I seriously doubt it's a technical position. A "Strategist" is probably considering things like "how much do we have to do to satisfy regulations", "can we get away with this without negative press", "will the extent of negative press damage our reputation", "does the positive press from this make it worth doing", etc. A business position. I don't think they're considering implementation details on their products - that would be further down the line.
The surprise comes from the government actually acting in line with the study, instead of sticking its fingers in its ears, and legislating its preconceived notions anyway.
Because by default with these appliances, they treat you as an imprisoned criminal, restricting your freedom. The spin you're trying to put on it is already the basis of the original term.
Why do we care if gun control prevents gun crime? What we really want to know is if gun control prevents crime. If "gun crime" goes down by a thousand instances, and "knife crime" rises by the same amount, what's the difference?
As PayPal, yeah. But PayPal isn't in the same market as banking. People's transaction accounts are a minuscule part of a bank's operations. There core business is more money management - loans, mortgages, investments, speculation - that's where the money is. And that's nowhere near Google's core competencies.
If Google got up and said we are going to offer a savings account, for me, that would be very difficult and confronting
Yeah, well, if Google said they were going to offer a used car service, that'd probably be difficult and confronting for a whole bunch of used car salesmen. There appear to be no plans in that direction, and it's an industry that makes absolutely no sense for Google to get into.
Moreover, comparing banks to PayPal is disingenuous. They don't do nearly the same things. PayPal is a transaction broker. They compete with VISA and MasterCard, if anyone. They don't offer investment accounts or mortgages - and those are the functions that people most seem to care about. Transaction accounts? Barely a blip on most people's radar, I think.
OP was making a hypothesis about a profile, X, that could predict behavior Y. Given FB's dataset, one could start with an arbitrary 100 cases of behavior Y (manually detected by having humans pore over 10000 random logs), and derive all sorts of profiles for "X", and then selectively winnow them out (for each "X") for predictivity.
And I was stating that human relationships are complex enough that, without some sort of natural language AI, analysing frequency of communication on a single channel is not likely to provide a useful correlation.
I mean, Facebook can't even reliably determine when people die yet, and that's a much clearer case than when a relationship between two people is going to change.
What shifted was the number of people he needs protection from: it is now not only those who would profit financially from unauthorized distribution, but also those who distribute just because they can
What changed was the degree to which damage was done. When the laws were instituted, any infringement was going to involve multiple thousands of copies; hence the large penalties. If you found one copy, there were going to be thousands that you didn't find, because printing machinery couldn't really be used for small runs.
Now people who infringe are making 1 or 2 copies, and are being slugged with penalties intended for those who churned out a hundred thousand.
Or it could mean Alice and Bob moved in together, no longer have to communicate via Facebook, and Charlie is Alice's ex-neighbour/housemate who she likes to keep in touch with. Starting with the conclusion, and reviewing data in hindsight for cues is easy. Doing to forward is tricky, because those cues could have multiple meanings.
The laws (English laws, which helped shape the US laws) were written in a time when personal copying was a non-issue. The only people who could afford printing presses were commercial entities, and running off single copies was likewise not viable. The laws were written with the assumption that the only people who copied material were other publishers, as they were the only ones who could afford to (for everyone else, the cost of copying far outweighed the purchase price of the goods). There was no point in making a distinction in the laws, because no distinction existed in reality.
The underlying technology changed, and the assumptions the laws were based on shifted. And instead of updating laws to reflect reality, the laws are being used to hold reality to ransom.
Respectfully, you're completely missing the point. You and I might know what WEP is. Probably 99.something% of people do not.
They don't need to know what WEP is. They need to know what "encryption" (the general meaning of the term) or "secure" is (these being the two labels I've usually seen on home devices). They also need to be able to read the manuals and setup instructions that come with their device, which explicitly explain how they should be configured.
It's the same reason we still call a thief a thief if they take your car, even though you left it unlocked (or, to give a fairer analogy, you did lock it, but you didn't know, because the manufacturer didn't tell you, that you also had to pop the hood and flick a special combination of hidden levers to make the lock actually secure the vehicle).
No, it's not like that. The "levers" aren't obscure or hidden away. You're going to have to go into the control panel to setup your internet connection. On most home routers I've seen, the encryption settings are right there in front of the user. If your ISP is shipping the device pre-configured for you, then they should be configuring it properly, and have their ass hauled across the coals if they're not (i.e. Selling a product as pre-configured, when it's configured insecurely).
Your car-stealing analogy starts to break apart when you get into the guts of it. There are publicly accessible WiFi hotspots. Their main distinguishing feature is that they're unencrypted. We don't have unlocked, public-use cars floating around the place for people to confuse with privately-owned cars, so the analogy isn't really apt.
Hell, I believe early versions of XP would automatically connect to unsecured WiFi networks if it found. In the spirit of your previous post, it would be appropriate for me to wish you imprisoned in a federal jail on computer hacking charges because your computer automatically hooked up to a WiFi network that was advertising itself for public use,
then I hope your car gets stolen tomorrow, because you had the wrong security system fitted and a thief just took your vehicle from right outside your home, even though you'd done everything you were supposed to to keep it secure.
Except in this case, people hadn't done everything they were supposed to do to keep it secure. If my car got stolen because I was too stupid to push the little "lock" button on my keychain, then damn straight I'd deserve it. Likewise, if I hadn't put in a tax return for 10 years, I'd expect to be hammered hard.
This isn't about people not doing absolutely everything perfectly. It's about them not even doing the minimum. WEP has been trivially crackable for ages - but even if people use WEP, I'd be offended if Google had cracked it. It would have shown intent, that they were deliberately trying to capture stuff that people were trying to protect.
Uh-huh, and just because someone publishes a publicly accessible webpage available over http doesn't mean you have any right to access it, right? You should be getting written permission to "hack into" their computer by accessing it via publicly-accessible protocols they have explicitly installed and made available?
There are well-documented methods for establishing whether you want somebody to be able to use your connection. Not using them, and then complaining that someone uses it is like bitching that Google indexes your site, because you didn't setup robot.txt.
This is how low Slashdot has sunk. Years ago, this site was very pro-privacy. We're now at the point where a company can archive your emails and passwords, claim it was an accident, and get off the hook by promising not to do it again next time--and that's "doing nothing wrong whatsoever" according to the posters here.
No, we're just very pro personal responsibility. If you're broadcasting unencrypted data into the street, reading it shouldn't be a crime. If you don't know how to encrypt your wireless data - even with easily-cracked encryptions, that at least require some deliberate effort to crack - then you shouldn't it be broadcasting it into people's face. If Google were getting this data by cracking WEP, or performing MitM attacks, then I'm sure you'd see people up in arms.
Complaining about this is like complaining that a vehicle equipped with an audio recorder picked up your shouted argument from the street. If you weren't screaming at the top of your damn lungs, nobody would have heard anything.
Password masking isn't designed to stop the dedicated/skilled hacker. It's designed to stop the casual - the guy walking past your desk who needs one glance to see your full password sitting there in all its plain-text glory.
If you need to be able to view it, there are plenty of options for doing that without having the whole password there for anyone to see at any time. Show the password masked, except for the last character. Show the full password only if you mouse over it. At the very lease, default to masked and allow the user to toggle it off rather than on.
is limited to only 100 users unless you modify your code slightly
So your argument is that it's a perfectly fine distribution method, because all you need to do is modify and re-compile your code every hundred purchases?
Sorry, but that's just wrong. Sometimes Nielsen has good stuff to say, but at other, he just seems out of touch:
More importantly, there's usually nobody looking over your shoulder when you log in to a website. It's just you, sitting all alone in your office, suffering reduced usability to protect against a non-issue.
Who has an office? I don't. Most of my friends don't. If you log in at work, your screen is generally visible. Ditto for on your laptop when your commuting. Home is the only safe place.
In cases where there's a tension between security and usability, sometimes security should win.
Sometimes security should win? Usability's important, but I think Nielsen is over-emphasizing its importance because its his person crusade.
It's therefore worth offering them a checkbox to have their passwords masked.
His solution? Default to insecure and require user-interaction to increase it. Yeah, that's going to work.
Yeah, but you need to remember that other people know the industry too, or at least, hire people whose job it is to know how to evaluate shares for investments. The $11.70 price you bought at probably incorporated people's expectations for Starcraft 2, and Cataclysm. You're probably right in saying that it's just following the market, but it could also be that your buying price was inflated due to unrealistic expectations of SC2 and Cataclysm's success. To really benefit from knowledge of an industry, you need knowledge that other people don't have. That's why insider trading is so powerful (and illegal).
Yeah, it pretty much has solved everything - at least everything that's possible to be sold. The reason there are a lot of ISPs selling data at the same rates is because those rates are the optimum value - sell them it for less and you make a loss, sell it for more and you get undercut by the competition.
The fact that there isn't unlimited broadband here isn't due to any failure of capitalism, it's simply due to the laws of nature. Countries that do have unlimited data rates have either: 1) Better infrastructure (Korea, Japan, etc) 2) Companies screwing the customer to try and hide the fact that they're not unlimited (USA)
I'd much rather have a fixed limit than have my traffic randomly shaped because I'm using a particular protocol. Or because I'm downloading from a source that isn't paying them money. Nobody suggests capitalism is going to make everything perfect - it simply tends towards the optimum (given a certain set of conditions).
Slashdot Mirror
Depends - is the government going to offer a refund of all taxes for all services provided over the span of the libertarians lifetime?
I seriously doubt it's a technical position. A "Strategist" is probably considering things like "how much do we have to do to satisfy regulations", "can we get away with this without negative press", "will the extent of negative press damage our reputation", "does the positive press from this make it worth doing", etc. A business position. I don't think they're considering implementation details on their products - that would be further down the line.
The surprise comes from the government actually acting in line with the study, instead of sticking its fingers in its ears, and legislating its preconceived notions anyway.
Because by default with these appliances, they treat you as an imprisoned criminal, restricting your freedom. The spin you're trying to put on it is already the basis of the original term.
Why do we care if gun control prevents gun crime?
What we really want to know is if gun control prevents crime. If "gun crime" goes down by a thousand instances, and "knife crime" rises by the same amount, what's the difference?
As PayPal, yeah. But PayPal isn't in the same market as banking. People's transaction accounts are a minuscule part of a bank's operations. There core business is more money management - loans, mortgages, investments, speculation - that's where the money is. And that's nowhere near Google's core competencies.
This article doesn't even make sense.
If Google got up and said we are going to offer a savings account, for me, that would be very difficult and confronting
Yeah, well, if Google said they were going to offer a used car service, that'd probably be difficult and confronting for a whole bunch of used car salesmen. There appear to be no plans in that direction, and it's an industry that makes absolutely no sense for Google to get into.
Moreover, comparing banks to PayPal is disingenuous. They don't do nearly the same things. PayPal is a transaction broker. They compete with VISA and MasterCard, if anyone. They don't offer investment accounts or mortgages - and those are the functions that people most seem to care about. Transaction accounts? Barely a blip on most people's radar, I think.
I would imagine they called their film "A Porn Parody" specifically for the purposes of trying to invoke parody as an aspect of Fair Use.
OP was making a hypothesis about a profile, X, that could predict behavior Y. Given FB's dataset, one could start with an arbitrary 100 cases of behavior Y (manually detected by having humans pore over 10000 random logs), and derive all sorts of profiles for "X", and then selectively winnow them out (for each "X") for predictivity.
And I was stating that human relationships are complex enough that, without some sort of natural language AI, analysing frequency of communication on a single channel is not likely to provide a useful correlation.
I mean, Facebook can't even reliably determine when people die yet, and that's a much clearer case than when a relationship between two people is going to change.
What shifted was the number of people he needs protection from: it is now not only those who would profit financially from unauthorized distribution, but also those who distribute just because they can
What changed was the degree to which damage was done. When the laws were instituted, any infringement was going to involve multiple thousands of copies; hence the large penalties. If you found one copy, there were going to be thousands that you didn't find, because printing machinery couldn't really be used for small runs.
Now people who infringe are making 1 or 2 copies, and are being slugged with penalties intended for those who churned out a hundred thousand.
Or it could mean Alice and Bob moved in together, no longer have to communicate via Facebook, and Charlie is Alice's ex-neighbour/housemate who she likes to keep in touch with. Starting with the conclusion, and reviewing data in hindsight for cues is easy. Doing to forward is tricky, because those cues could have multiple meanings.
The laws (English laws, which helped shape the US laws) were written in a time when personal copying was a non-issue. The only people who could afford printing presses were commercial entities, and running off single copies was likewise not viable. The laws were written with the assumption that the only people who copied material were other publishers, as they were the only ones who could afford to (for everyone else, the cost of copying far outweighed the purchase price of the goods). There was no point in making a distinction in the laws, because no distinction existed in reality.
The underlying technology changed, and the assumptions the laws were based on shifted. And instead of updating laws to reflect reality, the laws are being used to hold reality to ransom.
He's asking for a citation for your assertion that a small, limited government is more susceptible to corruption, than a large, powerful one.
Respectfully, you're completely missing the point. You and I might know what WEP is. Probably 99.something% of people do not.
They don't need to know what WEP is. They need to know what "encryption" (the general meaning of the term) or "secure" is (these being the two labels I've usually seen on home devices). They also need to be able to read the manuals and setup instructions that come with their device, which explicitly explain how they should be configured.
It's the same reason we still call a thief a thief if they take your car, even though you left it unlocked (or, to give a fairer analogy, you did lock it, but you didn't know, because the manufacturer didn't tell you, that you also had to pop the hood and flick a special combination of hidden levers to make the lock actually secure the vehicle).
No, it's not like that. The "levers" aren't obscure or hidden away. You're going to have to go into the control panel to setup your internet connection. On most home routers I've seen, the encryption settings are right there in front of the user. If your ISP is shipping the device pre-configured for you, then they should be configuring it properly, and have their ass hauled across the coals if they're not (i.e. Selling a product as pre-configured, when it's configured insecurely).
Your car-stealing analogy starts to break apart when you get into the guts of it. There are publicly accessible WiFi hotspots. Their main distinguishing feature is that they're unencrypted. We don't have unlocked, public-use cars floating around the place for people to confuse with privately-owned cars, so the analogy isn't really apt.
Hell, I believe early versions of XP would automatically connect to unsecured WiFi networks if it found. In the spirit of your previous post, it would be appropriate for me to wish you imprisoned in a federal jail on computer hacking charges because your computer automatically hooked up to a WiFi network that was advertising itself for public use,
then I hope your car gets stolen tomorrow, because you had the wrong security system fitted and a thief just took your vehicle from right outside your home, even though you'd done everything you were supposed to to keep it secure.
Except in this case, people hadn't done everything they were supposed to do to keep it secure. If my car got stolen because I was too stupid to push the little "lock" button on my keychain, then damn straight I'd deserve it. Likewise, if I hadn't put in a tax return for 10 years, I'd expect to be hammered hard.
This isn't about people not doing absolutely everything perfectly. It's about them not even doing the minimum. WEP has been trivially crackable for ages - but even if people use WEP, I'd be offended if Google had cracked it. It would have shown intent, that they were deliberately trying to capture stuff that people were trying to protect.
Uh-huh, and just because someone publishes a publicly accessible webpage available over http doesn't mean you have any right to access it, right? You should be getting written permission to "hack into" their computer by accessing it via publicly-accessible protocols they have explicitly installed and made available?
There are well-documented methods for establishing whether you want somebody to be able to use your connection. Not using them, and then complaining that someone uses it is like bitching that Google indexes your site, because you didn't setup robot.txt.
This is how low Slashdot has sunk. Years ago, this site was very pro-privacy. We're now at the point where a company can archive your emails and passwords, claim it was an accident, and get off the hook by promising not to do it again next time--and that's "doing nothing wrong whatsoever" according to the posters here.
No, we're just very pro personal responsibility. If you're broadcasting unencrypted data into the street, reading it shouldn't be a crime. If you don't know how to encrypt your wireless data - even with easily-cracked encryptions, that at least require some deliberate effort to crack - then you shouldn't it be broadcasting it into people's face. If Google were getting this data by cracking WEP, or performing MitM attacks, then I'm sure you'd see people up in arms.
Complaining about this is like complaining that a vehicle equipped with an audio recorder picked up your shouted argument from the street. If you weren't screaming at the top of your damn lungs, nobody would have heard anything.
Yeah, and when we crap it all out, we re-supply the land with nutrients. It's cyclic - it's not like the nutrients are gone forever.
Now that's a different question.../quote ...the answer to which depends almost entirely on how much money you have,
Password masking isn't designed to stop the dedicated/skilled hacker. It's designed to stop the casual - the guy walking past your desk who needs one glance to see your full password sitting there in all its plain-text glory.
If you need to be able to view it, there are plenty of options for doing that without having the whole password there for anyone to see at any time. Show the password masked, except for the last character. Show the full password only if you mouse over it. At the very lease, default to masked and allow the user to toggle it off rather than on.
Uh-huh. I wonder how well Steam would have worked out if they intentionally encumbered their distribution system that way.
is limited to only 100 users unless you modify your code slightly
So your argument is that it's a perfectly fine distribution method, because all you need to do is modify and re-compile your code every hundred purchases?
Yup, fanboy.
Sorry, but that's just wrong. Sometimes Nielsen has good stuff to say, but at other, he just seems out of touch:
More importantly, there's usually nobody looking over your shoulder when you log in to a website. It's just you, sitting all alone in your office, suffering reduced usability to protect against a non-issue.
Who has an office? I don't. Most of my friends don't. If you log in at work, your screen is generally visible. Ditto for on your laptop when your commuting. Home is the only safe place.
In cases where there's a tension between security and usability, sometimes security should win.
Sometimes security should win? Usability's important, but I think Nielsen is over-emphasizing its importance because its his person crusade.
It's therefore worth offering them a checkbox to have their passwords masked.
His solution? Default to insecure and require user-interaction to increase it. Yeah, that's going to work.
Yeah, but you need to remember that other people know the industry too, or at least, hire people whose job it is to know how to evaluate shares for investments. The $11.70 price you bought at probably incorporated people's expectations for Starcraft 2, and Cataclysm. You're probably right in saying that it's just following the market, but it could also be that your buying price was inflated due to unrealistic expectations of SC2 and Cataclysm's success. To really benefit from knowledge of an industry, you need knowledge that other people don't have. That's why insider trading is so powerful (and illegal).
Yeah, it pretty much has solved everything - at least everything that's possible to be sold. The reason there are a lot of ISPs selling data at the same rates is because those rates are the optimum value - sell them it for less and you make a loss, sell it for more and you get undercut by the competition.
The fact that there isn't unlimited broadband here isn't due to any failure of capitalism, it's simply due to the laws of nature. Countries that do have unlimited data rates have either:
1) Better infrastructure (Korea, Japan, etc)
2) Companies screwing the customer to try and hide the fact that they're not unlimited (USA)
I'd much rather have a fixed limit than have my traffic randomly shaped because I'm using a particular protocol. Or because I'm downloading from a source that isn't paying them money. Nobody suggests capitalism is going to make everything perfect - it simply tends towards the optimum (given a certain set of conditions).