It is the thieves. Lackadaisical security + credit card number on file = massive fraud.
I worked for a company whose billing department kept an.XLS with their customers SSN and billing information on a public share drive. The billing people just didn't care. But it wasn't the billing department that was going to commit the fraud - it was some other random untraceable person who stumbles onto the share drive.
Realtek drivers are notorious for this. I had this same issue too until I found juuuust the right driver version that worked. Windows 7 resolved the issue too.
Until we can quantify both qualitative human characteristics like courage, fear, ambition, and stubbornness, as well as the "gut call" a coach makes based on his impressions of the individuals on the field and how they function as a group, computers aren't going to be better at this
We sure can. It is just statistics.
You have a 27 year old black running back with a left ankle injury sustained 5.6 days ago. He weighs 275 lbs, has 2 super bowl rings, is right-handed, with 2 felony counts of rape (1 acquitted, 1 pending), who has run 67 yards this game with is 4.3% below his average. He is against a team with a 6-3-0 WLT record. He plays 12% better when his team is behind, runs 14% father in the red zone, and 3% worse when his mother-in-law is in the stadium. He plays 1.7% better during...
We can go on all day. Today, computers don't have this kind of raw data. But given how they work in the stock market, and for insurance companies, and bookies: it will probably make make judgment calls better than we can once it has the data. We all like to watch Gattaca and say "there is no equation" for the human spirit" and that sounds great, but it is irrelevant. Performance can be quantified.
If I were to go around the internet telling everyone that you are a child molester, wouldn't you want to find out my identity?
No.
Now if a future employer google's your name it's all over the internet and you have to waste your time explaining it
No, you wouldn't. No sane person would work for a company so stupid as to pay attention to such a random claim, and no HR department would dare run afoul of the law by refusing to hire you because of an anonymous child molestation allegation. These things don't happen in real life, and they don't happen on the internet either. We don't need special laws to infringe free speech to protect us from anonymous non-existent slanderers.
If someone is slandering my name on the internet anonymously, I want to go after that person
You say "on the internet" so do you want the same power in real life too? The only way to achieve this is to track everyone's movements, because I could go put a "Bob Smith is a child molester" signs on every streetcorner and there is little anyone can do to find out who I am. I only expect the same on the internet as we have in real life.
In general, the libertarian-leaning Slashdot population is quick to criticize the Megan's laws. But now that it is about something important... SPAM!... well, those principles all go out the window, huh?
Those laws: - Do not work. - Are likely unconstitutional. - If the likelihood of recidivism is that high, the person should not be released anyway.
The photos are being Photoshopped to be what people are looking for.
I started looking at it the other way around when I attended photography workshop. The presenter was a professional photographer who was going over their post-processing techniques. At one point they showed a particular step in Photoshop that made the skin tones look really artificial. Their explanation for why they did this particular step was "to make the image have that Photoshopped look."
I took that to mean that the presenter didn't think it should be that way, but that the customers expected it. The presenter had already cleared the skin blemishes, fixed the color and lighting, etc. But when those steps are done well, you can't tell. This step was to make it obvious that the picture had been through Photoshop. I figure that way the customer knows they got their money's worth.
Maybe it really goes both ways: people see retouched images, so they want retouched images. But then everyone has retouched images, so they want their images retouched even more. But then everyone does it that way, so then they want it even more so.
The most interesting aspect of this is that they are putting the retouching software in the camera, not as post-processing software done on the PC. This is indicative of how multiple devices are converging into a single device, and how the CPUs in them are becoming significantly more powerful. It wasn't too long ago that the idea of wasting your camera's battery life by having it modify your photo would have been silly. But today, people expect the devices to do things for them. They no longer want the general-purpose PC that lets them do this stuff. Now they just want it to be automatic.
Unfortunately, all the demo photos are shown as postage-stamp quality images on a mediocre LCD panel so you really can't tell what it is doing.
One really good thing here is is that this might promote awareness of how much Photoshop is overused. I find it amazing that so many people think that magazine covers are even close to the real thing. With some critical thinking you can look at the image and see "Gaussian blur here... warp tool there..." Hopefully, after a generation of these cameras everyone will be able to see how fake they are. It might make the Photoshop fad go away. It is so bad that many people ask for a photo to look Photoshopped! They don't want it to look better - they want it to look faker. That's sad.
IANAP. There will be 1000 responses explaining why I am wrong. But every reply I've seen so far is "it might be useful for some undetermined future reason" which seems pretty weak. So at the risk of technical inaccuracy, here is my speculation:
The Higgs Boson is the particle that assigns mass to another particle. Once we understand it, it opens up a lot of questions and experiments: - Can we create a Higgs Boson, thus creating artificial gravity? Tractor beams? - Can we use them for signaling? - Could we create gravity waves? - Could we use them to store power? - Could we create matter with no mass?
The point is that if the DOJ, or any group says "Comcast is not permitted to block Netflix" it implies that Comcast can block things. That is very important.
I'm confused. I asked about energy. You replied regarding cost.
That is because in general, energy is the biggest portion of cost. Transportation is the prime example, where most of the cost is the energy involved. Let me be clearer this time, taking that into account:
What about the energy involved in fabrication and transport of the 'eco friendly' bulb? My guess is that transporting a fluorescent bulb is is likely to use the same energy as transporting an incandescent bulb. Key costs in transportation are weight, volume, packaging, and handling. I don't think they are much different.
Fabrication definitely uses more energy, which is why fluorescent and LED bulbs cost more than incandescent bulbs. But they save more energy over their lifetime than is used to produce them. You can use the cost -vs- energy savings equations to determine this. Ex: A bulb might cost $2 more, but save $10 over its lifetime. This means it took more energy to produce, but that energy is saved over the lifetime of the bulb.
There are 2 types of conferences: The vanity ones are run by some company and they are cheap ($100 or less?) because they want every potential customer to come and see their new products. Ex: Microsoft DevDays. These are what companies send people to as a reward. The conference is an excuse - the reward is basically a day or two off with pay and meals included. They head to strip clubs in the evening and it promotes "team building." You are right: don't go to these.
Then there are prestigious conferences that can cost $1000+. Ex: Siggraph, GDC. These are usually more specialized and are research-based. Fortunately they have student rates that are often 80% discounts. Sometimes you can volunteer to help or be a speaker and get in for even less. If you go to these you can make real connections with people who are interested in your topic. Some people form lifelong friendships when they find the one other person who is interested in their specific topic. Ex: Emulating animal behaviors by training neural networks through social interaction.
If 71% of the people are buying them already, why do we need a ban on the old product? CFL bulbs won in the market, with the exception of some specific cases where CFLs are not an option. So the ban is unnecessary.
Using my address, I see 6 ISPs offering >3Mbps service. All of that is completely wrong.
1) Verizon: 50 - 100Mbps. When I tried to get Verizon DSL, they told me it wasn't supported in my area. The reality is it is a lower middle class area and many people on my street can't afford internet access. So they probably could provide it, but don't bother. 2) Cavalier Telephone: 50 - 100Mbps Ironically, they use Verizon's lines. Their service was so bad it was getting to be less than the 384Mbps they claimed it was. I canceled a few years ago. 3) Clearwire: 10 - 25Mbps This is a wireless provider, and I don't even think it can theoretically reach those kinds of speeds. I stopped by one of their booths at the mall and they can actually tell you the signal-to-noise ratio for a given address and they told me that service probably wouldn't work here. That is believable, since I don't get cell service at my house either. 4) Comcast: 50 - 100Mbps I signed-up for Comcast business class internet and they called me and apologized and said their lines couldn't handle anything more than their low-end 3Mbps service. But it sure beat Cavalier Telephone so I went with it. But even at their "turbo-boost" they still only claim 12, so what the heck is with 50 - 100? 5, 6) T-mobile claiming 6 - 10 Mbps (wirelessly? I don't think so...) and Covad claiming 3 - 6 Mbps. Perhaps I should switch to Covad for being the only one to make an honest claim.
You've highlighted my confusion well. Just to clarify: Using your example, suppose we had a supply voltage of 2 volts - it seems to me that this would that increase the dynamic range. The quietest signal it can output is now 7.8125 mV and the loudest is now 2 volts. So my range of sound I can play has slightly doubled.
But after reading the Wikipedia article, I see that they have defined dynamic range in such a way as to avoid this issue:
ratio of the amplitude of the loudest possible undistorted sine wave to the root mean square (rms) noise amplitude
So by doubling the voltage, I have not changed the *ratio* - it was 256:1 before, and now it is still 256:1.
That is a sad list of firsts. First congressman to fly in a space shuttle? Sheesh. People are too concerned with celebrity. There are probably plenty of scientific engineering firsts that should be applauded rather than "First [color|race|profession] to do X."
Can you provide a source for this? What bugs me is that it implies that bit depth is proportional to dynamic range, which isn't really true.
Bit depth can be used to provide accuracy, range, or a combination of both. I could provide 140dB of dynamic range using 8-bits, but it would sound crappy because 90% of the sound would only use the lower few bits. I could also provide a great amount of accuracy in 8-bits, but it would clip on loud items and discard quiet items. (This same situation happens with cameras.)
That is what it says, but that isn't what they mean.:-( They should edit that page.
They don't mean that TrueCrypt does not secure data on an SSD. What they mean is two things: 1) If you have an existing SSD with existing unencrypted data, that placing TrueCrypt on it will not delete the existing unencrypted data. Instead, you should start with an encrypted partition from scratch. This is because the unencrypted data is still level in the wear-leveling areas. 2) That you can't plausibly deny that you used TrueCrypt because you can never truly wipe the drive.
Their blanket statement:
Due to security reasons, we recommend that TrueCrypt volumes are not created/stored on devices (or in file systems) that utilize a wear-leveling mechanism (and that TrueCrypt is not used to encrypt any portions of such devices or filesystems).
Is silly and overstated.
Please correct me if I misunderstood their meaning.
From what I know, an encrypted data connection is of limited value.
1) If you are using HTTP, the ISP can listen-in on you even if the communication to the tower is encrypted. 2) If you are using HTTPS, and the certificates are properly validated, then the communication is encrypted from the phone to the tower past the ISP and all the way to the web site. They can't listen in on you at any level. The only potential gain I see see to encrypting the data communication as well is that someone can't tell what site you are visiting by intercepting the phone's data connection. (HTTPS doesn't hide that.) But then that can be seen by the ISP.
Also, I'm not sure if you can trust the data encryption. How can you tell that the phone is using it? Or that the tower is using it? Or that it isn't breakable?
Slashdot Mirror
It is the thieves. Lackadaisical security + credit card number on file = massive fraud.
I worked for a company whose billing department kept an .XLS with their customers SSN and billing information on a public share drive. The billing people just didn't care. But it wasn't the billing department that was going to commit the fraud - it was some other random untraceable person who stumbles onto the share drive.
Realtek drivers are notorious for this. I had this same issue too until I found juuuust the right driver version that worked. Windows 7 resolved the issue too.
VoIP over mobile networks
I had the same gut reaction too, then I reread the comment. He didn't mean all VOIP.
However, this initial version of Wallaby offers no support for conversion of ActionScript, Movies and Sound.
This is not a Flash to HTML 5 converter. As someone else pointed out, it is for banner ads.
The focus for this initial version of Wallaby is to do the best job possible of converting typical banner ads to HTML5
Until we can quantify both qualitative human characteristics like courage, fear, ambition, and stubbornness, as well as the "gut call" a coach makes based on his impressions of the individuals on the field and how they function as a group, computers aren't going to be better at this
We sure can. It is just statistics.
You have a 27 year old black running back with a left ankle injury sustained 5.6 days ago. He weighs 275 lbs, has 2 super bowl rings, is right-handed, with 2 felony counts of rape (1 acquitted, 1 pending), who has run 67 yards this game with is 4.3% below his average. He is against a team with a 6-3-0 WLT record. He plays 12% better when his team is behind, runs 14% father in the red zone, and 3% worse when his mother-in-law is in the stadium. He plays 1.7% better during ...
We can go on all day. Today, computers don't have this kind of raw data. But given how they work in the stock market, and for insurance companies, and bookies: it will probably make make judgment calls better than we can once it has the data. We all like to watch Gattaca and say "there is no equation" for the human spirit" and that sounds great, but it is irrelevant. Performance can be quantified.
The only way to win is not to play.
Call the bomb squad. That will get one federal agency after another. :-)
If I were to go around the internet telling everyone that you are a child molester, wouldn't you want to find out my identity?
No.
Now if a future employer google's your name it's all over the internet and you have to waste your time explaining it
No, you wouldn't. No sane person would work for a company so stupid as to pay attention to such a random claim, and no HR department would dare run afoul of the law by refusing to hire you because of an anonymous child molestation allegation. These things don't happen in real life, and they don't happen on the internet either. We don't need special laws to infringe free speech to protect us from anonymous non-existent slanderers .
If someone is slandering my name on the internet anonymously, I want to go after that person
You say "on the internet" so do you want the same power in real life too? The only way to achieve this is to track everyone's movements, because I could go put a "Bob Smith is a child molester" signs on every streetcorner and there is little anyone can do to find out who I am. I only expect the same on the internet as we have in real life.
In general, the libertarian-leaning Slashdot population is quick to criticize the Megan's laws. But now that it is about something important... SPAM! ... well, those principles all go out the window, huh?
Those laws:
- Do not work.
- Are likely unconstitutional.
- If the likelihood of recidivism is that high, the person should not be released anyway.
The photos are being Photoshopped to be what people are looking for.
I started looking at it the other way around when I attended photography workshop. The presenter was a professional photographer who was going over their post-processing techniques. At one point they showed a particular step in Photoshop that made the skin tones look really artificial. Their explanation for why they did this particular step was "to make the image have that Photoshopped look."
I took that to mean that the presenter didn't think it should be that way, but that the customers expected it. The presenter had already cleared the skin blemishes, fixed the color and lighting, etc. But when those steps are done well, you can't tell. This step was to make it obvious that the picture had been through Photoshop. I figure that way the customer knows they got their money's worth.
Maybe it really goes both ways: people see retouched images, so they want retouched images. But then everyone has retouched images, so they want their images retouched even more. But then everyone does it that way, so then they want it even more so.
The most interesting aspect of this is that they are putting the retouching software in the camera, not as post-processing software done on the PC. This is indicative of how multiple devices are converging into a single device, and how the CPUs in them are becoming significantly more powerful. It wasn't too long ago that the idea of wasting your camera's battery life by having it modify your photo would have been silly. But today, people expect the devices to do things for them. They no longer want the general-purpose PC that lets them do this stuff. Now they just want it to be automatic.
Unfortunately, all the demo photos are shown as postage-stamp quality images on a mediocre LCD panel so you really can't tell what it is doing.
One really good thing here is is that this might promote awareness of how much Photoshop is overused. I find it amazing that so many people think that magazine covers are even close to the real thing. With some critical thinking you can look at the image and see "Gaussian blur here... warp tool there..." Hopefully, after a generation of these cameras everyone will be able to see how fake they are. It might make the Photoshop fad go away. It is so bad that many people ask for a photo to look Photoshopped! They don't want it to look better - they want it to look faker. That's sad.
IANAP. There will be 1000 responses explaining why I am wrong. But every reply I've seen so far is "it might be useful for some undetermined future reason" which seems pretty weak. So at the risk of technical inaccuracy, here is my speculation:
The Higgs Boson is the particle that assigns mass to another particle. Once we understand it, it opens up a lot of questions and experiments:
- Can we create a Higgs Boson, thus creating artificial gravity? Tractor beams?
- Can we use them for signaling?
- Could we create gravity waves?
- Could we use them to store power?
- Could we create matter with no mass?
And they would have had a kernel first if Stallman didn't spend all of his time working on Emacs.
In his defense, Emacs is at least twice as powerful as most operating system kernels. :-)
The point is that if the DOJ, or any group says "Comcast is not permitted to block Netflix" it implies that Comcast can block things. That is very important.
I'm confused. I asked about energy. You replied regarding cost.
That is because in general, energy is the biggest portion of cost. Transportation is the prime example, where most of the cost is the energy involved. Let me be clearer this time, taking that into account:
What about the energy involved in fabrication and transport of the 'eco friendly' bulb?
My guess is that transporting a fluorescent bulb is is likely to use the same energy as transporting an incandescent bulb. Key costs in transportation are weight, volume, packaging, and handling. I don't think they are much different.
Fabrication definitely uses more energy, which is why fluorescent and LED bulbs cost more than incandescent bulbs. But they save more energy over their lifetime than is used to produce them. You can use the cost -vs- energy savings equations to determine this. Ex: A bulb might cost $2 more, but save $10 over its lifetime. This means it took more energy to produce, but that energy is saved over the lifetime of the bulb.
Numbers are not facts.
ummm... oh... kay...
I think you are going to the wrong conferences.
There are 2 types of conferences: The vanity ones are run by some company and they are cheap ($100 or less?) because they want every potential customer to come and see their new products. Ex: Microsoft DevDays. These are what companies send people to as a reward. The conference is an excuse - the reward is basically a day or two off with pay and meals included. They head to strip clubs in the evening and it promotes "team building." You are right: don't go to these.
Then there are prestigious conferences that can cost $1000+. Ex: Siggraph, GDC. These are usually more specialized and are research-based. Fortunately they have student rates that are often 80% discounts. Sometimes you can volunteer to help or be a speaker and get in for even less. If you go to these you can make real connections with people who are interested in your topic. Some people form lifelong friendships when they find the one other person who is interested in their specific topic. Ex: Emulating animal behaviors by training neural networks through social interaction.
What about the energy involved in fabrication and transport of the 'eco friendly' bulb?
Transport is likely to be the same cost.
Fabrication cost was already included in the cost of the bulb.
What about the fact that the bulb, according to TFA only lasts a fraction of the 10K hr lifetime?
They still last longer than incandescent bulbs. For many of us, that is the primary benefit. My electricity costs are minimal.
Please tell me I am misinformed or lying.
Misinformed. szyzyg provided facts and figures. You provided questions. facts > questions.
If 71% of the people are buying them already, why do we need a ban on the old product? CFL bulbs won in the market, with the exception of some specific cases where CFLs are not an option. So the ban is unnecessary.
But Comcast only advertises 15MBps. So where does this 50MBps - 100MBps number come from?
Using my address, I see 6 ISPs offering >3Mbps service. All of that is completely wrong.
1) Verizon: 50 - 100Mbps.
When I tried to get Verizon DSL, they told me it wasn't supported in my area. The reality is it is a lower middle class area and many people on my street can't afford internet access. So they probably could provide it, but don't bother.
2) Cavalier Telephone: 50 - 100Mbps
Ironically, they use Verizon's lines. Their service was so bad it was getting to be less than the 384Mbps they claimed it was. I canceled a few years ago.
3) Clearwire: 10 - 25Mbps
This is a wireless provider, and I don't even think it can theoretically reach those kinds of speeds. I stopped by one of their booths at the mall and they can actually tell you the signal-to-noise ratio for a given address and they told me that service probably wouldn't work here. That is believable, since I don't get cell service at my house either.
4) Comcast: 50 - 100Mbps
I signed-up for Comcast business class internet and they called me and apologized and said their lines couldn't handle anything more than their low-end 3Mbps service. But it sure beat Cavalier Telephone so I went with it. But even at their "turbo-boost" they still only claim 12, so what the heck is with 50 - 100?
5, 6) T-mobile claiming 6 - 10 Mbps (wirelessly? I don't think so...) and Covad claiming 3 - 6 Mbps.
Perhaps I should switch to Covad for being the only one to make an honest claim.
You've highlighted my confusion well. Just to clarify: Using your example, suppose we had a supply voltage of 2 volts - it seems to me that this would that increase the dynamic range. The quietest signal it can output is now 7.8125 mV and the loudest is now 2 volts. So my range of sound I can play has slightly doubled.
But after reading the Wikipedia article, I see that they have defined dynamic range in such a way as to avoid this issue:
ratio of the amplitude of the loudest possible undistorted sine wave to the root mean square (rms) noise amplitude
So by doubling the voltage, I have not changed the *ratio* - it was 256:1 before, and now it is still 256:1.
That is a sad list of firsts. First congressman to fly in a space shuttle? Sheesh. People are too concerned with celebrity. There are probably plenty of scientific engineering firsts that should be applauded rather than "First [color|race|profession] to do X."
Can you provide a source for this? What bugs me is that it implies that bit depth is proportional to dynamic range, which isn't really true.
Bit depth can be used to provide accuracy, range, or a combination of both. I could provide 140dB of dynamic range using 8-bits, but it would sound crappy because 90% of the sound would only use the lower few bits. I could also provide a great amount of accuracy in 8-bits, but it would clip on loud items and discard quiet items. (This same situation happens with cameras.)
That is what it says, but that isn't what they mean. :-( They should edit that page.
They don't mean that TrueCrypt does not secure data on an SSD. What they mean is two things:
1) If you have an existing SSD with existing unencrypted data, that placing TrueCrypt on it will not delete the existing unencrypted data. Instead, you should start with an encrypted partition from scratch. This is because the unencrypted data is still level in the wear-leveling areas.
2) That you can't plausibly deny that you used TrueCrypt because you can never truly wipe the drive.
Their blanket statement:
Due to security reasons, we recommend that TrueCrypt volumes are not created/stored on devices (or in file systems) that utilize a wear-leveling mechanism (and that TrueCrypt is not used to encrypt any portions of such devices or filesystems).
Is silly and overstated.
Please correct me if I misunderstood their meaning.
From what I know, an encrypted data connection is of limited value.
1) If you are using HTTP, the ISP can listen-in on you even if the communication to the tower is encrypted.
2) If you are using HTTPS, and the certificates are properly validated, then the communication is encrypted from the phone to the tower past the ISP and all the way to the web site. They can't listen in on you at any level. The only potential gain I see see to encrypting the data communication as well is that someone can't tell what site you are visiting by intercepting the phone's data connection. (HTTPS doesn't hide that.) But then that can be seen by the ISP.
Also, I'm not sure if you can trust the data encryption. How can you tell that the phone is using it? Or that the tower is using it? Or that it isn't breakable?