It is hilarious that there would be people willing to argue such a stupid lie.
I'm sorry you missed the day they covered pain in "being a human" class. Getting a large dose of pain can disable someone temporarily. It's a fact, not a lie.
The only explanation is that you didn't hear about this new website called youtube where you can find clips that step through frame-by-frame and show if there even was contact, or not!
Yeah, some players dive or embellish. Who would have thought it possible? Some of them don't.
Sadly, it tells us that you're a soccer fan, and that the team you rut for doesn't often win,
No, it tells you that I understand that there are, indeed, people who get hurt during a game who need a bit of time to recover, and once recovered, they can continue to play. What your attitude tells us is that you are good at projecting. You would fake it if you could, so everyone must be faking.
If you look carefully, it's not the losing team that does this all the time. Messi, Renaldo, Kane, etc, play on winning teams. If you can't find at least three examples of it happening on the French team Sunday, you aren't watching. As I recall, one point went to someone who was actually falling down before there was any contact for the French. But you can also find examples of people who go down for legitimate reasons. Putting them all in the same basket is just ridiculous.
Ah OK I thought those were the replay guys. They miss enough stuff
Two of the other human beings are the side judges who can call not only offsides but fouls and possession on an out of bounds. The fourth official deals with subs, mainly. All three also have a direct link to the ref to point out anything they want to. They're human, so they make mistakes, just like humans do. They miss things. Even with four observers, some things are missed.
The ref gets to decide the game by shortchanging the extra time (which is frequently up to 10 minutes too short).
What? No, he can't shortchange. The stoppage time that is announced is the MINIMUM. The ref can't blow the whistle until at least that long has elapsed.
As far as "too short", why should there be time added to the game for things that happen during normal play? It's normal for there to be time taken setting up a corner or free kick. PKs too. That's part of the game.
It's not part of the game to have a five minute delay while security chases fans off the field. It's not normal for a delay while an injured player is removed by EMS. It's not normal for a goalie to hold the ball for a minute before making a goal kick. It's not normal for an opposing player to run off with the ball to prevent a throw in or free kick.
Stoppage time is for abnormal delays. This nonsense of stopping the clock unless someone is actually moving the ball is just... nonsense. Yes, I'm pointing at US football. There should never be a ten minute delay while one team figures out what they're going to do with the three seconds left on the clock. And TV timeouts? Yeah, let's give the defensive players a chance to catch their breath instead of allowing the offense to continue...
If you haul a guy down at half, it's worthless.
Uhhh, no, extending stoppage time at the half is a perfect response to a deliberate foul, and that means they get the free kick.
Enforcers are pretty much out of the game of hockey.
They aren't as blatant, but they are still there. The announcers still know it and mention it. And the fans know it.
Trying to hurt someone should still be punished with an ejection.
I soccer it's a red card and that's what happens.
"Don't do that again. Here, take a kick from a mile away."
If the foul happened a mile away from the goal, that's where it should be taken from. Where else?
"Bad! You're ejected from... *next* game"
AND the rest of this one, AND your team plays one man down for the rest of the game.
Soccer has done well for a long time, and no, it isn't the same as other games. The fact it is different is a Good Thing, not a Reason to Change.
Question....if a person gets 2 red cards are they tossed out of the game at that point?
No. The first red card is ejection from the game, and they cannot be replaced with a sub. The team plays with 10 instead of 11. I believe that a red also keeps the player from the next game.
This is why you will see a normally aggressive player calm down A LOT when he gets the first yellow. The second yellow is fatal. Who has a yellow is also a consideration when the manager determines who will be replaced with one of his three substitutions.
Doing a facial scan of someone and storing where they have been and are going is an illegal search.
That's not what you said. You said: "No facial information should be allowed to be stored by a government entity without a warrant." A picture of someone's face is "facial information". Where does the Constitution prohibit the storage of a picture of someone's face by a government?
Seems something that would be straightforward and helpful to game viewers, and wouldn't significantly change the game in any way.
Part of the game is the unsure ending. This is especially true if a team is ahead and wants to run out the clock. Telling them you need to stay in control for 47 more seconds is different than "you have the ball, the game will end 'soon'..." The leading team stays in control for 46 seconds, does the other team have a chance to score or are they 1 second from losing?
I have to figure out what the "card" thing is...I know its a penalty of some sort, but not sure what card means what infraction.
There are two cards. Yellow is for "minor" infractions, compared to "red". It doesn't matter what the minor infraction is, it's a yellow. Time wasting, tripping, grabbing a jersey, arguing with the ref, etc. Red cards are for either major infractions (deliberate attempts to injure, for example), or as a result of getting two yellow cards. You can see the difference -- if the ref immediately shows a red it's a major infraction. If he first shows yellow, then red, it's from getting two yellows.
I don't see why soccer can't just add an extra referee, so that there are 2 sets of eyes on each play, and the ref isn't always so far behind the play.
Soccer already has four officials, three of which are always watching the play. They use radio to keep in contact.
* More substitutions, more exciting.
Nope. Knowing that you can replace just three people during a match makes it a better game. It's not just "throw a fresh set of legs into the game" every ten minutes.
* Reduce the number of players in overtime, so games are less likely to go to penalties.
Nope. Get rid of penalties and play until someone wins, IF it is important that someone actually wins. Normal season games -- no need.
* This thing called the stopwatch was invented. Maybe use it.
The ref has the watch.
* Zero-tolerance on holding.
Grabbing a jersey is a yellow-card offense.
* Short-term hockey-style penalties. You can trip a guy and all that happens is he gets the ball back??
No, he gets a free kick. It's called a "set play". In many cases, a free kick results in a goal that wouldn't have happened if play continued.
* Not even sure what to do about the card system, but there's got to be something better.
Really? Under your "five minute sit" rule, you wind up with enforcers -- just like in hockey. You want to retaliate against the other team for perceived injustices, you put an enforcer into your line and he takes a penalty. Then gets out of the box and can do it again. Or you put in an enforcer to physically attack the opponent's star players.
With cards, you get two chances, unless it's egregious where you get one. And you don't get to sub for a red card ejection. You play with 10. For the rest of the game. Not just during the "five minute shaming", which would not be a sign of shame to begin with.
Football is called football because its played on foot, not because its played with your feet.
I especially love the US football where there are nine men out in a field with a pitcher, catcher, outfielders, etc. And the football where a bowler hurls a chunk at a batsman protecting his wicket. And the football where a guy rolls a heavy ball at 10 pins...
Lots of sports are played on foot, but they aren't called football.
I don't fucking roll around in agony, screaming bloody murder, if you step on my foot.
Let me step on your foot with my cleats, when you're wearing soccer shoes that are designed to be as light (and thus thin) as possible, and we'll see if you roll around in agony or not. You won't be limping "for a sec", you'll be on the ground. Or let me scrape your shin with my cleats... or knock heads with you.
I've also not figured out YET...how they time the damned things.
The referee times the match. The displayed clock is not the official timing.
The referee has the ability, and the responsibility, to add time when players are using up time just to use up time, or when there is a significant stoppage of play. E.g., during a substitution the departing player dawdles getting off the field. If the goalie dawdles in executing a goal kick. If a fight breaks out that stops play. If a player has an injury that requires transport off the pitch. One instance during a recent cup match was when one team was awarded a free kick and a member of the opposing team carried the ball away from the free kick location. (Many of these time-wasting tactics merit and get yellow cards.)
It's called "stoppage time" because it is intended to make up for deliberate stoppage of play.
Those delays can, and often do, occur during the stoppage time already added. If a team is ahead by a goal, they are going to try slowing things down as much as they can.
It just seemed arbitrary.
Many calls by a referee can seem arbitrary. What exactly merits an red card? How about a yellow? Penalty kick? It's all judgement calls, unless it is a truly egregious violation. Even "hand ball" is sometimes arbitrary. Referee judgement, was the arm or hand in a normal position and not a deliberate action?
Shouldn't time mean TIME..and when it runs out, it is over?
It does. It's just that you're looking at an unofficial clock, which means unofficial. The official clock is on the wrist of the on-field official.
IN case of ties....why not a sudden death thing in soccer like with US Football?
Because it's a different game. It doesn't operate under the same assumption that there must always be a winner of every match. In fact, the overall "winners" are determined by the overall performance during the season. The exception is the last rounds of the world cup where it is a head-to-head competition and the winner is based on the result of one match.
Note that even US football has issues with time, but they are hidden because there is an official clock displayed on the scoreboard. The refs can and do add time to the clock, and the clock STOPS. What really really annoys me about US football is that the last "two minutes" of a game can run for 45 minutes. If that's not an issue with "time means TIME", then I don't know what is.
And the guy in the summary who is unhappy that a match that starts at 3PM doesn't end at 4:45PM on the dot -- he's just an idiot. Stoppage time has been a thing for a very long time.
Whether they can get up afterwards and say they can play immediately afterwards is not an issue - no players should be allowed to play with the possibility of an injury, imagined or otherwise.
You just eliminated all sport. And pretty much all life, except for the fact that we don't usually refer to "players" in life.
If you've never been hurt in a game then you might not realize that pain can be temporary, and that playing through the pain is part of sport. For example, if you step on my foot it will hurt like hell. For a bit. If there is no permanent damage it will stop hurting, or it may reduce to an ache.
Should I be thrown out of the game because YOU stepped on my foot? Wow. Imagine how quickly a soccer match would become three on three or less if that were the rule. One person who steps on the feet of ten opposing players would result in the other team playing with three people. (Three subs, and then seven unsub-able players.) That would be wonderful, wouldn't it?
Saying that nobody can continue to play if they ever suffer a temporary pain while competing is just silly. Saying they can't compete if there is any possibility of injury is just ridiculous.
No facial information should be allowed to be stored by a government entity without a warrant. I would have thought that THAT is already covered by the constitution.
Which part of the Constitution covers this? Do you consider a photo of someone to be a search, or is it a seizure? Is it abridging the freedom to keep and bear arms? I'm trying to figure out what specific part of that document prohibits this. I am asking. What do you think covers this?
Keep in mind that schools are clearly "government entities", and every K-12 school I've attended has created a yearbook with each student's photo in it, along with group photos for clubs and sports teams. They are also now creating photo ids for students, as does the university (a "government entity" state uni) have both student and faculty IDs with photos. They keep those photos so they can reprint an ID when necessary.
If you go to work for the government, you will have your photo taken to be used for IDs.
And not to mention mug shots of arrested (but not yet convicted) people, security tapes of federal and state facilities, etc. If the Constitution forbids this, I would have thought it would have appeared before SCOTUS already. Did I miss the case where a suspect had his photo removed from the mugshot archive as unconstitutional?
No private entity should be allowed to store facial recognition of an individual without that individual's explicit written consent-
So I cannot take a picture of anything that has someone else in it without their written permission? It has long been the legal landscape where I cannot use their image for commercial purposes, but I can certainly take photos for my own use. In fact, a lot of photos people routinely take are selfies of themselves and their friends. Does everyone need a written release for each image, or is one written release covering all photos including that person good enough under the law you want?
Yes, it is. People who think Twitter is the heart of our election process are a big problem.
Folks, Twitter is a social media thing. There is no validation of who posts what. It is DESIGNED for anyone to be able to say whatever they want. Just because someone calls themselves "OrlandoOfficialRealNewspaper" doesn't make them a newspaper, and it never has. Anyone who does not understand that shouldn't be allowed to view tweets from anyone.
Now it is a big deal that people are saying whatever they want, and it is somehow ruining the "democratic process". Item number 1 in the Bill of Rights is "freedom of speech", which means freedom of speech. It's based on the idea that people are supposed to be critical readers. Abandoning freedom because some people can't handle the work of thinking about what they read is pathetic.
It's going to be hard to elicit a big response from people about a torrent of lies from foreign agents when they are already used to listening to a torrent of lies from everyone else who has a political agenda to push.
FTFY.
I have yet to see anyone comment on the heart of this story. Russians created Twitter accounts to spread disinformation and then didn't use them to spread disinformation. From TFS:
Another twist: These accounts apparently never spread misinformation. In fact, they posted real local news,...
Shocking abuse of our electoral process, Russian agents posting real news stories. Absolutely unthinkable and unacceptable!
As evinced above, http and ftp serve the same purpose. Although, http is a clearly better choice.
As evinced above, they often serve different purposes, and when that happens FTP can be the better choice. Is it really so far beyond comprehension that different protocols might have different uses that you cannot begin to imagine it even when differences are pointed out?
Note, this page has mirrors using both http and ftp.
This corrects your ridiculous claim that I find network installs to be "esoteric" exactly how? It proves that FTP has no use at all exactly how?
Even better, you can get nice, neat pages that organize the data in interesting ways, charts and graphs that support the data, and links to other websites that provide corroborating info.
I know what you can get through web pages. I have web pages that do that. I ALSO have FTP for users who don't need ANY of that, they just want the data. You're stuck on form over substance. "Look how pretty my web page is. Isn't my data organized in an interesting way? You can click on a table column and it will sort it for you. And look, I'll plot it for you the way I want to plot it." I'm talking about substance. "Here's a data file... you can do with it what you want. You want to sort it, go ahead. You want to plot it? Be my guest."
I'm fighting this problem with an outfit that has gone whole hog into fancy THREDS servers for their data. I need to get their data for production use here. That means "automated", in case you don't understand what that is. You can't do that using wget, because the link for the data is hidden under three levels of other web links. I had to get the top level HTML, parse the links for the next level, get that HTML, parse the links, wash, rinse repeat. And THEN they changed the structure. Oh, the web pages were beautiful. Drop down menus to select the date range, a map to draw a bounding box to pick which sensor you wanted, plots of summary data. All great -- for interactive, transient users. I could spend ten minutes drilling down to finally reach the raw data I needed, but automating it was impossible.
This fancy server replaced a simple FTP server that allowed one call to ncftp in a cron script to download exactly what was wanted. I didn't need to log in, it was anonymous FTP. I didn't care if I couldn't restart a transfer mid-file. If it failed, I just did it again. No, I mean the script did it again for me. I didn't even care if someone could packet sniff and copy the data in transit. Yes, because it wasn't TLS or SSL protected, a MITM could try injecting bogus data or malware, but over the decades of doing this that never once happened. Injecting malware would be useless -- if the data wasn't in the format that my software expected it would whine about it to me, not try to execute it to see what it was.
For THIS USE, to solve THIS PROBLEM, FTP is the CLEAR winner for "better".
I guess you also missed the fact that I also run web servers to access the same, and different, data. I know all about the wonderful things you are lecturing me about, and I know when it is correct to do that and when it is correct to have just a simple interface for simple things.
That's because your user ID is about 40,000 too high to remember it.
Oh, now it's a personal attack based on/. UID. Here's a free clue for the moron: UID is based on when someone joins slashdot, not when someone started using computers.
You want a history? My first Linux was slackware 0.9 on 35 (I think it was) 3.5" floppies, and I was doing VMS/Ultrix/SunOS for a very long time before that. I used to install network nodes using vampire taps for the MAU, and thought it was great when 10base2 came out.
My first web server was a CERN server, back when Mosaic was new. I also had gopher and WAIS servers in operation when they were new, and had to deal with the idiots running veronica before I had to deal with the ones doing unrestricted web crawling. In all that time, I have never used FTP to install an OS, because FTP isn't about installing an OS, it's a FILE TRANSFER PROTOCOL. When I needed to install an OS, it was from a tape, or more recently from a DVD. When it's a net install image on the DVD, it's from a web server, not FTP.
Tell me again how my UID is too high to know the past.
If showing the directory listing via HTTP is insecure, then it is just as insecure to show it over FTP.
You really don't understand the difference between how an FTP server wo
Your responding to someone who thinks a network installation of an OS is esoteric.
What yanked your chain to make this idiotic statement? I install over the network ALL THE TIME, unless I've got a DVD. I just have never used FTP to do it. Not once.
I just installed OpenSUSE 15.0 via a pxe boot and http server, could have used an ftp site,
PXE and HTTP is not FTP, and I'm glad what you can do.
but good job pointing out how stupid his post is to anyone who doesn't catch that red flag.
You created a convenient red flag out of your straw man misinterpretation of what I said, and decided to make this personal. Thanks for the gumball, Popeye.
unless the data is very small (in which case you should probably just paste it into an email).
You see, you assume you know the problem that FTP is solving, and you really don't. I have no intention of forcing people to send me an email asking for some data, nor do I intend on wasting my time sending them emails with all the data they want.
You can come to my FTP site at any time, night or day, and get the data you want immediately, and you don't have to wait for me to see your email and have time to respond. Isn't that a Good Thing?
I don't really care whether or not FTP supports "partial retransmission". If your connection is so bad that it stops half-way through something, well, that's your problem, and you can just re-ask for the data. Neither my server nor I care if you ask for the same thing twice.
It is far better to turn on directory listings in a web server and drop the files on a web server.
You don' t know the problem being solved, so you don't get to define "better". No, turning on directory listings is a security hole, so the web server I run does not have that enabled. It does have a custom view of any directories I offer, which means I can create a much more user friendly way of seeing what is there. I find the standard index display to be really awful at showing data. It's been so long since I had it turned on that I don't recall for sure, but I seem to remember one thing it does is truncate file names -- which makes it hard to figure out what is what.
It really is.
The fact you don't know how to control it, or what it can be used for, doesn't make your statement a fact. If you know how to run an FTP server you can do so quite safely.
So basically, if you still need to install twenty-year-old versions of Red Hat Linux
I've found no need to do that. I have no idea why you think this is relevant to a discussion about the use of FTP. I can't remember ever using FTP to install an OS.
In fact, I would say it is worse than a "blanket 'shut it off' protocol". It's more like a "kill it with fire" protocol at this point.
Well, you are free to have your own opinion, but making sound like it is a fact isn't convincing me. If you don't want to use it, that's fine. Denying that it has any use is simply arrogant.
Anyone who realizes that a simple protocol to do a simple task that doesn't require much security at all is the right protocol. I've had an FTP server for such use in place for more than two decades. Yes, for some things there are better ways, but for this job FTP is perfect.
... ignore anything to do with holding any US military or politicians responsible for making the breach possible.
Do the attempts at making everything Trump's fault never end? How is it a politician's fault, ANY politician's fault, if some military IT person forgot to change a password on an unused protocol before attaching a router to the network? How is not not the fault of the person attaching the router to the net, AND the Captain whose computer was broken into using that access?
There is a later comment about "comment deployment". It's not/. fault for that one, although an editor should have caught that. The entire article is poorly written. For example, we learn therein that "MQ-9 Reaper drones are some of the most drones around..." Perhaps the original author thinks the word "common" is too common to use in common writing and it needs to be changed or removed?
Yes, FTP is an old protocol. It is insecure. BUT, simple tools are often the correct tools. Do you have data you need to share with a lot of people? Anonymous FTP is a good way to do that. Who cares if you can scan packets to get the password "ftp" from an anonymous session, or that you can packet scan to get the data? You can get the data from the source!
FTP is not a blanket "shut it off" protocol. It is a "manage it properly or you'll have problems" protocol. Are there any protocols that aren't?
One picture by one person on one host really doesn't bother me.
That's nice. Are we talking about you specifically, or the general issue of pictures of people being posted on the web when they don't have any control over it? I really don't care what you personally think about one image. The question is, what should the LAW think about such things. I've already explained this.
Its not that I have no answer, its that my answer is that no societal level response is needed. Deal with it personally, or civilly if you find it egregious enough.
Ok. No laws necessary. I don't know how you deal with Facebook "personally", and trying to sue them for a civil claim will be a nightmare, but "no societal level response is needed." Others disagree.
But its only at scale where you have organizations correlating and tagging that metadata at scale that it rises to the level of being a problem that society and government should be involved directly to curtail it;
Wait. So you DO think there should be some laws. And now we're back at the question I asked, for which you had a different answer. You think laws controlling Facebook are necessary; you don't understand that you can't write laws for Facebook alone.
Facebook has over 2 billion users. Twitter has 328 million and LinkedIn doesn't even show up on this list
The statement was "find your friends", not "find 2 billion people you don't know". You and your friends are free to move to Twitter or LinkedIn or any of the other social media sites. I assume you know who your friends are and you can suggest that they join you there, or they can suggest you join them there, without having to wade through 2 billion names and profile pictures.
Yes, Facebook is successful. They are not the only game in town. That's why they aren't a monopoly.
Google (right now, presumably) does not run facial recognition software on the images and correlate the results.
"Omnichad and I chillin' at the local jazz fest. What a great day of music..." No Google face recognition software necessary. While you may not know if Google is doing it, you also don't know if Bing is doing it, and since it is a valuable function to do, they probably are. (If it weren't something valuable, Facebook wouldn't do it, either.)
People want laws about Facebook and what happens if you don't have a Facebook account and someone puts a picture of you up. I think the term is "bill of attainder" when you write a law that is specific to Facebook, and the US Constitution prohibits those. So, if you have a law that covers Facebook in this context it is going to cover your friends who post your picture on their blog, too. That's why I am asking: to what extent do you want to legally punish your friends for their actions just because you want to slap Facebook down?
With Google, nobody knows you're a dog. What is "scale" when your picture shows up in a google or bing search?
Don't pretend facebook or google are the same thing as being in the background on some rando's self hosted blog.
So now we're limiting the issue to being "in the background"?
The operator of that network should be subject to a LOT more scrutiny than some rando with a blog.
I asked the question of how you deal with someone who has posted a picture that includes you to their blog. That wasn't "some rando", that could be one of your friends. And there was nothing about "in the background", it was "a picture that included you." And your friend is very likely to have included your name to identify his friends in that picture.
People post some amazing pictures to their blogs, thinking that the only people who will see them is their friends. You should check out the search engines sometime.
If you have no answer, say that. Don't change the problem to fit your solution, deal with the problem as it exists.
You wanna use our app store, you gotta use our search.
No, "you wanna use our app store, you must include our base apps". Nobody is forced to use Google for searches. Nobody is forced to use Google Maps or Google Drive or any of the other google apps.
Now, I had a Chinese tablet with a version of Notdroid and no access to the Google Play store, and I can tell you it was a REAL PAIN getting it to do anything productive. Amazon is a poor second-class app source. The only nice thing about Amazon is they had the "free app of the day", but that eventually became a problem. Having to keep the huge Amazon app on the device, with whatever monitoring services it wanted to run, became a killer -- without that app no "free" app could get authorization and they wouldn't run.
Now, what would be your suggestion for people who don't have a FB account but appear in pictures of someone?
What would you suggest for anytime someone posts a picture containing you in any online way? Someone has a picture of something that includes you on their blog. What legal recourse do you want? You can't sue the blog operator, they didn't post it. Sue your friend? Put them in jail?
Slashdot Mirror
It is hilarious that there would be people willing to argue such a stupid lie.
I'm sorry you missed the day they covered pain in "being a human" class. Getting a large dose of pain can disable someone temporarily. It's a fact, not a lie.
The only explanation is that you didn't hear about this new website called youtube where you can find clips that step through frame-by-frame and show if there even was contact, or not!
Yeah, some players dive or embellish. Who would have thought it possible? Some of them don't.
Sadly, it tells us that you're a soccer fan, and that the team you rut for doesn't often win,
No, it tells you that I understand that there are, indeed, people who get hurt during a game who need a bit of time to recover, and once recovered, they can continue to play. What your attitude tells us is that you are good at projecting. You would fake it if you could, so everyone must be faking.
If you look carefully, it's not the losing team that does this all the time. Messi, Renaldo, Kane, etc, play on winning teams. If you can't find at least three examples of it happening on the French team Sunday, you aren't watching. As I recall, one point went to someone who was actually falling down before there was any contact for the French. But you can also find examples of people who go down for legitimate reasons. Putting them all in the same basket is just ridiculous.
Ah OK I thought those were the replay guys. They miss enough stuff
Two of the other human beings are the side judges who can call not only offsides but fouls and possession on an out of bounds. The fourth official deals with subs, mainly. All three also have a direct link to the ref to point out anything they want to. They're human, so they make mistakes, just like humans do. They miss things. Even with four observers, some things are missed.
The ref gets to decide the game by shortchanging the extra time (which is frequently up to 10 minutes too short).
What? No, he can't shortchange. The stoppage time that is announced is the MINIMUM. The ref can't blow the whistle until at least that long has elapsed.
As far as "too short", why should there be time added to the game for things that happen during normal play? It's normal for there to be time taken setting up a corner or free kick. PKs too. That's part of the game.
It's not part of the game to have a five minute delay while security chases fans off the field. It's not normal for a delay while an injured player is removed by EMS. It's not normal for a goalie to hold the ball for a minute before making a goal kick. It's not normal for an opposing player to run off with the ball to prevent a throw in or free kick.
Stoppage time is for abnormal delays. This nonsense of stopping the clock unless someone is actually moving the ball is just ... nonsense. Yes, I'm pointing at US football. There should never be a ten minute delay while one team figures out what they're going to do with the three seconds left on the clock. And TV timeouts? Yeah, let's give the defensive players a chance to catch their breath instead of allowing the offense to continue...
If you haul a guy down at half, it's worthless.
Uhhh, no, extending stoppage time at the half is a perfect response to a deliberate foul, and that means they get the free kick.
Enforcers are pretty much out of the game of hockey.
They aren't as blatant, but they are still there. The announcers still know it and mention it. And the fans know it.
Trying to hurt someone should still be punished with an ejection.
I soccer it's a red card and that's what happens.
"Don't do that again. Here, take a kick from a mile away."
If the foul happened a mile away from the goal, that's where it should be taken from. Where else?
"Bad! You're ejected from... *next* game"
AND the rest of this one, AND your team plays one man down for the rest of the game.
Soccer has done well for a long time, and no, it isn't the same as other games. The fact it is different is a Good Thing, not a Reason to Change.
Question....if a person gets 2 red cards are they tossed out of the game at that point?
No. The first red card is ejection from the game, and they cannot be replaced with a sub. The team plays with 10 instead of 11. I believe that a red also keeps the player from the next game.
This is why you will see a normally aggressive player calm down A LOT when he gets the first yellow. The second yellow is fatal. Who has a yellow is also a consideration when the manager determines who will be replaced with one of his three substitutions.
Doing a facial scan of someone and storing where they have been and are going is an illegal search.
That's not what you said. You said: "No facial information should be allowed to be stored by a government entity without a warrant." A picture of someone's face is "facial information". Where does the Constitution prohibit the storage of a picture of someone's face by a government?
Seems something that would be straightforward and helpful to game viewers, and wouldn't significantly change the game in any way.
Part of the game is the unsure ending. This is especially true if a team is ahead and wants to run out the clock. Telling them you need to stay in control for 47 more seconds is different than "you have the ball, the game will end 'soon' ..." The leading team stays in control for 46 seconds, does the other team have a chance to score or are they 1 second from losing?
I have to figure out what the "card" thing is...I know its a penalty of some sort, but not sure what card means what infraction.
There are two cards. Yellow is for "minor" infractions, compared to "red". It doesn't matter what the minor infraction is, it's a yellow. Time wasting, tripping, grabbing a jersey, arguing with the ref, etc. Red cards are for either major infractions (deliberate attempts to injure, for example), or as a result of getting two yellow cards. You can see the difference -- if the ref immediately shows a red it's a major infraction. If he first shows yellow, then red, it's from getting two yellows.
I don't see why soccer can't just add an extra referee, so that there are 2 sets of eyes on each play, and the ref isn't always so far behind the play.
Soccer already has four officials, three of which are always watching the play. They use radio to keep in contact.
* More substitutions, more exciting.
Nope. Knowing that you can replace just three people during a match makes it a better game. It's not just "throw a fresh set of legs into the game" every ten minutes.
* Reduce the number of players in overtime, so games are less likely to go to penalties.
Nope. Get rid of penalties and play until someone wins, IF it is important that someone actually wins. Normal season games -- no need.
* This thing called the stopwatch was invented. Maybe use it.
The ref has the watch.
* Zero-tolerance on holding.
Grabbing a jersey is a yellow-card offense.
* Short-term hockey-style penalties. You can trip a guy and all that happens is he gets the ball back??
No, he gets a free kick. It's called a "set play". In many cases, a free kick results in a goal that wouldn't have happened if play continued.
* Not even sure what to do about the card system, but there's got to be something better.
Really? Under your "five minute sit" rule, you wind up with enforcers -- just like in hockey. You want to retaliate against the other team for perceived injustices, you put an enforcer into your line and he takes a penalty. Then gets out of the box and can do it again. Or you put in an enforcer to physically attack the opponent's star players.
With cards, you get two chances, unless it's egregious where you get one. And you don't get to sub for a red card ejection. You play with 10. For the rest of the game. Not just during the "five minute shaming", which would not be a sign of shame to begin with.
Football is called football because its played on foot, not because its played with your feet.
I especially love the US football where there are nine men out in a field with a pitcher, catcher, outfielders, etc. And the football where a bowler hurls a chunk at a batsman protecting his wicket. And the football where a guy rolls a heavy ball at 10 pins...
Lots of sports are played on foot, but they aren't called football.
I don't fucking roll around in agony, screaming bloody murder, if you step on my foot.
Let me step on your foot with my cleats, when you're wearing soccer shoes that are designed to be as light (and thus thin) as possible, and we'll see if you roll around in agony or not. You won't be limping "for a sec", you'll be on the ground. Or let me scrape your shin with my cleats ... or knock heads with you.
I've also not figured out YET...how they time the damned things.
The referee times the match. The displayed clock is not the official timing.
The referee has the ability, and the responsibility, to add time when players are using up time just to use up time, or when there is a significant stoppage of play. E.g., during a substitution the departing player dawdles getting off the field. If the goalie dawdles in executing a goal kick. If a fight breaks out that stops play. If a player has an injury that requires transport off the pitch. One instance during a recent cup match was when one team was awarded a free kick and a member of the opposing team carried the ball away from the free kick location. (Many of these time-wasting tactics merit and get yellow cards.)
It's called "stoppage time" because it is intended to make up for deliberate stoppage of play.
Those delays can, and often do, occur during the stoppage time already added. If a team is ahead by a goal, they are going to try slowing things down as much as they can.
It just seemed arbitrary.
Many calls by a referee can seem arbitrary. What exactly merits an red card? How about a yellow? Penalty kick? It's all judgement calls, unless it is a truly egregious violation. Even "hand ball" is sometimes arbitrary. Referee judgement, was the arm or hand in a normal position and not a deliberate action?
Shouldn't time mean TIME..and when it runs out, it is over?
It does. It's just that you're looking at an unofficial clock, which means unofficial. The official clock is on the wrist of the on-field official.
IN case of ties....why not a sudden death thing in soccer like with US Football?
Because it's a different game. It doesn't operate under the same assumption that there must always be a winner of every match. In fact, the overall "winners" are determined by the overall performance during the season. The exception is the last rounds of the world cup where it is a head-to-head competition and the winner is based on the result of one match.
Note that even US football has issues with time, but they are hidden because there is an official clock displayed on the scoreboard. The refs can and do add time to the clock, and the clock STOPS. What really really annoys me about US football is that the last "two minutes" of a game can run for 45 minutes. If that's not an issue with "time means TIME", then I don't know what is.
And the guy in the summary who is unhappy that a match that starts at 3PM doesn't end at 4:45PM on the dot -- he's just an idiot. Stoppage time has been a thing for a very long time.
Whether they can get up afterwards and say they can play immediately afterwards is not an issue - no players should be allowed to play with the possibility of an injury, imagined or otherwise.
You just eliminated all sport. And pretty much all life, except for the fact that we don't usually refer to "players" in life.
If you've never been hurt in a game then you might not realize that pain can be temporary, and that playing through the pain is part of sport. For example, if you step on my foot it will hurt like hell. For a bit. If there is no permanent damage it will stop hurting, or it may reduce to an ache.
Should I be thrown out of the game because YOU stepped on my foot? Wow. Imagine how quickly a soccer match would become three on three or less if that were the rule. One person who steps on the feet of ten opposing players would result in the other team playing with three people. (Three subs, and then seven unsub-able players.) That would be wonderful, wouldn't it?
Saying that nobody can continue to play if they ever suffer a temporary pain while competing is just silly. Saying they can't compete if there is any possibility of injury is just ridiculous.
No facial information should be allowed to be stored by a government entity without a warrant. I would have thought that THAT is already covered by the constitution.
Which part of the Constitution covers this? Do you consider a photo of someone to be a search, or is it a seizure? Is it abridging the freedom to keep and bear arms? I'm trying to figure out what specific part of that document prohibits this. I am asking. What do you think covers this?
Keep in mind that schools are clearly "government entities", and every K-12 school I've attended has created a yearbook with each student's photo in it, along with group photos for clubs and sports teams. They are also now creating photo ids for students, as does the university (a "government entity" state uni) have both student and faculty IDs with photos. They keep those photos so they can reprint an ID when necessary. If you go to work for the government, you will have your photo taken to be used for IDs.
And not to mention mug shots of arrested (but not yet convicted) people, security tapes of federal and state facilities, etc. If the Constitution forbids this, I would have thought it would have appeared before SCOTUS already. Did I miss the case where a suspect had his photo removed from the mugshot archive as unconstitutional?
No private entity should be allowed to store facial recognition of an individual without that individual's explicit written consent-
So I cannot take a picture of anything that has someone else in it without their written permission? It has long been the legal landscape where I cannot use their image for commercial purposes, but I can certainly take photos for my own use. In fact, a lot of photos people routinely take are selfies of themselves and their friends. Does everyone need a written release for each image, or is one written release covering all photos including that person good enough under the law you want?
this is about the heart of our election process
Exactly, this is precisely the problem.
Yes, it is. People who think Twitter is the heart of our election process are a big problem.
Folks, Twitter is a social media thing. There is no validation of who posts what. It is DESIGNED for anyone to be able to say whatever they want. Just because someone calls themselves "OrlandoOfficialRealNewspaper" doesn't make them a newspaper, and it never has. Anyone who does not understand that shouldn't be allowed to view tweets from anyone.
Now it is a big deal that people are saying whatever they want, and it is somehow ruining the "democratic process". Item number 1 in the Bill of Rights is "freedom of speech", which means freedom of speech. It's based on the idea that people are supposed to be critical readers. Abandoning freedom because some people can't handle the work of thinking about what they read is pathetic.
It's going to be hard to elicit a big response from people about a torrent of lies from foreign agents when they are already used to listening to a torrent of lies from everyone else who has a political agenda to push.
FTFY.
I have yet to see anyone comment on the heart of this story. Russians created Twitter accounts to spread disinformation and then didn't use them to spread disinformation. From TFS:
Shocking abuse of our electoral process, Russian agents posting real news stories. Absolutely unthinkable and unacceptable!
As evinced above, http and ftp serve the same purpose. Although, http is a clearly better choice.
As evinced above, they often serve different purposes, and when that happens FTP can be the better choice. Is it really so far beyond comprehension that different protocols might have different uses that you cannot begin to imagine it even when differences are pointed out?
Note, this page has mirrors using both http and ftp.
This corrects your ridiculous claim that I find network installs to be "esoteric" exactly how? It proves that FTP has no use at all exactly how?
Even better, you can get nice, neat pages that organize the data in interesting ways, charts and graphs that support the data, and links to other websites that provide corroborating info.
I know what you can get through web pages. I have web pages that do that. I ALSO have FTP for users who don't need ANY of that, they just want the data. You're stuck on form over substance. "Look how pretty my web page is. Isn't my data organized in an interesting way? You can click on a table column and it will sort it for you. And look, I'll plot it for you the way I want to plot it." I'm talking about substance. "Here's a data file ... you can do with it what you want. You want to sort it, go ahead. You want to plot it? Be my guest."
I'm fighting this problem with an outfit that has gone whole hog into fancy THREDS servers for their data. I need to get their data for production use here. That means "automated", in case you don't understand what that is. You can't do that using wget, because the link for the data is hidden under three levels of other web links. I had to get the top level HTML, parse the links for the next level, get that HTML, parse the links, wash, rinse repeat. And THEN they changed the structure. Oh, the web pages were beautiful. Drop down menus to select the date range, a map to draw a bounding box to pick which sensor you wanted, plots of summary data. All great -- for interactive, transient users. I could spend ten minutes drilling down to finally reach the raw data I needed, but automating it was impossible.
This fancy server replaced a simple FTP server that allowed one call to ncftp in a cron script to download exactly what was wanted. I didn't need to log in, it was anonymous FTP. I didn't care if I couldn't restart a transfer mid-file. If it failed, I just did it again. No, I mean the script did it again for me. I didn't even care if someone could packet sniff and copy the data in transit. Yes, because it wasn't TLS or SSL protected, a MITM could try injecting bogus data or malware, but over the decades of doing this that never once happened. Injecting malware would be useless -- if the data wasn't in the format that my software expected it would whine about it to me, not try to execute it to see what it was.
For THIS USE, to solve THIS PROBLEM, FTP is the CLEAR winner for "better".
I guess you also missed the fact that I also run web servers to access the same, and different, data. I know all about the wonderful things you are lecturing me about, and I know when it is correct to do that and when it is correct to have just a simple interface for simple things.
That's because your user ID is about 40,000 too high to remember it.
Oh, now it's a personal attack based on /. UID. Here's a free clue for the moron: UID is based on when someone joins slashdot, not when someone started using computers.
You want a history? My first Linux was slackware 0.9 on 35 (I think it was) 3.5" floppies, and I was doing VMS/Ultrix/SunOS for a very long time before that. I used to install network nodes using vampire taps for the MAU, and thought it was great when 10base2 came out. My first web server was a CERN server, back when Mosaic was new. I also had gopher and WAIS servers in operation when they were new, and had to deal with the idiots running veronica before I had to deal with the ones doing unrestricted web crawling. In all that time, I have never used FTP to install an OS, because FTP isn't about installing an OS, it's a FILE TRANSFER PROTOCOL. When I needed to install an OS, it was from a tape, or more recently from a DVD. When it's a net install image on the DVD, it's from a web server, not FTP.
Tell me again how my UID is too high to know the past.
If showing the directory listing via HTTP is insecure, then it is just as insecure to show it over FTP.
You really don't understand the difference between how an FTP server wo
Your responding to someone who thinks a network installation of an OS is esoteric.
What yanked your chain to make this idiotic statement? I install over the network ALL THE TIME, unless I've got a DVD. I just have never used FTP to do it. Not once.
I just installed OpenSUSE 15.0 via a pxe boot and http server, could have used an ftp site,
PXE and HTTP is not FTP, and I'm glad what you can do.
but good job pointing out how stupid his post is to anyone who doesn't catch that red flag.
You created a convenient red flag out of your straw man misinterpretation of what I said, and decided to make this personal. Thanks for the gumball, Popeye.
unless the data is very small (in which case you should probably just paste it into an email).
You see, you assume you know the problem that FTP is solving, and you really don't. I have no intention of forcing people to send me an email asking for some data, nor do I intend on wasting my time sending them emails with all the data they want. You can come to my FTP site at any time, night or day, and get the data you want immediately, and you don't have to wait for me to see your email and have time to respond. Isn't that a Good Thing?
I don't really care whether or not FTP supports "partial retransmission". If your connection is so bad that it stops half-way through something, well, that's your problem, and you can just re-ask for the data. Neither my server nor I care if you ask for the same thing twice.
It is far better to turn on directory listings in a web server and drop the files on a web server.
You don' t know the problem being solved, so you don't get to define "better". No, turning on directory listings is a security hole, so the web server I run does not have that enabled. It does have a custom view of any directories I offer, which means I can create a much more user friendly way of seeing what is there. I find the standard index display to be really awful at showing data. It's been so long since I had it turned on that I don't recall for sure, but I seem to remember one thing it does is truncate file names -- which makes it hard to figure out what is what.
It really is.
The fact you don't know how to control it, or what it can be used for, doesn't make your statement a fact. If you know how to run an FTP server you can do so quite safely.
So basically, if you still need to install twenty-year-old versions of Red Hat Linux
I've found no need to do that. I have no idea why you think this is relevant to a discussion about the use of FTP. I can't remember ever using FTP to install an OS.
In fact, I would say it is worse than a "blanket 'shut it off' protocol". It's more like a "kill it with fire" protocol at this point.
Well, you are free to have your own opinion, but making sound like it is a fact isn't convincing me. If you don't want to use it, that's fine. Denying that it has any use is simply arrogant.
Seriously, who use's FTP still?
Anyone who realizes that a simple protocol to do a simple task that doesn't require much security at all is the right protocol. I've had an FTP server for such use in place for more than two decades. Yes, for some things there are better ways, but for this job FTP is perfect.
... ignore anything to do with holding any US military or politicians responsible for making the breach possible.
Do the attempts at making everything Trump's fault never end? How is it a politician's fault, ANY politician's fault, if some military IT person forgot to change a password on an unused protocol before attaching a router to the network? How is not not the fault of the person attaching the router to the net, AND the Captain whose computer was broken into using that access?
There is a later comment about "comment deployment". It's not /. fault for that one, although an editor should have caught that. The entire article is poorly written. For example, we learn therein that "MQ-9 Reaper drones are some of the most drones around ..." Perhaps the original author thinks the word "common" is too common to use in common writing and it needs to be changed or removed?
Yes, FTP is an old protocol. It is insecure. BUT, simple tools are often the correct tools. Do you have data you need to share with a lot of people? Anonymous FTP is a good way to do that. Who cares if you can scan packets to get the password "ftp" from an anonymous session, or that you can packet scan to get the data? You can get the data from the source!
FTP is not a blanket "shut it off" protocol. It is a "manage it properly or you'll have problems" protocol. Are there any protocols that aren't?
One picture by one person on one host really doesn't bother me.
That's nice. Are we talking about you specifically, or the general issue of pictures of people being posted on the web when they don't have any control over it? I really don't care what you personally think about one image. The question is, what should the LAW think about such things. I've already explained this.
Its not that I have no answer, its that my answer is that no societal level response is needed. Deal with it personally, or civilly if you find it egregious enough.
Ok. No laws necessary. I don't know how you deal with Facebook "personally", and trying to sue them for a civil claim will be a nightmare, but "no societal level response is needed." Others disagree.
But its only at scale where you have organizations correlating and tagging that metadata at scale that it rises to the level of being a problem that society and government should be involved directly to curtail it;
Wait. So you DO think there should be some laws. And now we're back at the question I asked, for which you had a different answer. You think laws controlling Facebook are necessary; you don't understand that you can't write laws for Facebook alone.
Facebook has over 2 billion users. Twitter has 328 million and LinkedIn doesn't even show up on this list
The statement was "find your friends", not "find 2 billion people you don't know". You and your friends are free to move to Twitter or LinkedIn or any of the other social media sites. I assume you know who your friends are and you can suggest that they join you there, or they can suggest you join them there, without having to wade through 2 billion names and profile pictures.
Yes, Facebook is successful. They are not the only game in town. That's why they aren't a monopoly.
Google (right now, presumably) does not run facial recognition software on the images and correlate the results.
"Omnichad and I chillin' at the local jazz fest. What a great day of music..." No Google face recognition software necessary. While you may not know if Google is doing it, you also don't know if Bing is doing it, and since it is a valuable function to do, they probably are. (If it weren't something valuable, Facebook wouldn't do it, either.)
People want laws about Facebook and what happens if you don't have a Facebook account and someone puts a picture of you up. I think the term is "bill of attainder" when you write a law that is specific to Facebook, and the US Constitution prohibits those. So, if you have a law that covers Facebook in this context it is going to cover your friends who post your picture on their blog, too. That's why I am asking: to what extent do you want to legally punish your friends for their actions just because you want to slap Facebook down?
Scale always matters.
With Google, nobody knows you're a dog. What is "scale" when your picture shows up in a google or bing search?
Don't pretend facebook or google are the same thing as being in the background on some rando's self hosted blog.
So now we're limiting the issue to being "in the background"?
The operator of that network should be subject to a LOT more scrutiny than some rando with a blog.
I asked the question of how you deal with someone who has posted a picture that includes you to their blog. That wasn't "some rando", that could be one of your friends. And there was nothing about "in the background", it was "a picture that included you." And your friend is very likely to have included your name to identify his friends in that picture.
People post some amazing pictures to their blogs, thinking that the only people who will see them is their friends. You should check out the search engines sometime. If you have no answer, say that. Don't change the problem to fit your solution, deal with the problem as it exists.
Spam and invasion of privacy was around long before Facebook.
Not on Facebook. The ad is talking about how great Facebook was.
You wanna use our app store, you gotta use our search.
No, "you wanna use our app store, you must include our base apps". Nobody is forced to use Google for searches. Nobody is forced to use Google Maps or Google Drive or any of the other google apps.
Now, I had a Chinese tablet with a version of Notdroid and no access to the Google Play store, and I can tell you it was a REAL PAIN getting it to do anything productive. Amazon is a poor second-class app source. The only nice thing about Amazon is they had the "free app of the day", but that eventually became a problem. Having to keep the huge Amazon app on the device, with whatever monitoring services it wanted to run, became a killer -- without that app no "free" app could get authorization and they wouldn't run.
Now, what would be your suggestion for people who don't have a FB account but appear in pictures of someone?
What would you suggest for anytime someone posts a picture containing you in any online way? Someone has a picture of something that includes you on their blog. What legal recourse do you want? You can't sue the blog operator, they didn't post it. Sue your friend? Put them in jail?