You are not required to use the most specific word on every occasion. I may describe you as wearing "pants" when you're wearing "jeans." I may say that "new financial reforms" are being discussed when we're talking about regulations specifically related to securities. I might refer to "gaming" regulations when we're talking specifically about gambling or video games. Sometimes, there's ambiguity in the language, and you just learn to sift through it by context.
The word "gaming" was a valid choice here, as I have repeatedly proven to you with citations and references.
Consistent with *whose* modern and historical usage? And in 50 years, if not already, I bet Merriam-Webster will have a definition for "defense industry" something like "the economic sector which produces military armaments and technology". Euphemism becomes mainstream - it happens all the time, and dictionaries reflect this. That's not an excuse for imprecision or clouding of the issue, when more accurate, plain language is readily available.
If a word is so commonly accepted as meaning something that I can find examples of it being used as such for hundreds of years in formal and casual settings in multiple countries, and I can look it up in the dictionary and see that the first definition of it is that meaning, how on earth can you call it a euphemism?
I understand the point you are trying to make -- the issue is that this is not an appropriate example of a case where a word is hijacked. They are using the term correctly, as defined by the dictionary, and in a way that is consistent with not only modern usage but also historical usage dating back literally hundreds of years. You are attempting to shame them into complying with your political agenda by using only words that you deem appropriate, with what appears to be the aim of separating gambling from other forms of gaming to make it easier to push an anti-gambling agenda. If anyone's being Orwellian here, it's you.
You have misunderstood your Wikipedia excerpt. What the excerpt is saying is that in some areas, "gaming" is distinct from gambling in that "gaming" is something which is legally-approved. That is to say, "gambling" may or may not be legal, but "gaming" is. The article suggests that this distinction is not universally recognized, and I agree with that -- I sure as hell never thought of the word "gaming" as suggesting legality one way or another. The example provided for the UK shows that "gambling" may also refer to legal activity as well. This does not in any way suggest that they do not recognize "gaming" as a synonym, nor does the article suggest that it does. Indeed, the UK has a number of legal recognitions of "gaming" as referring to gambling -- for example, in 1960, the "Betting and Gaming" act legalized Bingo in the United Kingdom. This helped weaken a move away from gaming in the UK -- for example, parliament's Gaming Act of 1845 held that wagers were not enforceable contracts.
So, yes, the UK does use "gaming" in the same sense, and that sense goes back for literally hundreds of years. While "gambling" can be used in place (and since we usually discuss "gaming" in the sense of video games, I actually think that's appropriate here), it is by no means incorrect or unreasonably pro-industry to use the word "gaming." It literally means, according to the dictionary, "the practice of gambling." It has been used in this context for centuries. That is why people continue to use it. Because that's what the word means, has meant for a very long time, and that is the word which is used most frequently by people who discuss it regularly.
Replacing the completely accurate "gambling" with the industry-friendly "gaming" helps limit the parameters of the discussion and influence perception. The fact that the use of "gaming" is pervasive in our culture speaks to the power of our marketing; news sources and blogs which purport to inform or provoke rational discussion over policy can certainly break these bonds by using objective, accurate terminology.
Gaming is objective, accurate terminology. It literally means, according to Merriam-Webster, "the practice of gambling." Going by that 1501 date, it has for centuries. You are inferring dishonesty in the submitter and the editors where there is none, and this is hardly conducive to the "rational discussion" that you're claiming that you want.
It is hardly doublespeak to use the word "gaming" to refer to the practice of gambling. Indeed, the first definition of the word "gaming" in every dictionary I check refers specifically to gambling.
S: (n) gambling, gaming, play (the act of playing for stakes in the hope of winning (including the payment of a price for a chance to win a prize)) "his gambling cost him a fortune"; "there was heavy play at the blackjack table"
Then he wasn't prepared, as Harlan Ellison was, with a registered pseudonym that he could insist they use instead of his own name; Ellison would use his 'Cordwainer Bird' pseudonym to both distance himself from work that he felt had been mangled beyond repair by others, as he did for the TV series 'The Starlost'.
From TFA:
Once it was decided that I would share a writing credit, I wanted to use my pseudonym, Sir Nick Knack. I was told I couldn't do that, because if a writer gets paid over a certain amount of money, they can't.
This is a dangerous door that you're opening here. Let's take your assertion at face value. Let's say that the firewall is indeed defective by design; that Australians are meant to be able to bypass it should they have the desire; and there is no law punishing you for bypassing it. What makes you so sure that it will stay that way?
Do you really believe that no one will notice that the firewall doesn't work? When they do, do you think they'll a) say "whoops, this was a mistake" and tear it down, b) say "eh, shucks, leave it be," or c) say "GOOD HEAVENS THE CHILDREN" and try to "fix" it? If you said b), then you've just stalled. What will they do next year? Lather, rinse, repeat until they take one of the more conclusive options. It'll be a) or c), and once you have that damn firewall in place, a) will be political suicide. That leaves c).
On a technical level, secure Internet filtering for censorship does not work, and never will work. When the technical consultants come back and say this time and again, moralizing politicians will stop looking for technical solutions, and start looking to more traditional ones: fines and jail sentences. It will be a crime to visit certain websites, and the infrastructure will be in place for the government to find out that you did it. It won't be perfect. It will still be perfectly evil.
This seems like a mighty steep price tag for fast Internet and laptops for school kids.
Well, did you enter into a contract with Pink Floyd which states that you would listen to their albums in no manner other than an uninterrupted performance from start to finish?
Otherwise, no, and it is puzzling why you would think otherwise.
I misread that as "Lost Nazi Uniforms Found in a Dutch Scrapyard" and failed to see why that would make news.
Because careful analysis shows them to be genuine Nazi issue, and the bodies wearing them were killed by WW2-issue bullets, yet their state of decomposition shows that they died in the past 12 months.
The summary doesn't go into specifics as to what has been claimed. Basically, Ms. Stanton worked at Google, and was part of the team that developed Google Finance. What's been claimed here is essentially the placement of flags at points on the stock chart, along with some other specifics of Google's stock chart presentation.
Laying aside opinions on the patent system and this patent in particular for a second, I would say that the title is highly misleading: the "news" is not patented, nor was the filing made by the named inventor of record in her capacity as Director of Citizen Participation. Google is obligated to list all individuals who played a dominant role in the inventive process, and apparently it was felt that Katie Stanton was just such an individual.
Since I consider Google Finance to be a fantastically well-designed resource that communicates a lot of data very succinctly, I guess I'd say that this recommends Ms. Stanton's ability to communicate information, even in a very abstract sense. That said, I suspect that this is the last I will ever hear of her, or the office of the Director of Citizen Participation.
The counterpoint to that would be that in exchange for excessive restrictions on my bought-and-paid-for music, I am now also getting excessive restrictions on my bought-and-paid-for music, liner notes and artwork.
Most of what they're saying not only has no place in the file, but is easily found for free on the Internet. I can typically find all the tour dates, lyrics, band photos and interviews I want between the band's website and the first few hits on Google. MusicDNA seeks to aggregate all of this information for me, which might be of some small convenience, but at the cost of tremendously reduced portability.
Not only will I be giving up my ability to put it on whatever device I please, but I also have to worry about space on my phone -- if I put a MusicDNA-based album on, will it be 10 times bigger because it's crammed with a bunch of ridiculous interviews that I'll either never care about, or -- in very rare cases -- watch once?
I realize that competing with free means all sorts of ideas have to be considered, but as a legitimate customer who has a bunch of DRMed songs he can't listen to anymore, I can say that the only acceptable format to me is one which is unencrypted and well-documented. No amount of bloat is going to change that for me.
It's almost as if the sort of people who would think drawing black rectangles in a PDF renders text unreadable don't read the sort of websites that laugh at people for drawing black rectangles in a PDF to render text unreadable.
Since you've done this before, I may as well ask you -- how hard is retrieval? From launch point to drop point, how far off is it, and how do you keep from landing in irretrievable spaces?
Actually robot is rooted in Latin, but you would have had to read the wiki link I posted for automaton in order to know that.
As others have pointed out, no, it is not rooted in Latin. The article you linked makes no such claim. You would have had to read the Wiki link you posted for automaton in order to know that, though.
It's the control which is automated, not the propagation. The idea is that if I root a hundred systems, and instead of OO, I put on a rootkit that forces them to participate in a network where I can issue a single command to my zombie army that forces them to DDoS you, I've got a botnet. If I have to ssh into each of them individually and manually instruct them to participate, I have a bunch of rooted systems.
Your stated requirement that a botnet depend on a worm is not a requirement in my professional opinion, and according to the definition you gave us earlier, it is not yours either.
The word BOTNET is short for the combination of the word robot and network . The term often applies to groups of computer systems that have had malicious software installed by worms, Trojan horses or other malicious software that allows the "botnet herder " or botnet's originator to control the group remotely.
On their face, none of these definitions require a robot to be capable of generating other robots automatically -- merely that the robot must be capable of performing some function automatically."
By your definition cron is a bot. Sorry, but it is not . I was around since before there were botnets, active on the hacking/phreaking scene, so I was there when the terms were coined. I know exactly what bot means; you have literally no idea.
These are not my definitions -- they are yours. It was you who posted the definition of "botnet," and it was you who suggested that we look up "robot." I did so, even going so far as to make sure to consider each of the definitions of two major dictionaries, and used those terms to evaluate your claim. Was there another widely-recognized resource you wanted us to use for the definition of "robot?"
The AC and those claiming that there is no requirement for a botnet to propagate automatically are correct. Here is the definition of 'robot,' courtesy Merriam-Webster:
1 a : a machine that looks like a human being and performs various complex acts (as walking or talking) of a human being; also : a similar but fictional machine whose lack of capacity for human emotions is often emphasized b : an efficient insensitive person who functions automatically 2 : a device that automatically performs complicated often repetitive tasks 3 : a mechanism guided by automatic controls
And courtesy OED:
noun a machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically, especially one programmable by a computer.
And, 'bot' courtesy OED, since they have a listing for it:
noun an autonomous program on a network which can interact with systems or users, especially in the manner of a player in some computer games.
Merriam-Webster offers an individual definition of "bot," but only the context of botfly larvae.
On their face, none of these definitions require a robot to be capable of generating other robots automatically -- merely that the robot must be capable of performing some function automatically. Thus, we must turn more directly to your preferred definition in search of such a requirement:
The word BOTNET is short for the combination of the word robot and network . The term often applies to groups of computer systems that have had malicious software installed by worms, Trojan horses or other malicious software that allows the "botnet herder " or botnet's originator to control the group remotely.
Once again, there is no requirement for a botnet to be automatically propagated. Indeed, strictly speaking, there is no requirement here that any host have any malware at all. The use of the kind of botnet we're discussing here -- one in which participants are unwilling -- is used only as an example, due to the phrasing "the term is often applied..." which prefaces the discussion.
For example, a distributed network of systems configured by their owner and operator to automatically ping a host from a variety of locations in order to determine average latency, satisfies definitions 2 and 3 of Merriam-Webster's definition, and the OED's definitions of robot and bot, along with this definition of 'botnet.'
However, even in the discussion of a malicious botnet, nowhere does it require a botnet to propagate itself automatically. In fact, the definition explicitly distances itself from this claim. It suggests that while the malicious software that has made a host into a botnet member can be installed via worm (malware capable of automatic propagation), it can also be installed by other means, and it explicitly mentions that these means include via trojan horse (malware installed by tricking an unsuspecting user of sufficient privilege into executing it), which is a decidedly manual method of installation.
I could see this as being nice once I get to the airport. I try to time my arrival close to boarding, and once I'm there, the gate area is usually pretty full. I can go down a few gates and make myself comfortable, maybe even get a drink, but if my flight really does start boarding in 5-10 minutes, why bother?
If I knew that there was an 80% chance that I'd be waiting there for an extra half hour or so, I'd be more inclined to go grab a bite to eat, or at least find a power plug and do some e-mail. There's a 20% chance that I turn right around and head back to my on-time departure, feeling a bit silly.
They tell you at the airport if your flight is delayed, when the airline actually posts that your flight is delayed. For various reasons, this does not necessarily happen promptly. For example, airlines may hold off announcing a delay until very close to departure, because they haven't ruled out using a different plane than what was scheduled, or because they think it'll be a close enough delay that it's worth keeping everyone at the gate ready to board, or because the information just didn't get posted. Anyone who's ever waited at the gate 10 minutes past departure next to a sign that says "ON TIME" with no plane in sight knows what I'm talking about here.
Supposedly, this software tries to analyze airport traffic across airlines to try and figure out which flights are going to get delayed by ATC. So, its aim is to predict certain delays before they happen, much less before they make it onto the airport departure and arrivals screens, or the airline websites.
Slashdot Mirror
You are not required to use the most specific word on every occasion. I may describe you as wearing "pants" when you're wearing "jeans." I may say that "new financial reforms" are being discussed when we're talking about regulations specifically related to securities. I might refer to "gaming" regulations when we're talking specifically about gambling or video games. Sometimes, there's ambiguity in the language, and you just learn to sift through it by context.
The word "gaming" was a valid choice here, as I have repeatedly proven to you with citations and references.
Consistent with *whose* modern and historical usage? And in 50 years, if not already, I bet Merriam-Webster will have a definition for "defense industry" something like "the economic sector which produces military armaments and technology". Euphemism becomes mainstream - it happens all the time, and dictionaries reflect this. That's not an excuse for imprecision or clouding of the issue, when more accurate, plain language is readily available.
If a word is so commonly accepted as meaning something that I can find examples of it being used as such for hundreds of years in formal and casual settings in multiple countries, and I can look it up in the dictionary and see that the first definition of it is that meaning, how on earth can you call it a euphemism?
I understand the point you are trying to make -- the issue is that this is not an appropriate example of a case where a word is hijacked. They are using the term correctly, as defined by the dictionary, and in a way that is consistent with not only modern usage but also historical usage dating back literally hundreds of years. You are attempting to shame them into complying with your political agenda by using only words that you deem appropriate, with what appears to be the aim of separating gambling from other forms of gaming to make it easier to push an anti-gambling agenda. If anyone's being Orwellian here, it's you.
You have misunderstood your Wikipedia excerpt. What the excerpt is saying is that in some areas, "gaming" is distinct from gambling in that "gaming" is something which is legally-approved. That is to say, "gambling" may or may not be legal, but "gaming" is. The article suggests that this distinction is not universally recognized, and I agree with that -- I sure as hell never thought of the word "gaming" as suggesting legality one way or another. The example provided for the UK shows that "gambling" may also refer to legal activity as well. This does not in any way suggest that they do not recognize "gaming" as a synonym, nor does the article suggest that it does. Indeed, the UK has a number of legal recognitions of "gaming" as referring to gambling -- for example, in 1960, the "Betting and Gaming" act legalized Bingo in the United Kingdom. This helped weaken a move away from gaming in the UK -- for example, parliament's Gaming Act of 1845 held that wagers were not enforceable contracts.
So, yes, the UK does use "gaming" in the same sense, and that sense goes back for literally hundreds of years. While "gambling" can be used in place (and since we usually discuss "gaming" in the sense of video games, I actually think that's appropriate here), it is by no means incorrect or unreasonably pro-industry to use the word "gaming." It literally means, according to the dictionary, "the practice of gambling." It has been used in this context for centuries. That is why people continue to use it. Because that's what the word means, has meant for a very long time, and that is the word which is used most frequently by people who discuss it regularly.
Replacing the completely accurate "gambling" with the industry-friendly "gaming" helps limit the parameters of the discussion and influence perception. The fact that the use of "gaming" is pervasive in our culture speaks to the power of our marketing; news sources and blogs which purport to inform or provoke rational discussion over policy can certainly break these bonds by using objective, accurate terminology.
Gaming is objective, accurate terminology. It literally means, according to Merriam-Webster, "the practice of gambling." Going by that 1501 date, it has for centuries. You are inferring dishonesty in the submitter and the editors where there is none, and this is hardly conducive to the "rational discussion" that you're claiming that you want.
It is hardly doublespeak to use the word "gaming" to refer to the practice of gambling. Indeed, the first definition of the word "gaming" in every dictionary I check refers specifically to gambling.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gaming
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gaming
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gaming
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=gaming
Then he wasn't prepared, as Harlan Ellison was, with a registered pseudonym that he could insist they use instead of his own name; Ellison would use his 'Cordwainer Bird' pseudonym to both distance himself from work that he felt had been mangled beyond repair by others, as he did for the TV series 'The Starlost'.
From TFA:
This is a dangerous door that you're opening here. Let's take your assertion at face value. Let's say that the firewall is indeed defective by design; that Australians are meant to be able to bypass it should they have the desire; and there is no law punishing you for bypassing it. What makes you so sure that it will stay that way?
Do you really believe that no one will notice that the firewall doesn't work? When they do, do you think they'll a) say "whoops, this was a mistake" and tear it down, b) say "eh, shucks, leave it be," or c) say "GOOD HEAVENS THE CHILDREN" and try to "fix" it? If you said b), then you've just stalled. What will they do next year? Lather, rinse, repeat until they take one of the more conclusive options. It'll be a) or c), and once you have that damn firewall in place, a) will be political suicide. That leaves c).
On a technical level, secure Internet filtering for censorship does not work, and never will work. When the technical consultants come back and say this time and again, moralizing politicians will stop looking for technical solutions, and start looking to more traditional ones: fines and jail sentences. It will be a crime to visit certain websites, and the infrastructure will be in place for the government to find out that you did it. It won't be perfect. It will still be perfectly evil.
This seems like a mighty steep price tag for fast Internet and laptops for school kids.
Well, did you enter into a contract with Pink Floyd which states that you would listen to their albums in no manner other than an uninterrupted performance from start to finish? Otherwise, no, and it is puzzling why you would think otherwise.
I'm glad Sony have patented this. I don't buy Sony products, and no one else will be allowed to implement this.
Unless they license it.
I misread that as "Lost Nazi Uniforms Found in a Dutch Scrapyard" and failed to see why that would make news.
Because careful analysis shows them to be genuine Nazi issue, and the bodies wearing them were killed by WW2-issue bullets, yet their state of decomposition shows that they died in the past 12 months.
(quick jump to black, creepy sound effect)
LOST
The summary doesn't go into specifics as to what has been claimed. Basically, Ms. Stanton worked at Google, and was part of the team that developed Google Finance. What's been claimed here is essentially the placement of flags at points on the stock chart, along with some other specifics of Google's stock chart presentation.
Laying aside opinions on the patent system and this patent in particular for a second, I would say that the title is highly misleading: the "news" is not patented, nor was the filing made by the named inventor of record in her capacity as Director of Citizen Participation. Google is obligated to list all individuals who played a dominant role in the inventive process, and apparently it was felt that Katie Stanton was just such an individual.
Since I consider Google Finance to be a fantastically well-designed resource that communicates a lot of data very succinctly, I guess I'd say that this recommends Ms. Stanton's ability to communicate information, even in a very abstract sense. That said, I suspect that this is the last I will ever hear of her, or the office of the Director of Citizen Participation.
The counterpoint to that would be that in exchange for excessive restrictions on my bought-and-paid-for music, I am now also getting excessive restrictions on my bought-and-paid-for music, liner notes and artwork.
Most of what they're saying not only has no place in the file, but is easily found for free on the Internet. I can typically find all the tour dates, lyrics, band photos and interviews I want between the band's website and the first few hits on Google. MusicDNA seeks to aggregate all of this information for me, which might be of some small convenience, but at the cost of tremendously reduced portability.
Not only will I be giving up my ability to put it on whatever device I please, but I also have to worry about space on my phone -- if I put a MusicDNA-based album on, will it be 10 times bigger because it's crammed with a bunch of ridiculous interviews that I'll either never care about, or -- in very rare cases -- watch once?
I realize that competing with free means all sorts of ideas have to be considered, but as a legitimate customer who has a bunch of DRMed songs he can't listen to anymore, I can say that the only acceptable format to me is one which is unencrypted and well-documented. No amount of bloat is going to change that for me.
The exact same thing has happened before, and was even covered on slashdot, many many times.
http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/08/05/20/0228229/FBI-Wiretapping-Audit-Secrets-Uncovered-Via-CtrlC http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/22/138210 http://yro.slashdot.org/story/03/11/01/1729257/Memory-Hole-Un-Redacts-Redacted-DOJ-Memo
It's almost as if the sort of people who would think drawing black rectangles in a PDF renders text unreadable don't read the sort of websites that laugh at people for drawing black rectangles in a PDF to render text unreadable.
... and when your boss gets 150 years, get your ass to a country without an extradition treaty with the US.
Polanski's corollary: Stay there.
Since you've done this before, I may as well ask you -- how hard is retrieval? From launch point to drop point, how far off is it, and how do you keep from landing in irretrievable spaces?
And C2 can refer to a truckload of things, so that doesn't really help.
For simplicity, let's just abbreviate it as CLOWN and watch the novices try to puzzle it out.
Not to pressure one too much, but automaton is rooted in Greek, not Latin. :)
Actually robot is rooted in Latin, but you would have had to read the wiki link I posted for automaton in order to know that.
As others have pointed out, no, it is not rooted in Latin. The article you linked makes no such claim. You would have had to read the Wiki link you posted for automaton in order to know that, though.
It's the control which is automated, not the propagation. The idea is that if I root a hundred systems, and instead of OO, I put on a rootkit that forces them to participate in a network where I can issue a single command to my zombie army that forces them to DDoS you, I've got a botnet. If I have to ssh into each of them individually and manually instruct them to participate, I have a bunch of rooted systems.
Your stated requirement that a botnet depend on a worm is not a requirement in my professional opinion, and according to the definition you gave us earlier, it is not yours either.
By your definition cron is a bot. Sorry, but it is not . I was around since before there were botnets, active on the hacking/phreaking scene, so I was there when the terms were coined. I know exactly what bot means; you have literally no idea.
These are not my definitions -- they are yours. It was you who posted the definition of "botnet," and it was you who suggested that we look up "robot." I did so, even going so far as to make sure to consider each of the definitions of two major dictionaries, and used those terms to evaluate your claim. Was there another widely-recognized resource you wanted us to use for the definition of "robot?"
The AC and those claiming that there is no requirement for a botnet to propagate automatically are correct. Here is the definition of 'robot,' courtesy Merriam-Webster:
And courtesy OED:
And, 'bot' courtesy OED, since they have a listing for it:
Merriam-Webster offers an individual definition of "bot," but only the context of botfly larvae.
On their face, none of these definitions require a robot to be capable of generating other robots automatically -- merely that the robot must be capable of performing some function automatically. Thus, we must turn more directly to your preferred definition in search of such a requirement:
Once again, there is no requirement for a botnet to be automatically propagated. Indeed, strictly speaking, there is no requirement here that any host have any malware at all. The use of the kind of botnet we're discussing here -- one in which participants are unwilling -- is used only as an example, due to the phrasing "the term is often applied..." which prefaces the discussion.
For example, a distributed network of systems configured by their owner and operator to automatically ping a host from a variety of locations in order to determine average latency, satisfies definitions 2 and 3 of Merriam-Webster's definition, and the OED's definitions of robot and bot, along with this definition of 'botnet.'
However, even in the discussion of a malicious botnet, nowhere does it require a botnet to propagate itself automatically. In fact, the definition explicitly distances itself from this claim. It suggests that while the malicious software that has made a host into a botnet member can be installed via worm (malware capable of automatic propagation), it can also be installed by other means, and it explicitly mentions that these means include via trojan horse (malware installed by tricking an unsuspecting user of sufficient privilege into executing it), which is a decidedly manual method of installation.
I could see this as being nice once I get to the airport. I try to time my arrival close to boarding, and once I'm there, the gate area is usually pretty full. I can go down a few gates and make myself comfortable, maybe even get a drink, but if my flight really does start boarding in 5-10 minutes, why bother?
If I knew that there was an 80% chance that I'd be waiting there for an extra half hour or so, I'd be more inclined to go grab a bite to eat, or at least find a power plug and do some e-mail. There's a 20% chance that I turn right around and head back to my on-time departure, feeling a bit silly.
They tell you at the airport if your flight is delayed, when the airline actually posts that your flight is delayed. For various reasons, this does not necessarily happen promptly. For example, airlines may hold off announcing a delay until very close to departure, because they haven't ruled out using a different plane than what was scheduled, or because they think it'll be a close enough delay that it's worth keeping everyone at the gate ready to board, or because the information just didn't get posted. Anyone who's ever waited at the gate 10 minutes past departure next to a sign that says "ON TIME" with no plane in sight knows what I'm talking about here.
Supposedly, this software tries to analyze airport traffic across airlines to try and figure out which flights are going to get delayed by ATC. So, its aim is to predict certain delays before they happen, much less before they make it onto the airport departure and arrivals screens, or the airline websites.
How well it works, I couldn't tell you.