Yikes. You have missed out. His style is pulp and very easy to read. He weaves interesting worlds. I would start with Burning Chrome rather than Neuromancer though - it is a collection of short stories including the genesis of The Sprawl, which is the setting for the Neuromancer / Count Zero / Mona Lisa trilogy.
I had a portable mp3 player long before the ipod was released. It was shit in comparison to the Apple take on the problem. They didn’t get there first, but they did it better.
I had a touchscreen device before an iphone - but it was shit in comparison. The resistive screen / stylus / os / software support were all lacking.
Apple under Jobs did one thing really well: spot innovation that others are making, polish it and get it into the market before the competition can refine. That was largely design-led. What they are doing now is something different, and decidely worse.
First you sign up with an exchange. They need to verify your account againdt a real world identity to comply with money laundering laws. This involves exchanging id and takes a couple of days. Then you transmit the bitcoin to them. Then you convert it via them to a bank deposit in a real world account.
There are other options: I bought in at about $200 and cashed out at about $2500. It was a good ride but I was not expecting it to behave like this after the fork. There is also the sadness of leaving money on the table.
I started using it recently. They have lots of obscure stuff (mainly remixes and club sessions) that aren't on spotify, and the sound quality is better. So as a user I like what they are giving away for free.
How are they planning to make money? Their catalogue has too many holes to be worth a monthly subscription (i.e. compete directly with Spotify / Deezer), and they don't seem to have any other way of making money.
So which is worse: a plucky little startup called Cyberdyne Systems delivers what they are asking for, or we get the battlefield equivalent of @internetofshit ?
They need a good name for it. Something that shows that the values have wrapped around, but in a good way. So something like wraparound but with a good connotation. They should definitely call it "reacharound".
I've had exactly the same experience. FirstnameLastname@gmail, same problems. I tend to handle it the same way although in the past few years blocking domains rather than reseting email settings has been less hassle.
One of the idiots that shares my names is a company director and the most amusing thing that turned up was a set of company accounts prior to a merger. Wound up the lawyer a bit about publishing them.
To be really specific: subsets of protected groups should be protected. More generally, whatever happened to the idea "don't be a dick to people"? It is a lot shorter than their training course and probably simpler to enforce. Some kind of visual indicator (basically public shaming rather than censorship) would be interesting. Facebook already has a real name policy, so people should be liable for what they say online - if somebody is getting sued it should be the poster rather than Facebook.
Its much easier than that as their rules are logically inconsistent. I am not allowed to say "Women are shit", as it is a protected class. But both "women drivers are shit" and "women non-drivers are shit" are allowed as aubsets are not protected. So "Woman (both those that drive and those that don't) are shit" should get in, and "All Americans (apart from my mate Bob) are cunts" should pass their filter just fine.
Why would back-doored encryption look like random data? I understand why it should, but there is no reason that it must. It could be a series of curve points with a recognisable structure, but where using the structure to decode the message still requires access to the backdoor (for example).
Why do you assume that the only mode of operation for the cipher is decrypt? If it is a deliberately weakened system then there will be some extra redundancy in the stream: this will be detectable. It seems likely that such a cipher would produce a recognisable stream without it needing to be decrypted (I used to work in implementing crypto-primitives).
We already live in a world where ISPs will spend billions to stick hardware on their networks if they are forced to (e.g. the UK's RIP bill). Most ISPs already want DPI on their networks for QoS and filtering. Sticking a box in there that recognises the kind of unencrypted stream, or that a stream is encrypted by a weak cipher is entirely feasible. Streams encrypted by a strong cipher have a recognisable signature (their statistical distributioni s close to random) so they can also be recognised by DPI.
There is no fantasy involved: the UK government has already shown that it is not limited to doing things that are reasonable or sensible, and that it can legislate any kind of insanity that it wants.
In a world of weak (back-doored) encryption the DPI would be able to detect to detect the difference, and yes in that world the internet as we know it would be broken.
But in a world where DPI is running on all the routers those users have now highlighted what they are doing. If everyone uses the same strong encryption: needle in a haystack problem. If almost everyone uses weak encryption: whack a mole. Every single strongly encrypted stream is now a crime: warrants available for more intense scrutiny, just like any other authoritarian regime.
Slashdot Mirror
Just do it like a bored researcher who kept his finger permanently on the fast-forward button...
Yikes. You have missed out. His style is pulp and very easy to read. He weaves interesting worlds. I would start with Burning Chrome rather than Neuromancer though - it is a collection of short stories including the genesis of The Sprawl, which is the setting for the Neuromancer / Count Zero / Mona Lisa trilogy.
Hi neighbour. You should really get your money out of First National. We didn’t rate their security at all when we cleaned them out.
Yes it was.
I had a portable mp3 player long before the ipod was released. It was shit in comparison to the Apple take on the problem. They didn’t get there first, but they did it better.
I had a touchscreen device before an iphone - but it was shit in comparison. The resistive screen / stylus / os / software support were all lacking.
Apple under Jobs did one thing really well: spot innovation that others are making, polish it and get it into the market before the competition can refine. That was largely design-led. What they are doing now is something different, and decidely worse.
I thought they aspired to be a circlejerk?
First you sign up with an exchange. They need to verify your account againdt a real world identity to comply with money laundering laws. This involves exchanging id and takes a couple of days. Then you transmit the bitcoin to them. Then you convert it via them to a bank deposit in a real world account.
They do: but most of the exchanges are taking smaller curs than the traditional banks e.g. 0.25%.
There are other options: I bought in at about $200 and cashed out at about $2500. It was a good ride but I was not expecting it to behave like this after the fork. There is also the sadness of leaving money on the table.
Why do they do that way instead of scraping the bottom of the bin and putting out 2+2+2+2?
So it really is a supercomputer on the desktop.
I started using it recently. They have lots of obscure stuff (mainly remixes and club sessions) that aren't on spotify, and the sound quality is better. So as a user I like what they are giving away for free.
How are they planning to make money? Their catalogue has too many holes to be worth a monthly subscription (i.e. compete directly with Spotify / Deezer), and they don't seem to have any other way of making money.
Maybe you would get better at winning arguments if you tried harder? You deserve a ribbon anyway butterfly.
I always wondered what the GNAA trolls would do when they grew older. So this is what you've sunk to.
So which is worse: a plucky little startup called Cyberdyne Systems delivers what they are asking for, or we get the battlefield equivalent of @internetofshit ?
They need a good name for it. Something that shows that the values have wrapped around, but in a good way. So something like wraparound but with a good connotation. They should definitely call it "reacharound".
I've had exactly the same experience. FirstnameLastname@gmail, same problems. I tend to handle it the same way although in the past few years blocking domains rather than reseting email settings has been less hassle.
One of the idiots that shares my names is a company director and the most amusing thing that turned up was a set of company accounts prior to a merger. Wound up the lawyer a bit about publishing them.
4. There is zero commercial advantage in releasing the source.
To be really specific: subsets of protected groups should be protected. More generally, whatever happened to the idea "don't be a dick to people"? It is a lot shorter than their training course and probably simpler to enforce. Some kind of visual indicator (basically public shaming rather than censorship) would be interesting. Facebook already has a real name policy, so people should be liable for what they say online - if somebody is getting sued it should be the poster rather than Facebook.
Its much easier than that as their rules are logically inconsistent. I am not allowed to say "Women are shit", as it is a protected class. But both "women drivers are shit" and "women non-drivers are shit" are allowed as aubsets are not protected. So "Woman (both those that drive and those that don't) are shit" should get in, and "All Americans (apart from my mate Bob) are cunts" should pass their filter just fine.
As long as we build half facing the other way we should be safe.
Why would back-doored encryption look like random data? I understand why it should, but there is no reason that it must. It could be a series of curve points with a recognisable structure, but where using the structure to decode the message still requires access to the backdoor (for example).
Why do you assume that the only mode of operation for the cipher is decrypt? If it is a deliberately weakened system then there will be some extra redundancy in the stream: this will be detectable. It seems likely that such a cipher would produce a recognisable stream without it needing to be decrypted (I used to work in implementing crypto-primitives).
We already live in a world where ISPs will spend billions to stick hardware on their networks if they are forced to (e.g. the UK's RIP bill). Most ISPs already want DPI on their networks for QoS and filtering. Sticking a box in there that recognises the kind of unencrypted stream, or that a stream is encrypted by a weak cipher is entirely feasible. Streams encrypted by a strong cipher have a recognisable signature (their statistical distributioni s close to random) so they can also be recognised by DPI.
There is no fantasy involved: the UK government has already shown that it is not limited to doing things that are reasonable or sensible, and that it can legislate any kind of insanity that it wants.
Yes, and they have always had the same problem: distributing the pads.
In a world of weak (back-doored) encryption the DPI would be able to detect to detect the difference, and yes in that world the internet as we know it would be broken.
But in a world where DPI is running on all the routers those users have now highlighted what they are doing. If everyone uses the same strong encryption: needle in a haystack problem. If almost everyone uses weak encryption: whack a mole. Every single strongly encrypted stream is now a crime: warrants available for more intense scrutiny, just like any other authoritarian regime.