So you will be dragged into the future kicking and screaming. Got it. The only curiosity is why you are so proud of being a Luddite? Are you also the guy who constantly tells everyone that he doesn't own a TV?
Ah, so you were lying for effect. The "coffee" example was to hide the real reason. The *only* people who routinely charge without authorization are rental agencies, and if you read the contract, they gives them permission to charge you. That's (often, perhaps not always) a breach of their merchant agreement. And you shouldn't need to fight them in court. Just reverse the charges. "I never authorized that charge" should be sufficient.
And that's not fraud. And certainly not the "major source" of credit card fraud. That's skimmers.
I read it as 4096, until I saw your correction. That'd be most likely, but 4896 is theoretically possible, if not all combinations are valid.
I'm sorry, button and portobello aren't available on the same pizza. Seems they fight in the box. The red stuff isn't tomato sauce, it's mushroom blood.
Nope. You authorize that one and only one transaction. This has been tested in court with the car rental places that have you sign and authorize a final bill, then charge you later (without specific authorization) for parking tickets or speed cam tickets sent to them later.
If you didn't authorize that transaction, it's fraud. If Starbucks uses your card info later, they committed fraud. And you, as a cardholder, is 100% "safe" from those charges.
The only reason merchants check ID's on transactions is as a flawed fraud protection measure.
That's a violation of the merchant agreement for all merchant agreements I've read. When you only deal with merchants acting illegally, you get a bad picture. Where are you going where they check ID and charge you later for things you didn't buy, didn't want, and didn't authorize? It's never happened to me, or most people with cards.
They may check your signature on your card. That is the only "ID" they are allowed to check, to keep the process simple and fast, and encourage users to use it.
IoT isn't about home automation. Home automation has been stagnant since the '90s. The tech was always there. People just didn't want to pay for it. Unlock your door from work because your neice dropped into town unexpectedly is easy, and 20 years old. IoT is about your O2 sensor in your car being linked not just to the engine management system, but the dealer and your smart phone. Have your O2 sensor tell you when you need spark plugs replaced, rather than running rough for a long time waiting for a needed maintenance, or performing maintenance that's not needed.
The IoT is about saving you money by doing things more efficiently, not about selling you new things.
Of course, the savings will start on the manufacturing floor first, then hit the homes and products 10+ years later, but the marketers are pushing hard for the home now, despite not having any demand or products for that market.
Your effort to specify the internet-of-things as a well defined set is noble, but I wouldn't give the term that much credit. It's already a mushy buzzword that spills over into other technologies, and despite anyone's best efforts will never be used in any consistent manner. It overlaps everything from home automation, to remote crowd sensing, to simple devices that act as their own servers.
You are confusing the definition of the word with the use of the word. They can be directly conflicting and still both be valid. Ask an Electrical Engineer working on signal processing the definition of "broadband" and the answer will be directyl contradictory to the FCC's definition. I've used a 100Gbps connection that was "technically" baseband, not broadband. And I've used a 14.4 kbps modem that was technically "broadband" (both by the EE definition), while the FCC would reverse those definition.
IoT is defined as internet connected things talking to eachother, without needing a human or central server to poll them. IoT is "new" because it is neither a client, nor a server. The IoT O2 sensor in your car will be a server when a problem is detected, and a client when the daily maintenance is performed.
This is not unlike the IP cam example, where it's a client if a human logs in to look live, and a server when it FTP offloads the footage to the NAS for later review. But in practice, the NAS is a part of the camera, not part of a larger network for this function, and could (theoretically) be directly attached with no change in functionality. And the human is required to manually log in to use it remotely. The level of connectivity to things is what makes the difference. With the "old" device-connected Internet, you had to log into every individual device to do anything with it or use it in any way. You log into the camera to see live feeds. You log into the NAS to view stored footage. The camera isn't tied to an alarm system (I saw some that were alarm capable, all hard-wired, none IP-connected to alarms). The IoT cam would have an open API and would be able to notify any arbitrary system directly on event. Motion sensor triggers, turn on lights, ask the locks if they are locked, open the garage door, lock the pet doors, turn on the spa pool, whatever. Tying an old IP cam (from 10 years ago), you could hard-wire it to a home automation server, but then the home automation server did all the work. The things didn't talk to each other. The things were sensors to a server.
The IoT is a minor change in that the sensors are now their own servers. This allows a flexibility that before wasn't possible.
IoT will fall into the same trap as a cloud computing. The terminology will be vastly misused to market things which cover very different paradigms.
Just because it's misused doesn't mean it isn't real. The first "cloud" was called "mainframe". The second was called "Citrix". The third, "hosted web services". The fourth "Virtualization". Then, someone decided that coming up with new terms for the same thing over and over was confusing. Call it a "cloud". Cloud isn't new. It's a 50 year old idea with a new name. I've managed to sell cloud services by stating it that way (no, I'm not in sales, but I work for a networking company that also hosts servers and services).
Your definition basically narrows it down to things that communicate in a peer to peer fashion, no different than what existing home automation protocols do. "Internet-of-things" is just a buzzword that is popularizing what has already been possible for quite awhile. Oh yes, your camera senses motion and triggers lights? Guess what, there's already a standard for that that predates the internet-of-things concept.
The IoT was first coined when someone talked about applying the home automation model to everything. Why not do that on a factory floor? In a car? For an entire city? This Internet of Things could
IP cameras are an internet of servers. IoT is having your things talk to each other, and contact the human later. Your camera has motion sensing to trigger recording. Your recording trigger triggers lights. Your lights trigger your electric meter to do something. Your home server is notified of all the activity, and on Tuesdays between 5 and 6 turns on the oven, in preparation of the night's meal. But only if you come home between 5 and 6. If you are later than that, you did something else. If you were earlier, then you can get the damned oven yourself.
IoT isn't the server-client model of your web-cameras. It's the 1995 idea of barcode scanners on every fridge that re-ordered milk when you ran out.
If your things talk to you, it's server-client. If your things talk about you, then it's IoT.
A GoPro with mods to record that long would be that (if not more), and you need $50 per day or so to store the recorded media. So somewhere around $20k for one year operational cost. $1500 is a steal.
That doesn't work on the 2-hour battery life, and the video is already compressed. Tell me how your double-compression goes. Maybe compress it until the file is one bit?
For a GoPro, the size is a benefit. You get great stills from it, able to read license plates, and other things that help in a criminal investigation. Compressing it until it's unusable doesn't sound like a good idea. No, you can't CSI enhance it until it's clear again, either.
According to the grand jury and the evidence, the police acted inappropriately.
I agree with what you said, but I think you meant the opposite. It's the job of a prosecutor at a grand jury to present all damning evidence, and no exculpatory evidence. The question the grand jury is asked is "is it theoretically possible that a jury of peers could find the person guilty?" Not to try the case themselves. In this case, the prosecutor tried the case, highlighting the exculpatory evidence, not the damning evidence. That's the opposite of his job, and thus any "finding" by the grand jury is invalid. I think the family would have a pretty good human rights violation case against the prosecutor. The prosecutor was obviously looking to get a no-bill finding, not to do his job, or provide "justice".
That you don't know how a grand jury is supposed to work just proves you have an agenda other than the truth or justice.
Wouldn't it make more sense to have the panels mounted flat, pointed up, and use mirrors to direct the sun down on them? Fewer (lighter) moving parts) and more flexible than any fixed installation.
Or should they be at an angle to help keep them clean?
So you are saying that every child is dumber than his parents?
And I didn't define "intelligence" or "natural intelligence" but "artificial intelligence". Like physical beings, AI must be able to replicate, or it isn't "alive" enough to meet my requirements.
Seems what your complaint is that the combination "artificial intelligence" doesn't use "intelligence" as defined in the dictionary. Oddly enough, my cup-board doesn't hold any cups. Nor does my dash-board have any dash on it (nor is it a board, unlike my cupboard, which is a physical board). Seems there are many definitions where the combinations of words makes a unique meaning unrelated to the component words. Your ignorance of linguistics isn't a compelling argument against my definition of AI.
Every generation since Jesus thought they were the last (it may have started before that, but the documentation improved around then). Look to the SciFi movies of recent times to see how the end is supposed to come. Aliens, Nuclear War, Robots, whatever. AI is just the newest one. "We don't know what'll happen, so we should fear it." Like the nuclear bomb would light the atmosphere on fire. Or a train going above 30 MPH would be going so fast it'd be impossible to breathe. We've always had those that feared the unknown.
I define AI as any program that can create a version of itself that's smarter than itself. We'll never make "true" AI, but we'll make the program that makes itself AI.
The reason we'll fail is that we had a long time of biology guiding our instincts. We won't build a program with a "desire" to do "good". Though we (most of us anyway) have that built in to us. We get drugs released in our blood when we do good. So we are stimulus trained to do good. An amoral computer with no moral compass (genetic, nurtured, or divine doesn't matter) will not benefit us unless we program morals into it.
Only if the copyright holder says so. If that's you and/or your sister, then fine, you can abandon both the material and the copyright there is no limit on who can republish the material. Your fear that it will be lost forever because it will forever be subject to copyright is not a problem.
Copyright keeps it from being used for another 67 years. After that time it will be lost forever (as it will have been abandoned so long nobody will be aware of it). If I knew exactly what I owned copyright over, I could free it. But I can't without identifying everything. Copyright actively harms the amount of material that makes it into the public domain. The opposite of what it's asserted to do.
It would work much better to have monthly leases sold on the open market. Limited, or not. At least the auction would bring in recurring revenue for the taxpayer. If the medallions were fixed in number, then the system would be no better than today, but it'd at least benefit the taxpayer for the sale of them. But if it were flexible, keeping the number restricted, but not tightly so, then it would be much better than today. With money to the taxpayer, and more options/freedom for the users.
Slashdot Mirror
So you will be dragged into the future kicking and screaming. Got it. The only curiosity is why you are so proud of being a Luddite? Are you also the guy who constantly tells everyone that he doesn't own a TV?
Yes, if I don't like it, it's because I did it wrong, not because I just don't like it.
Care to assign me my favorite color while you are at it?
So you can't but a "plain" pepperoni pizza anymore?
Ah, so you were lying for effect. The "coffee" example was to hide the real reason. The *only* people who routinely charge without authorization are rental agencies, and if you read the contract, they gives them permission to charge you. That's (often, perhaps not always) a breach of their merchant agreement. And you shouldn't need to fight them in court. Just reverse the charges. "I never authorized that charge" should be sufficient.
And that's not fraud. And certainly not the "major source" of credit card fraud. That's skimmers.
I read it as 4096, until I saw your correction. That'd be most likely, but 4896 is theoretically possible, if not all combinations are valid.
I'm sorry, button and portobello aren't available on the same pizza. Seems they fight in the box. The red stuff isn't tomato sauce, it's mushroom blood.
If you didn't authorize that transaction, it's fraud. If Starbucks uses your card info later, they committed fraud. And you, as a cardholder, is 100% "safe" from those charges.
The only reason merchants check ID's on transactions is as a flawed fraud protection measure.
That's a violation of the merchant agreement for all merchant agreements I've read. When you only deal with merchants acting illegally, you get a bad picture. Where are you going where they check ID and charge you later for things you didn't buy, didn't want, and didn't authorize? It's never happened to me, or most people with cards.
They may check your signature on your card. That is the only "ID" they are allowed to check, to keep the process simple and fast, and encourage users to use it.
IoT isn't about home automation. Home automation has been stagnant since the '90s. The tech was always there. People just didn't want to pay for it. Unlock your door from work because your neice dropped into town unexpectedly is easy, and 20 years old. IoT is about your O2 sensor in your car being linked not just to the engine management system, but the dealer and your smart phone. Have your O2 sensor tell you when you need spark plugs replaced, rather than running rough for a long time waiting for a needed maintenance, or performing maintenance that's not needed.
The IoT is about saving you money by doing things more efficiently, not about selling you new things.
Of course, the savings will start on the manufacturing floor first, then hit the homes and products 10+ years later, but the marketers are pushing hard for the home now, despite not having any demand or products for that market.
They are already putting RFID tags on pills, and RFID readers on wastebands.
Edible RFIDs are old, where have you been? They are also for old people. Gotta make sure the dementia-seniors take their meds.
Tastes like ash, and more prone to overseasoning. Movie poppers are the proper way.
Your effort to specify the internet-of-things as a well defined set is noble, but I wouldn't give the term that much credit. It's already a mushy buzzword that spills over into other technologies, and despite anyone's best efforts will never be used in any consistent manner. It overlaps everything from home automation, to remote crowd sensing, to simple devices that act as their own servers.
You are confusing the definition of the word with the use of the word. They can be directly conflicting and still both be valid. Ask an Electrical Engineer working on signal processing the definition of "broadband" and the answer will be directyl contradictory to the FCC's definition. I've used a 100Gbps connection that was "technically" baseband, not broadband. And I've used a 14.4 kbps modem that was technically "broadband" (both by the EE definition), while the FCC would reverse those definition.
IoT is defined as internet connected things talking to eachother, without needing a human or central server to poll them. IoT is "new" because it is neither a client, nor a server. The IoT O2 sensor in your car will be a server when a problem is detected, and a client when the daily maintenance is performed.
This is not unlike the IP cam example, where it's a client if a human logs in to look live, and a server when it FTP offloads the footage to the NAS for later review. But in practice, the NAS is a part of the camera, not part of a larger network for this function, and could (theoretically) be directly attached with no change in functionality. And the human is required to manually log in to use it remotely. The level of connectivity to things is what makes the difference. With the "old" device-connected Internet, you had to log into every individual device to do anything with it or use it in any way. You log into the camera to see live feeds. You log into the NAS to view stored footage. The camera isn't tied to an alarm system (I saw some that were alarm capable, all hard-wired, none IP-connected to alarms). The IoT cam would have an open API and would be able to notify any arbitrary system directly on event. Motion sensor triggers, turn on lights, ask the locks if they are locked, open the garage door, lock the pet doors, turn on the spa pool, whatever. Tying an old IP cam (from 10 years ago), you could hard-wire it to a home automation server, but then the home automation server did all the work. The things didn't talk to each other. The things were sensors to a server.
The IoT is a minor change in that the sensors are now their own servers. This allows a flexibility that before wasn't possible.
IoT will fall into the same trap as a cloud computing. The terminology will be vastly misused to market things which cover very different paradigms.
Just because it's misused doesn't mean it isn't real. The first "cloud" was called "mainframe". The second was called "Citrix". The third, "hosted web services". The fourth "Virtualization". Then, someone decided that coming up with new terms for the same thing over and over was confusing. Call it a "cloud". Cloud isn't new. It's a 50 year old idea with a new name. I've managed to sell cloud services by stating it that way (no, I'm not in sales, but I work for a networking company that also hosts servers and services).
Your definition basically narrows it down to things that communicate in a peer to peer fashion, no different than what existing home automation protocols do. "Internet-of-things" is just a buzzword that is popularizing what has already been possible for quite awhile. Oh yes, your camera senses motion and triggers lights? Guess what, there's already a standard for that that predates the internet-of-things concept.
The IoT was first coined when someone talked about applying the home automation model to everything. Why not do that on a factory floor? In a car? For an entire city? This Internet of Things could
IP cameras are an internet of servers. IoT is having your things talk to each other, and contact the human later. Your camera has motion sensing to trigger recording. Your recording trigger triggers lights. Your lights trigger your electric meter to do something. Your home server is notified of all the activity, and on Tuesdays between 5 and 6 turns on the oven, in preparation of the night's meal. But only if you come home between 5 and 6. If you are later than that, you did something else. If you were earlier, then you can get the damned oven yourself.
IoT isn't the server-client model of your web-cameras. It's the 1995 idea of barcode scanners on every fridge that re-ordered milk when you ran out.
If your things talk to you, it's server-client. If your things talk about you, then it's IoT.
A GoPro with mods to record that long would be that (if not more), and you need $50 per day or so to store the recorded media. So somewhere around $20k for one year operational cost. $1500 is a steal.
That doesn't work on the 2-hour battery life, and the video is already compressed. Tell me how your double-compression goes. Maybe compress it until the file is one bit?
For a GoPro, the size is a benefit. You get great stills from it, able to read license plates, and other things that help in a criminal investigation. Compressing it until it's unusable doesn't sound like a good idea. No, you can't CSI enhance it until it's clear again, either.
According to the grand jury and the evidence, the police acted inappropriately.
I agree with what you said, but I think you meant the opposite. It's the job of a prosecutor at a grand jury to present all damning evidence, and no exculpatory evidence. The question the grand jury is asked is "is it theoretically possible that a jury of peers could find the person guilty?" Not to try the case themselves. In this case, the prosecutor tried the case, highlighting the exculpatory evidence, not the damning evidence. That's the opposite of his job, and thus any "finding" by the grand jury is invalid. I think the family would have a pretty good human rights violation case against the prosecutor. The prosecutor was obviously looking to get a no-bill finding, not to do his job, or provide "justice".
That you don't know how a grand jury is supposed to work just proves you have an agenda other than the truth or justice.
You can't find them that expensive, or that cheap?
When you make a claim, it's up to you to prove it.
So you claim. Where's your proof?
Wouldn't it make more sense to have the panels mounted flat, pointed up, and use mirrors to direct the sun down on them? Fewer (lighter) moving parts) and more flexible than any fixed installation.
Or should they be at an angle to help keep them clean?
I defined "AI", as I want. My definition is: a program that can create a program smarter than itself.
That you disagree doesn't make me "wrong". Like an argument over "eggshell" vs "cream".
So you are saying that every child is dumber than his parents?
And I didn't define "intelligence" or "natural intelligence" but "artificial intelligence". Like physical beings, AI must be able to replicate, or it isn't "alive" enough to meet my requirements.
Seems what your complaint is that the combination "artificial intelligence" doesn't use "intelligence" as defined in the dictionary. Oddly enough, my cup-board doesn't hold any cups. Nor does my dash-board have any dash on it (nor is it a board, unlike my cupboard, which is a physical board). Seems there are many definitions where the combinations of words makes a unique meaning unrelated to the component words. Your ignorance of linguistics isn't a compelling argument against my definition of AI.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/co...
Every generation since Jesus thought they were the last (it may have started before that, but the documentation improved around then). Look to the SciFi movies of recent times to see how the end is supposed to come. Aliens, Nuclear War, Robots, whatever. AI is just the newest one. "We don't know what'll happen, so we should fear it." Like the nuclear bomb would light the atmosphere on fire. Or a train going above 30 MPH would be going so fast it'd be impossible to breathe. We've always had those that feared the unknown.
I define AI as any program that can create a version of itself that's smarter than itself. We'll never make "true" AI, but we'll make the program that makes itself AI.
The reason we'll fail is that we had a long time of biology guiding our instincts. We won't build a program with a "desire" to do "good". Though we (most of us anyway) have that built in to us. We get drugs released in our blood when we do good. So we are stimulus trained to do good. An amoral computer with no moral compass (genetic, nurtured, or divine doesn't matter) will not benefit us unless we program morals into it.
Black cars are in competition with cab companies, but aren't being persecuted to the extent of Uber. Why?
Only if the copyright holder says so. If that's you and/or your sister, then fine, you can abandon both the material and the copyright there is no limit on who can republish the material. Your fear that it will be lost forever because it will forever be subject to copyright is not a problem.
Copyright keeps it from being used for another 67 years. After that time it will be lost forever (as it will have been abandoned so long nobody will be aware of it). If I knew exactly what I owned copyright over, I could free it. But I can't without identifying everything. Copyright actively harms the amount of material that makes it into the public domain. The opposite of what it's asserted to do.
It would work much better to have monthly leases sold on the open market. Limited, or not. At least the auction would bring in recurring revenue for the taxpayer. If the medallions were fixed in number, then the system would be no better than today, but it'd at least benefit the taxpayer for the sale of them. But if it were flexible, keeping the number restricted, but not tightly so, then it would be much better than today. With money to the taxpayer, and more options/freedom for the users.
HDMI and USB aren't designed to run that far. I have no doubt that he had some problems when he's violating the standards of the physical media.