As an NRA member I have to agree with you, they do love to stir up their members. That said, they are not really and different than any other lobby group in that regard.
Autoloading pistols are very finicky systems as anyone who's done any gunsmithing can tell you. Adding more mechanical complexity, not to mention electrical complexity, is a very bad idea. The resulting guns almost certainly won't work reliably. Far and away the most important safety feature of a gun is that it goes bang when you pull the trigger and successfully cycles so you can do it again - thereby dealing with whatever you were shooting and making you safer. Any "improvements" to guns that don't facilitate that aren't actually improvements.
I wouldn't say there is no demand for it. I'm a gun owner and I would love to have a technology that prevented my weapons from being misused by someone else. I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling that way either.
What I would say that there is a very legitimate mistrust of the technology. Until someone can come up with a system that is proven to be completely reliable, no one is going to want it, myself included.
Since when did the Constitution say that the police should write the laws? If the police don't like the current laws, they can hire a lobbyist, same as the Koch Brothers.
I think you missed the point. The police have lobbied against this technology for themselves because they are afraid it will fail when they need to use their weapon in a life saving situation. So "once the policy are happy enough with the technology to use it exclusively" is equivalent to saying "when hell freezes over"
Actually, most consumer vehicles are designed to minimise pedestrian injury these days, particularly given that most impacts occur in urban environments and are therefore comparatively low-speed. There are even standards they test against in Europe.
This is for accidental pedestrian encounters at relatively low speeds such as city driving where such encounters are much more common. It wouldn't help you much if the person behind the wheel intended to do you harm. I don't think any pedestrian safety design will save you if you get smacked head on at 60 mph. Possibly repeatedly if they were really determined.
The problem with that logic is the fact that the 2 biggest Cable companies are Time Warner and Comcast (soon to merge to our further detriment). These companies are also the owners of the networks that are forcing them to buy them as bundles.
So companies like Comcast and Time Warner are forcing companies like Comcast and Time Warner to provide their channels as a package deal. Doesn't sound exactly the same when you take that into account, now does it? And that is the major conflicts of interests you get when you have the content producer and distributor are the exact same people.
This whole problem predates the Comcast/NBC debacle and goes back a few decades. Even so, both of those companies also force their competitors into bundles, which serves them even more since being able to offer ala-cart channels would be a competitive advantage to whoever could pull it off. If they can't do it (remember, they don't produce all the content they resell in their cable divisions) they won't allow anyone else to either. Cable companies would LOVE ala-cart pricing if they could do it. I guarantee you it would result in a bigger margin for them if they could offer it.
Don't get too sad for them though. Those same contracts that tie them into offering The Knitting Channel HD along with FX and Fox News cut both ways. They are the reason that you can't buy a stream directly from the producers. The cable companies have gotten big enough that they can dictate terms back to the networks like you can't sell streams directly to our customers. Also the reason cable companies are fighting tooth and nail to kill net neutrality.
Twitch.tv are pretty big. They can get 50-100k live viewers on dota 2 streams, which are typically hours long. That has to be worth something.
Or League of Legends. That game can pull in over a million live viewers at times. Hell the "finals" last year pulled in over 32 million. Most TV broadcasts outside the Super Bowl can't pull that off.
Shit with absolutely no real world business prospects to justify the price they command. Are we in Internet bubble 2.0?
Twitch is currently profitable and has very real business prospects. They are actually competing quite well for viewers with TV, and that's pretty damned impressive for a site that streams people playing video games. For the young male demographic, Twitch outperforms quite a few of the larger cable TV stations in prime time and they are growing fast. They have very real business prospects, as long as something doesn't happen to derail them. The problem right now is that they are a victim of their own success and they need capital to grow. I think that's why they are shopping themselves around. Which is great! Except I'm afraid of two things: 1) whoever buys them will screw them up (Google does not have a good track record in this regard) and 2) it will draw more attention from big media and we will start to see copyright issues erode their success. I mean, just look at late last year for a perfect example of what can go wrong. Youtube almost destroyed their gaming channels with changes to their automated copyright system. Sega and Nintendo have also been bizarrely hostile to the community on Youtube as well.
Considering some of the other crazy deals lately (What's App for $19 Billion for example) Google picking up Twitch for $1 billion would be a steal.
I kind of wondered the same thing until I started watching. I originally went there to look at actual game play footage for a game I was thinking of picking up. In the process I found a few streamers who I actually enjoyed watching. They were funny, interactive with their viewers, and pretty good gamers to boot. Now I go back pretty much every day to watch while I work or surf. It's replaced some TV and podcasts as my "background noise".
Keep in mind most of the smaller streamers (and those tend to be the more entertaining to watch) are not e-sports try-hards. Their play is more casual. I tried a few of the bigger streams but yet, just watching someone team grind to keep their K/D is boring as watching golf.
Cable tv is loaded with useless channels that the consumer is forced to pay for. Channels that most consumers never watch and/or never heard of come with the package and contribute to the cost of monthly access. Cable providers will never allow the consumer to pick what channels they want so the only solution is to cut the cord and subscribe to services like Netflix and Hulu. The other(not so legal option) is to torrent your favorite shows.
The majority of the blame for bundling goes to the networks actually. They force bundles onto the cable companies, the cable companies then turn around and pass those bundles on to their subscribers. It also doesn't help that they all compete on how many channels you get as a selling point for the consumer (so blame the viewers a bit for being stupid as well). I wouldn't be surprised if a good chunk of those rising prices are due to the networks as well. They are addicted to the fees they are getting from pay TV services. Just look at the carriage contract fights that have been popping up more and more lately.
The whole damned industry from producers to the cable companies is a rapidly getting out of control and it's just going to get worse. Allowing mergers between cable companies and content providers was a huge mistake and it's going to end up biting everyone in the ass eventually.
Well, it makes sense for GM anyway. The cars with OnStar are already equipped with the expensive part (the cellular modem). It's what OnStar uses. OnStar users are already paying for their data line with their subscription, so that's covered as well (non-OnStar users pay a premium to use the hotspot). Just work out a deal with the cell provider, toss in a cheap WiFi component (that you will pay for in the price of the car) and presto! A virtually no cost added (again, for GM) revenue source. The user paid for the hardware and the service, the cell company paid for the infrastructure, GM's cut is pure profit. Even if it's only used once per 1,000,000 vehicles a day it doesn't matter to them.
This is where I usually go on a rant about the TV networks cancelling shows is purely about money and it's the viewers who fuck it up by not watching. TV shows are bait, viewers are the product. If a particular bait doesn't work, you switch baits. Usually. In this case however the majority of the blame has to go to Fox for re-ordering the episodes into a confusing, non-linear mess. Someone at Fox loves good sci-fi. But someone else must hate it because it gets green-lit then ends up in a bad time slot, shown all out of order, moved all over the schedule, and/or put on long random breaks.
...researchers independently retrieved the private keys from the intentionally-vulnerable NGINX server...
Intentionally vulnerable - so this wasn't a bug in the NGINX server, it was a feature, right?
They put up a publicly accessible NGINX server with the vulnerable version of OpenSSL to see if anyone could get the private keys from it (they thought that this was not possible from their internal testing). It only took a few hours before they were proven wrong. At the time they had already patched the rest of their systems to address the Heartbleed vulnerability.
It has for AT&T, Verizon, EA, Dropbox, etc. Why would General Mills' be treated any different than the other Corporate Masters?
The big difference here is that the agreement is not apparent or possibly even presented to the user at the time or before hand. You can like something on facebook that a friend liked, and you would never see that agreement. Ditto if you tweeted something to their twitter account (which I assume they would include in this). Even with today's corporate friendly courts I can't see how they would not get laughed out of the courtroom for trying to pull this card out.
Games are typically 10GB. You could easily have 10 games installed simultaneously.
Maybe 5 or 10 years ago but not anymore. Here is a quick look at a few of the bigger games I have installed on my PC. Most of these are not even "new" but a year or more old.
BF3: 19GB Titanfall: 50GB Medal of Honor: War Fighter: 18GB Need for Speed: The Run: 16GB GTA IV: 15GB Max Payne 3: 30GB Batman Arkham Origins: 25GB Batman Arkham City: 19GB CoD MW3: 14GB BioShock Infinite: 17GB
Well, 256GB SSD ought to be enough for anybody, and is relatively affordable.
Well, that depends on what you are doing on your machine. If you are a gamer, with game installs running from 20 to 50 GB (I'm looking at you Titanfall!) a 256GB system drive won't go far.
So in other words 'gun control' in America has its basis in racism. Not at all surprising; much of it still does.
Yep. In fact race played a big part in most gun control laws all the way up until the 1970's when it really started to flip to a "liberal" issue due to increasing inner-city violence. Many of the political parties, states, and organizations that oppose gun control today were fighting for it for most of the the prior 100 years, and doing so for almost exclusively racist reasons. Ironically, those same people created the conditions that led to the drug and gang violence we are dealing with today. The early history of the LA street gangs, how and why they came to be is actually pretty interesting.
No, it's not. The view that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to private citizens did not enter into America politics and courts until the late 1800's after the civil war when gun control laws started being passed as a way to disarm recently freed blacks in the south. Prior to that it was never questioned that it applied to "The People". The DOJ did a very though review of the law going back to the signing of the constitution and they came to the same conclusion that it was an individual right.
What good would a medical doctor be without CAT,X-Ray,IRM, Ultrasound, antibiotics or vaccines?
Go homeopathic?
a new study claims that 98% of the time doctors never run any of those tests but bill for them anyway. They also claim the something like 95% of the medicines they handout are actually inactive or contain sub MED (Minimum Effective Dose)! Bottom line doctors don't need them!
A better description would be that information flows around me like a river during a flood and I reach down from the bank and scoop out a little bit for a sip on a hot day. Then I turn around and take a walk in the woods. Control that, Comcast!
You may want to avoid analogies about consuming something when you are arguing that you don't consume something else......
Consume
verb
1.
eat, drink, or ingest (food or drink).
"people consume a good deal of sugar in drinks"
If someone came along with a counter-proof and that proof held up then yes, it would invalidate the original.
As for using a framework, correct. You have to use certain starting assumptions. In this case they are building on prior work that applies to the theory they are writing the proof for. Going back to the car analogy, you have to take an assumption, for example, that four wheel vehicles exist before you can begin trying to prove that a theoretical concept car can go 60 mph.
Keep in mind we are talking about a "mathematical proof" that something is possible, not "math proves" that something is possible. There is a distinction.
Slashdot Mirror
As an NRA member I have to agree with you, they do love to stir up their members. That said, they are not really and different than any other lobby group in that regard.
Autoloading pistols are very finicky systems as anyone who's done any gunsmithing can tell you. Adding more mechanical complexity, not to mention electrical complexity, is a very bad idea. The resulting guns almost certainly won't work reliably. Far and away the most important safety feature of a gun is that it goes bang when you pull the trigger and successfully cycles so you can do it again - thereby dealing with whatever you were shooting and making you safer. Any "improvements" to guns that don't facilitate that aren't actually improvements.
I wouldn't say there is no demand for it. I'm a gun owner and I would love to have a technology that prevented my weapons from being misused by someone else. I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling that way either.
What I would say that there is a very legitimate mistrust of the technology. Until someone can come up with a system that is proven to be completely reliable, no one is going to want it, myself included.
Since when did the Constitution say that the police should write the laws? If the police don't like the current laws, they can hire a lobbyist, same as the Koch Brothers.
I think you missed the point. The police have lobbied against this technology for themselves because they are afraid it will fail when they need to use their weapon in a life saving situation. So "once the policy are happy enough with the technology to use it exclusively" is equivalent to saying "when hell freezes over"
Actually, most consumer vehicles are designed to minimise pedestrian injury these days, particularly given that most impacts occur in urban environments and are therefore comparatively low-speed. There are even standards they test against in Europe.
This is for accidental pedestrian encounters at relatively low speeds such as city driving where such encounters are much more common. It wouldn't help you much if the person behind the wheel intended to do you harm. I don't think any pedestrian safety design will save you if you get smacked head on at 60 mph. Possibly repeatedly if they were really determined.
The problem with that logic is the fact that the 2 biggest Cable companies are Time Warner and Comcast (soon to merge to our further detriment). These companies are also the owners of the networks that are forcing them to buy them as bundles.
So companies like Comcast and Time Warner are forcing companies like Comcast and Time Warner to provide their channels as a package deal. Doesn't sound exactly the same when you take that into account, now does it? And that is the major conflicts of interests you get when you have the content producer and distributor are the exact same people.
This whole problem predates the Comcast/NBC debacle and goes back a few decades. Even so, both of those companies also force their competitors into bundles, which serves them even more since being able to offer ala-cart channels would be a competitive advantage to whoever could pull it off. If they can't do it (remember, they don't produce all the content they resell in their cable divisions) they won't allow anyone else to either. Cable companies would LOVE ala-cart pricing if they could do it. I guarantee you it would result in a bigger margin for them if they could offer it.
Don't get too sad for them though. Those same contracts that tie them into offering The Knitting Channel HD along with FX and Fox News cut both ways. They are the reason that you can't buy a stream directly from the producers. The cable companies have gotten big enough that they can dictate terms back to the networks like you can't sell streams directly to our customers. Also the reason cable companies are fighting tooth and nail to kill net neutrality.
Twitch.tv are pretty big. They can get 50-100k live viewers on dota 2 streams, which are typically hours long. That has to be worth something.
Or League of Legends. That game can pull in over a million live viewers at times. Hell the "finals" last year pulled in over 32 million. Most TV broadcasts outside the Super Bowl can't pull that off.
Shit with absolutely no real world business prospects to justify the price they command. Are we in Internet bubble 2.0?
Twitch is currently profitable and has very real business prospects. They are actually competing quite well for viewers with TV, and that's pretty damned impressive for a site that streams people playing video games. For the young male demographic, Twitch outperforms quite a few of the larger cable TV stations in prime time and they are growing fast. They have very real business prospects, as long as something doesn't happen to derail them. The problem right now is that they are a victim of their own success and they need capital to grow. I think that's why they are shopping themselves around. Which is great! Except I'm afraid of two things: 1) whoever buys them will screw them up (Google does not have a good track record in this regard) and 2) it will draw more attention from big media and we will start to see copyright issues erode their success. I mean, just look at late last year for a perfect example of what can go wrong. Youtube almost destroyed their gaming channels with changes to their automated copyright system. Sega and Nintendo have also been bizarrely hostile to the community on Youtube as well.
Considering some of the other crazy deals lately (What's App for $19 Billion for example) Google picking up Twitch for $1 billion would be a steal.
I kind of wondered the same thing until I started watching. I originally went there to look at actual game play footage for a game I was thinking of picking up. In the process I found a few streamers who I actually enjoyed watching. They were funny, interactive with their viewers, and pretty good gamers to boot. Now I go back pretty much every day to watch while I work or surf. It's replaced some TV and podcasts as my "background noise".
Keep in mind most of the smaller streamers (and those tend to be the more entertaining to watch) are not e-sports try-hards. Their play is more casual. I tried a few of the bigger streams but yet, just watching someone team grind to keep their K/D is boring as watching golf.
Maybe google can find a way to make the video streaming less awful. They can hardly make it worse!
They will just have the automated copyright system flag everything and mass DMCA the lot. But look at the up side: No more buffering or stream delays!
Cable tv is loaded with useless channels that the consumer is forced to pay for. Channels that most consumers never watch and/or never heard of come with the package and contribute to the cost of monthly access. Cable providers will never allow the consumer to pick what channels they want so the only solution is to cut the cord and subscribe to services like Netflix and Hulu. The other(not so legal option) is to torrent your favorite shows.
The majority of the blame for bundling goes to the networks actually. They force bundles onto the cable companies, the cable companies then turn around and pass those bundles on to their subscribers. It also doesn't help that they all compete on how many channels you get as a selling point for the consumer (so blame the viewers a bit for being stupid as well). I wouldn't be surprised if a good chunk of those rising prices are due to the networks as well. They are addicted to the fees they are getting from pay TV services. Just look at the carriage contract fights that have been popping up more and more lately.
The whole damned industry from producers to the cable companies is a rapidly getting out of control and it's just going to get worse. Allowing mergers between cable companies and content providers was a huge mistake and it's going to end up biting everyone in the ass eventually.
Well, it makes sense for GM anyway. The cars with OnStar are already equipped with the expensive part (the cellular modem). It's what OnStar uses. OnStar users are already paying for their data line with their subscription, so that's covered as well (non-OnStar users pay a premium to use the hotspot). Just work out a deal with the cell provider, toss in a cheap WiFi component (that you will pay for in the price of the car) and presto! A virtually no cost added (again, for GM) revenue source. The user paid for the hardware and the service, the cell company paid for the infrastructure, GM's cut is pure profit. Even if it's only used once per 1,000,000 vehicles a day it doesn't matter to them.
I think the more amazing thing from this article is that we've apparently figured out how to identify the gender or a star.
Wait, are we talking Almost Human or Firefly?
Yes.
This is where I usually go on a rant about the TV networks cancelling shows is purely about money and it's the viewers who fuck it up by not watching. TV shows are bait, viewers are the product. If a particular bait doesn't work, you switch baits. Usually. In this case however the majority of the blame has to go to Fox for re-ordering the episodes into a confusing, non-linear mess. Someone at Fox loves good sci-fi. But someone else must hate it because it gets green-lit then ends up in a bad time slot, shown all out of order, moved all over the schedule, and/or put on long random breaks.
Are you ready for an era where the ignition key doesn't exist?
If you aren't ready for advancements in technology then what are you doing reading this website?
Seriously.
Complaining about advancements in technology of course
Intentionally vulnerable - so this wasn't a bug in the NGINX server, it was a feature, right?
They put up a publicly accessible NGINX server with the vulnerable version of OpenSSL to see if anyone could get the private keys from it (they thought that this was not possible from their internal testing). It only took a few hours before they were proven wrong. At the time they had already patched the rest of their systems to address the Heartbleed vulnerability.
yeah, that will stand up in court.
It has for AT&T, Verizon, EA, Dropbox, etc. Why would General Mills' be treated any different than the other Corporate Masters?
The big difference here is that the agreement is not apparent or possibly even presented to the user at the time or before hand. You can like something on facebook that a friend liked, and you would never see that agreement. Ditto if you tweeted something to their twitter account (which I assume they would include in this). Even with today's corporate friendly courts I can't see how they would not get laughed out of the courtroom for trying to pull this card out.
Games are typically 10GB. You could easily have 10 games installed simultaneously.
Maybe 5 or 10 years ago but not anymore. Here is a quick look at a few of the bigger games I have installed on my PC. Most of these are not even "new" but a year or more old.
BF3: 19GB
Titanfall: 50GB
Medal of Honor: War Fighter: 18GB
Need for Speed: The Run: 16GB
GTA IV: 15GB
Max Payne 3: 30GB
Batman Arkham Origins: 25GB
Batman Arkham City: 19GB
CoD MW3: 14GB
BioShock Infinite: 17GB
Well, 256GB SSD ought to be enough for anybody, and is relatively affordable.
Well, that depends on what you are doing on your machine. If you are a gamer, with game installs running from 20 to 50 GB (I'm looking at you Titanfall!) a 256GB system drive won't go far.
So in other words 'gun control' in America has its basis in racism. Not at all surprising; much of it still does.
Yep. In fact race played a big part in most gun control laws all the way up until the 1970's when it really started to flip to a "liberal" issue due to increasing inner-city violence. Many of the political parties, states, and organizations that oppose gun control today were fighting for it for most of the the prior 100 years, and doing so for almost exclusively racist reasons. Ironically, those same people created the conditions that led to the drug and gang violence we are dealing with today. The early history of the LA street gangs, how and why they came to be is actually pretty interesting.
No, it's not. The view that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to private citizens did not enter into America politics and courts until the late 1800's after the civil war when gun control laws started being passed as a way to disarm recently freed blacks in the south. Prior to that it was never questioned that it applied to "The People". The DOJ did a very though review of the law going back to the signing of the constitution and they came to the same conclusion that it was an individual right.
What good would a medical doctor be without CAT,X-Ray,IRM, Ultrasound, antibiotics or vaccines? Go homeopathic?
a new study claims that 98% of the time doctors never run any of those tests but bill for them anyway. They also claim the something like 95% of the medicines they handout are actually inactive or contain sub MED (Minimum Effective Dose)! Bottom line doctors don't need them!
Bullshit. Link to this "study"?
A better description would be that information flows around me like a river during a flood and I reach down from the bank and scoop out a little bit for a sip on a hot day. Then I turn around and take a walk in the woods. Control that, Comcast!
You may want to avoid analogies about consuming something when you are arguing that you don't consume something else......
Consume
verb
1.
eat, drink, or ingest (food or drink).
"people consume a good deal of sugar in drinks"
If someone came along with a counter-proof and that proof held up then yes, it would invalidate the original.
As for using a framework, correct. You have to use certain starting assumptions. In this case they are building on prior work that applies to the theory they are writing the proof for. Going back to the car analogy, you have to take an assumption, for example, that four wheel vehicles exist before you can begin trying to prove that a theoretical concept car can go 60 mph.
Keep in mind we are talking about a "mathematical proof" that something is possible, not "math proves" that something is possible. There is a distinction.
Relevant XKCD: http://www.xkcd.com/1352/