit? Or do you really think Microsoft could demonstrate that I've cost them the hundreds of millions? Or that any other single person is as guilty? Surely, that blame rests with more than just one person, right?
Given the brilliance of this, I'm not even going to bother the rest of your post. FYI, a class action lawsuit requires that the class be the plaintiff. Not the defendant. Microsoft won't be suing a class if they choose to sue.
I am curious. Since you are demanding to know what these patent claims are, does this mean you think that you are the responsible party regarding these patent violations? They only have to disclose the claims to the party they choose to sue as part of the legal filings. Is that you? When the day comes that some of these patents are real (assuming any are) are you going to dig into your checkbook and pay the hundreds of millions in damages? Or are you one of the clamoring whiners who screams and froths about how your going to kick their ass but as soon as push comes to getting kicked in the teeth you run off to the side and tell someone else to go get 'em. My guess is you are the latter.
So, why don't you spine up. Form a company selling a fairly complete distro, say a respin of Redhat, and preemptively sue Microsoft for damaging your business with their false claims of patent infringets. Otherwise your bolded demands for anything are meaningless and irrelevant.
It doesn't make sense. But that's how it is. Yes, I glossed over the details a bit. If the landlord wants to shell out the money to build the infrastructure at the building they can hook up to Utopia. But homes get it handled by the network.
Don't be too excited by Utopia. As a recent ex-resident of Murray, Utah I discovered that the only people who really get to participate are those in low density housing. Eg, a house or duplex, but not a triplex or apartment building with more than two units. Which is kind of funny since you get a disproportionate amount of sale tax from apartment dwellers per square foot of land.
Your statement "All you need is a thin hypervisor layer that provides nearly transparent access to the hardware." is very funny. It's like "All you need [to cure cancer] is a cure for cancer." Your hypervisor has to protect itself by consuming memory. It has to use CPU resources in order to do this. It has to make sure nothing else can rise to it's privilege level while maintaining complete compatibility with everything on the system. Which means that it has to be able to emulate the ability to run a secondary hypervisor. The paper details a clear method of detecting a hypervisor that doesn't even involve peripheral device emulation: comparing NOPs to RDTSCs. It also covers using external time sources that the hypervisor cannot intervene with because there is no programmatic way for the hypervisor to detect all possible time sources available to software.
I find it humurous that you describe a paper accurately detailing the limitations of "the magic hypervisor" as being senstional. It's not very sensational to say "here are some real world methods for detecting emulated/managed environments." Particularly compared to "OMG!!!!! The world is over!!!!!!! SVT will allow undetectable rootkits!!!!!!!"
I'm with the parent poster. When I go out to eat at a service restaurant I should have a good experience (fast service, good food, clean dinnerware, etc.) A good tip is for when the service is above and beyond the basic level that everybody should get for the price of their meal.
Slashdot Mirror
Um. Zero. Because it's just not that hard to keep the paperwork. We're not talking rocket science here. Jesus a single form that the model fills out, hits a couple of check boxes, you photograph their drivers license and SSC with your digital camera and you're done.
Those are some interesting points you have there. Why don't you go read the ruling and come back and make some points that have even a little bit to do with it. I mean come on, this isn't about verifying that seventeen year olds are not browsing your porn site. It's about keeping track of the age and identity of the young gal who is being double penetrated and face fucked whose picture you are putting on your website. Seriously. How hard is it to read a pdf?
Well, you could browse almost any technology site and find several references to security bugs in gmail. Or you could just search on Google.
I'm curious as to why you think a dozen 20-word ads are not bandwidth heavy? You do realize that those 20-word ads include an awful lot of markup so that Google can properly direct you to the correct site if you click on them? And so Google can bill the correct advertiser. And so they can build a profile of users' browsing habits.
And don't forget the major impact they have on the environment with all the infrastructure to support their advertising programs. Of course they don't have to pay that bill either.
They would if there were any such records. And it'd only bother them when you put in "Eric Schmidt medical records". Then they'd throw a bit of a tantrum and not talk to you for a year.
So what is your guarantee worth? Seriously. Because anyone with even a modicum of a brain would be able to recognize that there are thousands and thousands of small companies in the world that are busy enough just staying in business and even if they wanted to be "evil" they lack the necessary resources.
The funny thing is that anybody would think that giving Google any significantly person information about themselves would be smart. It's been demonstrated time and again that Google isn't any more capable at keeping the asshats out than any other web service.
And they've really only managed to hit two home runs in all the efforts that they have made: Advertising, and a distance second, search. I suppose you could throw in the fact that they are really good at externalizing costs. We all pay for our internet connection and then a significant portion of our bandwidth is used solely for the benefit and profit of Google to stream ads all over your screen.
We're already paying an internet tax and it's going to Google.
No, why do you think you would be able to sue them?
Given that Orange County California has a population of about 3 million, I would imagine that the county sheriff might have four or five hundred uniformed officers. Add in being sandwiched between San Diego and Los Angeles, I think it makes a lot of sense to have a SWAT team. What surprises me is that this isn't obvious to anyone who even has a minor bit of a clue about geography.
I keep seeing people use the word "geek" outside of it's traditional circus meaning of the dude who bites the head off live chickens. What is this idea that "geeks" are some kind of computer experts? Shouldn't Richard "Pedantic" Stallman be here bitching about the abuse of the language?
No, because the purpose of a search engine is to find things relevant to what you are looking for. Anyone who actually goes to a search engine is doing so because they don't want www.fedex.com or www.ups.com. Those are simple enough that no one needs to search for them. So anyone who puts in a generic "shipping" search doesn't want those, if they did they would have just put those in the address bar on their browser.
I don't claim that wikipedia doesn't have lots of information. I claim that a generic search will never be usefully answered by a link to wikipedia. A search that shows some indication of someone trying to find out the kind of information that wikipedia contains will show that in the search terms.
Go learn some economics before you get all righteous. And also pull your head out of your ass and take a look at your "natural rights." The only right you have is existence. Beyond that, things like life and liberty are only there to the extent that you can make them happen. The most common way for that is to agree to live by a code of conduct if those around you agree as well. But don't act like you have an actual "natural right" to not be killed and eaten by whatever or whoever can carry out the act.
First, that's a stupid expression because the punishment almost never fits the crime.
Second, no you wouldn't. Because most people are smart enough to not want to pay $6,000 for a candy bar.
Third, this isn't a case of civil disobedience. This is a case of some dumb, self centered, ethically bankrupt bitch trying to get something for nothing.
If you want to argue civil disobedience then why don't you show us a defendant who actually commits the crime and doesn't deny it in court.
Because Google isn't a tool for maintaining the status quo. It's a search engine that returns the most relevant results. At least that's what they tell us. For a search like "shipping" the top retail shippers aren't necessarily the best or most relevant matches. What's more is wikipedia should almost never be a match for a search that doesn't explicitly include phrases like "what is" or "definition" or "encyclopedia".
Unless latencies are stunningly bad on the 3G networks, I'm not sure that the argument that low latency/low bandwidth beats higher latency/high bandwidth is true.
Consider this. Let's say that EDGE has 50 ms RTT and 200 Kbps bandwidth. And let's say the 3G are running 200 ms RTT and 1000 Kbps bandwidth. Now you hit cnn.com and load the front page. Currently that is 133 KB of just the html. So you get your connection setup in three packets and then send your request and wait to receive your reply.
So for EDGE, your three-way handshake takes 150 ms, then send your request and wait another 50 ms before data starts arriving. Then the time for just the text to load is a little over five seconds. Then, depending on if your browser supports keep-alives, etc. you tear down the connection or not. Anyway the total time from start of the request to receiving the last of the data is about 5.2 seconds.
For 3G, the handshake is about 600 ms, send your request and wait 200 ms before data starts arriving. Now the 133 KB page takes about 1.3 seconds on your 3G network. Total time, about 2 seconds.
If your average webpage is built up of lots of itty bitty images served from lots of different servers, then it's possible that EDGE might be able to game some advantage, but you'd have to have all your objects being no more than 15 or 20 KB before the bandwidth penalty kicks in and the 3G networks stomp all over you.
But if the images are being streamed from a single server, then it's a very different situation since you don't have to keep repeating the handshake. Turn on keep-alives and woot, your handshakes go down by a factor of ten or more. Turn on pipelining and you don't even have the lock step request/response cycle to contend with. In that situation bandwidth is king.
----
Oh hell. I just hit Google to see if the numbers that I pulled out of my ass above are at all attached to reality. And I'm afraid to point out that they're not. EDGE latency is around 500 ms to BBR's test page. My EVDO phone comes in at way less than that. And bandwidth is much higher.
I think the story is pure BS.
Honestly I'm not into following cell standards and technologies, but I can tell you this. I'm currently attached via a samsung A900 phone via sprint's evdo network tethered with a USB cable.
A speed test via dslreports tells me I have 167 ms latency to Speak Easy, I have 979 Kbps incoming and 97 Kbps outgoing. I'd not want to play Quake at 167 ms latency, but it's perfectly usable for a remote shell, IM and web browsing. I dunno if EDGE has latencies better or worse. It'd be interesting to know.
I understand the "idea behind it", but I'm talking about the reality. If defense attorney's were allowed to argue for it instead of having to argue the facts of the case, they'd just spend a lot of time trying to show how this particular law applied to this particular defendant is "unjust". And it will be a popularity contest.
I'm curious. Do you really want court rooms to be popularity contests? That's what jury nullification is. There's this whole noble and just argument made about it but at the end of the day, people being people, the hot chicks and celebrities will get off and the ugly and unknown won't. Do you want lawyers arguing over what a nice guy the defendant or arguing over the actual crime that took place?
Um. Do you think that's what she was figuring when she was breaking the law:
"I've got a good job and two kids. But you know, I want to get music for free instead of paying for it. So I'll go ahead and break the law and if they catch me I'll tell them I'm a single mother."
Ultimately it's her job to make sure that she provides a good home for her kids. I mean, having kids doesn't suddenly mean that all criminal punishments are reduced because you have to take care of children.
I dunno. Maybe they want to murder their ex-girlfriend who is running away in her 2009 GM automobile. Or perhaps they want to stalk their ex-girlfriend.
Government officials aren't exactly super human. They are people like everybody else and they will abuse anything they have available to them.
In some jurisdictions they have solved this problem by not giving chase. This way citizens could decide which they are more concerned with, an abusive government employee or a crook stealing their car.
Given the brilliance of this, I'm not even going to bother the rest of your post. FYI, a class action lawsuit requires that the class be the plaintiff. Not the defendant. Microsoft won't be suing a class if they choose to sue.
I am curious. Since you are demanding to know what these patent claims are, does this mean you think that you are the responsible party regarding these patent violations? They only have to disclose the claims to the party they choose to sue as part of the legal filings. Is that you? When the day comes that some of these patents are real (assuming any are) are you going to dig into your checkbook and pay the hundreds of millions in damages? Or are you one of the clamoring whiners who screams and froths about how your going to kick their ass but as soon as push comes to getting kicked in the teeth you run off to the side and tell someone else to go get 'em. My guess is you are the latter.
So, why don't you spine up. Form a company selling a fairly complete distro, say a respin of Redhat, and preemptively sue Microsoft for damaging your business with their false claims of patent infringets. Otherwise your bolded demands for anything are meaningless and irrelevant.
It doesn't make sense. But that's how it is. Yes, I glossed over the details a bit. If the landlord wants to shell out the money to build the infrastructure at the building they can hook up to Utopia. But homes get it handled by the network.
Don't be too excited by Utopia. As a recent ex-resident of Murray, Utah I discovered that the only people who really get to participate are those in low density housing. Eg, a house or duplex, but not a triplex or apartment building with more than two units. Which is kind of funny since you get a disproportionate amount of sale tax from apartment dwellers per square foot of land.
Oh. And here I thought it was because Jiri Slaby removed the BSD license from code that was BSD only licensed.
Your statement "All you need is a thin hypervisor layer that provides nearly transparent access to the hardware." is very funny. It's like "All you need [to cure cancer] is a cure for cancer." Your hypervisor has to protect itself by consuming memory. It has to use CPU resources in order to do this. It has to make sure nothing else can rise to it's privilege level while maintaining complete compatibility with everything on the system. Which means that it has to be able to emulate the ability to run a secondary hypervisor. The paper details a clear method of detecting a hypervisor that doesn't even involve peripheral device emulation: comparing NOPs to RDTSCs. It also covers using external time sources that the hypervisor cannot intervene with because there is no programmatic way for the hypervisor to detect all possible time sources available to software.
I find it humurous that you describe a paper accurately detailing the limitations of "the magic hypervisor" as being senstional. It's not very sensational to say "here are some real world methods for detecting emulated/managed environments." Particularly compared to "OMG!!!!! The world is over!!!!!!! SVT will allow undetectable rootkits!!!!!!!"
You might want to review the relationship between artists and producers. Since in many cases producers bring half the talent to the music.
We're not talking about strippers here.
I'm with the parent poster. When I go out to eat at a service restaurant I should have a good experience (fast service, good food, clean dinnerware, etc.) A good tip is for when the service is above and beyond the basic level that everybody should get for the price of their meal.