I don't think that's what he's saying, and the folks that think it's some vast conspiracy are rare, but those that refuse to even entertain the discussion on it are doing nothing for their cause and themselves creating a growing air of suspicion, not the other way around.
It doesn't take a vast conspiracy - that requires a central malice and string-puller. But the current "scientific" environment around Global Climate Whatever it's being called this week (just look at these comments to see a half dozen other terms folks are now using that Global Warming has used up its cache), is not only anti-science (science is all about questioning), and it isn't a leap to think that the reason "99% of scientists agree!", the current talking point, is because it might be self-sustaining. It doesn't take a conspiracy for folks to see which side their bread needs to be buttered in to survive in their jobs.
If everyone agrees, of course any science that might shed the tiniest bit of doubt will be buried because the scientist would lose all funding, likely their job, and be out of work just for questioning a hypothesis. Do you see how anti science that really is, and how easily many individuals have it in their best interest to keep proving this thing they already say is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt?
I'm not a skeptic or a believer in human climate influence. I can see both ways, and to be honest think it's probably somewhere in the middle, where obviously the earth has cycles and with how little we truly understand about how many infinite factors go into such, but that likely humans have helped whatever cycle is happening now along.
What I do know is human nature, and the scientific community (please forgive me for this next reference, I don't take making it lightly) is somewhat like Nazi Germany at this point - agree, support, or you will be eliminated. The fact that any scientist would take any modern notion studied over such a short time (a few decades is a blink) and with such veracity state that it is the unequivocal, be all, end all, no questioning allowed is not only scary, it's coming from a generation who has no understanding whatsoever of the true nature of scientific discourse.
You actually will find that a good portion, if not most (over 50%) actually agree that there should be some questioning or at least don't believe in the severity - because, you know, fifteen years ago we were told by the end of this decade the ocean would overtake Manhattan - but like Israel, any possible Autism/vaccine connection, "supporting our troops", or any number of issues we are only supposed to be of one hive, unquestioning mind of - folks just don't admit their true feelings on it when asked in surveys, etc, because of social pressure, not that they actually don't question them.
If there is true consensus about global warming, then science should be inviting opposing thought - not trying to stifle the discussion like a dictator.
1. AGW is real. Science resolved. Nothing even to discuss. Period.
And you just hit that nail so squarely in the head you couldn't have been more accurate with a laser sight.
You know why there is a growing amount of folks saying "wait a minute?" Because no science is "resolved" on anything with such a short-term study with such absolution (and yes, few decades is a short time). It has this religious fervor around it that is really unsettling. That folks swear there isn't even a discussion to be had instantly makes someone who can think for themselves highly suspicious. It may very well be true, but stating with such bullishness it's not up for discussion "period" at once makes you sound defensive, childish, and suspicious.
It's something like the autism/vaccine question - if you aren't even willing to entertain an opposing thought, get out of the room because you understand nothing about science, which by it's very nature is about constant questioning. Period.
Wow, someone with a reasonable view of how climate change happens - prepare to be down-modded by the "YOU MUST ASSUME THE WORST! ASSIMILATE!" crowd.
FWIW, I agree with the dryer thing - even though I still use one, I'm too lazy not to. Things like sweatshirts just get worse and worse with every washing, and I can't make a towel last more than a year before it starts to tear. My aunt swears by outdoor drying (you can actually do it in the winter, oddly enough - makes no sense but it does work if it's sunny out, finishing in the house). Her clothing lasts absurd amounts of time - I recently put a picture up on a social media site of myself at 5 years old in the early 80's with a picture of my aunt running after me in a brightly colored sweater. One of her friends commented on it and said "She wore that sweater last week!" and it's still in virtually the same condition. And she wears it regularly, she doesn't have a large wardrobe. The kicker? It was my mom's originally, a hand-me-down from the early 70's.
I have moved my entire home to them. They aren't even that much more expensive - you can get ones bright enough for reading with standard lamps for about $8-10 each. When you consider their benefits they are well-worth it. It's not even that they use even less energy than halogen, but how long they are rated to last (the brand I buy has the almost absurd rating of like 30 years under normal usage 4-6 hours a day), the quality of light and the speed of coming on (much better than those damn halogen pieces of junk), plus the little to no heat factor (I can place my palm directly on the brightest one I have, that's been going for hours, and just feel slightly warm; lower powered ones like I use in the bathroom are actually cool to the touch while in use), they are a no-brainer.
The sad part is, they aren't being sold very widely at general retail yet. The only place I have found really pushing them is Lowe's in the US - where I've bought all of mine. You can find a few here or there elsewhere, but they usually only carry a tiny selection of the more expensive types that are $25+. I really have to give it to Lowe's on this one - at least half of their light bulb selection now is LED and they support them with endcap displays and sales.
I really hope they catch on soon. I know many folks who switched to halogen years ago when they first became available, but since they have so many drawbacks (they just are a pool of suck), they've since switched back to incandescent because, you know, they actually turn on at full brightness, don't have that wispy strange lighting quality, and since they don't last any longer than incandescent just end up costing more. I've gotten many to switch to LED, and everyone raves about them - especially when the first electric bill comes in.
Anyone who puts a credit card, much less a debit card, in a vending machine is a fucking idiot. Those things are so incredibly easy to tamper with it's not even remotely funny. And the way they are built you would never have any idea it was tampered with, most legit ones already look like they could hold a skimmer (since many vending machines that do have them are conversion jobs to begin with). Not to mention the more and more skimmers are placed inside at this point - and some vending machine delivery guy probably being paid minimum wage has the key. Cash will never be replaced. Reduced, well, it already has, but replaced - not for a very long time.
If you don't pay your bills on the Internet, you are a fool. Why? Because your bills are being paid online anyway, even if you are idiot enough to send a check, which is the most dangerous thing you can do with your financial info.
You write a check, with all the info needed on it to completely wipe out your checking account (and savings, too, if you have overdraft "protection") on a piece of paper, put it in an envelope that couldn't more clearly scream "THERE IS A CHECK IN HERE" unless you literally wrote that on the outside, and it goes through many hands before getting to its destination which isn't even the company you are paying. If you look at most national account bills (credit cards, cell companies, cable providers, etc.) they all go to the same few places (usually somewhere in the middle of the country like IL) called "lock boxes" where a minimum wage worker opens your envelope, scans your check digitally, transmits the info to the respective banks, and completes the transaction electronically anyway. Oh, and they are supposed to shred it afterwards. You hope.
The real problem is attacks on back end systems, or assault on terminals, like what happened to Target. Most of the time (almost all) fraud that happens on indivdual online accounts is by someone they know - usually a spouse or child. So if you don't trust them, or can't outwit them with passwords on your system, you have a much larger personal issue than lack of security on the Internet.
Yeah I thought they had a piece of hair or something so it really was his. It's not far fetched - locks of Lincoln's hair still exist (as do samples from a great many folks, like Marilyn Monroe, Michael Jackson, and Elvis). VH1 has some "memorabilia" program that had an episode going to the home of one of the big "hair collectors" - I'm sure there is some weird name for them if one wanted to look it up - who had authenticated samples of all of the above and many more displayed and the most valuable ones like Lincoln in a big fireproof safe. Looked like a bank vault. It was pretty creepy, but very cool at the same time. He has all the documents to back them up, as well.
First, I concur, I don't understand how something like this actually makes the news page.
Second, it sounds like they want an iPad, not a Kindle.
The poster misses the entire point of Kindle, and why it's done so well - it's for people that mainly want to read books. They added Fire to the lineup for folks that want to consume other media, as well. But there is no reason for it to have something like voice control - since it's mainly a book reading device, do you really need voice control to tell it to what, turn the page for you? Same with annotating - so few people would actually use a voice feature like that and the investment in development of one good enough, and system use overhead in implementation of, which all would end up being like putting a jet engine on a motorcycle.
It honestly does just sound like you want an iPad, or if you are anti-Apple then a Surface, etc. They already do the things you are looking for. They also have Kindle apps so you can have your cake and eat it, too. Kindle has great mark-up features, which you can export and manage in your app of choice.
Basically, the entire point of a Kindle is to bring e-book reading mainstream by giving a basic device at a low price point, which is just what it has done - and most mainstream users would never use these features. No need to make the round-peg Kindle fit into the square-peg, when there are plenty of other devices that will slide right into said peg.
Your problem is only that you don't know how to change the default search engine. I sympathize, but it's still not the devil.
The unified address / search bar is mostly a great improvement
It may not be the devil, but it is sure a pain in the ass.
I use the search box constantly, and often I go back to amend my original search (if the results are too wide, or I'm not seeing what I am looking for). Before, no matter what search engine I was using (Google, Amazon, etc.) I just clicked and added/removed a word from my original search.
With the "unified" thing, you can't do that, because it's changed into your URL. Depending on the implementation and the security of the website, you may be able to use the back button to get back, but usually that just brings up the original search page, and you have to go in and use a totally different field (the native search engine interface) and hope that they saved what you searched for (it's hit or miss depending on the site). Often you have to then retype the entire search.
Basically, one dedicated search box saves a lot of page jockeying for anything other than a one-shot basic search. I also like being able to quickly flip between, say Amazon and eBay looking for the same item, without having to use their individual search interfaces and go to their site directly (and retype/copy/paste - all I do is just flip the search engine and go).
I'm fine with the option to unify - so far, I have only been forced into it on my iPad, but this is one of those "outdated" things that really isn't outdated - it works just fine for a lot of us (and saves a lot of confusion for anyone mildly aware of how your browser works - nothing will ever help the total "I type google in google to search for google" folks). If folks want to unify them, more power to you - but leave my search box alone, LOL.
What's worse than uninformed bullshit posted as an "article" on the Internet?
Uninformed bullshit that then gets picked up, summarized in a modern game of telephone via a retarded summary, compounding the uninformed bullshit to complete horseshit, and then posting it on/.
There are bits of truth in there, but since this is all speculation on everyone's part until Disney announces anything (or Lucas/Fox spills the beans, see below), It's easier to just lay it out instead of trying to refute/correct all the inaccuracies in both the summary and the "article":
There have been industry rumors (reported by sites such as Digital Bits) that Disney has been working on these since practically when the deal was signed, as it was the obvious first place to start the machine going as pre-pre-production on Episode VII was just starting and they needed to set to work on getting the franchise in order. They are stressed as "insiders are talking" - but since the post-production/restoration community is pretty small, usually where there is smoke, there is fire. When a group is sitting and working on a film day and night, it's difficult to hide.
It makes perfect sense; Disney is going out of their way to realign the direction of the franchise with the OT - toy and novelty manufacturers have been directed to wind down Prequel products, they are going out of their way to let folks know that they aren't shooting on digital. They are emphasizing the real-models are being built as opposed to overly relying on CGI, etc. Lucasfilm has been so focused on selling to kids for years, to dwindling merchandizing success, and Disney, who knows if they go after the adults and nostalgia, from their own business experience (theme parks, etc.) - the kids will come along for the ride (and just to make sure, Rebels is coming for them to explain). This is exactly the target audience that will gladly replace their 2011 Blu-ray sets with a big brand new one from Disney in Christmas 2015, just in time for Episode VII. So yes, still a rumor - but personally I have no doubt we will have the unaltered OT on Blu-ray next year. Oh, and let's not forget that virtually the entire surviving cast is hanging out in London together as we speak - they've never contributed anything signifigant in terms of "extras" before individually (Carrie and Anthony did a partial commentary on the OT, really only a few minutes - everyone else, nada), much less as a group. Sounds like an opportunity to me...
As to the rights issues - there have been a couple of semi-mainstream articles (which really have just been opinion/speculation pieces) about the "Fox thing" as this one does (likely they all are just referencing each other), but it's pretty much assumed by all evidence that those issues no longer exist.
To begin with, only Star Wars itself was ever affected in terms of ownership. You can read all about it in quite a few books, but long story short (too late!) Fox pretty much made the biggest studio blunder of all time - they insisted on heavier ownership of the original film, but as every good geek knows, Lucas negotiated the rights to both merchandising and sequels (which the studio gave up as there was no such thing as modern merchandising until Lucas invented it, and Hollywood had seen very few successful sequels, especially for low-budget "sci-fi" which is how they saw Star Wars). The rights demands went back and forth during financial troubles on both the original sequels as he worked to finance them himself (you can read the entire story, with memos from the Lucasfilm archives, in the Rinzler "Making of" books recently released), but in the end - Lucas came out on top. Way on top.
So at one point, Fox technically owned Star Wars, Lucas owned the sequels, and Fox had an ongoing agreement to distribute the films (which was fine with Lucasfilm as they weren't a distributor). Then, the special editions/prequels happened. It had long been rumored that somewhere in between the special ed
That actually leads to my question about this - what if you lose it? What if you get robbed, what if you are just forgetful and leave it somewhere, what if your dog eats it....
There are a million things that could happen. The article makes it clear that you can mark it up, highlight it, etc. do whatever you want to it - they don't care about the condition, just want it back after. So do they charge you a penalty for not returning this obviously used item that seems destined to be destroyed? Do you have to sign a contract to do so? It seems to me that there must be some penalty there, which they would have a really hard time justifying if challenged - I mean, how much is a used, beat-up book worth?
I also had to kind of giggle at the "lifetime access" to their digital version - I'd want that one in writing, with a refund policy, so in a few years after this doesn't work and they shut down the website, folks would have recourse.
The whole thing is just so shady. The whole textbook business is, really. Just an industry based around exploiting those already being exploited and signing away their possible future earnings to get an education and a chance at bettering themselves starting life in debt.
I was lucky - I went to a college that didn't really use textbooks. We had plenty of books, probably many more than the average class at most schools (8-10 books a class wasn't odd), but very few "textbooks" proper - I don't think any of my classes required one - the science or math kids may have used some workbooks, but I went to a private college that didn't believe in such things and I count myself lucky. It was also small enough that the professors and other students kind of knew who could and couldn't afford the required texts and were completely supportive of sharing, reserve shelves (in fact, just about everything was on a reserve shelf if someone really needed) and any other methods we had to use - because it's the learning that's important, stupid, LOL, not supporting various corporate profit interests.
Oh, don't go using logic here when it comes to open source vs. Windows with this crowd. If you listen to some folks here, even your Grandma should be using Linux.
There is a good reason that Linux has what, a 2% install base? It's because to start you have to "pick" a distro, to begin with. Windows is Windows. There may be varying grades of the same product, but it's all...Windows. It all seems so simple and straight-forward to the "open source or die" crowd - hey, if one doesn't work for you, try another - and they completely miss the point that it's the very issue, to begin with.
Of course, it goes far beyond that - compatibility with devices, user friendliness, ability to get support (I guess Grandma can join the local Senior's Linux User Group?). When it comes to business, those concerns multiply - the fact that there are so far fewer Linux IT professionals than Windows IT professionals exist. And because Linux is inherently so customizable and requires so much tinkering, you lose the wrong employee and you have to bring someone new in, it may be a nearly impossible task for them to get up to speed on what already exists, much less fix issues, unless the employee that has gone has extensively documented what has been done before.
It's not like Linux is the little engine that could, just chugging along waiting for everyone to discover it. It's not a diamond in the rough. It is the rough. I certainly have a lot of issues with Windows, but for the vast majority of users and businesses it just works - and that's for very good reasons. As much as we criticize everything being run by MS, that's also why it works - it has one governing body, unlike Linux, where you are basically out there in the wilderness when it comes to getting support.
At this point, even after so long, it's a niche - and even the tiny gains it has here and there for certain applications is never going change that - and it's going to remain a niche, for folks who like to tinker. Most people use computers as a tool, and don't want to spend just as much tinkering with the tool as just using it. All Linux would change for the majority of users in a practical sense is less compatibility and more headaches. I get the principle of open-source software, and it's noble - but ask anyone, nobility really doesn't win in the end, most of the time - it's great for folks that want to use it, but to expect the rest of the world to do so is simply a fantasy because for how most folks use a computer, it's more trouble than it's worth.
That would be great if Linux IT professionals existed in any number to make it useful. Can you find one? Or even a few? Yeah, but it's not sustainable. Most engineers with a pedigree required for that kind of work are not going to be in nearly the abundance of those trained in Windows. That's the entire point - it would cost a lot more to headhunt and find those with the specific skills needed for such, when you can throw a Wiffle ball and find a half dozen qualified Windows IT professionals. And when they leave, you have to start again - that's the sustainability issue.
Some of the replies to you say "well, that just forces people to make more complex passwords" so they last longer, but that's just the same-old. And anyone that deals with this from a business standpoint will tell you that the real problem with requiring customers/users to have more complex passwords is the more complex you make them, not only the more frustrated the customers get - but you also have to make it even easier for them to reset their passwords.
Just anecdotally, I know of one medium-sized financial company that increased their password complexity requirements, and they had to double their call center size practically overnight to compensate for all the extra phone calls from folks who needed to reset their password, and/or were just so upset that it was so much more difficult to use their site (and they even offered an email reset option). Financially, it would have been cheaper to just cover any potential losses that may or may not happen vs. the ongoing cost of maintaining that (temps are expensive) and the cost of customer satisfaction (yes, people really do cancel accounts because they find it too difficult to log in to the website).
In truth, this discussion largely academic in nature - because brute force is rarely used to gain access to a website, and rarely works anyway as most sites lock you out after a certain amount of attempts (see above, the costs of maintaining password resets).
If you really do want to fend off brute force, for whatever reason, using words at all is going to be susceptible. The best password method I have found is using the "first letter" phrase method. For example, if your favorite song is "Itsy Bitsy Spider", using "Ib8cutws" (since a spider has 8 legs, substituting 8 for spider, in this instance). A saying, phrase, or song that is easy to remember for you, but typically difficult to guess (even by someone who knows you - just like murder, it's most likely to be someone you know who can do real damage). Then append either as a prefix or a suffix whatever appropriate to the website that you can remember to make it unique to that site.
If you want to make a truly unique password for each site, you can keep a list - but using the above method you can easily code the list itself. For example, if your phrase is a quote from Shakespeare, you write down the name of the teacher who's class you first heard it in. Or if it's a song, the name of the person it reminds you of. That way, even if someone finds your paper or electronic list, there is little they can discern from it.
Again, though, in truth - most times someone is going to hack your account and try to do anything untoward, it's gong to be someone you know. And while even some financial accounts are sensitive (say, something like PayPal where you can transfer funds in and out of accounts and to third parties), in most cases - like your basic credit card - there is little incentive for a 3rd party to try to access your data. You can usually get your credit card number from your statement PDF, but your expiration date and CCN aren't going to be found. Same with basic bank accounts - unless it has the ability to transfer out. At most someone can request a new card/change of address - but that is so clumsy, traceable, and isn't going to gain a true criminal anything on a significant scale. Yet again, it's most likely going to be someone you know (a relative or employee), who can access these things other ways as well.
The real danger financially is merchant hacks (such as Target) and the like, very few people are just sitting around trying to get into random accounts because there is so little they can do.
All that said, and sort of a side note, but all the paranoia about electronic financial stuff is like folks feeling safer driving a car than being in an airplane. By far it is much safer to handle your transactions/payments online, because the most insecure thing you can do is write a check and mail it. That check has printed
It never ceases to amaze me how out-of-touch with the "real world" so many/. commenters are. Or, more precisely, how out-of-touch they come across as, because I don't think half of the folks who post some of this stuff actually believe what they say, they know better - the other half I do believe actually think what they are saying is accurate, because they don't associate with anyone who doesn't know the difference between SRAM and DRAM.
"Switch to another modern operating system, such as OS X and Linux" - yeah, that's gonna happen. To run OS X one needs to buy a new, overpriced machine that isn't going to be compatible with a lot of existing stuff and is way overkill for the needs of most average folks. And Linux? Seriously? Linux is so out of reach of most folks it's not even funny. I'm sure someone will come along and say "well X distro is easy to install!" and they miss the entire freaking point. Linux is not for "average" users, or even for well-versed computer users, it's for tinkerers and folks who want to spend as much time working on their OS as they do using the computer. It's a ridiculous notion.
The truth is, XP is not going away. Folks are saying "but they've been announcing this forever!" - not to middle America, they haven't. Those folks don't keep up on tech sites, and it's not like MS is sending them pop-ups to let them know. They just want to get on their computer and use Facebook and check their email, maybe play a few games. They also don't often have computers that even could run Windows 7 or better. Gone are the days when everyone had to replace their PC every 2-3 years, max - I know tons of folks who have PC's that are nearing a decade old and still in use and work just fine for them. Asking folks who have computers that to them seem working perfectly fine, and that meet their needs, to go out and buy a new one just to continue to do what they are already doing is never going to fly.
MS is going to relent and continue to release security patches - I have no doubt. They already are making them for the large companies/governments that are paying for them, and there are going to be some major battles which will probably end up in the legal system over what really is MS hanging a large portion of users out to dry. As someone else said, these security flaws are already there, they are just fixing what they didn't do correctly in the first place - we all know the limited understanding of the court system of computer technology, that's what it's going to look like to lawyers and judges. We might finally see some real legal tests of EULA's in general, as well - if I put a bumper sticker on my car that says "I am not liable for any accidents I may cause" that doesn't absolve me of liability, and I have a feeling that just may be how some judges will interpret this (correctly or not).
I know all of this is going to seem like bullshit to a lot of/.ers, but it's reality - XP was good enough that it will remain "good enough" for a lot of folks, and not issuing security patches isn't going to stop them from using it, because they never are going to know. It's in MS best interests to continue issuing these patches until these PC's finally die off and folks need to buy a new one, which is still going to be a few more years.
Rant all you wish about how stupid they are, or how they just should stop using MS to begin with and use Linux (the most absurd notion - because even if they did, if Linux actually had more than the less than 2% install base it has, they'd just start trying to exploit that - and with all the different distros, etc. - what a clusterfuck that would be - Linux users just fly under the radar, for now). It's not going to change the reality that these folks aren't going to upgrade their OS until they buy a new PC - and if MS doesn't issue these patches, then once the news finally filters down to these folks (via local newsbroadcasts, etc.) the suggestion will just be to use a different browser, since most security issues are IE related - which is the LAST thing MS wants to happen.
And let me guess, you probably also learned to read by recognition and not phonics, right?
Your experience seems similar to mine, and that's what I have found the key difference is. I learned to read from being read to every night, and following along. When I was 2 I was reading the books back, and my family just assumed I had memorized them. Then somewhere around turning 3 they realized that I could already read - it started with picking out a sign or text and then finally someone shoved a newspaper in front of me, and while I couldn't read the entire thing I was able to read quite a bit. I was reading "chapter books" by 5. And I've been reading - a lot - ever since then, even if the format has changed (obviously a lot more online/tablet than print these days).
I think the folks saying "you are SKIMMING" may be on to something, but not what they think. Not the quality of reading, but the actual method. Looking at it (pun intended), I would assume that my "normal" reading is what some folks would refer to as "skimming". I don't sit and read every single word, I look at groups of words and see them as one. Now, I still go over all the text - skimming for me is when I'm only looking at a few sentences a paragraph.
I really started to understand this fundamental difference in how folks read when I got out into the professional workplace. Lots of very smart, clever folks (and many not so smart and clever), have very little ability to read anything longer than a few sentences and understand it. Everything has to be bullet points and brief, summary headers - this post would never work there, LOL. And a lot of these folks are a lot more traditionally educated than I am. Of course, this is a separate issue and has many factors, but just watching folks read something that is sent out and it takes them four times as long to read it and I still get more out of it than they do was actually the first time I realized that they simply read differently than I did.
Hulu could open Hulu Canada and license the rights for Canada from the copyright owners. Hulu could open Hulu Britain and license the rights for Ireland and Great Britain from the copyright owners. Hulu currently happens to choose not to do so.
Oh please. Or are you being obtuse on purpose?
Hulu is a company created to serve the US market. They have no responsibility to open up open up in every damn country worldwide. There are good reasons they don't - and why no one else really does, either. Netflix is just at snail speed in its addition of international support, even with all the cash and influence they have these days (and often movie licensing is easier with one clear owner than television where rights can be owned by all number of folks, many of whom have no collective bargaining, official or not).
The reason for this is two-fold. One, because licensing agreements are so complex and extremely territorial (one studio might handle US distribution, another studio, even a competitor, may have international rights), you would pretty much literally have to start from scratch for each country. Netflix isn't going one by one in Europe because it's fun, it's because it's like starting up a new licensing business each time. Screw the tech, it's the licensing agreements and making that profitable to purchase for that country to make a service that is the issue.
Two, and just as important, is the fact that the majority of the world who has commercial broadband have caps. Not all, but a good percentage. So while streaming services are all the rage in the US because of our mostly AYCE, one-flat-rate broadband, it's never going to be as popular in other markets, so streaming services have to somehow get licensing agreements for an entire library, and somehow do it cheap enough to make it worth doing business at all with what is always going to be a limited audience to begin with, in each new country.
In the US, we are in the middle of the Golden Age of Streaming - GAS - which, eventually, one runs out of - as we will our streaming fetish. ISP's are just waiting to pull the caps down in the US, they already have been testing it. Once they do, either streaming will die off, or, sweetheart deals get made with Netflix/Hulu/Amazon/etc. with the ISP's, keeping their content out of the caps, which means those services are going to get much much more expensive (no more $7.99 a month, think like ten times that...just like the cable bill you thought was so smart in getting rid of to become a streamer - they are gonna make you pay one way, or another).
As to the story itself, I'm sorry, if you are into "living off the grid" or whatever, and feel you can't view Hulu without a VPN, or you are in hiding and cannot use anything but a VPN, you probably have more important things to worry about than catching up with Bones on Hulu. To those mad about them being evil to non-US residents, blame Hollywood and the mess they have made of rights issues - even more accurately, all the unions and executives that conspire to make all that stuff cost so damn much to make in the first place which make the rights so valuable to control tightly. Does it really take 300 million dollars to make a film? No more than an aspirin costs the hospital $35 or a toilet seat costs the Army $575.
I can't say I applaud Hulu, but I can say I don't blame them. They are a good service and to stay that way, they have to stay within the boundaries of the legal agreements they have made in order to exist. All this "reasonable" vs "unreasonable" is irrelevant - it was a smart business move for them in many ways, even though some folks just won't get that because they are irritated their micro-hack no longer works.
I didn't claim to be a power user, but I would consider myself above average as far as normal computer using folks. I don't write programs, but it can write advanced Excel macros. I've never built a PC from scratch but I've torn down my laptop all the way and can upgrade anything. I'm an advanced user but no expert. And I'll be fully honest - never even knew alternate UI's existed until folks started posting about them here in regards to Win8. I never needed to know because I was always able to customize Windows to do what I wanted. So, if I have never heard of replacement UIs, chances are, most non-IT users don't, either.
A lot of times I just am working with a mouse and don't have hands on a keyboard. I have a Razer Naga with 19 buttons I often don't need the keyboard. Just clicking the x was so much easier than having to click and drag down to emulate touch. Yes, we are talking about minor effort, but when you do it dozens of times a day it's just annoying. And that's just the start.
It's just absurd to have to use a mouse to emulate touch which was designed to emulate a mouse to begin with. It is like translating something from French to English and then translating it back to French. WTF is the point.
I agree. I lived with Win8 for a month or so but just got so annoyed having to slide my mouse around just to close a window and having to fight just to get to the desktop. I gave it a good try, but then I just booted the whole thing and went back to Win7.
It wasn't a lack of willingness to adapt, it was because the interface clearly was not aimed at traditional desktop use. And I have no desire whatsoever for a touch screen - one at the size I would need is not only prohibitively expensive for what I'd wish to pay, but I'm not going to reach up constantly when it's much more efficient to just use a mouse and keyboard in most cases. I can do everything more quickly (why pinch to resize when my mouse wheel does it perfectly, etc.) and I don't have to relearn how to do basic tasks.
I also gave the whole "tiles" thing a try - but again, just organizing it was a chore, I don't have the need for live widgets (and, as others point out, they could work just as easily from the desktop anyway), and because of how many apps I use regularly, the thing was unwieldy to scroll across. I also am apt to add an app to try it out, and delete it if it wasn't what I really needed (so hard to tell just from reviews these days, particularly with video manipulation software), and it always seemed to leave various junk files laying around which I then had to go in to manually remove (text readmes, etc). It was a major PITA.
If someone who has been using Windows for 20 years daily had as much issue as I did, someone who folks routinely ask me to "fix" their computers (get rid of errant toolbars, etc.) - there was no hope for the average user. Nothing was intuitive about it. Even if someone just wanted to click on simple apps or links to use them (say, my mom who goes to like 3 websites, uses like 3 or 4 apps, and that's about it) she would have never been able to set that up herself.
I still have my Win8 Upgrade copy, at some point I'm sure some afternoon in the next few months I'll be watching a TV marathon and decide to give it a whirl - but I'll be fully mirroring my current Win7 set-up so I can go back if they've just put lipstick on a pig. Hopefully they have addressed the usability issues - all that crap they added would be great options for someone who wants to use a touch-interface exclusively, but all it felt like to me was using Windows through a space suit underwater...
I was with you at the beginning, until you turned it into an "anti-geek" rant. It's too bad you derailed yourself or you may have gotten a point across - but since you didn't, your post will fall into moderated obscurity.
The part I agree with is that I personally am not concerned whatsoever with the metadata. At all. And the only reason you see most of the media coverage is because folks don't understand what metadata is. If you polled the public right now you would largely find them believing the government is secretly recording and archiving all of our actual phone calls. They aren't.
I know I'll get lectured about "slippery slopes" by saying this, and get down modded, but hey, my karma can take it. I couldn't give a flying fuck if they have a list of my phone calls - my cell phone company already does and it wouldn't be that difficult to get anyway if the government actually cared.
I don't call people on watch lists, I don't call any known criminals, and if they want to see that I called my dentist or my mom last week, yay for them. That's all they will find.
That's yet another reason I don't give a shit - who the hell makes all kinds of calls these days, anyway, except for business if you must. I text everyone I know - and just like when I type data into any electronic device, I am fully well aware it is not secure from the government or anyone else really should someone be curious. So if they want to see me kvetching about Game of Thrones or read me talking to a friend about a restaurant to have dinner at, again - go for it. I'm flattered anyone would care.
I know the groupthink here is to distrust and be wary of everything that has anything to do with the government, but I think there are much worse aspects to be worried about while folks are freaking out over this. If I was a conspiracy theorist (which I on the rare occasion may be) I'd say the whole thing was a big distraction to keep us occupied while the real bad stuff is happening.
In any case, after this hit and I read about it for myself, instead of listening to what folks were saying about it and hyping it up to be, and saw that it was just metadata, I haven't thought about it since until now.
Oh shit...I gotta go. Guys in dark suits and expensive shades just showed up in black SUV's in my driveway. They found out that I missed my dentist appointment and forgot to cancel beforehand!!! Damn you metadata, damn you!!!
Netflix was not included in the search because Netflix asked not to be. This was made in an official statement by Amazon.
I own one, and this is the best thing since sliced bread. It is so incredibly fast your head spins - every other device I have tried is so slow and wonky - the power of this machine is incredible. I unhooked my AppleTV and stuck it on eBay because thankfully none of my content is iTunes and stuck forever in Apple's walled garden.
The only caveat is that at launch (a whole two days ago) there are a few services notably missing - HBO GO and Vudu. However, unlike Apple it doesn't take an act of congress to get a new service, I have no doubt apps will be available for those services and many others very quickly. I understand if folks may wait for that to happen, but I have no doubts it will, and soon. For now, I'll use XBOX 360 for HBO GO and my Blu-ray player for Vudu, but the second the apps become available for Fire I'll jump ship so quick, well, you'll think I'm on fire.
The speed of this device just blows my mind, even though I have a bunch of devices that stream various media I always assumed that unless I hooked a full-on computer to my TV I'd have the same endless loading, just to get an app up and running so I could watch something. In a few months once the App Store for it is booming, I cannot see anyone choosing a different brand of device unless they are forced to because they lacked the foresight not to tie their media libraries into one companies devices.
Once you have seen a Fire in action, you will be blown away.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think that's what he's saying, and the folks that think it's some vast conspiracy are rare, but those that refuse to even entertain the discussion on it are doing nothing for their cause and themselves creating a growing air of suspicion, not the other way around.
It doesn't take a vast conspiracy - that requires a central malice and string-puller. But the current "scientific" environment around Global Climate Whatever it's being called this week (just look at these comments to see a half dozen other terms folks are now using that Global Warming has used up its cache), is not only anti-science (science is all about questioning), and it isn't a leap to think that the reason "99% of scientists agree!", the current talking point, is because it might be self-sustaining. It doesn't take a conspiracy for folks to see which side their bread needs to be buttered in to survive in their jobs.
If everyone agrees, of course any science that might shed the tiniest bit of doubt will be buried because the scientist would lose all funding, likely their job, and be out of work just for questioning a hypothesis. Do you see how anti science that really is, and how easily many individuals have it in their best interest to keep proving this thing they already say is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt?
I'm not a skeptic or a believer in human climate influence. I can see both ways, and to be honest think it's probably somewhere in the middle, where obviously the earth has cycles and with how little we truly understand about how many infinite factors go into such, but that likely humans have helped whatever cycle is happening now along.
What I do know is human nature, and the scientific community (please forgive me for this next reference, I don't take making it lightly) is somewhat like Nazi Germany at this point - agree, support, or you will be eliminated. The fact that any scientist would take any modern notion studied over such a short time (a few decades is a blink) and with such veracity state that it is the unequivocal, be all, end all, no questioning allowed is not only scary, it's coming from a generation who has no understanding whatsoever of the true nature of scientific discourse.
You actually will find that a good portion, if not most (over 50%) actually agree that there should be some questioning or at least don't believe in the severity - because, you know, fifteen years ago we were told by the end of this decade the ocean would overtake Manhattan - but like Israel, any possible Autism/vaccine connection, "supporting our troops", or any number of issues we are only supposed to be of one hive, unquestioning mind of - folks just don't admit their true feelings on it when asked in surveys, etc, because of social pressure, not that they actually don't question them.
If there is true consensus about global warming, then science should be inviting opposing thought - not trying to stifle the discussion like a dictator.
1. AGW is real. Science resolved. Nothing even to discuss. Period.
And you just hit that nail so squarely in the head you couldn't have been more accurate with a laser sight.
You know why there is a growing amount of folks saying "wait a minute?" Because no science is "resolved" on anything with such a short-term study with such absolution (and yes, few decades is a short time). It has this religious fervor around it that is really unsettling. That folks swear there isn't even a discussion to be had instantly makes someone who can think for themselves highly suspicious. It may very well be true, but stating with such bullishness it's not up for discussion "period" at once makes you sound defensive, childish, and suspicious.
It's something like the autism/vaccine question - if you aren't even willing to entertain an opposing thought, get out of the room because you understand nothing about science, which by it's very nature is about constant questioning. Period.
Yeah, that's lovely and all - let's cure cancer, first. I like Star Trek, too - but let's be real here.
Wow, someone with a reasonable view of how climate change happens - prepare to be down-modded by the "YOU MUST ASSUME THE WORST! ASSIMILATE!" crowd.
FWIW, I agree with the dryer thing - even though I still use one, I'm too lazy not to. Things like sweatshirts just get worse and worse with every washing, and I can't make a towel last more than a year before it starts to tear. My aunt swears by outdoor drying (you can actually do it in the winter, oddly enough - makes no sense but it does work if it's sunny out, finishing in the house). Her clothing lasts absurd amounts of time - I recently put a picture up on a social media site of myself at 5 years old in the early 80's with a picture of my aunt running after me in a brightly colored sweater. One of her friends commented on it and said "She wore that sweater last week!" and it's still in virtually the same condition. And she wears it regularly, she doesn't have a large wardrobe. The kicker? It was my mom's originally, a hand-me-down from the early 70's.
LED lightbulbs *are* amazing.
I have moved my entire home to them. They aren't even that much more expensive - you can get ones bright enough for reading with standard lamps for about $8-10 each. When you consider their benefits they are well-worth it. It's not even that they use even less energy than halogen, but how long they are rated to last (the brand I buy has the almost absurd rating of like 30 years under normal usage 4-6 hours a day), the quality of light and the speed of coming on (much better than those damn halogen pieces of junk), plus the little to no heat factor (I can place my palm directly on the brightest one I have, that's been going for hours, and just feel slightly warm; lower powered ones like I use in the bathroom are actually cool to the touch while in use), they are a no-brainer.
The sad part is, they aren't being sold very widely at general retail yet. The only place I have found really pushing them is Lowe's in the US - where I've bought all of mine. You can find a few here or there elsewhere, but they usually only carry a tiny selection of the more expensive types that are $25+. I really have to give it to Lowe's on this one - at least half of their light bulb selection now is LED and they support them with endcap displays and sales.
I really hope they catch on soon. I know many folks who switched to halogen years ago when they first became available, but since they have so many drawbacks (they just are a pool of suck), they've since switched back to incandescent because, you know, they actually turn on at full brightness, don't have that wispy strange lighting quality, and since they don't last any longer than incandescent just end up costing more. I've gotten many to switch to LED, and everyone raves about them - especially when the first electric bill comes in.
Anyone who puts a credit card, much less a debit card, in a vending machine is a fucking idiot. Those things are so incredibly easy to tamper with it's not even remotely funny. And the way they are built you would never have any idea it was tampered with, most legit ones already look like they could hold a skimmer (since many vending machines that do have them are conversion jobs to begin with). Not to mention the more and more skimmers are placed inside at this point - and some vending machine delivery guy probably being paid minimum wage has the key. Cash will never be replaced. Reduced, well, it already has, but replaced - not for a very long time.
Precisely.
If you don't pay your bills on the Internet, you are a fool. Why? Because your bills are being paid online anyway, even if you are idiot enough to send a check, which is the most dangerous thing you can do with your financial info.
You write a check, with all the info needed on it to completely wipe out your checking account (and savings, too, if you have overdraft "protection") on a piece of paper, put it in an envelope that couldn't more clearly scream "THERE IS A CHECK IN HERE" unless you literally wrote that on the outside, and it goes through many hands before getting to its destination which isn't even the company you are paying. If you look at most national account bills (credit cards, cell companies, cable providers, etc.) they all go to the same few places (usually somewhere in the middle of the country like IL) called "lock boxes" where a minimum wage worker opens your envelope, scans your check digitally, transmits the info to the respective banks, and completes the transaction electronically anyway. Oh, and they are supposed to shred it afterwards. You hope.
The real problem is attacks on back end systems, or assault on terminals, like what happened to Target. Most of the time (almost all) fraud that happens on indivdual online accounts is by someone they know - usually a spouse or child. So if you don't trust them, or can't outwit them with passwords on your system, you have a much larger personal issue than lack of security on the Internet.
Yeah I thought they had a piece of hair or something so it really was his. It's not far fetched - locks of Lincoln's hair still exist (as do samples from a great many folks, like Marilyn Monroe, Michael Jackson, and Elvis). VH1 has some "memorabilia" program that had an episode going to the home of one of the big "hair collectors" - I'm sure there is some weird name for them if one wanted to look it up - who had authenticated samples of all of the above and many more displayed and the most valuable ones like Lincoln in a big fireproof safe. Looked like a bank vault. It was pretty creepy, but very cool at the same time. He has all the documents to back them up, as well.
First, I concur, I don't understand how something like this actually makes the news page.
Second, it sounds like they want an iPad, not a Kindle.
The poster misses the entire point of Kindle, and why it's done so well - it's for people that mainly want to read books. They added Fire to the lineup for folks that want to consume other media, as well. But there is no reason for it to have something like voice control - since it's mainly a book reading device, do you really need voice control to tell it to what, turn the page for you? Same with annotating - so few people would actually use a voice feature like that and the investment in development of one good enough, and system use overhead in implementation of, which all would end up being like putting a jet engine on a motorcycle.
It honestly does just sound like you want an iPad, or if you are anti-Apple then a Surface, etc. They already do the things you are looking for. They also have Kindle apps so you can have your cake and eat it, too. Kindle has great mark-up features, which you can export and manage in your app of choice.
Basically, the entire point of a Kindle is to bring e-book reading mainstream by giving a basic device at a low price point, which is just what it has done - and most mainstream users would never use these features. No need to make the round-peg Kindle fit into the square-peg, when there are plenty of other devices that will slide right into said peg.
Your problem is only that you don't know how to change the default search engine. I sympathize, but it's still not the devil.
The unified address / search bar is mostly a great improvement
It may not be the devil, but it is sure a pain in the ass.
I use the search box constantly, and often I go back to amend my original search (if the results are too wide, or I'm not seeing what I am looking for). Before, no matter what search engine I was using (Google, Amazon, etc.) I just clicked and added/removed a word from my original search.
With the "unified" thing, you can't do that, because it's changed into your URL. Depending on the implementation and the security of the website, you may be able to use the back button to get back, but usually that just brings up the original search page, and you have to go in and use a totally different field (the native search engine interface) and hope that they saved what you searched for (it's hit or miss depending on the site). Often you have to then retype the entire search.
Basically, one dedicated search box saves a lot of page jockeying for anything other than a one-shot basic search. I also like being able to quickly flip between, say Amazon and eBay looking for the same item, without having to use their individual search interfaces and go to their site directly (and retype/copy/paste - all I do is just flip the search engine and go).
I'm fine with the option to unify - so far, I have only been forced into it on my iPad, but this is one of those "outdated" things that really isn't outdated - it works just fine for a lot of us (and saves a lot of confusion for anyone mildly aware of how your browser works - nothing will ever help the total "I type google in google to search for google" folks). If folks want to unify them, more power to you - but leave my search box alone, LOL.
What's worse than uninformed bullshit posted as an "article" on the Internet?
Uninformed bullshit that then gets picked up, summarized in a modern game of telephone via a retarded summary, compounding the uninformed bullshit to complete horseshit, and then posting it on /.
There are bits of truth in there, but since this is all speculation on everyone's part until Disney announces anything (or Lucas/Fox spills the beans, see below), It's easier to just lay it out instead of trying to refute/correct all the inaccuracies in both the summary and the "article":
There have been industry rumors (reported by sites such as Digital Bits) that Disney has been working on these since practically when the deal was signed, as it was the obvious first place to start the machine going as pre-pre-production on Episode VII was just starting and they needed to set to work on getting the franchise in order. They are stressed as "insiders are talking" - but since the post-production/restoration community is pretty small, usually where there is smoke, there is fire. When a group is sitting and working on a film day and night, it's difficult to hide.
It makes perfect sense; Disney is going out of their way to realign the direction of the franchise with the OT - toy and novelty manufacturers have been directed to wind down Prequel products, they are going out of their way to let folks know that they aren't shooting on digital. They are emphasizing the real-models are being built as opposed to overly relying on CGI, etc. Lucasfilm has been so focused on selling to kids for years, to dwindling merchandizing success, and Disney, who knows if they go after the adults and nostalgia, from their own business experience (theme parks, etc.) - the kids will come along for the ride (and just to make sure, Rebels is coming for them to explain). This is exactly the target audience that will gladly replace their 2011 Blu-ray sets with a big brand new one from Disney in Christmas 2015, just in time for Episode VII. So yes, still a rumor - but personally I have no doubt we will have the unaltered OT on Blu-ray next year. Oh, and let's not forget that virtually the entire surviving cast is hanging out in London together as we speak - they've never contributed anything signifigant in terms of "extras" before individually (Carrie and Anthony did a partial commentary on the OT, really only a few minutes - everyone else, nada), much less as a group. Sounds like an opportunity to me...
As to the rights issues - there have been a couple of semi-mainstream articles (which really have just been opinion/speculation pieces) about the "Fox thing" as this one does (likely they all are just referencing each other), but it's pretty much assumed by all evidence that those issues no longer exist.
To begin with, only Star Wars itself was ever affected in terms of ownership. You can read all about it in quite a few books, but long story short (too late!) Fox pretty much made the biggest studio blunder of all time - they insisted on heavier ownership of the original film, but as every good geek knows, Lucas negotiated the rights to both merchandising and sequels (which the studio gave up as there was no such thing as modern merchandising until Lucas invented it, and Hollywood had seen very few successful sequels, especially for low-budget "sci-fi" which is how they saw Star Wars). The rights demands went back and forth during financial troubles on both the original sequels as he worked to finance them himself (you can read the entire story, with memos from the Lucasfilm archives, in the Rinzler "Making of" books recently released), but in the end - Lucas came out on top. Way on top.
So at one point, Fox technically owned Star Wars, Lucas owned the sequels, and Fox had an ongoing agreement to distribute the films (which was fine with Lucasfilm as they weren't a distributor). Then, the special editions/prequels happened. It had long been rumored that somewhere in between the special ed
That actually leads to my question about this - what if you lose it? What if you get robbed, what if you are just forgetful and leave it somewhere, what if your dog eats it....
There are a million things that could happen. The article makes it clear that you can mark it up, highlight it, etc. do whatever you want to it - they don't care about the condition, just want it back after. So do they charge you a penalty for not returning this obviously used item that seems destined to be destroyed? Do you have to sign a contract to do so? It seems to me that there must be some penalty there, which they would have a really hard time justifying if challenged - I mean, how much is a used, beat-up book worth?
I also had to kind of giggle at the "lifetime access" to their digital version - I'd want that one in writing, with a refund policy, so in a few years after this doesn't work and they shut down the website, folks would have recourse.
The whole thing is just so shady. The whole textbook business is, really. Just an industry based around exploiting those already being exploited and signing away their possible future earnings to get an education and a chance at bettering themselves starting life in debt.
I was lucky - I went to a college that didn't really use textbooks. We had plenty of books, probably many more than the average class at most schools (8-10 books a class wasn't odd), but very few "textbooks" proper - I don't think any of my classes required one - the science or math kids may have used some workbooks, but I went to a private college that didn't believe in such things and I count myself lucky. It was also small enough that the professors and other students kind of knew who could and couldn't afford the required texts and were completely supportive of sharing, reserve shelves (in fact, just about everything was on a reserve shelf if someone really needed) and any other methods we had to use - because it's the learning that's important, stupid, LOL, not supporting various corporate profit interests.
Oh, don't go using logic here when it comes to open source vs. Windows with this crowd. If you listen to some folks here, even your Grandma should be using Linux.
There is a good reason that Linux has what, a 2% install base? It's because to start you have to "pick" a distro, to begin with. Windows is Windows. There may be varying grades of the same product, but it's all...Windows. It all seems so simple and straight-forward to the "open source or die" crowd - hey, if one doesn't work for you, try another - and they completely miss the point that it's the very issue, to begin with.
Of course, it goes far beyond that - compatibility with devices, user friendliness, ability to get support (I guess Grandma can join the local Senior's Linux User Group?). When it comes to business, those concerns multiply - the fact that there are so far fewer Linux IT professionals than Windows IT professionals exist. And because Linux is inherently so customizable and requires so much tinkering, you lose the wrong employee and you have to bring someone new in, it may be a nearly impossible task for them to get up to speed on what already exists, much less fix issues, unless the employee that has gone has extensively documented what has been done before.
It's not like Linux is the little engine that could, just chugging along waiting for everyone to discover it. It's not a diamond in the rough. It is the rough. I certainly have a lot of issues with Windows, but for the vast majority of users and businesses it just works - and that's for very good reasons. As much as we criticize everything being run by MS, that's also why it works - it has one governing body, unlike Linux, where you are basically out there in the wilderness when it comes to getting support.
At this point, even after so long, it's a niche - and even the tiny gains it has here and there for certain applications is never going change that - and it's going to remain a niche, for folks who like to tinker. Most people use computers as a tool, and don't want to spend just as much tinkering with the tool as just using it. All Linux would change for the majority of users in a practical sense is less compatibility and more headaches. I get the principle of open-source software, and it's noble - but ask anyone, nobility really doesn't win in the end, most of the time - it's great for folks that want to use it, but to expect the rest of the world to do so is simply a fantasy because for how most folks use a computer, it's more trouble than it's worth.
That would be great if Linux IT professionals existed in any number to make it useful. Can you find one? Or even a few? Yeah, but it's not sustainable. Most engineers with a pedigree required for that kind of work are not going to be in nearly the abundance of those trained in Windows. That's the entire point - it would cost a lot more to headhunt and find those with the specific skills needed for such, when you can throw a Wiffle ball and find a half dozen qualified Windows IT professionals. And when they leave, you have to start again - that's the sustainability issue.
Precisely.
Some of the replies to you say "well, that just forces people to make more complex passwords" so they last longer, but that's just the same-old. And anyone that deals with this from a business standpoint will tell you that the real problem with requiring customers/users to have more complex passwords is the more complex you make them, not only the more frustrated the customers get - but you also have to make it even easier for them to reset their passwords.
Just anecdotally, I know of one medium-sized financial company that increased their password complexity requirements, and they had to double their call center size practically overnight to compensate for all the extra phone calls from folks who needed to reset their password, and/or were just so upset that it was so much more difficult to use their site (and they even offered an email reset option). Financially, it would have been cheaper to just cover any potential losses that may or may not happen vs. the ongoing cost of maintaining that (temps are expensive) and the cost of customer satisfaction (yes, people really do cancel accounts because they find it too difficult to log in to the website).
In truth, this discussion largely academic in nature - because brute force is rarely used to gain access to a website, and rarely works anyway as most sites lock you out after a certain amount of attempts (see above, the costs of maintaining password resets).
If you really do want to fend off brute force, for whatever reason, using words at all is going to be susceptible. The best password method I have found is using the "first letter" phrase method. For example, if your favorite song is "Itsy Bitsy Spider", using "Ib8cutws" (since a spider has 8 legs, substituting 8 for spider, in this instance). A saying, phrase, or song that is easy to remember for you, but typically difficult to guess (even by someone who knows you - just like murder, it's most likely to be someone you know who can do real damage). Then append either as a prefix or a suffix whatever appropriate to the website that you can remember to make it unique to that site.
If you want to make a truly unique password for each site, you can keep a list - but using the above method you can easily code the list itself. For example, if your phrase is a quote from Shakespeare, you write down the name of the teacher who's class you first heard it in. Or if it's a song, the name of the person it reminds you of. That way, even if someone finds your paper or electronic list, there is little they can discern from it.
Again, though, in truth - most times someone is going to hack your account and try to do anything untoward, it's gong to be someone you know. And while even some financial accounts are sensitive (say, something like PayPal where you can transfer funds in and out of accounts and to third parties), in most cases - like your basic credit card - there is little incentive for a 3rd party to try to access your data. You can usually get your credit card number from your statement PDF, but your expiration date and CCN aren't going to be found. Same with basic bank accounts - unless it has the ability to transfer out. At most someone can request a new card/change of address - but that is so clumsy, traceable, and isn't going to gain a true criminal anything on a significant scale. Yet again, it's most likely going to be someone you know (a relative or employee), who can access these things other ways as well.
The real danger financially is merchant hacks (such as Target) and the like, very few people are just sitting around trying to get into random accounts because there is so little they can do.
All that said, and sort of a side note, but all the paranoia about electronic financial stuff is like folks feeling safer driving a car than being in an airplane. By far it is much safer to handle your transactions/payments online, because the most insecure thing you can do is write a check and mail it. That check has printed
It never ceases to amaze me how out-of-touch with the "real world" so many /. commenters are. Or, more precisely, how out-of-touch they come across as, because I don't think half of the folks who post some of this stuff actually believe what they say, they know better - the other half I do believe actually think what they are saying is accurate, because they don't associate with anyone who doesn't know the difference between SRAM and DRAM.
"Switch to another modern operating system, such as OS X and Linux" - yeah, that's gonna happen. To run OS X one needs to buy a new, overpriced machine that isn't going to be compatible with a lot of existing stuff and is way overkill for the needs of most average folks. And Linux? Seriously? Linux is so out of reach of most folks it's not even funny. I'm sure someone will come along and say "well X distro is easy to install!" and they miss the entire freaking point. Linux is not for "average" users, or even for well-versed computer users, it's for tinkerers and folks who want to spend as much time working on their OS as they do using the computer. It's a ridiculous notion.
The truth is, XP is not going away. Folks are saying "but they've been announcing this forever!" - not to middle America, they haven't. Those folks don't keep up on tech sites, and it's not like MS is sending them pop-ups to let them know. They just want to get on their computer and use Facebook and check their email, maybe play a few games. They also don't often have computers that even could run Windows 7 or better. Gone are the days when everyone had to replace their PC every 2-3 years, max - I know tons of folks who have PC's that are nearing a decade old and still in use and work just fine for them. Asking folks who have computers that to them seem working perfectly fine, and that meet their needs, to go out and buy a new one just to continue to do what they are already doing is never going to fly.
MS is going to relent and continue to release security patches - I have no doubt. They already are making them for the large companies/governments that are paying for them, and there are going to be some major battles which will probably end up in the legal system over what really is MS hanging a large portion of users out to dry. As someone else said, these security flaws are already there, they are just fixing what they didn't do correctly in the first place - we all know the limited understanding of the court system of computer technology, that's what it's going to look like to lawyers and judges. We might finally see some real legal tests of EULA's in general, as well - if I put a bumper sticker on my car that says "I am not liable for any accidents I may cause" that doesn't absolve me of liability, and I have a feeling that just may be how some judges will interpret this (correctly or not).
I know all of this is going to seem like bullshit to a lot of /.ers, but it's reality - XP was good enough that it will remain "good enough" for a lot of folks, and not issuing security patches isn't going to stop them from using it, because they never are going to know. It's in MS best interests to continue issuing these patches until these PC's finally die off and folks need to buy a new one, which is still going to be a few more years.
Rant all you wish about how stupid they are, or how they just should stop using MS to begin with and use Linux (the most absurd notion - because even if they did, if Linux actually had more than the less than 2% install base it has, they'd just start trying to exploit that - and with all the different distros, etc. - what a clusterfuck that would be - Linux users just fly under the radar, for now). It's not going to change the reality that these folks aren't going to upgrade their OS until they buy a new PC - and if MS doesn't issue these patches, then once the news finally filters down to these folks (via local newsbroadcasts, etc.) the suggestion will just be to use a different browser, since most security issues are IE related - which is the LAST thing MS wants to happen.
And let me guess, you probably also learned to read by recognition and not phonics, right?
Your experience seems similar to mine, and that's what I have found the key difference is. I learned to read from being read to every night, and following along. When I was 2 I was reading the books back, and my family just assumed I had memorized them. Then somewhere around turning 3 they realized that I could already read - it started with picking out a sign or text and then finally someone shoved a newspaper in front of me, and while I couldn't read the entire thing I was able to read quite a bit. I was reading "chapter books" by 5. And I've been reading - a lot - ever since then, even if the format has changed (obviously a lot more online/tablet than print these days).
I think the folks saying "you are SKIMMING" may be on to something, but not what they think. Not the quality of reading, but the actual method. Looking at it (pun intended), I would assume that my "normal" reading is what some folks would refer to as "skimming". I don't sit and read every single word, I look at groups of words and see them as one. Now, I still go over all the text - skimming for me is when I'm only looking at a few sentences a paragraph.
I really started to understand this fundamental difference in how folks read when I got out into the professional workplace. Lots of very smart, clever folks (and many not so smart and clever), have very little ability to read anything longer than a few sentences and understand it. Everything has to be bullet points and brief, summary headers - this post would never work there, LOL. And a lot of these folks are a lot more traditionally educated than I am. Of course, this is a separate issue and has many factors, but just watching folks read something that is sent out and it takes them four times as long to read it and I still get more out of it than they do was actually the first time I realized that they simply read differently than I did.
Hulu could open Hulu Canada and license the rights for Canada from the copyright owners. Hulu could open Hulu Britain and license the rights for Ireland and Great Britain from the copyright owners. Hulu currently happens to choose not to do so.
Oh please. Or are you being obtuse on purpose?
Hulu is a company created to serve the US market. They have no responsibility to open up open up in every damn country worldwide. There are good reasons they don't - and why no one else really does, either. Netflix is just at snail speed in its addition of international support, even with all the cash and influence they have these days (and often movie licensing is easier with one clear owner than television where rights can be owned by all number of folks, many of whom have no collective bargaining, official or not).
The reason for this is two-fold. One, because licensing agreements are so complex and extremely territorial (one studio might handle US distribution, another studio, even a competitor, may have international rights), you would pretty much literally have to start from scratch for each country. Netflix isn't going one by one in Europe because it's fun, it's because it's like starting up a new licensing business each time. Screw the tech, it's the licensing agreements and making that profitable to purchase for that country to make a service that is the issue.
Two, and just as important, is the fact that the majority of the world who has commercial broadband have caps. Not all, but a good percentage. So while streaming services are all the rage in the US because of our mostly AYCE, one-flat-rate broadband, it's never going to be as popular in other markets, so streaming services have to somehow get licensing agreements for an entire library, and somehow do it cheap enough to make it worth doing business at all with what is always going to be a limited audience to begin with, in each new country.
In the US, we are in the middle of the Golden Age of Streaming - GAS - which, eventually, one runs out of - as we will our streaming fetish. ISP's are just waiting to pull the caps down in the US, they already have been testing it. Once they do, either streaming will die off, or, sweetheart deals get made with Netflix/Hulu/Amazon/etc. with the ISP's, keeping their content out of the caps, which means those services are going to get much much more expensive (no more $7.99 a month, think like ten times that...just like the cable bill you thought was so smart in getting rid of to become a streamer - they are gonna make you pay one way, or another).
As to the story itself, I'm sorry, if you are into "living off the grid" or whatever, and feel you can't view Hulu without a VPN, or you are in hiding and cannot use anything but a VPN, you probably have more important things to worry about than catching up with Bones on Hulu. To those mad about them being evil to non-US residents, blame Hollywood and the mess they have made of rights issues - even more accurately, all the unions and executives that conspire to make all that stuff cost so damn much to make in the first place which make the rights so valuable to control tightly. Does it really take 300 million dollars to make a film? No more than an aspirin costs the hospital $35 or a toilet seat costs the Army $575.
I can't say I applaud Hulu, but I can say I don't blame them. They are a good service and to stay that way, they have to stay within the boundaries of the legal agreements they have made in order to exist. All this "reasonable" vs "unreasonable" is irrelevant - it was a smart business move for them in many ways, even though some folks just won't get that because they are irritated their micro-hack no longer works.
I didn't claim to be a power user, but I would consider myself above average as far as normal computer using folks. I don't write programs, but it can write advanced Excel macros. I've never built a PC from scratch but I've torn down my laptop all the way and can upgrade anything. I'm an advanced user but no expert. And I'll be fully honest - never even knew alternate UI's existed until folks started posting about them here in regards to Win8. I never needed to know because I was always able to customize Windows to do what I wanted. So, if I have never heard of replacement UIs, chances are, most non-IT users don't, either.
A lot of times I just am working with a mouse and don't have hands on a keyboard. I have a Razer Naga with 19 buttons I often don't need the keyboard. Just clicking the x was so much easier than having to click and drag down to emulate touch. Yes, we are talking about minor effort, but when you do it dozens of times a day it's just annoying. And that's just the start.
It's just absurd to have to use a mouse to emulate touch which was designed to emulate a mouse to begin with. It is like translating something from French to English and then translating it back to French. WTF is the point.
I agree. I lived with Win8 for a month or so but just got so annoyed having to slide my mouse around just to close a window and having to fight just to get to the desktop. I gave it a good try, but then I just booted the whole thing and went back to Win7.
It wasn't a lack of willingness to adapt, it was because the interface clearly was not aimed at traditional desktop use. And I have no desire whatsoever for a touch screen - one at the size I would need is not only prohibitively expensive for what I'd wish to pay, but I'm not going to reach up constantly when it's much more efficient to just use a mouse and keyboard in most cases. I can do everything more quickly (why pinch to resize when my mouse wheel does it perfectly, etc.) and I don't have to relearn how to do basic tasks.
I also gave the whole "tiles" thing a try - but again, just organizing it was a chore, I don't have the need for live widgets (and, as others point out, they could work just as easily from the desktop anyway), and because of how many apps I use regularly, the thing was unwieldy to scroll across. I also am apt to add an app to try it out, and delete it if it wasn't what I really needed (so hard to tell just from reviews these days, particularly with video manipulation software), and it always seemed to leave various junk files laying around which I then had to go in to manually remove (text readmes, etc). It was a major PITA.
If someone who has been using Windows for 20 years daily had as much issue as I did, someone who folks routinely ask me to "fix" their computers (get rid of errant toolbars, etc.) - there was no hope for the average user. Nothing was intuitive about it. Even if someone just wanted to click on simple apps or links to use them (say, my mom who goes to like 3 websites, uses like 3 or 4 apps, and that's about it) she would have never been able to set that up herself.
I still have my Win8 Upgrade copy, at some point I'm sure some afternoon in the next few months I'll be watching a TV marathon and decide to give it a whirl - but I'll be fully mirroring my current Win7 set-up so I can go back if they've just put lipstick on a pig. Hopefully they have addressed the usability issues - all that crap they added would be great options for someone who wants to use a touch-interface exclusively, but all it felt like to me was using Windows through a space suit underwater...
I was with you at the beginning, until you turned it into an "anti-geek" rant. It's too bad you derailed yourself or you may have gotten a point across - but since you didn't, your post will fall into moderated obscurity.
The part I agree with is that I personally am not concerned whatsoever with the metadata. At all. And the only reason you see most of the media coverage is because folks don't understand what metadata is. If you polled the public right now you would largely find them believing the government is secretly recording and archiving all of our actual phone calls. They aren't.
I know I'll get lectured about "slippery slopes" by saying this, and get down modded, but hey, my karma can take it. I couldn't give a flying fuck if they have a list of my phone calls - my cell phone company already does and it wouldn't be that difficult to get anyway if the government actually cared.
I don't call people on watch lists, I don't call any known criminals, and if they want to see that I called my dentist or my mom last week, yay for them. That's all they will find.
That's yet another reason I don't give a shit - who the hell makes all kinds of calls these days, anyway, except for business if you must. I text everyone I know - and just like when I type data into any electronic device, I am fully well aware it is not secure from the government or anyone else really should someone be curious. So if they want to see me kvetching about Game of Thrones or read me talking to a friend about a restaurant to have dinner at, again - go for it. I'm flattered anyone would care.
I know the groupthink here is to distrust and be wary of everything that has anything to do with the government, but I think there are much worse aspects to be worried about while folks are freaking out over this. If I was a conspiracy theorist (which I on the rare occasion may be) I'd say the whole thing was a big distraction to keep us occupied while the real bad stuff is happening.
In any case, after this hit and I read about it for myself, instead of listening to what folks were saying about it and hyping it up to be, and saw that it was just metadata, I haven't thought about it since until now.
Oh shit...I gotta go. Guys in dark suits and expensive shades just showed up in black SUV's in my driveway. They found out that I missed my dentist appointment and forgot to cancel beforehand!!! Damn you metadata, damn you!!!
Oh, and to whomever is abusing mid points by calling this "off topic" - may your karma points reflect your idiocy. Must be a Jobs-clit-licker.
Netflix was not included in the search because Netflix asked not to be. This was made in an official statement by Amazon.
I own one, and this is the best thing since sliced bread. It is so incredibly fast your head spins - every other device I have tried is so slow and wonky - the power of this machine is incredible. I unhooked my AppleTV and stuck it on eBay because thankfully none of my content is iTunes and stuck forever in Apple's walled garden.
The only caveat is that at launch (a whole two days ago) there are a few services notably missing - HBO GO and Vudu. However, unlike Apple it doesn't take an act of congress to get a new service, I have no doubt apps will be available for those services and many others very quickly. I understand if folks may wait for that to happen, but I have no doubts it will, and soon. For now, I'll use XBOX 360 for HBO GO and my Blu-ray player for Vudu, but the second the apps become available for Fire I'll jump ship so quick, well, you'll think I'm on fire.
The speed of this device just blows my mind, even though I have a bunch of devices that stream various media I always assumed that unless I hooked a full-on computer to my TV I'd have the same endless loading, just to get an app up and running so I could watch something. In a few months once the App Store for it is booming, I cannot see anyone choosing a different brand of device unless they are forced to because they lacked the foresight not to tie their media libraries into one companies devices.
Once you have seen a Fire in action, you will be blown away.
Have you missed the project where an independent entity is doing just that? They were taking applications last year. www.mars-one.com