given that a color sensor on a digital camera is only sensing RGB (sometimes 1 or 2 more...) and that most monitors are only doing the same....just what would you expect white or grey to be, in the end? How would it be "captured" as an image if not by a sensor which can only detect R, G, or B?
police aren't crime prevention, that's silly. We're not in minority report yet. Police catch people who have already committed a crime and, in some cases, are still in the act of a crime. If police do a single thing to a person who hasn't yet committed a crime, the police are doing something wrong (and are potentially themselves committing a crime). Boarder patrol, on the other hand, has as their entire purpose...patrolling the boarder. If someone is in Mexico still, then boarder patrol can (and should) do nothing to them. If they have crossed, then only then is being apprehended an option. Since there are currently lots of people crossing the boarder, we're not in a situation where boarder crossings are eliminated and the agents are just there to continue preventing new crossings. What you're saying doesn't make any sense, and your examples are just making it worse.
Re:1.39B did /not/ "use" Facebook last month...
on
Facebook's Colonies
·
· Score: 1
I can tell you as someone who has a hosts file with all the various facebook host names I can come up with, that a whole bunch of the internet has those farking buttons. So yeah, "people used by facebook" - not "people who use facebook" - going to a website that has facebook content forced onto it isn't "using" facebook
1.39B did /not/ "use" Facebook last month...
on
Facebook's Colonies
·
· Score: 1
Facebook might have intercepted traffic from a goodly number of people via the stupid content that they inject at so many places, but 1.39B people didn't "use" Facebook...that many might have been used by Facebook, but that's a different thing. I also highly doubt a quarter of the population of the planet was on Facebook last month. How can they imagine to justify such metrics? Is making such ridiculous claims the only reason Facebook is able to stay in business? Since when do bots, people using multiple accounts, people who don't have accounts and who have multiple computers (thus multiple footprints in their snooping-people-who-don't-have-accounts nonsense) all count as individual people? Why is what a "person" means such a complicated issue these days? Is there a word which still means what that word meant a decade ago? (end rant)
"A more important question would be whether cost-per-apprehension is even a valid metric for the Border Patrol. "
:blink: That is probably the only valid metric for them. Well that and the accuracy of the determined status, and the treatment of those apprehended...
I'm not overestimating it - the only usefulness they'd have, is if they could do that, and that's the hollywood version of it. If I have to take my card out of my wallet and tap it individually, why the hell not just do it more securely as a contact card, since you've made me go through the trouble at that point? Contactless cards have already been demonstrated to be hackable. You can keep calling it "snake oil" all you want, but having to call and contest it is a hassle, as is losing $50 for some people. If you want to blow off proven hacks, just for a moment consider the possibility that you're the one not looking at the security issue the right way.
"and it is more secure" why on g-d's green earth would you possibly think that, when it can be hacked by someone standing next to you on the bus (as demo'd many times)?
except for the fact that many of the current (and EMV compliant) cards still offer the magstrip fallback info FROM THE RFID ITSELF, because...stupid (see the many hacking demonstrations of such cards). And as others have pointed out, most of the RFID systems don't require a pin. And I also don't want to deal with letting a machine pick which of the 6 cards in my "wallet" I want to use to pay with, since a contactless tap won't tell the difference. Yes, I have 3 different Visas, 2 AMEXs, and a MC. And that's not at all unusual. I really really hate, on a security and convenience level, that the RFID "contactless" stuff is being pushed so hard on unwilling people.
Google also says "we may access, and collect technical information from or about, televisions, set-top boxes, computer and network hardware and software, modems, or other systems or devices used in connection with Fiber" and "We may also obtain and use information about our Fiber users from outside sources for marketing purposes (such as commercially available demographic, geographic, or interest information)" - just what I need, the people who send me junk mail into my mailbox, having an inroad to targeted advertising during my web browsing experience. I know, I know, then don't use google fiber. That's not the question. The question is why is AT&T getting harshed for it? Because they have bad customer service? Have you never had a technical issue with your gmail account, and tried to get help? It doesn't happen.
*sigh*
That's easy enough to stop...but not if they're my ISP, and not if as a term for being my ISP I have to have a google account, and not if they trace all the devices which get plugged into the router (as their statement describes). Now, despite my best intents to block all sorts of traffic, not allow third party cookies, clear everything every time the browser is closed, route all garbage traffic to 0.0.0.0, etc - they'll have my home address, and real info. "Then don't get google fiber" you say - that's not the question. The question is, why you think - given they're stating they'll collect this info - that what AT&T is doing, is any different. Why harsh AT&T, but not google? I know, I know, "we trust google more" - not after uber, I don't. Not after several of the other shiaty things they've done recently, showing true evil and corruption. I mean really, uber bragged about using burner phones to set up false pickups for Lyft drivers, and said it was just good "capitalism" and "competition" - and you trust them?
this. I was a Linux guy starting in 94 (I actually still have my infomagick cd set that has the mother's day release on it), and yeah...stopped using it because of systemd. Call me whacky. Moved to FreeBSD. I know, I'm a whiner or something.
No one will ever need more than 640K of ram! You kids and your technology, it's all a fad!
so yeah, uh..I can tell the difference quite well even on small screens. Now, my wife might not be letting me replace the main screen in the TV room with a 4k yet, but...she'll come around. The AVR and content providers we use already support it. If you can't see the difference between 1k, 4k, and 8k, then...your loss?
uh, why would a vegan "explode" over concerns about bacteria? It's so funny to hear people say vegans bring up veganism...when really it's just idiots that insert vegan-bashing into unrelated conversations, and the vegans just end up saying "uh, what?" Plants are exponentially more complex, and vegans eat the heck out of those....
that's a lovely view you have there. You seem to be missing the point I was trying to make, however - which is that the FAA has no business trying to do this. I was intentionally giving an extreme outside case, to explain precisely why it's not something the FAA should do - the treaty was incomplete, and written half a century ago. Things have changed. It isn't the USGOV's business (via the FAA or any other US agency) to "regulate" these things. It's the business of an international body.
or a big wall moving slower, and when they crash, oops - you should have slowed yours down too? Or spy satellites hovering over another country? The UN needs to take the reigns, not the FAA. In theory we evolved past the point of the rich ("companies", previously just lords/kings/trade companies/etc) having independent sovereignty many centuries ago, for most of the world.
is it just about the moon which you feel this way? What about near-space? No one is touching a satellite, so if you go up and touch it you can claim it? What about the space station - if it was temporarily empty and another country rushed up there, could they call dibs? The UN simply needs to make some sort of organization for regulating this, since we're way too close to commercial entities being up there. The idea that the FAA would do it is absurd.
you want a "modern" camera that will "support FTP?" No modern *anything* should. And seriously, what the hell sort of process is this that you'd do this this way? If the menu changed, then someone typed the new one. Instead of saving as a doc, save as a pdf - boom, there's your pdf. You seem to be making a convoluted process just to bill them 10x as much as they could pay, to create a complicated pathway which will be expensive and non-intuitive to maintain. Is this a job security thing?
If you're not Muslim, why the fark are you saying "the Prophet" Muhammad? Why would you grant that honorific if you don't yourself believe it? How would that be different than saying "Jesus the Messiah" while not Christian? And hey, if you do believe it "soulskill" then hey, why not, but I've been seeing this become more and more common among journalist at (theoretically) real - and thus, presumably impartial - news agencies. You know, ones that wouldn't say "Jesus the Messiah" and "Buddha the Enlightened One"
Slashdot Mirror
given that a color sensor on a digital camera is only sensing RGB (sometimes 1 or 2 more...) and that most monitors are only doing the same....just what would you expect white or grey to be, in the end? How would it be "captured" as an image if not by a sensor which can only detect R, G, or B?
police aren't crime prevention, that's silly. We're not in minority report yet. Police catch people who have already committed a crime and, in some cases, are still in the act of a crime. If police do a single thing to a person who hasn't yet committed a crime, the police are doing something wrong (and are potentially themselves committing a crime). Boarder patrol, on the other hand, has as their entire purpose...patrolling the boarder. If someone is in Mexico still, then boarder patrol can (and should) do nothing to them. If they have crossed, then only then is being apprehended an option. Since there are currently lots of people crossing the boarder, we're not in a situation where boarder crossings are eliminated and the agents are just there to continue preventing new crossings. What you're saying doesn't make any sense, and your examples are just making it worse.
I can tell you as someone who has a hosts file with all the various facebook host names I can come up with, that a whole bunch of the internet has those farking buttons. So yeah, "people used by facebook" - not "people who use facebook" - going to a website that has facebook content forced onto it isn't "using" facebook
Facebook might have intercepted traffic from a goodly number of people via the stupid content that they inject at so many places, but 1.39B people didn't "use" Facebook...that many might have been used by Facebook, but that's a different thing. I also highly doubt a quarter of the population of the planet was on Facebook last month. How can they imagine to justify such metrics? Is making such ridiculous claims the only reason Facebook is able to stay in business? Since when do bots, people using multiple accounts, people who don't have accounts and who have multiple computers (thus multiple footprints in their snooping-people-who-don't-have-accounts nonsense) all count as individual people? Why is what a "person" means such a complicated issue these days? Is there a word which still means what that word meant a decade ago? (end rant)
"A more important question would be whether cost-per-apprehension is even a valid metric for the Border Patrol. "
:blink: That is probably the only valid metric for them. Well that and the accuracy of the determined status, and the treatment of those apprehended...
I'm not overestimating it - the only usefulness they'd have, is if they could do that, and that's the hollywood version of it. If I have to take my card out of my wallet and tap it individually, why the hell not just do it more securely as a contact card, since you've made me go through the trouble at that point? Contactless cards have already been demonstrated to be hackable. You can keep calling it "snake oil" all you want, but having to call and contest it is a hassle, as is losing $50 for some people. If you want to blow off proven hacks, just for a moment consider the possibility that you're the one not looking at the security issue the right way.
"and it is more secure" why on g-d's green earth would you possibly think that, when it can be hacked by someone standing next to you on the bus (as demo'd many times)?
except for the fact that many of the current (and EMV compliant) cards still offer the magstrip fallback info FROM THE RFID ITSELF, because...stupid (see the many hacking demonstrations of such cards). And as others have pointed out, most of the RFID systems don't require a pin. And I also don't want to deal with letting a machine pick which of the 6 cards in my "wallet" I want to use to pay with, since a contactless tap won't tell the difference. Yes, I have 3 different Visas, 2 AMEXs, and a MC. And that's not at all unusual. I really really hate, on a security and convenience level, that the RFID "contactless" stuff is being pushed so hard on unwilling people.
and I really, really don't see how that's an improvement to security. Why the fark are we doing contactless, and not just going with the chip+pin?
Google also says "we may access, and collect technical information from or about, televisions, set-top boxes, computer and network hardware and software, modems, or other systems or devices used in connection with Fiber" and "We may also obtain and use information about our Fiber users from outside sources for marketing purposes (such as commercially available demographic, geographic, or interest information)" - just what I need, the people who send me junk mail into my mailbox, having an inroad to targeted advertising during my web browsing experience. I know, I know, then don't use google fiber. That's not the question. The question is why is AT&T getting harshed for it? Because they have bad customer service? Have you never had a technical issue with your gmail account, and tried to get help? It doesn't happen.
*sigh* That's easy enough to stop...but not if they're my ISP, and not if as a term for being my ISP I have to have a google account, and not if they trace all the devices which get plugged into the router (as their statement describes). Now, despite my best intents to block all sorts of traffic, not allow third party cookies, clear everything every time the browser is closed, route all garbage traffic to 0.0.0.0, etc - they'll have my home address, and real info. "Then don't get google fiber" you say - that's not the question. The question is, why you think - given they're stating they'll collect this info - that what AT&T is doing, is any different. Why harsh AT&T, but not google? I know, I know, "we trust google more" - not after uber, I don't. Not after several of the other shiaty things they've done recently, showing true evil and corruption. I mean really, uber bragged about using burner phones to set up false pickups for Lyft drivers, and said it was just good "capitalism" and "competition" - and you trust them?
so, do you think google isn't doing the same with their fiber installs? https://fiber.google.com/legal...
you shut your mouth.
this. I was a Linux guy starting in 94 (I actually still have my infomagick cd set that has the mother's day release on it), and yeah...stopped using it because of systemd. Call me whacky. Moved to FreeBSD. I know, I'm a whiner or something.
No one will ever need more than 640K of ram! You kids and your technology, it's all a fad!
so yeah, uh..I can tell the difference quite well even on small screens. Now, my wife might not be letting me replace the main screen in the TV room with a 4k yet, but...she'll come around. The AVR and content providers we use already support it. If you can't see the difference between 1k, 4k, and 8k, then...your loss?
uh, why would a vegan "explode" over concerns about bacteria? It's so funny to hear people say vegans bring up veganism...when really it's just idiots that insert vegan-bashing into unrelated conversations, and the vegans just end up saying "uh, what?" Plants are exponentially more complex, and vegans eat the heck out of those....
that's a lovely view you have there. You seem to be missing the point I was trying to make, however - which is that the FAA has no business trying to do this. I was intentionally giving an extreme outside case, to explain precisely why it's not something the FAA should do - the treaty was incomplete, and written half a century ago. Things have changed. It isn't the USGOV's business (via the FAA or any other US agency) to "regulate" these things. It's the business of an international body.
or a big wall moving slower, and when they crash, oops - you should have slowed yours down too? Or spy satellites hovering over another country? The UN needs to take the reigns, not the FAA. In theory we evolved past the point of the rich ("companies", previously just lords/kings/trade companies/etc) having independent sovereignty many centuries ago, for most of the world.
is it just about the moon which you feel this way? What about near-space? No one is touching a satellite, so if you go up and touch it you can claim it? What about the space station - if it was temporarily empty and another country rushed up there, could they call dibs? The UN simply needs to make some sort of organization for regulating this, since we're way too close to commercial entities being up there. The idea that the FAA would do it is absurd.
sounds like someone has a case of the Mondays!
It's farking 6.0. That *is* the farking version. What is the "6.0" thing if 1.0 is the version?
you want a "modern" camera that will "support FTP?" No modern *anything* should. And seriously, what the hell sort of process is this that you'd do this this way? If the menu changed, then someone typed the new one. Instead of saving as a doc, save as a pdf - boom, there's your pdf. You seem to be making a convoluted process just to bill them 10x as much as they could pay, to create a complicated pathway which will be expensive and non-intuitive to maintain. Is this a job security thing?
Oh, so you're unable to understand context, OK. Re-read the post, and tell me how there could be confusion
No, its not. Obama being president is a fact, not a matter of belief
If you're not Muslim, why the fark are you saying "the Prophet" Muhammad? Why would you grant that honorific if you don't yourself believe it? How would that be different than saying "Jesus the Messiah" while not Christian? And hey, if you do believe it "soulskill" then hey, why not, but I've been seeing this become more and more common among journalist at (theoretically) real - and thus, presumably impartial - news agencies. You know, ones that wouldn't say "Jesus the Messiah" and "Buddha the Enlightened One"