Ok so the google glass or what ever doesn't connect to your local wifi.... Um
and the google glass wearer with their paired LTE phone in their pocket cares
why exactly????
I don't know why *they* care. *I* care about such news, because it's the first step towards building a technology stack that will boot those paired LTE phone / glasshole combos from my neighbourhood.
Every useful countermeasure technology has to start with baby steps somewhere. Hopefully more sophisticated jammers and anti glasshole viruses will be ready for when we truly need it - when those spyware tools become cheap and more plentiful.
It's not a monopoly. Switching search engines is free.
Netscape was free too, and it was easy to switch from IE for anyone who wanted to... And yet MS was rightly convicted.
Never overerestimate the inability of ordinary people from doing the most basic things. You may think it's trivial to switch search engines, but for most people it isn't. And antitrust is all about bringing about a good outcome for most people, not for people like you or me who can take care of ourselves.
So no, switching search engines isn't easy for most people, and therefore it's right to force monopolies to go out of their way to make it easier. The market is made up of ordinary people, and giving them more choices improves the market.
The problem is that peer review has these same flaws. It has no more
scientific merit than online comments; it is just as error prone and
arbitrary as rating systems; and it's gameable just like citation statistics.
While all systems have flaws, the flaws with peer review are not the same as (and I would argue, an order of magnitude smaller than) the flaws with online comments. In particular, to claim that peer review by scientists has no scientific merit is ridiculous. The mere fact that the reviews are conducted by qualified individuals in the field raises their merit substantially versus online comments, which we've seen extensively in the last few years with the "scientific" debates conducted in the blogosphere.
Peer reviews
are frequently (probably usually) carried out by students without higher
degrees. Even many people with higher degrees are not "qualified scientists".
Are you for real? I stopped reading after those two sentences. You clearly have never seen the inside of a scientific journal review system.
That's very wrong. Online comments have no scientific merit whatsoever, ratings systems are abitrary and error prone (who computes the ratings? is it an algorithm, or some full time secretarial type? Does he/she even have a degree?), and citation statistics are gameable, in similar ways that Google rankings are gameable in fact.
Proper scientific reviews by qualified scientists with higher degrees are non negotiable, if we want science to remain a high quality human endeavour.
If it's anything like a real highway, the slow lane will actually be the fast lane as everyone immediately goes to the passing lane and clogs it up,
meaning people with half a brain end up undertaking everyone else using the slow lane.
That's not a real problem, though. For every special character, just type out it's name in English at the point where you would use it.
You'll get a longer password, therefore stronger, without special characters. The real problem is when a site limits the total length of a password.
Hey! Be respectful to your elders. If 300 baud was good enough for the prophet Muhammad, then it's good enough for you! Besides, teletype printers can't print ASCII pr0n faster than that anyway, and if they did, you'd run out of ink real fast. Now get off my carpet and out of my tent!
It's a great first step for NASA, now if they can further admit that
those astronauts have also come back with weird shifts in rectal
geometry, we can begin to face, as a species, the deeper space facts of life.
But shouldn't that be up to the foreign countries where the money is earned?
If a country doesn't want to tax earnings in its borders, that's their
business. It doesn't mean the US or any other country should have a claim on
it.
It makes perfect sense if you think of Americans as property.
For example, suppose you're this guy in America, and you buy a very expensive mainframe system. Now for various reasons, you decide to send it to Sweden, maybe you have a friend there and you're in business together. So the friend uses your mainframe for his shop 24/7, and makes lots of money. It's all happening in Sweden, using Swedish electricity, Swedish premises, Swedish sysadmins, etc.
But it's your mainframe, so you'd like a cut of the profit or at least some rent money. If your Swedish friend doesn't want to collect the money in Sweden and send it to you, that's his business, no?
Now replace you and friend with America and Sweden, and replace mainframe with you.
Sure, but the article isn't taking about simulations vs real life. It's
talking about simulations vs contrived but legally required tests on
manufacturer test tracks. Both are limited by imagination but simulations are
more thorough, at least according to Google
Google wants to replace expensive, real testing with inexpensive, fake (aka "simulations") testing. The two aren't comparable, and the danger is that Google can lobby to change the laws to allow simulations to replace real life testing.
Which is great for them, but bad for us.
Why aren't the two comparable? A simulated software environment is a development tool. It's great for working out the kinks in algorithms, but it is hopeless at working out the real manufacturing kinks in real life. In a simulation, the car performs correctly 100% of the time, repeatably. In real life, there's a screw that happens to touches one of the leads causing a short circuit in damp conditions, and the car screams to a halt in the middle of traffic.
Here's a software analogy (since we're talking about cars, we can't use a car analogy here...): simulation testing is like when you're tracing some code paths on paper, just to see if you're on the right track on the logic. It's a simulation, because you assume that the implementation has no bugs, the compiler has no bugs, the OS has no bugs, and there are no cosmic rays or DDOS attacks or the disk isn't making clicking noises. Real life testing is when your compiled code passes actual test cases in a full production environment, and has to cope with real inputs and outputs.
If I get the idea for a new valve design
that uses some obscure property of gasoline to make direct injection engines
five percent more efficient then I deserve to be rewarded for that.
If I get the idea for a new valve design
that uses some obscure property of gasoline to make direct injection engines
five percent more efficient then I should pay you for the privilege? No. No, I should not.
Just say no.
Patents are evil. There's no reason that inventors who pay for a little piece of paper 5 minutes before everyone else should receive money from other inventors for the same idea. That's what patent licensing is.
Most things where laws are needed are a matter of opinion. Arguably, laws are merely a way of imposing an opinion on a world which naturally doesn't work that way.
Extra! Extra! This just in! New research proves that patent "trolls" actively reduce wasted "R&D" attempts by sad deluded companies aiming to reinvent by themselves and worsen already existing ideas! WIPO economic policies vindicated! Simplification within reach! Coming soon: the Golden Age of the One, Single And Perfect Idea Of Everything (a.k.a. "the Wheel") ! Thanks "trolls", your country owes you a debt of gratitude!
On balance, that is a GOOD THING. Exactly 100 years ago, the German Army was marching through Belgium, the Russians were
preparing to invade East Prussia, and millions of men were being mobilized all over Europe. World War One was a result of a
series of diplomatic blunders, secret treaties, and severe misjudgements by many leaders of the intentions of both enemies and
allies. It is quite likely that it could have been avoided if better intelligence had been available. Voluntary mutual
transparency would be best, but spying is still better than secrecy.
No it's not a good thing. You're making an elementary mistake of confusing the means to an end with the end itself. While it's on balance a good thing to know more about what is going on in the world rather than less (that's the end), the means to achieve this (secretly spying) is not a good thing.
Because spying is a secret way of obtaining information, the use of that information by decision makers is necessarily also secret (otherwise the secrecy would be broken and the spying activity would be undermined). But decision makers making decisions using secret information means that their decisions cannot be audited, and cannot be directly argued against in the open, by anyone who isn't privy to the secret information, eg the public. Therefore, such decision makers are all powerful, and unaccountable, ie undemocratic.
So if you think spying is a good thing, then you implicitly believe that unaccountable government is a good thing. In truth, voluntary mutual transparency would be best, but spying is equivalent to secrecy.
You could dismiss these concerns as activism, but that's terribly tunnel-visioned.
Only for some values of terribly.
Every African and every women who for some reason
or another has missed out on the opportunity to study STEM is another mind that could potentially have been another Euler or Gauss
but was denied the chance. Unless women are intrinsically less adept at math (which I personally do not believe is the case), we've
been missing out on half the world's great mathematicians.
Well I'm glad you're willing to bet the future of the human race on a personal belief. I on the other hand want to see proof of what you claim.
Could you imagine how different the earth would be today if we had two
Fermats, two Euclids, two Poincares?
Hell, why stop there? I'd aim a bit higher: two hundred Einsteins! Imagine what the world would be like if it wasn't how it is!
How much knowledge have we lost for the lack of women in math and science? This isn't about
"leaving math and science alone" from activism. This is about untapping all the math and science talent that has been hidden away
for hundreds of years.
No, it's activism. It's you putting some naive notion of equality together with a linear extrapolation on the number of geniuses to claim a justification for messing with a system of knowledge that's been evolving for nigh on two thousand years.
Personally, I want my mathematicians to be socially awkward, highly pedantic, focused individuals who would be happy to live three quarters of their adult lives in a darkened room full of books (aka a library), have people to cook for them and tidy their bedrooms. And to be honest, those qualities probably select for white, male, and privileged in our current world, but I don't care.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know why *they* care. *I* care about such news, because it's the first step towards building a technology stack that will boot those paired LTE phone / glasshole combos from my neighbourhood.
Every useful countermeasure technology has to start with baby steps somewhere. Hopefully more sophisticated jammers and anti glasshole viruses will be ready for when we truly need it - when those spyware tools become cheap and more plentiful.
Netscape was free too, and it was easy to switch from IE for anyone who wanted to... And yet MS was rightly convicted.
Never overerestimate the inability of ordinary people from doing the most basic things. You may think it's trivial to switch search engines, but for most people it isn't. And antitrust is all about bringing about a good outcome for most people, not for people like you or me who can take care of ourselves.
So no, switching search engines isn't easy for most people, and therefore it's right to force monopolies to go out of their way to make it easier. The market is made up of ordinary people, and giving them more choices improves the market.
Oh, is it Opposite Day today? If by redundant you mean diametrically opposed, then yes the post is "redundant".
While all systems have flaws, the flaws with peer review are not the same as (and I would argue, an order of magnitude smaller than) the flaws with online comments. In particular, to claim that peer review by scientists has no scientific merit is ridiculous. The mere fact that the reviews are conducted by qualified individuals in the field raises their merit substantially versus online comments, which we've seen extensively in the last few years with the "scientific" debates conducted in the blogosphere.
Are you for real? I stopped reading after those two sentences. You clearly have never seen the inside of a scientific journal review system.
And for those of use who are more comfortable with steering wheels than bullets, maybe a car analogy too?
Proper scientific reviews by qualified scientists with higher degrees are non negotiable, if we want science to remain a high quality human endeavour.
HRM, NO. THAT'S MY JOB.
That's not a real problem, though. For every special character, just type out it's name in English at the point where you would use it. You'll get a longer password, therefore stronger, without special characters. The real problem is when a site limits the total length of a password.
Hey! Be respectful to your elders. If 300 baud was good enough for the prophet Muhammad, then it's good enough for you! Besides, teletype printers can't print ASCII pr0n faster than that anyway, and if they did, you'd run out of ink real fast. Now get off my carpet and out of my tent!
It's a great first step for NASA, now if they can further admit that those astronauts have also come back with weird shifts in rectal geometry, we can begin to face, as a species, the deeper space facts of life.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but New York is @#$^% rich! So they must be doing *something* right.
It makes perfect sense if you think of Americans as property.
For example, suppose you're this guy in America, and you buy a very expensive mainframe system. Now for various reasons, you decide to send it to Sweden, maybe you have a friend there and you're in business together. So the friend uses your mainframe for his shop 24/7, and makes lots of money. It's all happening in Sweden, using Swedish electricity, Swedish premises, Swedish sysadmins, etc.
But it's your mainframe, so you'd like a cut of the profit or at least some rent money. If your Swedish friend doesn't want to collect the money in Sweden and send it to you, that's his business, no?
Now replace you and friend with America and Sweden, and replace mainframe with you.
Google wants to replace expensive, real testing with inexpensive, fake (aka "simulations") testing. The two aren't comparable, and the danger is that Google can lobby to change the laws to allow simulations to replace real life testing. Which is great for them, but bad for us.
Why aren't the two comparable? A simulated software environment is a development tool. It's great for working out the kinks in algorithms, but it is hopeless at working out the real manufacturing kinks in real life. In a simulation, the car performs correctly 100% of the time, repeatably. In real life, there's a screw that happens to touches one of the leads causing a short circuit in damp conditions, and the car screams to a halt in the middle of traffic.
Here's a software analogy (since we're talking about cars, we can't use a car analogy here...): simulation testing is like when you're tracing some code paths on paper, just to see if you're on the right track on the logic. It's a simulation, because you assume that the implementation has no bugs, the compiler has no bugs, the OS has no bugs, and there are no cosmic rays or DDOS attacks or the disk isn't making clicking noises. Real life testing is when your compiled code passes actual test cases in a full production environment, and has to cope with real inputs and outputs.
Also, "he, who thinks showing people jumping off the burning trade center buildings is ok, is a hypocrite"
If I get the idea for a new valve design that uses some obscure property of gasoline to make direct injection engines five percent more efficient then I should pay you for the privilege? No. No, I should not.
Just say no.
Patents are evil. There's no reason that inventors who pay for a little piece of paper 5 minutes before everyone else should receive money from other inventors for the same idea. That's what patent licensing is.
Most things where laws are needed are a matter of opinion. Arguably, laws are merely a way of imposing an opinion on a world which naturally doesn't work that way.
If so, please include 20% upsell in your comments in this thread.
No. It's not respectable. Everything else you've said after that derives from a false premise.
Extra! Extra! This just in! New research proves that patent "trolls" actively reduce wasted "R&D" attempts by sad deluded companies aiming to reinvent by themselves and worsen already existing ideas! WIPO economic policies vindicated! Simplification within reach! Coming soon: the Golden Age of the One, Single And Perfect Idea Of Everything (a.k.a. "the Wheel") ! Thanks "trolls", your country owes you a debt of gratitude!
No it's not a good thing. You're making an elementary mistake of confusing the means to an end with the end itself. While it's on balance a good thing to know more about what is going on in the world rather than less (that's the end), the means to achieve this (secretly spying) is not a good thing.
Because spying is a secret way of obtaining information, the use of that information by decision makers is necessarily also secret (otherwise the secrecy would be broken and the spying activity would be undermined). But decision makers making decisions using secret information means that their decisions cannot be audited, and cannot be directly argued against in the open, by anyone who isn't privy to the secret information, eg the public. Therefore, such decision makers are all powerful, and unaccountable, ie undemocratic.
So if you think spying is a good thing, then you implicitly believe that unaccountable government is a good thing. In truth, voluntary mutual transparency would be best, but spying is equivalent to secrecy.
Don't anthropomorphize The Law, otherwise those killer inanimate constructions will rise out of their foundations and smack you silly.
There's a book you should read, if you haven't already.
Only for some values of terribly.
Well I'm glad you're willing to bet the future of the human race on a personal belief. I on the other hand want to see proof of what you claim.
Hell, why stop there? I'd aim a bit higher: two hundred Einsteins! Imagine what the world would be like if it wasn't how it is!
No, it's activism. It's you putting some naive notion of equality together with a linear extrapolation on the number of geniuses to claim a justification for messing with a system of knowledge that's been evolving for nigh on two thousand years.
Personally, I want my mathematicians to be socially awkward, highly pedantic, focused individuals who would be happy to live three quarters of their adult lives in a darkened room full of books (aka a library), have people to cook for them and tidy their bedrooms. And to be honest, those qualities probably select for white, male, and privileged in our current world, but I don't care.
You should write a bot that posts on slasdot for you. You know, cut out the middle man and all that :)