Try and take any bank or person up on that promise with a photocopied note - you will rapidly see where the value actually lies, and it's not in your copy. The promise exists with the original issued note, not your copy, so once again there is a huge difference in perceived values here.
When I was accessing the DVLA, connections were throttled - and the terms of the access required satellite locations to access the system via a centralised server at our HQ, so these garages aren't going to be connecting directly.
And if we ave an Anonymous member in a government position that is willing to carry out an attack from inside... Well, I just hope they like jail time, because that's already well covered and would be a monumentously stupid thing to do.
A digital copy of a music file still has inherent value to the recipient, while a copy of a bank note does not - all you are doing is showing them you are as petulant as you consider them to be.
The value of a music file is in the content, not the form of the file while the value of a bank note is in the ability to exchange it for other things, not the art work on the note - copies work fine in one case, and not at all in the other.
Good luck with that DDOS, because the way it will be implemented is via private leased lines, not public networks like the Internet.
I've dealt with programmatically accessing both the DVLA driver database and the vehicle database, and you can't access either over the plain old Internet - they both required a dedicated leased line to the GSI (the government acute intranet, basically a clearing house for database access), SSL encrypted streams and a multi faceted authentication system for each request (no sessions).
Sorry, no, its required to be unobscured to all reading methods - many people have tried what you are suggesting already and ended up with fines or imprisonment, it's not a new thing at all as people have been suggesting such things to avoid speed cameras for decades in the UK.
I saw this story posted a few hours ago with no comments and wondered how long it would take for someone to try and make the distinction between human readable and readable - again, sorry but no such distinction exists in UK law.
Microsoft developed the original RDP technologies (before someone jumps in, not *all* RDP tech, just the ones involved in this timeline), and sold it off to Citrix, who dramatically improved it. MS then licensed it back from Citrix as an independent product and included it into Windows.
The harassment is a different thing, and what he was actually sacked for - not, as the thread starter suggests, his lack of utmost belief in the scientific method.
Being religious does not automatically mean you reject the scientific method in it's entirety, just certain conclusions that method has reached in some areas of study, which is fine because you have scientists doing that all the time.
This guy was working on the Cassini mission, so what did his beliefs about something he wasn't investigating have to do with his work?
That's fantastic. However, you miss the basic point - I didn't have to change *anything* about the way I use the phone. I didn't have to change apps, configure anything or do anything differently.
Now, Google could have made Google Voice the default SMS app on Android and achieved the same thing, but they didn't, so you have to use a different app to achieve it.
You don't get it do you? Nothing about my usage pattern has changed at all, and yet some messages go over iMessage for free and others go over standard SMS. I didn't have to change anything about how I send messages, or treat any recipients differently - it just happens.
So no, I don't have to care what device the recipient has - that's the entire fucking point. If they have an iMessage capable device, my iPhone sends them an iMessage. If they don't, it sends them an SMS. That's it.
How hard is that to understand? I don't need to know what the recipient has, the system works it out without any intervention from me - I'm not choosing one or the other, the system does, and my messages still get delivered.
So your entire point is invalid - it doesn't matter what device the recipient has, because they still get a message compatible with that device. And I don't have to configure or force that in any way.
Just a note, but I never said anything about iMessage killing anything - I am not the thread parent, I just replied to someone in the thread with my opinion based on their post.
The benefit to me is that I don't have to care about it - I get a message, it displays in the same way and the only indication I get on how it came in is the colour and the same for sending, in that I just send a message to someone and I dont have to select how it's sent, it just is.
Now, not everyone has access to iMessage, that's true, which makes the fact that it's seamless to me even more important - it happens when it can, otherwise it falls back to something that works.
With the other apps you mention, the lack of seamless fallback is a negative for me - not only do I need to use another app, but I need to make sure I have the contact setup for gTalk, AIM or whatever, and I have to make sure that they can receive the message. Others I have to manually fall back to sending them an SMS. That is where iMessage is superior for me. When and if those apps have seamless fallback, then the situation is the same (or better, as gTalk et al are more open than iMessage).
Just tried it, same result - no issues, no weird messages received, those with iMessage got an iMessage message, those without got normal SMS messages.
It is determined whether or not the recipient is iMessage capable before you ever send the message, as the button and colour changes - if the recipient doesn't have iMessage capability then you fall back to SMS or whatever, but it never goes over iMessage. Therefor it gets treated as a normal SMS or message by your carrier.
At least that's my experience - someone else in the thread was trying to claim that something weird goes on and images or photos get sent instead of an SMS to non-iMessage recipients, but that's not been my experience with iMessage at all, either when I was receiving messages from iPhone users who had iMessage capability (prior to this iPhone I had a HTC Desire) or sending to non-iMessage capable recipients from my iPhone.
Really? Because every message I send that goes to a non-iMessage capable recipient goes as a normal text message. My mother has an Android phone, and I've seen the messages she receives from me and they are normal text messages. My boss gets normal text messages from me. My wife got normal text messages from me until she got an iPhone. I got normal text messages from my iMessage using friend while I was on an Android phone prior to buying my iPhone.
In other words I have no idea what you are talking about.
No, you didn't "FTFM" at all, you put your own bias on my words and nothing more. I don't use iMessage because of marketing, I use it because it seamlessly worked on my iPhone - I didn't have to set any contacts to use it, I didn't have to configure anything, it just worked. Thats got nothing to do with the transport mechanism, and everything to do with the implementation - no alternative has that. The implementation works out how to deliver the message, not the transport mechanism.
If something else had seamlessly worked, I would be saying the same thing for that.
I'm not entirely sure that matters one bit - it's the fact that it works seamlessly that makes it effective, not the underlying transport mechanism. Again, implementation is what has set it apart from the other alternatives tried.
iMessage gives you ease of use - I don't have to care whether the person I am messaging has iMessage or not, the messaging app works it out for me without any input from me at all on the matter. This way, I don't have to treat one block of contacts different to any other, it just happens.
But I wasn't talking about holding someone underwater for 5 minutes, I said that X dose causes Y reaction which is very similar to your argument.
Lets use a different water based argument shall we? 20 liters of pure water, if ingested in 10 minutes, will cause water intoxication, However, no doctor in their right mind would suggest that 1000 people each consuming 1/1000th of 20 liters in 10 minutes would result in 1 person suffering water intoxication just because of their consumption.
What you have done is tie the probability of cancer to the probability that X will cause cancer, and thats not something you can do in the way you did it, because the human body doesn't work like that. 1000 perfectly healthy, identical people each consuming 1/1000th of the dose the mouse got does not mean 1 person will get cancer, or even that the probability stands at 1 in 1000, because other factors come into play, including the fact that the effect of the drug might not scale, or pre-dispositions to cancer.
The only thing that can be said here is that a mouse given a particular dosage contracted cancer. Thats it.
But I'm not assuming all things are the same - I'm saying that assuming 1/1000th of a dose means 1/1000th of the probability, given that 1000/1000th (or 1) causes cancer is a stupid argument.
Thats like saying 50cm2 of water will drown someone, so therefor if you give 1000 people 0.05cm2 of water then someone will drown...
As I said in the DUI story, quantity does actually have a valid position in all of this - the body can handle X as a safe dose, and that stands for pretty much everything going, its not a case of X is a safe probability...
If if takes 1000 doses to give a small creature such as a mouse cancer, then the only situation where 1/1000th of that dosage is going to give a human cancer is by coincidence or if the subject is pre-disposed to cancerous diseases in the first place.
Also, is there no second test done by a different method? In the UK you can blow positive by the roadside, but a second test by entirely different methods is done back at the police station on a non-portable unit, and then a blood test an be requested.
Slashdot Mirror
Try and take any bank or person up on that promise with a photocopied note - you will rapidly see where the value actually lies, and it's not in your copy. The promise exists with the original issued note, not your copy, so once again there is a huge difference in perceived values here.
When I was accessing the DVLA, connections were throttled - and the terms of the access required satellite locations to access the system via a centralised server at our HQ, so these garages aren't going to be connecting directly.
And if we ave an Anonymous member in a government position that is willing to carry out an attack from inside... Well, I just hope they like jail time, because that's already well covered and would be a monumentously stupid thing to do.
Last time I looked there was Amazon Music Store, iTunes and a bunch of others, Netflix, Lovefilm and a bunch of others...
What else are you looking for?
A digital copy of a music file still has inherent value to the recipient, while a copy of a bank note does not - all you are doing is showing them you are as petulant as you consider them to be.
The value of a music file is in the content, not the form of the file while the value of a bank note is in the ability to exchange it for other things, not the art work on the note - copies work fine in one case, and not at all in the other.
Good luck with that DDOS, because the way it will be implemented is via private leased lines, not public networks like the Internet.
I've dealt with programmatically accessing both the DVLA driver database and the vehicle database, and you can't access either over the plain old Internet - they both required a dedicated leased line to the GSI (the government acute intranet, basically a clearing house for database access), SSL encrypted streams and a multi faceted authentication system for each request (no sessions).
If Anon can DDoS that, I would be impressed.
Sorry, no, its required to be unobscured to all reading methods - many people have tried what you are suggesting already and ended up with fines or imprisonment, it's not a new thing at all as people have been suggesting such things to avoid speed cameras for decades in the UK.
I saw this story posted a few hours ago with no comments and wondered how long it would take for someone to try and make the distinction between human readable and readable - again, sorry but no such distinction exists in UK law.
Microsoft developed the original RDP technologies (before someone jumps in, not *all* RDP tech, just the ones involved in this timeline), and sold it off to Citrix, who dramatically improved it. MS then licensed it back from Citrix as an independent product and included it into Windows.
The harassment is a different thing, and what he was actually sacked for - not, as the thread starter suggests, his lack of utmost belief in the scientific method.
Being religious does not automatically mean you reject the scientific method in it's entirety, just certain conclusions that method has reached in some areas of study, which is fine because you have scientists doing that all the time.
This guy was working on the Cassini mission, so what did his beliefs about something he wasn't investigating have to do with his work?
That's fantastic. However, you miss the basic point - I didn't have to change *anything* about the way I use the phone. I didn't have to change apps, configure anything or do anything differently.
Now, Google could have made Google Voice the default SMS app on Android and achieved the same thing, but they didn't, so you have to use a different app to achieve it.
You don't get it do you? Nothing about my usage pattern has changed at all, and yet some messages go over iMessage for free and others go over standard SMS. I didn't have to change anything about how I send messages, or treat any recipients differently - it just happens.
So no, I don't have to care what device the recipient has - that's the entire fucking point. If they have an iMessage capable device, my iPhone sends them an iMessage. If they don't, it sends them an SMS. That's it.
How hard is that to understand? I don't need to know what the recipient has, the system works it out without any intervention from me - I'm not choosing one or the other, the system does, and my messages still get delivered.
So your entire point is invalid - it doesn't matter what device the recipient has, because they still get a message compatible with that device. And I don't have to configure or force that in any way.
Understand now?
Just a note, but I never said anything about iMessage killing anything - I am not the thread parent, I just replied to someone in the thread with my opinion based on their post.
The benefit to me is that I don't have to care about it - I get a message, it displays in the same way and the only indication I get on how it came in is the colour and the same for sending, in that I just send a message to someone and I dont have to select how it's sent, it just is.
Now, not everyone has access to iMessage, that's true, which makes the fact that it's seamless to me even more important - it happens when it can, otherwise it falls back to something that works.
With the other apps you mention, the lack of seamless fallback is a negative for me - not only do I need to use another app, but I need to make sure I have the contact setup for gTalk, AIM or whatever, and I have to make sure that they can receive the message. Others I have to manually fall back to sending them an SMS. That is where iMessage is superior for me. When and if those apps have seamless fallback, then the situation is the same (or better, as gTalk et al are more open than iMessage).
Ahh we have an Apple hater with mod points...
Just tried it, same result - no issues, no weird messages received, those with iMessage got an iMessage message, those without got normal SMS messages.
No, you really really didn't. Now fuck off.
It is determined whether or not the recipient is iMessage capable before you ever send the message, as the button and colour changes - if the recipient doesn't have iMessage capability then you fall back to SMS or whatever, but it never goes over iMessage. Therefor it gets treated as a normal SMS or message by your carrier.
At least that's my experience - someone else in the thread was trying to claim that something weird goes on and images or photos get sent instead of an SMS to non-iMessage recipients, but that's not been my experience with iMessage at all, either when I was receiving messages from iPhone users who had iMessage capability (prior to this iPhone I had a HTC Desire) or sending to non-iMessage capable recipients from my iPhone.
Really? Because every message I send that goes to a non-iMessage capable recipient goes as a normal text message. My mother has an Android phone, and I've seen the messages she receives from me and they are normal text messages. My boss gets normal text messages from me. My wife got normal text messages from me until she got an iPhone. I got normal text messages from my iMessage using friend while I was on an Android phone prior to buying my iPhone.
In other words I have no idea what you are talking about.
No, you didn't "FTFM" at all, you put your own bias on my words and nothing more. I don't use iMessage because of marketing, I use it because it seamlessly worked on my iPhone - I didn't have to set any contacts to use it, I didn't have to configure anything, it just worked. Thats got nothing to do with the transport mechanism, and everything to do with the implementation - no alternative has that. The implementation works out how to deliver the message, not the transport mechanism.
If something else had seamlessly worked, I would be saying the same thing for that.
I'm not entirely sure that matters one bit - it's the fact that it works seamlessly that makes it effective, not the underlying transport mechanism. Again, implementation is what has set it apart from the other alternatives tried.
iMessage gives you ease of use - I don't have to care whether the person I am messaging has iMessage or not, the messaging app works it out for me without any input from me at all on the matter. This way, I don't have to treat one block of contacts different to any other, it just happens.
But I wasn't talking about holding someone underwater for 5 minutes, I said that X dose causes Y reaction which is very similar to your argument.
Lets use a different water based argument shall we? 20 liters of pure water, if ingested in 10 minutes, will cause water intoxication, However, no doctor in their right mind would suggest that 1000 people each consuming 1/1000th of 20 liters in 10 minutes would result in 1 person suffering water intoxication just because of their consumption.
What you have done is tie the probability of cancer to the probability that X will cause cancer, and thats not something you can do in the way you did it, because the human body doesn't work like that. 1000 perfectly healthy, identical people each consuming 1/1000th of the dose the mouse got does not mean 1 person will get cancer, or even that the probability stands at 1 in 1000, because other factors come into play, including the fact that the effect of the drug might not scale, or pre-dispositions to cancer.
The only thing that can be said here is that a mouse given a particular dosage contracted cancer. Thats it.
But I'm not assuming all things are the same - I'm saying that assuming 1/1000th of a dose means 1/1000th of the probability, given that 1000/1000th (or 1) causes cancer is a stupid argument.
The human body doesn't work like that.
Money. Because they don't have any to test.
Thats like saying 50cm2 of water will drown someone, so therefor if you give 1000 people 0.05cm2 of water then someone will drown...
As I said in the DUI story, quantity does actually have a valid position in all of this - the body can handle X as a safe dose, and that stands for pretty much everything going, its not a case of X is a safe probability...
If if takes 1000 doses to give a small creature such as a mouse cancer, then the only situation where 1/1000th of that dosage is going to give a human cancer is by coincidence or if the subject is pre-disposed to cancerous diseases in the first place.
Which is why the quantity matters.
Also, is there no second test done by a different method? In the UK you can blow positive by the roadside, but a second test by entirely different methods is done back at the police station on a non-portable unit, and then a blood test an be requested.