Carry electrical tape, adhere improvised cover to screen. Problem solved.
The problem I wrote about was that so many people seem quite happy to have endless ads playing right in their face. Me covering up my display doesn't solve that one. (I used the airsick bag stuck in the gap above the display to solve the more direct problem.)
The additional problem of United thinking people would pay an effective rate of $1400 per month for DirectTV, and failing to provide ANY other entertainment options, is, well, unsolvable. At least this flight was better than one of their new 737s that had absolutely NO entertainment (paid or free) at all.
It helps if you quote at least enough context so people know what you mean by "that".
If the browser won't connect, it's power or network. The lights let me decide which.
Yeah, the little lights will tell you that the subnet mask is set wrong, or that the IP address isn't what you thought it was, or that the HTTP port is disabled, or...
Why the hell would I want a fixed asset to get a dynamic address? And why should I then have to search the address space to find out where it is so I can configure the computers that need to talk to it?
I'm glad that you don't think you need a display on a printer, but other folks see the value in them and we get to make that decision.
For the rest, you would rather walk down there and read the screen than click on a web page?
YES. Because if I'm walking past the printer and see it has an error display I can do something about it. If someone else sees the display they can tell me and I can do something about it. I don't have to keep monitoring the damn thing with a web browser to know when its broken and what to do to fix it. You may have nothing better to do than routinely monitor a web page to find problems with a printer, but I do.
Yes, you may need to walk to it anyway to resolve the issue, but you'll know what to bring with you.
The only time I need to bring anything to the printer is when it needs paper, and if I don't have to do that because the person who is waiting for his printout does it, I win. Someone coming to me saying "my printout isn't coming out" because the printer is out of paper is a waste of my time, just like trying to explain to you why some people might want a display on their networked printers.
How the fuck do you tell the difference between "a car approaching you from behind" and "a car tail-gating you"?
By looking in my rearview mirror. Is that complicated?
A tail-gating car approaches you from behind, then...doesn't run into you. There is no way for me to tell them apart, as the driver in front:
As I already told you, a tail-gater is going the same speed you are but following at too-close a distance. If he's going faster than you he's not a tail-gater, he's an accident that can be avoided, IF you accept the fact that going a few miles over the speed limit isn't the deadly fatal problem that you think it is.
Mind you, I've never seen this mythical "run you over if you don't speed up" behaviour,
Tell the people who have been rear-ended by them on the highway that they're mythical.
driving over the speed limit to try and maintain a safe distance is both dangerous and futile.
Yes, we know, you think the posted speed limit has some magical "fastest safe speed" meaning. Please get a clue.
No, it's not based on just the legal definition of at fault,
Yes, you were ranting on about who was "at fault" in the hypothetical (which doesn't mean 'mythical' as you'd like to believe) situation I wrote about. Who is "at fault" is a purely legal definition and applies only after you've been in the accident. "Wrong decision" (which is what I was talking about) is a practical matter.
which is why I mentioned driver safety instructors
In that you are wrong. Driving safety has nothing to do with "at fault", it has everything to do with making good decisions based on avoiding the accident to begin with. If your "driving safety instructor" tells you that you should go ahead and enter an intersection when you have the right of way because the car that you can see is about to blow through the crossing stop sign would be at fault for the accident, and you accept that, then both of you are morons.
The fact that you think insurance companies and lawyers care about anything but the legalities of "at fault" is fascinating, but just another example of your ignorance.
Even in your bogus "unholy steamroller that will not slow down and is going to run you over" scenario, there are just two possible ways to avoid the accident:
1)The car ahead speeds up. This is problematic: they are now driving above the speed limit, which is both illegal and more dangerous than:
I'm sorry, going five over the limit is not the critically deadly dangerous thing you want to pretend it is. It is actually safer than your second option:
2)The car following SLOWS THE FUCK DOWN
As the driver of the leading vehicle, I can do nothing at all to slow the car that is about to hit me. Nothing at all. I can make the "safe" choice and stay at exactly the speed limit and allow him to hit me, or I can speed up a few miles per hour and avoid the collision. If he doesn't slow down and I don't speed up enough, at least the impact will be less. If I get ahead of the car in the passing lane which is preventing the guy about to hit me from using that lane, I can pull over and let the danger go past. Which is safer? Avoiding the collision. That should be obvious.
But your "more reliable" "safe" autonomous vehicle will keep a slavish devotion to the speed limit (as, apparently, you would as well) and get rear-ended. Your airbag goes off, you lose control of the vehicle, and maybe take out the guy next to you. That's really safe, isn't it?
Now, you claim #2 is not valid because the asshat coming up from behind is a murderous psychotic who can't take his foot off the accelerator,
Knock it off. I said nothing of the kind, and you know it. I'm tired of you making things up and pretending I've said them. If you can't be honest in this discussion, it's time to end it. Here. Now.
How do you get the current operating status of your fridge from a post-it note?
Still, what status would I need to see from the fridge?
Where did I say that you wanted to know the status of your fridge? I was responding to the incorrect claim that the screens would be marketed as a way of doing online shopping, and in fact they'll first appear (as they already are, IIRC) as status and configuration displays. That's how they will be marketed, whether or not you specifically want that information.
and a web server I can check for diagnostics. A screen would be less convenient.
A web server I have to check on a regular basis is much less convenient than a simple screen that anyone who walks past the printer can read and tell me about. A web server I have to check to find out why someone's printout didn't show up ("Load Tray 1 Plain Letter", e.g.) is much less convenient for everyone involved.
If you're the only user, a screen is less useful. In a multi-user environment it's almost a necessity. Especially when you're trying to set the IP address to install the printer in the first place.
No, they just need to be more reliable than humans. That's it, that's all. If they lower accidents/fatalities
I've just shown you a perfect example of where being "more reliable" allowed the accident to happen where a "fallable" human would have reacted to prevent it. And if they are "more reliable" but fail in spectacular ways, they won't save lives in the long run, they'll cost them. No, they need to be not only more reliable, but fail in safe and passive ways, and interact with the human drivers around them in safe and predictable ways. Any one of those conditions not being met will mean more danger.
The driver behind always is at fault in an accident
You have a serious reading comprehension problem. I didn't say the autonomous vehicle was "at fault", I wrote: "then YOUR vehicle is wrong". It made the wrong decision when it chose to slavishly obey the speed limit instead of going 5MPH faster to avoid the accident. "At fault" is for the courts, IF you survive the read-end chain-reaction accident that your car could have prevented by making the decision that you claim is to go at an "unsafe speed".
Is that what you do, speed up when the guy behind you starts tail-gating?
A car that is approaching you from behind with no sign of slowing down is not tail-gating, they are about to run into you. Tail-gating is when a vehicle behind you maintains less than the appropriate distance but is going the same speed you are. Is English not your first language, or are you deliberately misinterpreting what I've said because you like to argue?
To make sure you understand,
The rest of your rant is based on the concept of "at fault", which is a legal definition, and isn't what I wrote to begin with. Do you make all your driving decisions based on who would be "at fault" for the resulting accident? How sad. Please stay off the roads. Or take a defensive driving course before you get behind the wheel the next time. You'd learn that good drivers who practice defensive techniques do what it takes to avoid the accidents, not allow them to happen because the other guy would be at fault.
Further, I posit that had the Google car been autonomously driving behind me,
And now you change the circumstances to talk about something else. In my example, YOU are in the "Google car" and the one behind you is the one about to run into you. YOUR "Google car" chose to obey the speed limit and hope it all works out alright because YOU think that going 5 over is apparently horrendously dangerous instead of a valid way to avoid a collision.
If adverts get that pervasive, the value of each one is going to decline substantially. If I see 40 adverts before breakfast, I can't possibly buy each and every one of the products.
The purpose of most advertising (infomercials and other "call now" ads excepted) is not to get you to immediately pick up the phone and buy. It's to keep the name in your mind so when you do make a buying decision you'll be influenced.
Nobody runs out and buys a Twix when they see the Twix left/right ads, but when they are in the store and the see a Twix display, they remember "those are the ones with the cute ads, maybe I'll try one."
If this gets pushed out, it's going to be self defeating.
No, it will be a feeding frenzy as everyone jumps on the bandwagon to compete against the others. Most people won't think "these are the idiots who advertise on my toaster display", they're going to remember the name and it will become familiar. That's the basis for the saying that "all press is good press as long as they spell your name right."
Or "Cyan toner low", or "Fuser needs replacement" or any number of other status outputs. Or to make setting the IP address parameters easier. Or to display help to the newb user who needs to change a toner but doesn't know how.
Simple stupid inkjets plugged into one computer don't necessarily need a screen, but a good networked one does.
I've told him I can turn the ads off (you just disable Viera Connect and they go away) but he won't have any part of it.
Last night I was on a United flight with the fancy new DirectTV in-seat entertainment system. The one that costs $8 for any flight over 2 hours. The one that has absolutely NO free entertainment options, not even the "From the Cockpit" audio that United hypes. The one that couldn't be turned off until after takeoff, and then turned itself back on at apparently random times.
All it had, for those who didn't pay, was endless ads trying to get people to pay, and some ads trying to sell ads on the system.
And some people spent the entire four hour flight in a darkened cabin with this glowing LCD playing advertising a foot away from their faces. Simply incomprehensible.
Your post about "passing as many cars as pass you" seemed to imply that.
It implies nothing of the sort. It means you are going the average speed of surrounding traffic, not "at unsafe speeds".
As does stuff like:
Or they'll catch the sign and drop to 45
Now you're using stuff I wrote AFTER you tried stuffing your words in my mouth as justification for stuffing your words in my mouth. And if you comprehend what you read, you'll note that what I wrote still doesn't say "at unsafe speeds".
Anyone who thinks that it is ok to drive faster than the posted speed limit in a construction slowdown area because they fail to see the workers
I didn't say "fail[ed] to see the workers", I said there are no workers. And no construction equipment. And no changes to the roadway. If you think a speed limit sign and a few cones makes the roadway unsafe for regular speeds, then you are the danger to others.
is definitely advocating unsafe driving practices.
Anyone who believes that the posted speed limit is the actual fastest safe speed is a moron.
You need to be replaced with a robot, and the sooner the better.
And YOU need to stop putting words in other people's mouths.
As for the fallibility of robots, they just have to be more reliable than humans like you and we as a society win.
Incorrect. Patently absurd, and completely ridiculous. They need to be more reliable than humans AND fail in passive and safe ways AND interact with the human traffic around them in safe and predictable ways. If your "more reliable" autonomous vehicle, while going the speed limit, detects another vehicle approaching from the rear at +5 relative velocity and showing no signs of slowing down, and it does NOT increase its speed to prevent the impending accident, then YOUR vehicle is wrong and has failed to protect its occupants by taking a simple preventative measure. And if you think that going 5 over is "unsafe speed" at 70, then you aren't experienced enough at driving to actually be doing it yourself.
so I for one look forward to our future autonomous driving overlords and the reduction in fatalities and insurance rates they will bring.
As long as people like you exist there will always be a marketplace for ideological koolaid.
...but, all you would need to do is have a weekly, or even a daily process that would synch those online flags with the actual offline birthday.
I think I understand what you mean here, but could I just point out that if you have an automatic process that accesses actual birthday information then that information is online, too? If someone hacks an employee account and gets access to the name/etc database, why wouldn't they just copy the "actual birthday" information, too?
Re:And Everything Just Get's More Inconvenient
on
eBay Compromised
·
· Score: 2
It actually bothers me that companies such as eBay think that they need or should even ask for a date of birth.
They need to ask because of those quaint things known as laws created by lots of different places they operate in. Those laws differ as to what ages people must be to do certain things, or what companies can do.
All they need to know is that I am over 18,
So when do you change to "over 21" so you can do the things that you need to be 21 to do? Or do you just want to be "over 18" for the rest of your life and will you be upset when you can't do the things adults can do on their site?
If all you want to be is "over 18", give them a fake birthday that makes you "over 18". Problem solved.
unless it was legally required but could instead be replaced by a flag for "above 13", "above 18", "above 21".
Tomorrow the law changes and requires a certain other age for certain activities. How do you convert a simple "above 13" flag into the new "above 17"?
And then, how do you know to change the "above 13" into "above 21" as appropriate unless you know when the birthday is? Do you just wait 8 years and do it automatically?
And finally, if you're giving anyone who doesn't need it your correct birthday, you're the one at fault, not them for asking.
Autonomous cars would solve all that silly "it's ok to drive at unsafe speeds because everyone else is" stuff, eh?
First of all, I never said anything about "ok to drive at unsafe speeds", so you've made up that strawman all by yourself.
Second, autonomous cars will create the problems for the others because they're going to be the ones who are going 65 in a 70. Their database will be saying "the speed limit is 65" even though the limits were changed to 70 and everyone else is going that. They'll be the ones going 65 through the work zone because they missed the tiny sign saying "work zone" and changing the limit to 45. Or they'll catch the sign and drop to 45, while everyone else realizes that the work zone has zero activity, zero people, and the only work done so far has been to put out cones.
Autonomous vehicles won't solve every problem the world ever had, nor will it solve most of them. It won't even solve all the problems with traffic or driving. If you don't read Risks Digest to keep up with the continuing failures of technology to bring utopia to the world, you ought to. Every lesson there applies just as much to autonomous vehicles as to computerized medical devices or whatever.
I think a lot, if not most, of driving citations result, not from people being unable to drive in a legal manner, but from people prioritizing other things over driving in a legal manner.
This. One of the things my father taught me, as well as the official driver's ed class, when I learned to drive is that one should pass as many cars as are passing you. I.e., go with the speed of the traffic. One truck going 54MPH (in a 55MPH for trucks zone) being passed by another truck going 55MPH is legal, but creates a hazard for everyone else who has a speed limit of 65.
Let's use Ohio as an example. They drive like morons there. You can stay completely legal and go 70.000 MPH on I-75 and let the moron who is climbing your ass at 75MPH because he can't get into the passing lane RIGHT NOW hit you, or you can speed up a little, avoid a collision, and break the law. Your choice.
I would also point out the error in using a carefully supervised, controlled experimental vehicle which is run by a group that has a vested interest in showing how safe this technology is as proof of how safe this kind of vehicle is in general. Once they become commodity items they will suffer from mechanical failure just like every common-man maintained vehicle does, and be coerced into doing things the inventors didn't imagine by those same humans. The old saying applies: it is impossible to build something totally foolproof because fools are too ingenious.
911 vehicles on the other hand should always value their own occupants less than than others,
The first rule taught in first responder classes is that if you become a casualty then you become worthless as a first responder. For example, as a lifeguard, if you die trying to save someone then they aren't going to survive, either. If that means you have to wait until the belligerent victim goes unconscious (and maybe unsavable) before you approach him, you wait.
The idea that every first responder vehicle must sacrifice itself and its occupants is going to result in very few people being first responders, either through choice or simple attrition.
And if property owners are not forced to let them lay it free across their property,
There are two phrases you need to become familiar with. One is "easement". The other is "rights of way". The government has already stepped in and taken the rights of way, all they need to do is grant access to them to the private company who wants to put in fiber.
At that point a third term comes into play: "franchise".
So, there already exists a system for getting access to the land to install another fiber, and it is in use. Property owners have, at this point, very little say over what gets installed, except for the equipment installed on their property. If they want the service, they kinda have to agree to get the stuff installed. If they don't want the service, they don't.
Except that people have actually confirmed ComCast was deliberately degrading Netflix.
It is a shame that you didn't read the second link you included. It is rather specific in saying:
Given Comcast's long running fight with Level 3 about peering agreements, and the fact that Level 3 is also a Netflix CDN provider, I believe that Comcast is refusing to pay for the amount of bandwidth needed to handle the amount of Netflix data its customers are streaming from Level 3 CDN nodes.
That's the choke point problem, NOT Comcast deliberately throttling Netflix. As for proof:
Unfortunately, there's really no way of me proving this theory.
At that point the entire proof boils down to "motive" and guessing. And if the peering connection is the bottleneck, then yes, it does impact all traffic crossing that connection, not just Netflix.
Hell, Level 3 squarely pointed the finger at Comcast.
Yeah, 'cause we all know that Level 3 has no dog in the fight and no public relations issues to deal with over the problem. They'd never lie.
If I'm getting data significantly faster from my ISP's streaming service than from Netflix or Youtube, then something is configured to provide different service levels...
No, that's not necessarily true. If the Netflix data has to pass through a choke point to another network provider and is slowed down because of all the other traffic also passing that point, and the ISP's streaming service is contained entirely on the ISP's net, then it isn't a configuration issue, it's an amount of bandwidth available issue.
And since many people confuse the On Demand kind of streaming service from Comcast with the purely internet based services, then you need to remember that On Demand doesn't use the Internet, it uses cable bandwidth.
Salt water under high pressure is not corrosive? You've never dealt with stuff underwater for very long, have you?
The porous rusticles will eventually dissolve into fine powder. So most of those bouys will be consumed and meet the fate of the Titanic, dissolved to dust.
Or, you can skip all those steps and just take a binary from a source that you trust and flash it.
The comment was about finding the backdoors and such, not just being able to flash in a binary from someone else you have to trust hasn't put one in. You don't find anything when you flash in someone else's binary, you just add another level of trust. (As someone else already pointed out -- is there code hardwired into the router that isn't replaced by any flashing?)
Even if you want to do the code review and compiling there is no need to verify what was in there before.
If you want to find the malicious code, yeah, you need to know what was in it.
Slashdot Mirror
Carry electrical tape, adhere improvised cover to screen. Problem solved.
The problem I wrote about was that so many people seem quite happy to have endless ads playing right in their face. Me covering up my display doesn't solve that one. (I used the airsick bag stuck in the gap above the display to solve the more direct problem.)
The additional problem of United thinking people would pay an effective rate of $1400 per month for DirectTV, and failing to provide ANY other entertainment options, is, well, unsolvable. At least this flight was better than one of their new 737s that had absolutely NO entertainment (paid or free) at all.
I can diagnose that too.
It helps if you quote at least enough context so people know what you mean by "that".
If the browser won't connect, it's power or network. The lights let me decide which.
Yeah, the little lights will tell you that the subnet mask is set wrong, or that the IP address isn't what you thought it was, or that the HTTP port is disabled, or ...
Let DHCP set the IP address.
Why the hell would I want a fixed asset to get a dynamic address? And why should I then have to search the address space to find out where it is so I can configure the computers that need to talk to it?
I'm glad that you don't think you need a display on a printer, but other folks see the value in them and we get to make that decision.
For the rest, you would rather walk down there and read the screen than click on a web page?
YES. Because if I'm walking past the printer and see it has an error display I can do something about it. If someone else sees the display they can tell me and I can do something about it. I don't have to keep monitoring the damn thing with a web browser to know when its broken and what to do to fix it. You may have nothing better to do than routinely monitor a web page to find problems with a printer, but I do.
Yes, you may need to walk to it anyway to resolve the issue, but you'll know what to bring with you.
The only time I need to bring anything to the printer is when it needs paper, and if I don't have to do that because the person who is waiting for his printout does it, I win. Someone coming to me saying "my printout isn't coming out" because the printer is out of paper is a waste of my time, just like trying to explain to you why some people might want a display on their networked printers.
How the fuck do you tell the difference between "a car approaching you from behind" and "a car tail-gating you"?
By looking in my rearview mirror. Is that complicated?
A tail-gating car approaches you from behind, then ...doesn't run into you. There is no way for me to tell them apart, as the driver in front:
As I already told you, a tail-gater is going the same speed you are but following at too-close a distance. If he's going faster than you he's not a tail-gater, he's an accident that can be avoided, IF you accept the fact that going a few miles over the speed limit isn't the deadly fatal problem that you think it is.
Mind you, I've never seen this mythical "run you over if you don't speed up" behaviour,
Tell the people who have been rear-ended by them on the highway that they're mythical.
driving over the speed limit to try and maintain a safe distance is both dangerous and futile.
Yes, we know, you think the posted speed limit has some magical "fastest safe speed" meaning. Please get a clue.
No, it's not based on just the legal definition of at fault,
Yes, you were ranting on about who was "at fault" in the hypothetical (which doesn't mean 'mythical' as you'd like to believe) situation I wrote about. Who is "at fault" is a purely legal definition and applies only after you've been in the accident. "Wrong decision" (which is what I was talking about) is a practical matter.
which is why I mentioned driver safety instructors
In that you are wrong. Driving safety has nothing to do with "at fault", it has everything to do with making good decisions based on avoiding the accident to begin with. If your "driving safety instructor" tells you that you should go ahead and enter an intersection when you have the right of way because the car that you can see is about to blow through the crossing stop sign would be at fault for the accident, and you accept that, then both of you are morons.
The fact that you think insurance companies and lawyers care about anything but the legalities of "at fault" is fascinating, but just another example of your ignorance.
Even in your bogus "unholy steamroller that will not slow down and is going to run you over" scenario, there are just two possible ways to avoid the accident: 1)The car ahead speeds up. This is problematic: they are now driving above the speed limit, which is both illegal and more dangerous than:
I'm sorry, going five over the limit is not the critically deadly dangerous thing you want to pretend it is. It is actually safer than your second option:
2)The car following SLOWS THE FUCK DOWN
As the driver of the leading vehicle, I can do nothing at all to slow the car that is about to hit me. Nothing at all. I can make the "safe" choice and stay at exactly the speed limit and allow him to hit me, or I can speed up a few miles per hour and avoid the collision. If he doesn't slow down and I don't speed up enough, at least the impact will be less. If I get ahead of the car in the passing lane which is preventing the guy about to hit me from using that lane, I can pull over and let the danger go past. Which is safer? Avoiding the collision. That should be obvious.
But your "more reliable" "safe" autonomous vehicle will keep a slavish devotion to the speed limit (as, apparently, you would as well) and get rear-ended. Your airbag goes off, you lose control of the vehicle, and maybe take out the guy next to you. That's really safe, isn't it?
Now, you claim #2 is not valid because the asshat coming up from behind is a murderous psychotic who can't take his foot off the accelerator,
Knock it off. I said nothing of the kind, and you know it. I'm tired of you making things up and pretending I've said them. If you can't be honest in this discussion, it's time to end it. Here. Now.
That's what the large size Post-It notes are for.
How do you get the current operating status of your fridge from a post-it note?
Still, what status would I need to see from the fridge?
Where did I say that you wanted to know the status of your fridge? I was responding to the incorrect claim that the screens would be marketed as a way of doing online shopping, and in fact they'll first appear (as they already are, IIRC) as status and configuration displays. That's how they will be marketed, whether or not you specifically want that information.
and a web server I can check for diagnostics. A screen would be less convenient.
A web server I have to check on a regular basis is much less convenient than a simple screen that anyone who walks past the printer can read and tell me about. A web server I have to check to find out why someone's printout didn't show up ("Load Tray 1 Plain Letter", e.g.) is much less convenient for everyone involved.
If you're the only user, a screen is less useful. In a multi-user environment it's almost a necessity. Especially when you're trying to set the IP address to install the printer in the first place.
No, they just need to be more reliable than humans. That's it, that's all. If they lower accidents/fatalities
I've just shown you a perfect example of where being "more reliable" allowed the accident to happen where a "fallable" human would have reacted to prevent it. And if they are "more reliable" but fail in spectacular ways, they won't save lives in the long run, they'll cost them. No, they need to be not only more reliable, but fail in safe and passive ways, and interact with the human drivers around them in safe and predictable ways. Any one of those conditions not being met will mean more danger.
The driver behind always is at fault in an accident
You have a serious reading comprehension problem. I didn't say the autonomous vehicle was "at fault", I wrote: "then YOUR vehicle is wrong". It made the wrong decision when it chose to slavishly obey the speed limit instead of going 5MPH faster to avoid the accident. "At fault" is for the courts, IF you survive the read-end chain-reaction accident that your car could have prevented by making the decision that you claim is to go at an "unsafe speed".
Is that what you do, speed up when the guy behind you starts tail-gating?
A car that is approaching you from behind with no sign of slowing down is not tail-gating, they are about to run into you. Tail-gating is when a vehicle behind you maintains less than the appropriate distance but is going the same speed you are. Is English not your first language, or are you deliberately misinterpreting what I've said because you like to argue?
To make sure you understand,
The rest of your rant is based on the concept of "at fault", which is a legal definition, and isn't what I wrote to begin with. Do you make all your driving decisions based on who would be "at fault" for the resulting accident? How sad. Please stay off the roads. Or take a defensive driving course before you get behind the wheel the next time. You'd learn that good drivers who practice defensive techniques do what it takes to avoid the accidents, not allow them to happen because the other guy would be at fault.
Further, I posit that had the Google car been autonomously driving behind me,
And now you change the circumstances to talk about something else. In my example, YOU are in the "Google car" and the one behind you is the one about to run into you. YOUR "Google car" chose to obey the speed limit and hope it all works out alright because YOU think that going 5 over is apparently horrendously dangerous instead of a valid way to avoid a collision.
If adverts get that pervasive, the value of each one is going to decline substantially. If I see 40 adverts before breakfast, I can't possibly buy each and every one of the products.
The purpose of most advertising (infomercials and other "call now" ads excepted) is not to get you to immediately pick up the phone and buy. It's to keep the name in your mind so when you do make a buying decision you'll be influenced. Nobody runs out and buys a Twix when they see the Twix left/right ads, but when they are in the store and the see a Twix display, they remember "those are the ones with the cute ads, maybe I'll try one."
If this gets pushed out, it's going to be self defeating.
No, it will be a feeding frenzy as everyone jumps on the bandwagon to compete against the others. Most people won't think "these are the idiots who advertise on my toaster display", they're going to remember the name and it will become familiar. That's the basis for the saying that "all press is good press as long as they spell your name right."
Simple stupid inkjets plugged into one computer don't necessarily need a screen, but a good networked one does.
The excuse they'll use to market fridges with screens will probably be some connection to home shopping.
No, it will be for status and control settings. And that's why the idea of putting tape over the screen will not be popular.
I've told him I can turn the ads off (you just disable Viera Connect and they go away) but he won't have any part of it.
Last night I was on a United flight with the fancy new DirectTV in-seat entertainment system. The one that costs $8 for any flight over 2 hours. The one that has absolutely NO free entertainment options, not even the "From the Cockpit" audio that United hypes. The one that couldn't be turned off until after takeoff, and then turned itself back on at apparently random times.
All it had, for those who didn't pay, was endless ads trying to get people to pay, and some ads trying to sell ads on the system.
And some people spent the entire four hour flight in a darkened cabin with this glowing LCD playing advertising a foot away from their faces. Simply incomprehensible.
Well no, I had help making it up.
Not from me.
Your post about "passing as many cars as pass you" seemed to imply that.
It implies nothing of the sort. It means you are going the average speed of surrounding traffic, not "at unsafe speeds".
As does stuff like:
Or they'll catch the sign and drop to 45
Now you're using stuff I wrote AFTER you tried stuffing your words in my mouth as justification for stuffing your words in my mouth. And if you comprehend what you read, you'll note that what I wrote still doesn't say "at unsafe speeds".
Anyone who thinks that it is ok to drive faster than the posted speed limit in a construction slowdown area because they fail to see the workers
I didn't say "fail[ed] to see the workers", I said there are no workers. And no construction equipment. And no changes to the roadway. If you think a speed limit sign and a few cones makes the roadway unsafe for regular speeds, then you are the danger to others.
is definitely advocating unsafe driving practices.
Anyone who believes that the posted speed limit is the actual fastest safe speed is a moron.
You need to be replaced with a robot, and the sooner the better.
And YOU need to stop putting words in other people's mouths.
As for the fallibility of robots, they just have to be more reliable than humans like you and we as a society win.
Incorrect. Patently absurd, and completely ridiculous. They need to be more reliable than humans AND fail in passive and safe ways AND interact with the human traffic around them in safe and predictable ways. If your "more reliable" autonomous vehicle, while going the speed limit, detects another vehicle approaching from the rear at +5 relative velocity and showing no signs of slowing down, and it does NOT increase its speed to prevent the impending accident, then YOUR vehicle is wrong and has failed to protect its occupants by taking a simple preventative measure. And if you think that going 5 over is "unsafe speed" at 70, then you aren't experienced enough at driving to actually be doing it yourself.
so I for one look forward to our future autonomous driving overlords and the reduction in fatalities and insurance rates they will bring.
As long as people like you exist there will always be a marketplace for ideological koolaid.
...but, all you would need to do is have a weekly, or even a daily process that would synch those online flags with the actual offline birthday.
I think I understand what you mean here, but could I just point out that if you have an automatic process that accesses actual birthday information then that information is online, too? If someone hacks an employee account and gets access to the name/etc database, why wouldn't they just copy the "actual birthday" information, too?
It actually bothers me that companies such as eBay think that they need or should even ask for a date of birth.
They need to ask because of those quaint things known as laws created by lots of different places they operate in. Those laws differ as to what ages people must be to do certain things, or what companies can do.
All they need to know is that I am over 18,
So when do you change to "over 21" so you can do the things that you need to be 21 to do? Or do you just want to be "over 18" for the rest of your life and will you be upset when you can't do the things adults can do on their site?
If all you want to be is "over 18", give them a fake birthday that makes you "over 18". Problem solved.
unless it was legally required but could instead be replaced by a flag for "above 13", "above 18", "above 21".
Tomorrow the law changes and requires a certain other age for certain activities. How do you convert a simple "above 13" flag into the new "above 17"?
And then, how do you know to change the "above 13" into "above 21" as appropriate unless you know when the birthday is? Do you just wait 8 years and do it automatically?
And finally, if you're giving anyone who doesn't need it your correct birthday, you're the one at fault, not them for asking.
Autonomous cars would solve all that silly "it's ok to drive at unsafe speeds because everyone else is" stuff, eh?
First of all, I never said anything about "ok to drive at unsafe speeds", so you've made up that strawman all by yourself.
Second, autonomous cars will create the problems for the others because they're going to be the ones who are going 65 in a 70. Their database will be saying "the speed limit is 65" even though the limits were changed to 70 and everyone else is going that. They'll be the ones going 65 through the work zone because they missed the tiny sign saying "work zone" and changing the limit to 45. Or they'll catch the sign and drop to 45, while everyone else realizes that the work zone has zero activity, zero people, and the only work done so far has been to put out cones.
Autonomous vehicles won't solve every problem the world ever had, nor will it solve most of them. It won't even solve all the problems with traffic or driving. If you don't read Risks Digest to keep up with the continuing failures of technology to bring utopia to the world, you ought to. Every lesson there applies just as much to autonomous vehicles as to computerized medical devices or whatever.
I think a lot, if not most, of driving citations result, not from people being unable to drive in a legal manner, but from people prioritizing other things over driving in a legal manner.
This. One of the things my father taught me, as well as the official driver's ed class, when I learned to drive is that one should pass as many cars as are passing you. I.e., go with the speed of the traffic. One truck going 54MPH (in a 55MPH for trucks zone) being passed by another truck going 55MPH is legal, but creates a hazard for everyone else who has a speed limit of 65.
Let's use Ohio as an example. They drive like morons there. You can stay completely legal and go 70.000 MPH on I-75 and let the moron who is climbing your ass at 75MPH because he can't get into the passing lane RIGHT NOW hit you, or you can speed up a little, avoid a collision, and break the law. Your choice.
I would also point out the error in using a carefully supervised, controlled experimental vehicle which is run by a group that has a vested interest in showing how safe this technology is as proof of how safe this kind of vehicle is in general. Once they become commodity items they will suffer from mechanical failure just like every common-man maintained vehicle does, and be coerced into doing things the inventors didn't imagine by those same humans. The old saying applies: it is impossible to build something totally foolproof because fools are too ingenious.
911 vehicles on the other hand should always value their own occupants less than than others,
The first rule taught in first responder classes is that if you become a casualty then you become worthless as a first responder. For example, as a lifeguard, if you die trying to save someone then they aren't going to survive, either. If that means you have to wait until the belligerent victim goes unconscious (and maybe unsavable) before you approach him, you wait.
The idea that every first responder vehicle must sacrifice itself and its occupants is going to result in very few people being first responders, either through choice or simple attrition.
And if property owners are not forced to let them lay it free across their property,
There are two phrases you need to become familiar with. One is "easement". The other is "rights of way". The government has already stepped in and taken the rights of way, all they need to do is grant access to them to the private company who wants to put in fiber.
At that point a third term comes into play: "franchise".
So, there already exists a system for getting access to the land to install another fiber, and it is in use. Property owners have, at this point, very little say over what gets installed, except for the equipment installed on their property. If they want the service, they kinda have to agree to get the stuff installed. If they don't want the service, they don't.
1. Require a business license to get a .com
A business license from whom? Not everyplace requires a business license to have a business.
2. Require 501 non-profit status to get a .org
Good. Limit .org to US only.
Look at how well this worked for .edu. (must be an accredited, four year, degree-granting organization).
Really? The local community college has a .edu name. As I recall, phoenix.edu too.
Except that people have actually confirmed ComCast was deliberately degrading Netflix.
It is a shame that you didn't read the second link you included. It is rather specific in saying:
That's the choke point problem, NOT Comcast deliberately throttling Netflix. As for proof:
At that point the entire proof boils down to "motive" and guessing. And if the peering connection is the bottleneck, then yes, it does impact all traffic crossing that connection, not just Netflix.
Hell, Level 3 squarely pointed the finger at Comcast.
Yeah, 'cause we all know that Level 3 has no dog in the fight and no public relations issues to deal with over the problem. They'd never lie.
That means access to land. Access to land means permission of governments: it is governments that turn land into "property".
And it is the same governments that take that property and turn it into rights of way. One hand giveth, the other taketh away.
if you don't like the railways, you can't start laying down tracks next to Amtrak's and Conrail's.
However, you can lay in another fiber.
If I'm getting data significantly faster from my ISP's streaming service than from Netflix or Youtube, then something is configured to provide different service levels...
No, that's not necessarily true. If the Netflix data has to pass through a choke point to another network provider and is slowed down because of all the other traffic also passing that point, and the ISP's streaming service is contained entirely on the ISP's net, then it isn't a configuration issue, it's an amount of bandwidth available issue.
And since many people confuse the On Demand kind of streaming service from Comcast with the purely internet based services, then you need to remember that On Demand doesn't use the Internet, it uses cable bandwidth.
No its not.
Salt water under high pressure is not corrosive? You've never dealt with stuff underwater for very long, have you?
The porous rusticles will eventually dissolve into fine powder. So most of those bouys will be consumed and meet the fate of the Titanic, dissolved to dust.
Which is what I'd call a corrosive environment.
Or, you can skip all those steps and just take a binary from a source that you trust and flash it.
The comment was about finding the backdoors and such, not just being able to flash in a binary from someone else you have to trust hasn't put one in. You don't find anything when you flash in someone else's binary, you just add another level of trust. (As someone else already pointed out -- is there code hardwired into the router that isn't replaced by any flashing?)
Even if you want to do the code review and compiling there is no need to verify what was in there before.
If you want to find the malicious code, yeah, you need to know what was in it.