It should be: "They are the best and their methods are unconventional", extraordinary doesn't capture it at all (exceptionally is worse). It's somewhat closer, particularly with the right tone of voice (think bit of a pause before it and a somewhat amused, unsure expresion) on außergewöhnlich. Now try to come up with a good translation (and this is a tagline, it has to be exceptionally smooth), translating well is an art and while, yes, they did a crappy job here... what would you do?
People do discuss popular culture outside of designated forums. That, and the sub-forum will torrent it, which brings us back to the discussion at hand.
People who want to watch it on prime-time TV (with dub/sub where appropriate, that does take extra time) would not be affected by making the show available for digital distribution when it first airs. Oh, I forgot, copyright should be used to enforce the broadcast TV specific "prime-time" concept, not to encourage creation of creative works for the benefit of the general public.
What heavy handed protection of outdated business models? That does seem to be the actual question you are answering anyway. Copyright is an ethical issue as long as it is used to encourage creation, once it steps outside of its bounds (e.g. protecting business models or providing for grandchildren) it is not worth trying to get every single stubborn ox to create. If we trade 5% of created works for having access to the rest of them and being able to build on the rest of them in a reasonable time frame, than that is what we should do. Piracy is part of this, for better or worse (not saying that I pirate or you should, just that in the grand scheme it's existence is part of the solution).
Your password complexity requirements are worthless, users will pick easy to remember, insecure passwords no matter what the requirements are. They will, of course, literally fullfill the requirements. The difference is that you are much more likely to get user cooperation if password changes consisted of the computer picking 4 random words for them, rather than 12 random alphanumerics with a side dish of ASCII barf. The only reason users pick their own passwords for sensitive applications is that they'd write that shit down and stick it on the monitor (or under the keyboard, for the ones who "understand security") if you made it truly secure (i.e. generated it for them).
Right now your users pretend to pick secure passwords and you pretend that they do. You don't want to know how shitty they are, they don't want to tell you. As long as you don't find them on post-its and there is no visible compromise everyone is happy. Of course they should have PIN-secured, challenge-response based one time password generators, but let's face it, your systems just aren't important enough to secure them in a thoroughly user friendly manner. So if you actually do care beyond your users picking the simplest password that passes your requirements you very well might think about randomly generating 4 word passphrases for them, I think you even have some volunteers for a trial.
A computer can't tell if a passphrase is random or guessable, even a human wouldn't necceserily be able to. XKCD/diceware style passphrases however are supposed to be easy to remember despite being completely random, so the proper course is to let the computer generate the passphrase.
So have you dropped anything that causes problems for a significant amount of people from your diet? No salt, no MSG, no gluten, no soy, no peanuts, no nuts, no shellfish, etc? If you are claiming them to be bad, period, not "bad for those who can't have them".
Large amounts of anything being a problem doesn't prove that smaller amounts are, cuisine wasn't part of that argument.
Even a cheap repair can turn out costly environmentally. As you said, it's tough to pick the right one as an end user. Sometimes it's easy, e.g. resoling otherwise intact leather shoes. Sometimes it's a crapshot, e.g. has the toaster reached EOL and this just happened to be the first thing to go?
Also, a repaired toaster is still mostly an old toaster, and as such is more likely to fail with another problem. There is a certain amount of repairs that will push the old toaster over the resource limit of making a new one from scratch. Environmental costs for repeated repairs as compared to replacing the first time include repeated trips to the repairman, the shipping of parts (often small quantities or even single pieces, compare to a container load of turnkey toasters), manufacturing of parts that may never be used, increased electricity consumption due to old/failing parts, etc. If the environmental costs of repairs exceed those of a new toaster faster than the new one fails, it is still better to buy the new one.
I've seen and used a lot of old hand-me-down furniture. Never seen anything just fall apart until I bought something recently at a discount furniture retailer.
Did you not listen to GP at all? The furniture that did fall apart wasn't handed down because it fell apart.
Monetary transactions are not anonymous, not only that, but they are (supposed to be) zero sum. From your end it's very easy to verify that the charge went through successfully, your account goes down by the correct amount (since the transaction is not anonymous you can see who charged what to your account) and corrections can be made. Since every transaction involves two parties interested in their own accounts, mischarges can be effectively minimized as long as both parties are diligent. Furthermore the banks involved have similar interests in all of their mutual transactions. The system is quite transparent to the relevant participants, so unsurprisingly most fraud happens via impersonation, not altering auditable records.
Honestly, I don't see the need for a printed receipt for the voter, other than some superficial reassurance.
There is every reason to not give the voter a receipt to avoid coercion or vote selling. I'm arguing that using paper receipts (that the voter can verify, but not remove) as a veriftication of the electronic record is pointless as you either can rely on the electronic record (never touching the receipts) or you can't (never using the fancy electronic record). If you plan on relying on the receipts in any significant way it is cheaper to have pen-and-paper ballots that are hand counted in the presence of observers. An electronic record with eventual recounts only removes transparency and moves the receipts outside of the view of the observers until the recount happens.
If you don't care about transparency and checks and balances in the voting process then it's no different. In fact, there isn't even a point in printing if you have already given up on those goals. OTOH now that electronic voting machines and peoples familiarity with computer security and reliability have brought the issue into question, it is a good time to reevaluate just what kind of system you want. One that a little army of non-expert observers can reasonably verify, or one that relies on black boxes as long as they can spit our "consistent" results when there are no "spot checks".
The only reliable way to find problems in the electronic record is to count the receipts, that's the point, that's why people keep bringing them up. So to be sure, you have to count them anyway.
Keep in mind that any individual would handle only a small portion of the vote, you'd need a lot of magicians to pull of something that can apparently happen by accident with electronic votes.
ATMs can and do full logging that lets you audit them and fix any problems. I wouldn't trust an ATM that kept no identifiable record of my transactions.
If only the electronic votes are counted, then the physical record doesn't matter at all. If receipts are counted, the electronic voting has merely added a pointless step.
Under this kind of climate, is there any wonder why when given a choice between ingredient lists that look like, "wheat, sugar, soybean oil, salt" or "wheat, high-fructose corn syrup, sorbitol, maltodextrin, salt, yellow no. 5, polysorbate 80" people are going to prefer the former?
Hell, I'll take the former just on Occam's razor principles alone, no reason to add more ingredients than are needed to get the job done.
If the quote doesn't mean anything, then it equally shouldn't be used. But speculation that used the quote as support for bad things happening as a result of good intentions followed as well.
Again, you're trying to make this all about Google overcoming an "inconvenient"and "broken" default privacy setting.
No, I'm still consistently bringing it up as one of the aspects.
What it *does not* allow is setting a cookie from a third party site - for example, Google's tracking cookie set when you browse to someone else's page (as in, not a Google page) with a G+ button on it, or a google text ad. Google is not allowed to set a cookie in this instance unless the user clicks on the button or advert. They went against the setting by tricking the browser into accepting a first party cookie.
As far as a browser is concerned gmail.com is a different party than google.com (and mail.google.com can be different from plus.google.com, though I don't think that was the case with the Safari default). Technicalities. Do. Matter. And again, it's not that Google is "not allowed" to set a cookie, it's that said cookie is blackholed by the browser.
I would suggest that Google *respect the setting that the browser is set to*.
And I will still disagree with this particular suggestion in most strongest terms. Not because I love Google, but because I have a website and don't think I should be under any obligation to not only somehow infer your browsers settings but also ensure that the browser isn't violating it for you. No, just no. You used technical means to get around a technical problem, you could only visit sites not affiliated with Google, but no, you specifically used technical means to circumvent the wishes of the webmaster. Google exploited a flaw in Safari? You exploited a "flaw" in HTTP first, admittedly and intentionally I might add. But Google is evil and you are good, eh?
My setting choice was deliberate, and I was affected by this exploit, but according to you, that's fine because how could Google know what I really wanted?
Fine, not necessarily. Understandable from a web developers point of view? Absolutely. You did not give Mark Google a form with a "do-not-track" field checked. You told your computer to not store certain data but between your computer and Google's servers it was set anyway. Did it make it easier to track you? Kinda. Would it prevent you from being tracked even if it had worked properly? Absolutely not. Did it tell anyone that you don't want to be tracked? Not more than turning off your cell phone would tell that you didn't want to be triangulated. There is a correlation between a multipurpose technical action and any reason one might make it for, but they are not the same.
Shutting down communications is just about guaranteed to cause issues, so whatever you want to shut down them for must be more certain than "only with luck will this not cause issues".
Slashdot Mirror
It should be: "They are the best and their methods are unconventional", extraordinary doesn't capture it at all (exceptionally is worse). It's somewhat closer, particularly with the right tone of voice (think bit of a pause before it and a somewhat amused, unsure expresion) on außergewöhnlich. Now try to come up with a good translation (and this is a tagline, it has to be exceptionally smooth), translating well is an art and while, yes, they did a crappy job here... what would you do?
People do discuss popular culture outside of designated forums. That, and the sub-forum will torrent it, which brings us back to the discussion at hand.
People who want to watch it on prime-time TV (with dub/sub where appropriate, that does take extra time) would not be affected by making the show available for digital distribution when it first airs. Oh, I forgot, copyright should be used to enforce the broadcast TV specific "prime-time" concept, not to encourage creation of creative works for the benefit of the general public.
TV shows are frivolous. TV show copyright is Serious Business. Duh.
What heavy handed protection of outdated business models? That does seem to be the actual question you are answering anyway. Copyright is an ethical issue as long as it is used to encourage creation, once it steps outside of its bounds (e.g. protecting business models or providing for grandchildren) it is not worth trying to get every single stubborn ox to create. If we trade 5% of created works for having access to the rest of them and being able to build on the rest of them in a reasonable time frame, than that is what we should do. Piracy is part of this, for better or worse (not saying that I pirate or you should, just that in the grand scheme it's existence is part of the solution).
Your password complexity requirements are worthless, users will pick easy to remember, insecure passwords no matter what the requirements are. They will, of course, literally fullfill the requirements. The difference is that you are much more likely to get user cooperation if password changes consisted of the computer picking 4 random words for them, rather than 12 random alphanumerics with a side dish of ASCII barf. The only reason users pick their own passwords for sensitive applications is that they'd write that shit down and stick it on the monitor (or under the keyboard, for the ones who "understand security") if you made it truly secure (i.e. generated it for them).
Right now your users pretend to pick secure passwords and you pretend that they do. You don't want to know how shitty they are, they don't want to tell you. As long as you don't find them on post-its and there is no visible compromise everyone is happy. Of course they should have PIN-secured, challenge-response based one time password generators, but let's face it, your systems just aren't important enough to secure them in a thoroughly user friendly manner. So if you actually do care beyond your users picking the simplest password that passes your requirements you very well might think about randomly generating 4 word passphrases for them, I think you even have some volunteers for a trial.
A computer can't tell if a passphrase is random or guessable, even a human wouldn't necceserily be able to. XKCD/diceware style passphrases however are supposed to be easy to remember despite being completely random, so the proper course is to let the computer generate the passphrase.
And just how would the implementation differ if it was not done from a mobile device but say from a desktop computer?
So have you dropped anything that causes problems for a significant amount of people from your diet? No salt, no MSG, no gluten, no soy, no peanuts, no nuts, no shellfish, etc? If you are claiming them to be bad, period, not "bad for those who can't have them". Large amounts of anything being a problem doesn't prove that smaller amounts are, cuisine wasn't part of that argument.
Large amounts of anything will damage something, try an argument about realistic doses. Gluten is a problem for many people, does that make it bad?
Even a cheap repair can turn out costly environmentally. As you said, it's tough to pick the right one as an end user. Sometimes it's easy, e.g. resoling otherwise intact leather shoes. Sometimes it's a crapshot, e.g. has the toaster reached EOL and this just happened to be the first thing to go?
Also, a repaired toaster is still mostly an old toaster, and as such is more likely to fail with another problem. There is a certain amount of repairs that will push the old toaster over the resource limit of making a new one from scratch. Environmental costs for repeated repairs as compared to replacing the first time include repeated trips to the repairman, the shipping of parts (often small quantities or even single pieces, compare to a container load of turnkey toasters), manufacturing of parts that may never be used, increased electricity consumption due to old/failing parts, etc. If the environmental costs of repairs exceed those of a new toaster faster than the new one fails, it is still better to buy the new one.
Did you not listen to GP at all? The furniture that did fall apart wasn't handed down because it fell apart.
There is every reason to not give the voter a receipt to avoid coercion or vote selling. I'm arguing that using paper receipts (that the voter can verify, but not remove) as a veriftication of the electronic record is pointless as you either can rely on the electronic record (never touching the receipts) or you can't (never using the fancy electronic record). If you plan on relying on the receipts in any significant way it is cheaper to have pen-and-paper ballots that are hand counted in the presence of observers. An electronic record with eventual recounts only removes transparency and moves the receipts outside of the view of the observers until the recount happens.
If you don't care about transparency and checks and balances in the voting process then it's no different. In fact, there isn't even a point in printing if you have already given up on those goals. OTOH now that electronic voting machines and peoples familiarity with computer security and reliability have brought the issue into question, it is a good time to reevaluate just what kind of system you want. One that a little army of non-expert observers can reasonably verify, or one that relies on black boxes as long as they can spit our "consistent" results when there are no "spot checks".
The only reliable way to find problems in the electronic record is to count the receipts, that's the point, that's why people keep bringing them up. So to be sure, you have to count them anyway.
Keep in mind that any individual would handle only a small portion of the vote, you'd need a lot of magicians to pull of something that can apparently happen by accident with electronic votes.
ATMs can and do full logging that lets you audit them and fix any problems. I wouldn't trust an ATM that kept no identifiable record of my transactions.
If only the electronic votes are counted, then the physical record doesn't matter at all. If receipts are counted, the electronic voting has merely added a pointless step.
Hell, I'll take the former just on Occam's razor principles alone, no reason to add more ingredients than are needed to get the job done.
If the quote doesn't mean anything, then it equally shouldn't be used. But speculation that used the quote as support for bad things happening as a result of good intentions followed as well.
No, I'm still consistently bringing it up as one of the aspects.
As far as a browser is concerned gmail.com is a different party than google.com (and mail.google.com can be different from plus.google.com, though I don't think that was the case with the Safari default). Technicalities. Do. Matter. And again, it's not that Google is "not allowed" to set a cookie, it's that said cookie is blackholed by the browser.
And I will still disagree with this particular suggestion in most strongest terms. Not because I love Google, but because I have a website and don't think I should be under any obligation to not only somehow infer your browsers settings but also ensure that the browser isn't violating it for you. No, just no. You used technical means to get around a technical problem, you could only visit sites not affiliated with Google, but no, you specifically used technical means to circumvent the wishes of the webmaster. Google exploited a flaw in Safari? You exploited a "flaw" in HTTP first, admittedly and intentionally I might add. But Google is evil and you are good, eh?
Fine, not necessarily. Understandable from a web developers point of view? Absolutely. You did not give Mark Google a form with a "do-not-track" field checked. You told your computer to not store certain data but between your computer and Google's servers it was set anyway. Did it make it easier to track you? Kinda. Would it prevent you from being tracked even if it had worked properly? Absolutely not. Did it tell anyone that you don't want to be tracked? Not more than turning off your cell phone would tell that you didn't want to be triangulated. There is a correlation between a multipurpose technical action and any reason one might make it for, but they are not the same.
I highly doubt it was ever used to differentiate non-salted food from salted, so that use would be just as questionable.
Shutting down communications is just about guaranteed to cause issues, so whatever you want to shut down them for must be more certain than "only with luck will this not cause issues".