So? You are forcing manufacturers to pay the true environmental cost for the product they produce, then allowing the market to sort out the winners and losers.
This is supposed to be a libertarian's wet dream for environmental legislation - don't ban stuff, just make the manufacturers pay its true environmental cost and let them decide what to continue marketing.
YouTube has a mechanism in place whereby users can mark a file as "objectionable". Because of a possible flaw in this system, a file was allowed to be marked inappropriately for a nonzero length of time. It is reasonable to assume that YouTube is responsible for their own code.
And plenty of posts in this thread have been moderated inappropriately, with "overrated" and "flamebait" and "offtopic" tags used on this that are merely alternate viewpoints.
I don't blame/. for this, despite the fact that they are responsible for their own code. Allowing public input in moderation always introduces the possibility of intentional manipulation. If there was a story here at all, it would be a piece on the overall phenomenon, with reference to Slashdot, Wikipedia, and of course YouTube. It would also have views of people on the other side, where the benefits of such a system can be explained as well.
I have SpamVault set to automatically break web-based images in emails. Attached images show up fine; images pulled from external sites are broken.
The only times this has ever mattered to me (i.e. I needed to see the pictures), the email has a link at the top that says "Can't read this email? Click here!". This opens a web page with the information in the email visible. (This was, as I recall, for WoW newsletters.)
In all other cases, I'm better without the graphics, and web bugs won't work. It makes me feel safe enough (when using a web-based email viewer) to open some spam messages, to check the headers for some things, without confirming my address to the spammer.
Nor has evolution equipped us to deal with a build up of substances in our bodies that can be harmful at higher doses, when it takes > 50 years to build up such a dose. Humans never used to live long enough to be affected by that, and they would have passed on their genes by that age anyway.
They have taken plenty of action: they put up a web server and put up the stuff on the Internet.
Ahh yeah, just like how "being born", "getting a phone line and email address", and "living in a building" are actions that opt you in to everything under the sun in the US.
Then Belgian law is broken.
I'd take Belgian law over the US any day. Yes it's wrong in this one little particular case about robots.txt, but it's right in 99% of other opt-in cases.
This has nothing to do with privacy.
Yes it does. Opt-in is intended to ensure better privacy, by preventing the selling, sharing, or exploitation of private data unless the owner of that data allows it. Belgian law gets it 99% right; US law gets it 1% right.
And you are assuming that I'm as stupid as the standard American traveler. I know how to dress for the countries I visit, I know when to keep my mouth shut, and can get by in German well enough disguise my accent, especially German isn't the native language of the person I'm talking to, either.
The other reply has a very good point, too. IEDs that explode when an American walks by can now be standardized and mass produced.
Well, because I assume that countries will want to be able to read each other's RFID codes. Great Britain now has RFID codes in their passports; of course they'll make it so our readers can read their passports, and vice versa.
Then all of Europe shares in the system, then parts of Asia, then so many readers are out there that can at least decode the country (if nothing else) that it becomes likely the data will leak out to third parties.
In unrelated news, Sony announced today a movie rental program featuring their latest Digital Rights Management scheme. Each movie cartridge features an embedded power and monitoring system; if any attempts are made to copy the movie or circumvent the protection, the movie implodes to ensure that the copyright holder's rights are maintained.
As part of their environmental initiative, Sony has also announced that they secured a source of recycled power supplies and detonation units for this new program.
I mean it doesn't have personal information, even if decoded, so what use is it to anyone, except that it identifies you with a big random number like a cookie does.
Wherever you go, anywhere in the world, anyone who gets within a few feet of you can conclusively identify you as a U.S. citizen if they so wish to. (I assume there is some common code that identifies it as a U.S. passport.)
I've never seen the state department do anything that jeopardizes the safety of American travelers as much as this will.
First, Google is doing this with the web site's owner's consent: it's an Internet standard that you give or deny consent with a robots.txt file. If the Belgian web sites don't exclude Google with their robots.txt file, obviously the web site owner has given consent. Belgium has a very stringent opt-in law, the kind that privacy advocates in the US dream about. Everything must be opt-in, no exceptions.
robots.txt is the internet standard, yes. It is also opt-out, because you are assumed to give consent unless you take an action.
Not at all. Several movies for which I saw the world premiere at SXSW earlier this year were "hot off the presses," to speak. For Tales of the Rat Fink, only the director had seen the final cut, as he was editing it up until a day or so before the premiere. For A Prairie Home Companion, I believe the director and one technician had seen the final cut before us.
I want the government to maintain a fair playing field for all competitors in all markets. Without this, capitalism dies.
This means the government enforces fraud and misreprentation. It means the government enforces environmental laws so all vendors have the same production costs. It means the government punishes or breaks up monopolies that try to abuse other markets. It means the government enforces the neutrality of mediums upon which business is conducted.
If roads were private, and the vendor of the road to my house decided to charge USPS and UPS trucks $10 a package to drive through (but let DHL and FedEx trucks through with no extra charge), I'd be clamoring for the government to fix that problem, too.
We should start to use "Network Equality" or "Data Non-Discrimination" instead.
Those are awful names. They don't apply at all.
Nothing about net neutrality should limit traffic shaping based on data type. The name "data non-discrimination" makes it sound like it forces ISPs to treat HTML traffic the same way as VOIP traffic, or bittorrent traffic. That is bad ISP policy and bad network design.
Instead, net neutrality is about ISPs treating all traffic of the same type the same way, regardless of source. VOIP on Roadrunner cable from Vonage should get the same bandwidth as VOIP from Time Warner's phone service. The alternative - Time Warner throttling competitors to push its own service - is what net neutrality is supposed to prevent.
If they were following the rules, the caller ID information wouldn't be "Unknown Name, Unknown Number" or "Not Available", which is the information given on each of the 3-4 calls we get daily. We've been on the Do Not Call list since the day it opened.
Why does he care more about the opinions of the world press than he does the opinions of the American press? Or, for that matter, why does he care more about the opinions of the world press than he does for the potential safety of American citizens?
Sad to say it, but there already is a group to test these weapons on: American soldiers. Whether or not that's the way it should be, the government has been using solders as lab rats for decades. There have to be soldiers willing to volunteer to test (potentially) non-lethal weapons at home, instead of being shipped to Iraq where they would (potentially) face lethal ones.
I dunno. I got a lot of great reading in as a child, while I swapped floppies waiting for my game to load on my Commodore 64 - for some games as often as every few minutes.
With the load screens on some modern console games, I expects today's kids could get the same broad literary experience.
Sony is a big company. Their content and entertainment divions may be on my sh*t list right now, but they have always (and still do) make darn good electronics hardware, when it isn't crippled by the other divisions.
Since their TVs support all the correct standards, I'd give them a carrot in this case and support them. I won't touch anything else Sony makes right now, but we bought our TV from them last year.
This is similar to Microsoft - I won't touch their OS or application software, but their game division has made some nice things.
I'm just a consumer, and my power lies solely with my dollar. I do avoid places on principle. At the same time, I know nothing I do will put these companies out of business. The next best thing is to show them that they can make money and be profitable with their open, solid product lines, which might encourage them to make fewer restricted, crappy products.
The executives of Sony's hardware development groups see their hardware products as an opportunity to force some new, proprietary format down consumer's throats (see also beta, ATRAC, memory stick, blue-ray, etc.). The executives of Sony's content group see their proprietary formats as a way to force new content restrictions down consumer's throats.
As an electrical engineer and hardware designer, I feel really bad for the actual developers of the PS3 console. I can't imagine they want to develop a product that won't meet sales expectations, and they'd probably prefer to design the kind of product that we, too, want to see. I know from personal experience that it is depressing to design products where, before release, it becomes obvious to us developers that they cannot meet their sales forecasts.
Sure, it doesn't work for every site. But many sites are focused, either in terms of geographical location or topic. Chicago White Sox online forums? You already have a common theme to quiz people over. Los Angeles Craigslist entries? Same thing.
This problem absolutely cannot be solved, no matter how much effort is put into it. But it can be made less economically feasible, by making it harder to reuse CAPTCHA solutions, and to increase the time needed to solve them without relevant knowledge. This helps to keep out the smaller guys who aren't willing to put up the effort. Then you have fewer targets for the FBI/etc. swat teams to raid and "accidentally" shoot...
and yet it is commonly acceptable by those who did and do play with Legos to refer to them in the plural.
Yes, but it is not commonly acceptable to The LEGO Group to have their trademark misused. At your house you can call them what you wish. However, to have an argument on the internet about whether "lego" or "legos" is the "correct" plural is idiotic, as neither is correct.
(Yes, to have an argument on the internet about anything is idiotic. This is just especially bad. ~)
No, anything put out on the curb or in a public-accessible dumpster is free for the taking. If the dumpster is protected, or the trash cans are not on the curb, then their contents are considered private.
My mother-in-law, for example, pays extra to have side-yard trash service. She never has to set them on the curb; they are picked up from where they normally sit on the side of her house. As a result, there is never a legal time that the public can retrieve things. (Perhaps the trash men themselves can. I don't know.)
Go read the summary of this HGTV trash borrowing show. They take garbage from a home owner's curb, fix it up, and secretly return it.
Slashdot Mirror
So? You are forcing manufacturers to pay the true environmental cost for the product they produce, then allowing the market to sort out the winners and losers.
This is supposed to be a libertarian's wet dream for environmental legislation - don't ban stuff, just make the manufacturers pay its true environmental cost and let them decide what to continue marketing.
YouTube has a mechanism in place whereby users can mark a file as "objectionable". Because of a possible flaw in this system, a file was allowed to be marked inappropriately for a nonzero length of time. It is reasonable to assume that YouTube is responsible for their own code.
/. for this, despite the fact that they are responsible for their own code. Allowing public input in moderation always introduces the possibility of intentional manipulation. If there was a story here at all, it would be a piece on the overall phenomenon, with reference to Slashdot, Wikipedia, and of course YouTube. It would also have views of people on the other side, where the benefits of such a system can be explained as well.
And plenty of posts in this thread have been moderated inappropriately, with "overrated" and "flamebait" and "offtopic" tags used on this that are merely alternate viewpoints.
I don't blame
I have SpamVault set to automatically break web-based images in emails. Attached images show up fine; images pulled from external sites are broken.
The only times this has ever mattered to me (i.e. I needed to see the pictures), the email has a link at the top that says "Can't read this email? Click here!". This opens a web page with the information in the email visible. (This was, as I recall, for WoW newsletters.)
In all other cases, I'm better without the graphics, and web bugs won't work. It makes me feel safe enough (when using a web-based email viewer) to open some spam messages, to check the headers for some things, without confirming my address to the spammer.
Nor has evolution equipped us to deal with a build up of substances in our bodies that can be harmful at higher doses, when it takes > 50 years to build up such a dose. Humans never used to live long enough to be affected by that, and they would have passed on their genes by that age anyway.
How much Teflon is in your blood?
The web server is also running on the NXT.
They have taken plenty of action: they put up a web server and put up the stuff on the Internet.
Ahh yeah, just like how "being born", "getting a phone line and email address", and "living in a building" are actions that opt you in to everything under the sun in the US.
Then Belgian law is broken.
I'd take Belgian law over the US any day. Yes it's wrong in this one little particular case about robots.txt, but it's right in 99% of other opt-in cases.
This has nothing to do with privacy.
Yes it does. Opt-in is intended to ensure better privacy, by preventing the selling, sharing, or exploitation of private data unless the owner of that data allows it. Belgian law gets it 99% right; US law gets it 1% right.
And you are assuming that I'm as stupid as the standard American traveler. I know how to dress for the countries I visit, I know when to keep my mouth shut, and can get by in German well enough disguise my accent, especially German isn't the native language of the person I'm talking to, either.
The other reply has a very good point, too. IEDs that explode when an American walks by can now be standardized and mass produced.
That was a quote from the GP. Did you intend to reply to them instead of me?
Your post proved my point - encryption is optional, and the data in the MRZ section isn't encrypted anyway. That includes issuing country.
Well, because I assume that countries will want to be able to read each other's RFID codes. Great Britain now has RFID codes in their passports; of course they'll make it so our readers can read their passports, and vice versa.
Then all of Europe shares in the system, then parts of Asia, then so many readers are out there that can at least decode the country (if nothing else) that it becomes likely the data will leak out to third parties.
In unrelated news, Sony announced today a movie rental program featuring their latest Digital Rights Management scheme. Each movie cartridge features an embedded power and monitoring system; if any attempts are made to copy the movie or circumvent the protection, the movie implodes to ensure that the copyright holder's rights are maintained.
As part of their environmental initiative, Sony has also announced that they secured a source of recycled power supplies and detonation units for this new program.
I mean it doesn't have personal information, even if decoded, so what use is it to anyone, except that it identifies you with a big random number like a cookie does.
Wherever you go, anywhere in the world, anyone who gets within a few feet of you can conclusively identify you as a U.S. citizen if they so wish to. (I assume there is some common code that identifies it as a U.S. passport.)
I've never seen the state department do anything that jeopardizes the safety of American travelers as much as this will.
First, Google is doing this with the web site's owner's consent: it's an Internet standard that you give or deny consent with a robots.txt file. If the Belgian web sites don't exclude Google with their robots.txt file, obviously the web site owner has given consent.
Belgium has a very stringent opt-in law, the kind that privacy advocates in the US dream about. Everything must be opt-in, no exceptions.
robots.txt is the internet standard, yes. It is also opt-out, because you are assumed to give consent unless you take an action.
The judge ruled correctly based on Belgian law.
Not at all. Several movies for which I saw the world premiere at SXSW earlier this year were "hot off the presses," to speak. For Tales of the Rat Fink, only the director had seen the final cut, as he was editing it up until a day or so before the premiere. For A Prairie Home Companion, I believe the director and one technician had seen the final cut before us.
I want the government to maintain a fair playing field for all competitors in all markets. Without this, capitalism dies.
This means the government enforces fraud and misreprentation. It means the government enforces environmental laws so all vendors have the same production costs. It means the government punishes or breaks up monopolies that try to abuse other markets. It means the government enforces the neutrality of mediums upon which business is conducted.
If roads were private, and the vendor of the road to my house decided to charge USPS and UPS trucks $10 a package to drive through (but let DHL and FedEx trucks through with no extra charge), I'd be clamoring for the government to fix that problem, too.
We should start to use "Network Equality" or "Data Non-Discrimination" instead.
Those are awful names. They don't apply at all.
Nothing about net neutrality should limit traffic shaping based on data type. The name "data non-discrimination" makes it sound like it forces ISPs to treat HTML traffic the same way as VOIP traffic, or bittorrent traffic. That is bad ISP policy and bad network design.
Instead, net neutrality is about ISPs treating all traffic of the same type the same way, regardless of source. VOIP on Roadrunner cable from Vonage should get the same bandwidth as VOIP from Time Warner's phone service. The alternative - Time Warner throttling competitors to push its own service - is what net neutrality is supposed to prevent.
So, name it net vendor neutrality, if necessary.
>> if the telemarketers are following the rules
If they were following the rules, the caller ID information wouldn't be "Unknown Name, Unknown Number" or "Not Available", which is the information given on each of the 3-4 calls we get daily. We've been on the Do Not Call list since the day it opened.
Why does he care more about the opinions of the world press than he does the opinions of the American press? Or, for that matter, why does he care more about the opinions of the world press than he does for the potential safety of American citizens?
Sad to say it, but there already is a group to test these weapons on: American soldiers. Whether or not that's the way it should be, the government has been using solders as lab rats for decades. There have to be soldiers willing to volunteer to test (potentially) non-lethal weapons at home, instead of being shipped to Iraq where they would (potentially) face lethal ones.
I dunno. I got a lot of great reading in as a child, while I swapped floppies waiting for my game to load on my Commodore 64 - for some games as often as every few minutes.
With the load screens on some modern console games, I expects today's kids could get the same broad literary experience.
Sony is a big company. Their content and entertainment divions may be on my sh*t list right now, but they have always (and still do) make darn good electronics hardware, when it isn't crippled by the other divisions.
Since their TVs support all the correct standards, I'd give them a carrot in this case and support them. I won't touch anything else Sony makes right now, but we bought our TV from them last year.
This is similar to Microsoft - I won't touch their OS or application software, but their game division has made some nice things.
I'm just a consumer, and my power lies solely with my dollar. I do avoid places on principle. At the same time, I know nothing I do will put these companies out of business. The next best thing is to show them that they can make money and be profitable with their open, solid product lines, which might encourage them to make fewer restricted, crappy products.
Don't forget Andy Serkis!
The executives of Sony's hardware development groups see their hardware products as an opportunity to force some new, proprietary format down consumer's throats (see also beta, ATRAC, memory stick, blue-ray, etc.). The executives of Sony's content group see their proprietary formats as a way to force new content restrictions down consumer's throats.
As an electrical engineer and hardware designer, I feel really bad for the actual developers of the PS3 console. I can't imagine they want to develop a product that won't meet sales expectations, and they'd probably prefer to design the kind of product that we, too, want to see. I know from personal experience that it is depressing to design products where, before release, it becomes obvious to us developers that they cannot meet their sales forecasts.
Sure, it doesn't work for every site. But many sites are focused, either in terms of geographical location or topic. Chicago White Sox online forums? You already have a common theme to quiz people over. Los Angeles Craigslist entries? Same thing.
This problem absolutely cannot be solved, no matter how much effort is put into it. But it can be made less economically feasible, by making it harder to reuse CAPTCHA solutions, and to increase the time needed to solve them without relevant knowledge. This helps to keep out the smaller guys who aren't willing to put up the effort. Then you have fewer targets for the FBI/etc. swat teams to raid and "accidentally" shoot...
and yet it is commonly acceptable by those who did and do play with Legos to refer to them in the plural.
Yes, but it is not commonly acceptable to The LEGO Group to have their trademark misused. At your house you can call them what you wish. However, to have an argument on the internet about whether "lego" or "legos" is the "correct" plural is idiotic, as neither is correct.
(Yes, to have an argument on the internet about anything is idiotic. This is just especially bad. ~)
No, anything put out on the curb or in a public-accessible dumpster is free for the taking. If the dumpster is protected, or the trash cans are not on the curb, then their contents are considered private.
My mother-in-law, for example, pays extra to have side-yard trash service. She never has to set them on the curb; they are picked up from where they normally sit on the side of her house. As a result, there is never a legal time that the public can retrieve things. (Perhaps the trash men themselves can. I don't know.)
Go read the summary of this HGTV trash borrowing show. They take garbage from a home owner's curb, fix it up, and secretly return it.
Random, My shiny metal ass!
;)
Maybe it's because your metal buttocks set off the detectors?