This would double the cost, because every thing would have to be photographed twice and some attempt at synchronizing the location of each shot would be needed, at least to a degree close enough to allow image processing to retain the unchanged bits and remove the cars, people, etc.
Technically possible.
But why do this? People are in publicly viewable areas when photographed. They have no expectation of privacy.
I love the things she dreams up and the level of detail she puts into the explanations. I've built a few of her kits, the "Minty Boost" being the one I use most. Warning, TV-B-gone can get you kicked out of sports bars and beaten senseless.
I had to read it a couple times too. They're basically trying to prevent "hidden" p2p software.
Exactly, or drive by installed P2P software that shares your entire disk just because you wanted a torrent of the latest OpenSUSE distro.
While this in itself would be commendable, these things end up being a gloss of what really gets implemented in regulation. What starts out looking like protection for the consumer is really a ploy to remove plausible deniablity as a defense.
Further, such a bill would do nothing when Little Billy, who is an authorized user of Mom's machine, gives away the family tax returns while trying to get the next level of Wonder Rabbit to download by clicking thru that popup warning.
There are already laws prohibiting unauthorized used of a computer, and the government already knows exactly who the bot masters and spam masters are, yet they walk around untouched while the "real criminals" are sued into poverty for sharing a song. Do we really need more unenforceable laws prohibiting what is already prohibited?
You might also say that Raskin works from a different definition of "Huge Demand" than the rest of us.
"There is huge demand for being able to connect the Web with language — to not have to move from one site to another to complete your daily tasks,"
Ah, no, Raskin, there isn't a huge demand for this. I don't want to deal with my bank account while logged into Google, and I don't want to have every thing I do on the web done from one place.
"And there is huge demand for anyone to be able to write small snippets of code that lets them command the Web the way they want.
Again Wrong Wrong Wrong. Less than.002 percent of web users have even the slightest desire to command the web the way they want, and even fewer want to "write snippets of code". Its time to expand your world view beyond your hacker-cave.
Ubiquity gave everyday developers a voice with how the browser and the Web works."
"Everyday developers"? WTF? So finally at the end of the quote it becomes clear he was talking about 1/1000th of web users, the people who use the web for development daily, who probably managed just fine without Ubiquity.
You have only the "totally unbiased" word of the account holder for your assertion. Who knows what he was ACTUALLY told? Who knows what Citibank is legally ABLE to tell him?
Both TFA and the summary assume leap to the conclusion that GOOGLE would run afoul of a law relating to current publications without even hinting at the utterly vast archives of newspapers molding in public libraries or on microfilm that can't be accessed conveniently if at all.
Yet there is a huge wealth of old newspapers, scientific journals, and popular press magazines that could be salvaged with this technology.
Its odd, that when envisioning futuristic civilizations we almost always expect all of their literary history being contained in computers accessible from everywhere. Yet when someone develops the tools to do just that there is a huge outcry from those that posture as defenders of IP rights.
And it's not even connected to website directly, but objectionable content
Well thats what the story says anyway. But we only have one side of that story. Obviously TFA would NEVER post a one sided blog entry, so we have to assume its the truth, the whole truth...
But I have to ask way designate the bank account as belonging to a web site. Who does that?
The only reason to do so would be because you wanted to process credit card transactions from the site, and appear to the customer as some vague entity. And since the content of the site is sex oriented, the P word comes to mind.
Its possible the site was reported as a gay prostitution site or involuntary outing site by someone who was offended by the content.
Even if they do not actually handle any funds transfer online, all it takes is one call from some vice squad with a court order from some night court magistrate some where to get a temporary block in place.
Such allegations need have nothing to do with this site at all. May be related to some other activity by someone who has signature control of the bank account. May be just a case of mistaken identity.
You also have to consider how easy it is to put up a web page decrying censorship while knowing and hiding the real reason the account was closed.
The guy was running "Virtual Private Servers". In effect, renting a virtual machine on a GoDaddy box.
That is slightly different than running his own box, because when malware is served or spam sent from that box it is GoDaddy that is on the hook.
His big mistake was assuming a VPS was HIS. Its really just a rented room, and just like a landlord can take steps to make sure meth is not brewed in his building, GoDaddy can protect their network.
99% of homeopathy is simply people using random herbs that are ineffective
99.999% of homeopathy is either water or sugar.
I suspect you have been as stingy with your trailing decimal points as most homeopathy is with actual non-inert ingredients.
According to the report: "Homeopathic medicines are diluted so much that it is extremely unlikely that any active component can possibly be left in the solution. The committee failed to identify any plausible explanation for how such remedies might work."
The dilution factors are utterly astounding in many cases. The most common Dilution advocated for most purposes would require giving two billion doses per second to six billion people for 4 billion years to deliver a single molecule of the original material to any patient
The Homeopathy Wiki article is even more dismissive than TFA, which by itself is rather astounding.
That kind of density is amazing. So, that means one of four things.
This is a gross exaggeration of its capabilities
This is exactly what they are capable of
They cannot be placed right next to each other (or at least efficiency suffers if you do)
Efficiency won't scale well at all (with length)
My bet is Gross Exaggeration.
First, TFA sort of glosses over the fact that a red laser was needed to achieve even the meager results demonstrated at this point. They specifically say solar is not the direction of their research, and employ the weasel phrase "without any additional unforeseen limitations".
I suspect this is a case where the power needed to induce a current was grossly out of proportion to the achieved results. Of course this is not unusual in the discovery phase.
Remove the laser, set it in the sun, and let us know what they get. That would be very interesting.
This warranty does not apply: (a) to consumable parts, such as batteries, or protective coatings designed to diminish over time unless failure has occurred due to a defect in materials or workmanship; (b) to cosmetic damage, including but not limited to scratches, dents, and broken plastic on ports; (c) to damage caused by use with non- Apple products; (d) to damage caused by accident, abuse, misuse, liquid spill or submersion, flood, fire, earthquake or other external causes; (e) to damage caused by operating the product outside the permitted or intended uses described by Apple;...
As anyone who wears glasses could probably tell you, if you go outside for a while, then come back inside (mimic the conditions of the 'experiment'), the glasses are highly likely to fog up with condensation. Is this not a liquid?
Sounds to me like the sensors are working just fine.
This rule also applies to the shipment of batteries on Cargo planes...
Its interesting you should mention that.
If you follow the Skip to the Chart link in the above story that is where a very large portion of these incidents did happen, on FedEX and UPS cargo planes.
More happened there than any other airline that was broken out individually.
(There is another large category of Not-Given airlines, I suspect most of these could well be contract freight carriers because the ground/air ratio of incidents matches that of the known freight carriers more closely than it matches the named airlines.)
Granted these freight carriers probably handle many times as many batteries of each type than your typical passenger plane.
Subtracting out Lead Acid, which hardly ever is carried on passenger planes any more (I don't believe they are allowed), cuts the total incidents almost by half.
Of the incidents that involved these cargo planes, slightly more than half happened on the ground (loading/unloading) rather than on the plane.
If you remove those that are likely freighters, the numbers become vanishingly small.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly what I was thinking.
This would double the cost, because every thing would have to be photographed twice and some attempt at synchronizing the location of each shot would be needed, at least to a degree close enough to allow image processing to retain the unchanged bits and remove the cars, people, etc.
Technically possible.
But why do this? People are in publicly viewable areas when photographed. They have no expectation of privacy.
I love the things she dreams up and the level of detail she puts into the explanations. I've built a few of her kits, the "Minty Boost" being the one I use most. Warning, TV-B-gone can get you kicked out of sports bars and beaten senseless.
I had to read it a couple times too. They're basically trying to prevent "hidden" p2p software.
Exactly, or drive by installed P2P software that shares your entire disk just because you wanted a torrent of the latest OpenSUSE distro.
While this in itself would be commendable, these things end up being a gloss of what really gets implemented in regulation. What starts out looking like protection for the consumer is really a ploy to remove plausible deniablity as a defense.
Further, such a bill would do nothing when Little Billy, who is an authorized user of Mom's machine, gives away the family tax returns while trying to get the next level of Wonder Rabbit to download by clicking thru that popup warning.
There are already laws prohibiting unauthorized used of a computer, and the government already knows exactly who the bot masters and spam masters are, yet they walk around untouched while the "real criminals" are sued into poverty for sharing a song. Do we really need more unenforceable laws prohibiting what is already prohibited?
I was worried about that too.
"Using an internet carriage service to 'menace, harass or cause offence' to another user" pretty much defines life on slashdot.
Quick, what countries do not have Extradition treaties with Australia?
I thought it was flamebait for why the iPhone drops 30% of calls.
Wouldn't it be prudent to actually wait till there was an actual violation of someone's IP rights before starting with the crocodile tears?
You might also say that Raskin works from a different definition of "Huge Demand" than the rest of us.
"There is huge demand for being able to connect the Web with language — to not have to move from one site to another to complete your daily tasks,"
Ah, no, Raskin, there isn't a huge demand for this. I don't want to deal with my bank account while logged into Google, and I don't want to have every thing I do on the web done from one place.
"And there is huge demand for anyone to be able to write small snippets of code that lets them command the Web the way they want.
Again Wrong Wrong Wrong. Less than .002 percent of web users have even the slightest desire to command the web the way they want, and even fewer want to "write snippets of code". Its time to expand your world view beyond your hacker-cave.
Ubiquity gave everyday developers a voice with how the browser and the Web works."
"Everyday developers"? WTF? So finally at the end of the quote it becomes clear he was talking about 1/1000th of web users, the people who use the web for development daily, who probably managed just fine without Ubiquity.
This project deserved to die.
You have only the "totally unbiased" word of the account holder for your assertion. Who knows what he was ACTUALLY told? Who knows what Citibank is legally ABLE to tell him?
Those who whine the loudest do not always have clean hands.
Righteous Indignation is best served for desert, rather than as an appetizer.
"Blatantly Illegal" (you are welcome for the spelling correction) is a matter for the court to decide. Courts have approved the settlement.
So what was your problem? Did they fail to ask for YOUR approval?
Both TFA and the summary assume leap to the conclusion that GOOGLE would run afoul of a law relating to current publications without even hinting at the utterly vast archives of newspapers molding in public libraries or on microfilm that can't be accessed conveniently if at all.
Many worry about the loss of historical content, so much so that due to so much of our modern media being released only in digital form.
Yet there is a huge wealth of old newspapers, scientific journals, and popular press magazines that could be salvaged with this technology.
Its odd, that when envisioning futuristic civilizations we almost always expect all of their literary history being contained in computers accessible from everywhere. Yet when someone develops the tools to do just that there is a huge outcry from those that posture as defenders of IP rights.
And it's not even connected to website directly, but objectionable content
Well thats what the story says anyway. But we only have one side of that story. Obviously TFA would NEVER post a one sided blog entry, so we have to assume its the truth, the whole truth...
But I have to ask way designate the bank account as belonging to a web site. Who does that?
The only reason to do so would be because you wanted to process credit card transactions from the site, and appear to the customer as some vague entity. And since the content of the site is sex oriented, the P word comes to mind.
Its possible the site was reported as a gay prostitution site or involuntary outing site by someone who was offended by the content.
Even if they do not actually handle any funds transfer online, all it takes is one call from some vice squad with a court order from some night court magistrate some where to get a temporary block in place.
Such allegations need have nothing to do with this site at all. May be related to some other activity by someone who has signature control of the bank account. May be just a case of mistaken identity.
You also have to consider how easy it is to put up a web page decrying censorship while knowing and hiding the real reason the account was closed.
Define "Your Box".
The guy was running "Virtual Private Servers". In effect, renting a virtual machine on a GoDaddy box.
That is slightly different than running his own box, because when malware is served or spam sent from that box it is GoDaddy that is on the hook.
His big mistake was assuming a VPS was HIS. Its really just a rented room, and just like a landlord can take steps to make sure meth is not brewed in his building, GoDaddy can protect their network.
99% of homeopathy is simply people using random herbs that are ineffective
99.999% of homeopathy is either water or sugar.
I suspect you have been as stingy with your trailing decimal points as most homeopathy is with actual non-inert ingredients.
According to the report: "Homeopathic medicines are diluted so much that it is extremely unlikely that any active component can possibly be left in the solution. The committee failed to identify any plausible explanation for how such remedies might work."
The dilution factors are utterly astounding in many cases. The most common Dilution advocated for most purposes would require giving two billion doses per second to six billion people for 4 billion years to deliver a single molecule of the original material to any patient
The Homeopathy Wiki article is even more dismissive than TFA, which by itself is rather astounding.
That kind of density is amazing. So, that means one of four things.
My bet is Gross Exaggeration.
First, TFA sort of glosses over the fact that a red laser was needed to achieve even the meager results demonstrated at this point. They specifically say solar is not the direction of their research, and employ the weasel phrase "without any additional unforeseen limitations".
I suspect this is a case where the power needed to induce a current was grossly out of proportion to the achieved results. Of course this is not unusual in the discovery phase.
Remove the laser, set it in the sun, and let us know what they get. That would be very interesting.
This warranty does not apply: (a) to consumable parts, such as batteries, or protective ...
coatings designed to diminish over time unless failure has occurred due to a defect in
materials or workmanship; (b) to cosmetic damage, including but not limited to
scratches, dents, and broken plastic on ports; (c) to damage caused by use with non-
Apple products; (d) to damage caused by accident, abuse, misuse, liquid spill or
submersion, flood, fire, earthquake or other external causes; (e) to damage caused by
operating the product outside the permitted or intended uses described by Apple;
http://images.apple.com/legal/warranty/docs/iPhone_3GS_warranty.pdf
There is nothing about spills and submersions in the warranty
Wrong.
Read the pdf at the url I posted. Page 2. Near the top.
There is nothing about condensation in the warranty. Did you follow the URL?
It talks about Spills and Submersion.
As anyone who wears glasses could probably tell you, if you go outside for a while, then come back inside (mimic the conditions of the 'experiment'), the glasses are highly likely to fog up with condensation. Is this not a liquid?
Sounds to me like the sensors are working just fine.
No they aren't working properly.
The Apple warranty http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/02/20/0118230 on page 2 eliminates warranty claims if the iphone has suffered liquid spills or submersion.
Yet the sensors trip via simple humidity changes, not unlike those the phone would experience in daily use in northern climates.
The sensors are essentially exposed to the outside of the phone, one in the ear-phone jack, and another in the 30 pin connector.
Go read about them.
These users entered their administrator password to install pirated software.
Thats a far cry from clicking on an email attachment or visiting a website for a drive-by install.
Apples to Apples please.
Thanks for the coolaid, but I'm not drinking.
Microsoft has done an excellent job selling this "Popular" argument, but it is patently untrue.
Why is this modded troll?
Seriously people, bot nets are virtually 100% windows machines, not because windows is popular, simply because windows is so EASY to subvert.
Nothing has improved or changed in this fact since spam started to be a serious problem.
This rule also applies to the shipment of batteries on Cargo planes...
Its interesting you should mention that.
If you follow the Skip to the Chart link in the above story that is where a very large portion of these incidents did happen, on FedEX and UPS cargo planes.
More happened there than any other airline that was broken out individually.
(There is another large category of Not-Given airlines, I suspect most of these could well be contract freight carriers because the ground/air ratio of incidents matches that of the known freight carriers more closely than it matches the named airlines.)
Granted these freight carriers probably handle many times as many batteries of each type than your typical passenger plane.
Subtracting out Lead Acid, which hardly ever is carried on passenger planes any more (I don't believe they are allowed), cuts the total incidents almost by half.
Of the incidents that involved these cargo planes, slightly more than half happened on the ground (loading/unloading) rather than on the plane.
If you remove those that are likely freighters, the numbers become vanishingly small.
Does a remotely piloted aircraft even qualify as a Robot?
Its not like these things are autonomous or have even the remotest capability of independent decision making.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_HERTI
Yup. Apparently you have to drive to South Carolina, register, then drive back North, and foment.