Given these two paragraphs, this looks like I'm going to be paying higher systems costs because others can't be bothered to practice responsible computing (when this initiative moves out of Korea into the rest of the world, that is...).
Well, you're making two rather large assumptions, firstly that the precident will spread, and second that this would be a bad thing for your bottom line. But many large banks already cover identity theft, and that money comes from somewhere (hint: you). If the net result is that banks become more secure (through 1 time pads, user chosen images embedded in the bank's page, or a plethera of other viable options), and that in turn lowers fraud, then you actually stand to gain. Of course, whether or not that savings is passed on to the customer is a seperate question entirely.
I would further submit that if you're couldn't be bothered to find a bank with security that's more than merely "adequate," then a) you're already supporting poor business practices, and b) you don't particularly care about your money to begin with.
He was asserting that the whole thing is way too complex to synthetically produce with today's technology, even when working with a simplified model. You just said, "Nu uh, it's not way too complex, it's way WAY too complex!"
"The worry is if you humanize them too much you cross certain boundaries," said David Magnus, director of the Stanford Medical Center for Biomedical Ethics.
IANAL, but I think that it's only illegal when done to sustain a monopolistic position, or when done in collusion with "competitors," aka price fixing. As a result of natural competition, I don't think it's illegal.
Even if a crack were released for DirecTV tomorrow, it's been around for about a decade. A console only needs to survive for half that amount of time. Regardless, I'll be interested to see what happens.
If I were Sony, MS, or Nintendo, I'd leave out DRM anyway, which would reduce the cost of my console and/or allow me to focus more on performance. It would probably become more popular because it lacked DRM. Any way you cut it, the majority of people are going to obtain legitimate copies of their games, and the people who are determined not to, won't.
I'll be living and working in a remote location starting in February, so this sounds perfect. I need something for a small living space that I can transport without having to disconnect a bunch of cables. A typical desktop is out of the question, but I don't want to sacrifice the performance or storage. I don't care about battery life or weight, just footprint, ease of portability, and performance. I was considering the Alienware line, but after checking out WidowPC, their laptops seem even closer to full featured desktops.
Now I just need some Pringles cans and a 30 mile high antenna tower so I can get LOS to somewhere with an internet connection.
He is a keen Arsenal fan and plays football in a local league
OT, I've always thought Arsenal was a strange name for a team. Ignoring completely the pun of the first four letters, an arsenal is a completely inanimate object.. really nothing more than a bunch of potential energy waiting for someone or something else to help it realize its potential. Almost as bad as BASF's commercial. "We don't make anything."
Exactly.. the people know they're not in space on some level, but they're rationalizing what they've been told because they lack evidence to the contrary.
"It's strange, this environment. I'm having fun, but I want to see more of the earth," she confided.
"Don't you find it...strange?" asked Charlie, not leading her on in any way.
"Yes it feels strange. I'd love to be looking out. Part of me knows we're here but part of me thinks we could be in the simulator," said Keri, shaving close to the truth.
"Well," reassured Charlie, "Your brain plays tricks on you."
I'm sure she's more certain than not that she's not in space, but when there are people all around you saying exactly the opposite, it takes more than being 55% sure, or even 75%. You need evidence, or you risk looking like more of a fool.
The only thing more pathetic than this show is the people who point and laugh while thinking "I'd never do that!" when, in fact, we do it every day. How many times have articles on the front page of/. been discussed until a comment finally crops up saying "Hoax!"
Now I'm all in favor of ridiculing stupidity and playing practical jokes. But creating an elaborate scheme designed to fool the participants for days on end so they can be derided at the national level is just pathetic.
Well, I was making a joke, but it was based on the reality that an exhaustive list of Linux games is roughly the same length as a list of new releases for Win32. Nobody chooses Linux for the games, they choose it despite the games, or lack thereof.
But even if it wasn't a joke, saying Linux has plenty of games is like saying that 640k of RAM ought to be enough for anybody.
Well clearly there needs to be some sort of review, whether by designated administrators or voluntary article meta-moderating with votes tied to accounts. In fact, I think the once-popular site "Hot-or-Not" used the same system to filter posts, and it was fairly effective at preventing unwanted content. Obviously it's easier to pick out a naked picture than to evaluate the accuracy of an article on quantum mechanics, but it would probably be more effective than the current system. And the main concern seems to be libel, which is easier to spot than a technical inaccuracy. Moderators could vote whether or not to approve posts and edits, with a "don't know" option, and votes could be weighted by the percentage and sum total of one's voting history. It wouldn't be foolproof of course, but nothing is.
The problem with a community of anonymous authors is that every one can claim plausible deniability and label any argument as a straw man. Not that the GP made much of an argument, except to comment on the ridiculous characerization of an article on Moral Responsibility as somehow "firing back." In fact, it's clearly an attempt at an ex post facto justification of legitimacy. He may have made an inaccurate presumtion that the submitter was a "wikipedian," but I think his characterization of the summary and the situation was humorously accurate.
At any rate, if an organization seeks to establish legitimacy as a source of information, then it must take responsibility for all content, or make it clear either explicitly (disclaimer) or implicitly (the ridiculous nature of The Onion) that the content should not be regarded as authoritative. I think Wikipedia has done a mediocre job of that -- clearly because it's founders want it to be considered authoritative -- but sites like Answers.com which incorporate Wikipedia's content are even worse.
Yeah, but we're not fighting the 70% who are happy, we're fighting the (not insignificant) 30% who aren't. If they were an insignificant threat, they'd have been suppressed by now.
Except those issues are completely devoid of relevance. This isn't the Supreme Court deciding whether the auction should be legal because of "substantial noninfringing uses." This is solely an incident of a private entity deciding not to do business with another private entity. eBay is entitled to deny any listing for any reason it chooses, and the only measure of whether that decision was right or wrong is whether or not it protects eBay's interests. The only justification they need is that they didn't like the listing, and the only possible repercussions are the possible alienation of the massive vulnerability-purchasing demographic.
On the other hand, they could have let the listing stand and exposed themselves to possible private or public legal action, tarnished their public image, and further encouraged people to test the proverbial waters with equally or exceedingly unconventional listings.
But the good news, if you believe that eBay is eschewing a substantial opportunity, is that you have the chance to step in and serve the exploding market for software vulnerabilities by creating your own auction site. Maybe you'll get rich, or maybe you'll get sued so hard by Microsoft that you can't walk straight for weeks.. there's only one way to find out!
Sure, right here.: "Without limiting other remedies, we may limit, suspend, or terminate our service and user accounts, prohibit access to our website, remove hosted content, and take technical and legal steps to keep users off the Site if we think that they are creating problems, possible legal liabilities, or acting inconsistently with the letter or spirit of our policies."
And right here: "eBay alone will exercise its judgment in deciding which listings are not permissible."
I know the parent knows this, but for everyone else...
"Depth of field," is the distance in front of and behind the subject which appears to be in focus. There is only one distance at which a subject is precisely in focus, and focus falls off gradually on either side of that distance, so there is a region in which the blurring is tolerable. I have no idea what a "set of bellows," is though.
One top of the line product, Model-Y, costs twice as much as the next best, Model-X, yet performs only 3% better. And two Model Y's together perform roughly 5% better than one Model-X at 4 times the cost. And you're suggesting that this is somehow a bad deal?
Slashdot Mirror
Given these two paragraphs, this looks like I'm going to be paying higher systems costs because others can't be bothered to practice responsible computing (when this initiative moves out of Korea into the rest of the world, that is...).
Well, you're making two rather large assumptions, firstly that the precident will spread, and second that this would be a bad thing for your bottom line. But many large banks already cover identity theft, and that money comes from somewhere (hint: you). If the net result is that banks become more secure (through 1 time pads, user chosen images embedded in the bank's page, or a plethera of other viable options), and that in turn lowers fraud, then you actually stand to gain. Of course, whether or not that savings is passed on to the customer is a seperate question entirely.
I would further submit that if you're couldn't be bothered to find a bank with security that's more than merely "adequate," then a) you're already supporting poor business practices, and b) you don't particularly care about your money to begin with.
the *principle* of giving consumers certain rights at the source irregardless of practical workarounds
Irregardless? Is that like esquivalience?
Someone kindly explain to President Bush why this is impossible. And don't laugh. He doesn't like being laughed at.
Good luck convincing a rat brain trapped in a human body that the opposite is impossible.
But seriously, the implication is that this is necessarily a bad thing. I mean, God forbid we have intelligent creatures that aren't people...
Oh wait, we'll all just go to watching stuff on our cell phones, computers, ipods, etc. etc. etc... sigh.
And, uh.. cable and satellite.
He was asserting that the whole thing is way too complex to synthetically produce with today's technology, even when working with a simplified model. You just said, "Nu uh, it's not way too complex, it's way WAY too complex!"
Except the full quote is:
"The worry is if you humanize them too much you cross certain boundaries," said David Magnus, director of the Stanford Medical Center for Biomedical Ethics.
IANAL, but I think that it's only illegal when done to sustain a monopolistic position, or when done in collusion with "competitors," aka price fixing. As a result of natural competition, I don't think it's illegal.
Even if a crack were released for DirecTV tomorrow, it's been around for about a decade. A console only needs to survive for half that amount of time. Regardless, I'll be interested to see what happens.
97.5% is, coincidentally, the same amount of DNA that humans have in common with mice, and we occupy well over 548% more space.
If I were Sony, MS, or Nintendo, I'd leave out DRM anyway, which would reduce the cost of my console and/or allow me to focus more on performance. It would probably become more popular because it lacked DRM. Any way you cut it, the majority of people are going to obtain legitimate copies of their games, and the people who are determined not to, won't.
I'll be living and working in a remote location starting in February, so this sounds perfect. I need something for a small living space that I can transport without having to disconnect a bunch of cables. A typical desktop is out of the question, but I don't want to sacrifice the performance or storage. I don't care about battery life or weight, just footprint, ease of portability, and performance. I was considering the Alienware line, but after checking out WidowPC, their laptops seem even closer to full featured desktops.
Now I just need some Pringles cans and a 30 mile high antenna tower so I can get LOS to somewhere with an internet connection.
Don't forget divers.. they're only worried about half gains.
the Baby Bells merged together again.
So the telecom industry is sort of like T2? We're so screwed unless we find a large pool of molten metal.
He is a keen Arsenal fan and plays football in a local league
OT, I've always thought Arsenal was a strange name for a team. Ignoring completely the pun of the first four letters, an arsenal is a completely inanimate object.. really nothing more than a bunch of potential energy waiting for someone or something else to help it realize its potential. Almost as bad as BASF's commercial. "We don't make anything."
The only thing more pathetic than this show is the people who point and laugh while thinking "I'd never do that!" when, in fact, we do it every day. How many times have articles on the front page of
Now I'm all in favor of ridiculing stupidity and playing practical jokes. But creating an elaborate scheme designed to fool the participants for days on end so they can be derided at the national level is just pathetic.
Me too.. I guess it's just that time of the month. ;)
Well, I was making a joke, but it was based on the reality that an exhaustive list of Linux games is roughly the same length as a list of new releases for Win32. Nobody chooses Linux for the games, they choose it despite the games, or lack thereof.
But even if it wasn't a joke, saying Linux has plenty of games is like saying that 640k of RAM ought to be enough for anybody.
Well clearly there needs to be some sort of review, whether by designated administrators or voluntary article meta-moderating with votes tied to accounts. In fact, I think the once-popular site "Hot-or-Not" used the same system to filter posts, and it was fairly effective at preventing unwanted content. Obviously it's easier to pick out a naked picture than to evaluate the accuracy of an article on quantum mechanics, but it would probably be more effective than the current system. And the main concern seems to be libel, which is easier to spot than a technical inaccuracy. Moderators could vote whether or not to approve posts and edits, with a "don't know" option, and votes could be weighted by the percentage and sum total of one's voting history. It wouldn't be foolproof of course, but nothing is.
The problem with a community of anonymous authors is that every one can claim plausible deniability and label any argument as a straw man. Not that the GP made much of an argument, except to comment on the ridiculous characerization of an article on Moral Responsibility as somehow "firing back." In fact, it's clearly an attempt at an ex post facto justification of legitimacy. He may have made an inaccurate presumtion that the submitter was a "wikipedian," but I think his characterization of the summary and the situation was humorously accurate.
At any rate, if an organization seeks to establish legitimacy as a source of information, then it must take responsibility for all content, or make it clear either explicitly (disclaimer) or implicitly (the ridiculous nature of The Onion) that the content should not be regarded as authoritative. I think Wikipedia has done a mediocre job of that -- clearly because it's founders want it to be considered authoritative -- but sites like Answers.com which incorporate Wikipedia's content are even worse.
Yeah, but we're not fighting the 70% who are happy, we're fighting the (not insignificant) 30% who aren't. If they were an insignificant threat, they'd have been suppressed by now.
Except those issues are completely devoid of relevance. This isn't the Supreme Court deciding whether the auction should be legal because of "substantial noninfringing uses." This is solely an incident of a private entity deciding not to do business with another private entity. eBay is entitled to deny any listing for any reason it chooses, and the only measure of whether that decision was right or wrong is whether or not it protects eBay's interests. The only justification they need is that they didn't like the listing, and the only possible repercussions are the possible alienation of the massive vulnerability-purchasing demographic.
On the other hand, they could have let the listing stand and exposed themselves to possible private or public legal action, tarnished their public image, and further encouraged people to test the proverbial waters with equally or exceedingly unconventional listings.
But the good news, if you believe that eBay is eschewing a substantial opportunity, is that you have the chance to step in and serve the exploding market for software vulnerabilities by creating your own auction site. Maybe you'll get rich, or maybe you'll get sued so hard by Microsoft that you can't walk straight for weeks.. there's only one way to find out!
Think you could point it out for me?
Sure, right here.: "Without limiting other remedies, we may limit, suspend, or terminate our service and user accounts, prohibit access to our website, remove hosted content, and take technical and legal steps to keep users off the Site if we think that they are creating problems, possible legal liabilities, or acting inconsistently with the letter or spirit of our policies."
And right here: "eBay alone will exercise its judgment in deciding which listings are not permissible."
I know the parent knows this, but for everyone else...
"Depth of field," is the distance in front of and behind the subject which appears to be in focus. There is only one distance at which a subject is precisely in focus, and focus falls off gradually on either side of that distance, so there is a region in which the blurring is tolerable. I have no idea what a "set of bellows," is though.
Now all you need is for someone to release a game for Linux and you'll be all set.
Let me get this straight..
One top of the line product, Model-Y, costs twice as much as the next best, Model-X, yet performs only 3% better. And two Model Y's together perform roughly 5% better than one Model-X at 4 times the cost. And you're suggesting that this is somehow a bad deal?
Interesting theory. Maybe you could call it "The Law of Diminishing Returns." Or something...