Does anybody on Slashdot seriously not understand at least the basics of how IP addresses work?
Those are things you can get using a GUI, but only if you know how to write Visual Basic. Maybe you're elite enough to do that, but you don't have to rub it in. EXCUUUSE ME for not being a rocket scientician!
The way I see it, Mike Rogers and Dianne Feinstein don't belong on that list.
They hold and promote anti-American values, but the problem is the idiots who elected them. We the people are the main enemy, and those pieces of shit are merely the symptom. There's nothing illegal about Congress enacting bad legislation, and they aren't really expected to uphold the constitution. They committed wrongness, but no crime.
The executive branch people are the ones who probably broke the law, and should therefore be prosecuted.
..that the machine is for people who use it for work, rather than for recreation. For most people's work, that means it wouldn't need to be as powerful, since it's just running text editors or entering/submitting forms, instead of 3D rendering monsters, figuring out dwarves' paths, etc.
There was a fair bit of buyer's remorse around our (mostly pro-remain) offices in Manchester today, with only a handful prepared to stand by their "Leave" vote,
Excuse me, but could interview some of the remorseful ones? Get them to explain why they voted against what they want.
In America we usually do that too, but at least people explain their reason: voting for what you want is a "wasted vote." They don't ever explain how voting is a waste, but at least they have the "wasted vote" platitude. What self-destructive mind tricks are the Brits playing on themselves? I want to hear from them.
But to get there, you have to break a chip protected by RSA 2048 security on a chip that can't be audited or examined. That's 2,048-bit security, which would require any attempt to break it to factorize semi-primes with approximately 617 decimal digits, which Zammit admits at this point is "pretty much impossible in one human lifetime for anyone with the biggest supercomputer."
Holy shit, this ("nobody will guess the password") is the excuse?! I especially loved the dumbed-down "that's 2,048-bit security." That has meme potential.
So, what we have is an open source crusader scaring the daylights out of people (just look at his headline) on a giant what-if scenario that even he admits couldn't happen in our lifetimes.
Yes, the scaremonger admits that he hasn't guessed the password. Therefore it's secure. Got it. (Wow!)
If there's something to debate here, I think it's fair to say that shockingly over-the-top morons like Andy Patrizio aren't going to be contributing to the discussion, on either side.
I'm not sure the Intel spokesman is helping to assuage fears either: "there are mechanisms in place to address vulnerabilities should the need arise." It sounds like he's saying there's already a backdoor that Intel can use to fight anyone else who breaks in.
With advocates like these, Intel doesn't need critics. At least the Intel spokesman one is murkier and more vague, not obviously stupid like the blogger's. I like to imagine him pausing and deepening his voice right before saying "..mechanisms in place.." and a slightly dark chuckle right before "should the need arise." Oh let's face it, I imagine the spokesman sounds like Emperor Palpatine so I never want to hear his(her?) real voice.
Ok, I have a question for all Republicans: Why are you voting against Gary Johnson?
I'm not asking "progressives" why they don't like him. I know why y'all don't (though I still don't get why you didn't choose Bernie). I'm asking Republicans. Trump isn't any more Republican than Johnson, unless it really is just about the party trademark rather than politics.
This is not about Gawker anymore, this is about a billionaire using his money and influence to destroy someone using the legal system as a proxy.
Bullshit. What Thiel did doesn't trivially translate to attacking arbitrary targets. For it to work, he would first have to manipulate the target into shooting itself in the foot, like what Gawker did.
So your real fear isn't that he's rich. You're actually afraid that Thiel is a kickass hyponotist.
Let me get this straight: you burn hydrocarbons for energy. Then you take the waste products, add back the same amount of energy, and it all turns back into hydrocarbons. Repeat. Problem solved: we finally have a perpetual motion machine, thanks to the magic of your "plants."
The problem is that your proposed "plant" cells use something called photosynthesis, whereas what we really need are cells that do petrolsynthesis or coalsynthesis, because solar power is too unreliable or something (if solar power were any good then we wouldn't need to burn these "plants" or their fossil remains). So, genetic engineers, get on that!
If Fuck You is why, then why did the previous policy exist?
Either Amazon suddenly got a little eviller, or some other condition changed.
I think the "this is costing us more than it used to" explanation fits the facts pretty well. It used to be segmented marketing, where they charge people depending on how much they care/complain. If you're a squeaky wheel, you get oil. If you're a silent wheel, no oil for you. Then robots came in to automate squeaking, independent of how much the user cares. You can't do segmented marketing when the segments all merge.
(Let's pretend this happened in US, where there's DMCA.) User knowing about counter-notice isn't enough.
Do you run any websites where the public adds content? Imagine what's involved.
You need think of every incoming DMCA notice as an ongoing project, rather than a thing that can Get Done by deleting a record. That means you are opting into something more pain-in-the-assy and expensive (both in terms of your time and technical complexity) than doing the cheapest and easiest thing.
First, you need to have content temporarily suppressed (rather than deleted) upon receiving notice. So there's a new status bit and everything that reads content needs to know to use that. Not a big deal, but it's something. (If it's a large legacy codebase, then I guess you've got an initial mini-project right here.) So I guess there's a presumption that you have the source code; you're not using some canned thing.
You need to have a way to forward DMCA notices to users, so you have to know who they are. Ok, you probably have an email address. Let's say your forward-bot doesn't get blocked by spamfilters. Fine.
The user has to provide a lot more than email address. They are going to be assuming copyright liability risk instead of you, so they have to be motivated enough to supply the required information. There is a lot more giving-a-fuck in a counter-notice than merely replying by email "hey, that comment was MINE!" You need their identity, and since most people still don't use PGP yet, email alone probably isn't going to cut it.
Let's assume the user has a fighting crusader attitude and sends back what you need, with proof of who they are (so that you're sure your ass is covered). Now you're spending time again, to forward the counter-notice to the original fraudster, and then you unset the suppressed bit on the content.
Do this right, and you've got a good system. But you just spent at least twice as much time, have a slightly more complex system, and then 99% of the time, the user never gives a counter-notice so your new process doesn't really get used often and your people are always rusty.
Are you sure you wouldn't just cut corners by having "DMCA notice means we immediately delete this stuff"? If you're sure you wouldn't cut that corner, then you're awesome. Kick ass, dude. We all love you.
In other important News for Nerds, CostCo has a great deal on dairy products and Jiffy Lube just mailed me a coupon for $15 off my next oil change (so watch your mailbox, everyone!).
Egg minutes go like this: [time goes by] "Human, your eggs are ready."
Regular minutes are like this: [time goes by] "Human, uh.. something. Don't forget.. uh.. remember to.. um. So, would you like to buy something? And I was just wondering: do you like terrorism? Oh! Oh! I remember now! Human, do you know anything that might be of interest to Chinese industry?"
"The right to be forgotten" desperately needs a name change, since what it technically means is so radically different from what it plainly says or describes through its words. Its advocates should start calling it the "right to not be mentioned" or something like that, so that people can clearly see that it's merely about limiting speech rather than thought.
Don't you see his point? He's saying a Ouija board can work, if the person being interrogated thinks it works. We are talking about tools that an interrogator uses to (figuratively) give someone a wise, piercing look while saying "you're lying." It's not the the tool tells you a truth; it tells the person being interrogated that their lie is about to be exposed, so maybe they'll confess or improvise dumber lies to cover the original lie, or whatever.
It's a bluffing prop.
The tool is a lie, and lies sometimes work to manipulate.
If this is primarily intended for Netflix users, then why not just have the client measure the speed of actual live use cases? Some games have an option to show frames per second; your streaming player could have an option that shows bits per second.
But this isn't the first industrial revolution. Everything you're saying, could have been said a hundred years ago, or even two hundred years ago. What if we had gone to UBI then? Your argument would have been just as appropriate.
You're framing it as though it's for us, today, to figure out what the next economically-viable application for human beings is (or give up if we can't think of one). I think we don't need to be that smart. They can do that search too, and I think they'll be better at it than us.
We could have listened to people a hundred years ago about what jobs exist and what people need. I'd say, "agriculture has progressed such that now we can feed everyone, so except for a few farmers (and perhaps we should all take turns doing that job) everyone else ought to have a life of leisure, or maybe scholarship." It wouldn't sound that dumb. But in hindsight, that sure would have been horrible. We wouldn't have our PCs today if we had given up at that tech level.
Now I'm assuming something else: that progress matters; that our policies should be shaped toward achieving a goal, and people should have to toil in the hopes that one of them toils on the next great invention. Perhaps that's not true, and it's not compassionate to waste millions of lives in wage-slavery in order to get the fusion power plant or the interstellar drive or the nano-autodoctor. Why should we care, when we'll all probably be dead by the time they're available?
And yet, people still dream and act like they do want those things and that they are worth at least some sacrifice ("c'mon, just pay a few pennies each in tax to fund a radio telescope that will find aliens!"). So the economic pressure ("Get a job! Can't find one? Think of one or make up one!") continues. Most of us believe that necessity is the mother of invention, since in all our personal experiences, it is!
Anyway, you really are right here:
You are assuming that there are other jobs for these people to find.
Yes. I am assuming that.
Automation will out-pace job growth at some point.
Just as I am assuming that job demand or at least potential for that demand, will remain insatiable. When you're surrounded by robots taking care of your every need, you'll still have some other need. I don't know what need that is, just like a guy in 1916 didn't know he "needed" a smartphone or affordable jetliner tickets. Yet. The guy in 2116 will be laughing at our thoughts that we've achieved economic/technologic Eudaimonia. They'll be talking about us just like how we talk about the IBM guy who calculated the worldwide demand for computers.
But this is an assumption, a belief, an extrapolation, and I can't prove it.
That might have been suggestive to people in 1858. Ask someone in 1860, though, and they'll tell you about a clever little trick that Mother Nature has up her sleave (evolution).
We don't know how life starts (though we have our suspicions) but we know that once you have it booted up, it'll get as complex as the situation warrants.
The conclusion is very easy to believe, but it's embarrassing to all of us when people think they can use math to skip over science. And that's just what you sound like, when you say something as stupid as "according to math." Holy fuck that's grating.
Your equation only predicts the probability of a hypothetical situation (which may, or may not, be similar to reality) based on a some totally made-up numbers that you plugged into it. Even if you're right (and I think you probably are) you're no better than String Theorists or Creationists.
Slashdot Mirror
"According to this proposed contract, by breaking this seal, you have agreed to the contract." It's all about persuasion.
Those are things you can get using a GUI, but only if you know how to write Visual Basic. Maybe you're elite enough to do that, but you don't have to rub it in. EXCUUUSE ME for not being a rocket scientician!
The way I see it, Mike Rogers and Dianne Feinstein don't belong on that list.
They hold and promote anti-American values, but the problem is the idiots who elected them. We the people are the main enemy, and those pieces of shit are merely the symptom. There's nothing illegal about Congress enacting bad legislation, and they aren't really expected to uphold the constitution. They committed wrongness, but no crime.
The executive branch people are the ones who probably broke the law, and should therefore be prosecuted.
Right next to the pennies.
Excuse me, but could interview some of the remorseful ones? Get them to explain why they voted against what they want.
In America we usually do that too, but at least people explain their reason: voting for what you want is a "wasted vote." They don't ever explain how voting is a waste, but at least they have the "wasted vote" platitude. What self-destructive mind tricks are the Brits playing on themselves? I want to hear from them.
Holy shit, this ("nobody will guess the password") is the excuse?! I especially loved the dumbed-down "that's 2,048-bit security." That has meme potential.
Yes, the scaremonger admits that he hasn't guessed the password. Therefore it's secure. Got it. (Wow!)
If there's something to debate here, I think it's fair to say that shockingly over-the-top morons like Andy Patrizio aren't going to be contributing to the discussion, on either side.
I'm not sure the Intel spokesman is helping to assuage fears either: "there are mechanisms in place to address vulnerabilities should the need arise." It sounds like he's saying there's already a backdoor that Intel can use to fight anyone else who breaks in.
With advocates like these, Intel doesn't need critics. At least the Intel spokesman one is murkier and more vague, not obviously stupid like the blogger's. I like to imagine him pausing and deepening his voice right before saying "..mechanisms in place.." and a slightly dark chuckle right before "should the need arise." Oh let's face it, I imagine the spokesman sounds like Emperor Palpatine so I never want to hear his(her?) real voice.
Ok, I have a question for all Republicans: Why are you voting against Gary Johnson?
I'm not asking "progressives" why they don't like him. I know why y'all don't (though I still don't get why you didn't choose Bernie). I'm asking Republicans. Trump isn't any more Republican than Johnson, unless it really is just about the party trademark rather than politics.
Bullshit. What Thiel did doesn't trivially translate to attacking arbitrary targets. For it to work, he would first have to manipulate the target into shooting itself in the foot, like what Gawker did.
So your real fear isn't that he's rich. You're actually afraid that Thiel is a kickass hyponotist.
Ageist! Why can't you just search for three people?
Let me get this straight: you burn hydrocarbons for energy. Then you take the waste products, add back the same amount of energy, and it all turns back into hydrocarbons. Repeat. Problem solved: we finally have a perpetual motion machine, thanks to the magic of your "plants."
The problem is that your proposed "plant" cells use something called photosynthesis, whereas what we really need are cells that do petrolsynthesis or coalsynthesis, because solar power is too unreliable or something (if solar power were any good then we wouldn't need to burn these "plants" or their fossil remains). So, genetic engineers, get on that!
You didn't know? MySpace is the new darknet. We're all over there, buying drugs with bitcoin.
If Fuck You is why, then why did the previous policy exist?
Either Amazon suddenly got a little eviller, or some other condition changed.
I think the "this is costing us more than it used to" explanation fits the facts pretty well. It used to be segmented marketing, where they charge people depending on how much they care/complain. If you're a squeaky wheel, you get oil. If you're a silent wheel, no oil for you. Then robots came in to automate squeaking, independent of how much the user cares. You can't do segmented marketing when the segments all merge.
(Let's pretend this happened in US, where there's DMCA.) User knowing about counter-notice isn't enough.
Do you run any websites where the public adds content? Imagine what's involved.
You need think of every incoming DMCA notice as an ongoing project, rather than a thing that can Get Done by deleting a record. That means you are opting into something more pain-in-the-assy and expensive (both in terms of your time and technical complexity) than doing the cheapest and easiest thing.
First, you need to have content temporarily suppressed (rather than deleted) upon receiving notice. So there's a new status bit and everything that reads content needs to know to use that. Not a big deal, but it's something. (If it's a large legacy codebase, then I guess you've got an initial mini-project right here.) So I guess there's a presumption that you have the source code; you're not using some canned thing.
You need to have a way to forward DMCA notices to users, so you have to know who they are. Ok, you probably have an email address. Let's say your forward-bot doesn't get blocked by spamfilters. Fine.
The user has to provide a lot more than email address. They are going to be assuming copyright liability risk instead of you, so they have to be motivated enough to supply the required information. There is a lot more giving-a-fuck in a counter-notice than merely replying by email "hey, that comment was MINE!" You need their identity, and since most people still don't use PGP yet, email alone probably isn't going to cut it.
Let's assume the user has a fighting crusader attitude and sends back what you need, with proof of who they are (so that you're sure your ass is covered). Now you're spending time again, to forward the counter-notice to the original fraudster, and then you unset the suppressed bit on the content.
Do this right, and you've got a good system. But you just spent at least twice as much time, have a slightly more complex system, and then 99% of the time, the user never gives a counter-notice so your new process doesn't really get used often and your people are always rusty.
Are you sure you wouldn't just cut corners by having "DMCA notice means we immediately delete this stuff"? If you're sure you wouldn't cut that corner, then you're awesome. Kick ass, dude. We all love you.
But also: you're small-time and one-in-a-million.
In other important News for Nerds, CostCo has a great deal on dairy products and Jiffy Lube just mailed me a coupon for $15 off my next oil change (so watch your mailbox, everyone!).
Yes.
Egg minutes go like this: [time goes by] "Human, your eggs are ready."
Regular minutes are like this: [time goes by] "Human, uh .. something. Don't forget .. uh .. remember to .. um. So, would you like to buy something? And I was just wondering: do you like terrorism? Oh! Oh! I remember now! Human, do you know anything that might be of interest to Chinese industry?"
"The right to be forgotten" desperately needs a name change, since what it technically means is so radically different from what it plainly says or describes through its words. Its advocates should start calling it the "right to not be mentioned" or something like that, so that people can clearly see that it's merely about limiting speech rather than thought.
Don't you see his point? He's saying a Ouija board can work, if the person being interrogated thinks it works. We are talking about tools that an interrogator uses to (figuratively) give someone a wise, piercing look while saying "you're lying." It's not the the tool tells you a truth; it tells the person being interrogated that their lie is about to be exposed, so maybe they'll confess or improvise dumber lies to cover the original lie, or whatever.
It's a bluffing prop.
The tool is a lie, and lies sometimes work to manipulate.
If this is primarily intended for Netflix users, then why not just have the client measure the speed of actual live use cases? Some games have an option to show frames per second; your streaming player could have an option that shows bits per second.
I don't know anything about the generic-sounding trademark, but AFAICT by pasting an URL into a discussion you just ripped off Google's new invention.
It's something different. But this is basically why, no matter who you are and what you do, you don't want your last name to be Hitler.
"You can't eat that here."
"Wrong."
You might be right.
But this isn't the first industrial revolution. Everything you're saying, could have been said a hundred years ago, or even two hundred years ago. What if we had gone to UBI then? Your argument would have been just as appropriate.
You're framing it as though it's for us, today, to figure out what the next economically-viable application for human beings is (or give up if we can't think of one). I think we don't need to be that smart. They can do that search too, and I think they'll be better at it than us.
We could have listened to people a hundred years ago about what jobs exist and what people need. I'd say, "agriculture has progressed such that now we can feed everyone, so except for a few farmers (and perhaps we should all take turns doing that job) everyone else ought to have a life of leisure, or maybe scholarship." It wouldn't sound that dumb. But in hindsight, that sure would have been horrible. We wouldn't have our PCs today if we had given up at that tech level.
Now I'm assuming something else: that progress matters; that our policies should be shaped toward achieving a goal, and people should have to toil in the hopes that one of them toils on the next great invention. Perhaps that's not true, and it's not compassionate to waste millions of lives in wage-slavery in order to get the fusion power plant or the interstellar drive or the nano-autodoctor. Why should we care, when we'll all probably be dead by the time they're available?
And yet, people still dream and act like they do want those things and that they are worth at least some sacrifice ("c'mon, just pay a few pennies each in tax to fund a radio telescope that will find aliens!"). So the economic pressure ("Get a job! Can't find one? Think of one or make up one!") continues. Most of us believe that necessity is the mother of invention, since in all our personal experiences, it is!
Anyway, you really are right here:
Yes. I am assuming that.
Just as I am assuming that job demand or at least potential for that demand, will remain insatiable. When you're surrounded by robots taking care of your every need, you'll still have some other need. I don't know what need that is, just like a guy in 1916 didn't know he "needed" a smartphone or affordable jetliner tickets. Yet. The guy in 2116 will be laughing at our thoughts that we've achieved economic/technologic Eudaimonia. They'll be talking about us just like how we talk about the IBM guy who calculated the worldwide demand for computers.
But this is an assumption, a belief, an extrapolation, and I can't prove it.
That might have been suggestive to people in 1858. Ask someone in 1860, though, and they'll tell you about a clever little trick that Mother Nature has up her sleave (evolution).
We don't know how life starts (though we have our suspicions) but we know that once you have it booted up, it'll get as complex as the situation warrants.
The conclusion is very easy to believe, but it's embarrassing to all of us when people think they can use math to skip over science. And that's just what you sound like, when you say something as stupid as "according to math." Holy fuck that's grating.
Your equation only predicts the probability of a hypothetical situation (which may, or may not, be similar to reality) based on a some totally made-up numbers that you plugged into it. Even if you're right (and I think you probably are) you're no better than String Theorists or Creationists.