So which one is your complaint: The fact that they are for profit? Or that they are experimental?
Cars are not limited-edition. They are not experimental.
True: experimental things are more dangerous that heavily regulated well tested things. But your post was stressing the for-profit motive, not the experimental nature of things. For the foreseeable future, manned spacecraft are limited-edition experimental craft, regardless of who makes them.
They are very, very, very heavily regulated, with vast amounts of unmanned testing before they hit the market -- none of which is happening with commercial space flight.
Somehow, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you don't work for a commercial spaceflight company. If you do, please tell me what commercial spaceflight company you are referring to. I'd like to know if someone is sending pilots and astronauts up into space without testing. Somehow, I doubt they would have much luck hiring pilots.
I have to reply to clarify my misunderstanding - After reading a New York Times article (dead tree form) it turns out the ruling is a lot smaller than I thought. Before this ruling, corporations could make political ads about issues, but not endorsing specific candidates. Now, they can do both. So the only change is the candidate part.
1) Of course the earnings aren't my business. But that doesn't mean I want to have to fight my own employer politically. Besides: as soon as they start influencing public policy, it becomes everyone's business.
2) Like I said, I could quit. But is this really the world you want to live in? Where it is employers -vs- employees, and companies can legally make back-door deals with politicians? There's just no need for it. What we had was bad enough.
Prioritizing Skype traffic would not be neutral. Prioritizing all real-time voice/video services would be neutral. This is called QOS (Quality of Service) which is where applications that require low-latency get low-latency. And things like email or downloads get higher latency. That is totally fine, fair, and neutral.
The problem with QOS is administering it. Who can be trusted to do this? The ISP doesn't actually know what a packet is for. Deep packet inspection is expensive and inaccurate. In theory, the client software knows and can mark packets for prioritization. But then some jerk will mark all their packets as high-priority and screw-up the system. The IP protocol actually has QOS bits built-in to the header, but it is rarely used.
As a network neutrality supporter, my concern is ISPs making back-door deals to prioritize, delay, or filter traffic. Maybe Comcast makes Google searches faster than Bing! searches. Or perhaps EA games get higher priority than games from smaller studios. Worse yet -- what about filtering? What if negative stories about my ISP don't show in my search results! Or perhaps a pharmaceutical company pays my ISP to filter negative publicity about them, or block PACs who campaign against them.
Yes I saw it, but that was a guess that the person made, not a statement of fact. It isn't the driving force here. One does not design password restrictions just so they can store the password in the fewest bits possible. If the guess is true, it is most likely someone designed the password restrictions, then realized a nifty artifact of it.
Exception to the above: If the year is 1980 and all the users passwords must fit on a 360k floppy disk.:-)
The difference is that corporations have incentive to act against the individuals in the corporation. A PAC will only act according to the will of its members. There is never a conflict of interest.
Try this example: Suppose I am a peon working at a big corporation. That corporation want a particular bill passed. I disagree with the company position. The company decides to pay for an advertisement promoting this bill or individual. I work for that company, so some of the earnings I make for that company are being spent on something I disagree with. Worse yet: it could be that 95% of the individuals in the corporation disagree with the company position! Yet the company still does it. And maybe the 5% that DO agree with the company position only do so because it will make the company money. Perhaps the bill would even hurt them personally, but they are willing to make the trade-off in exchange for profits.
This situation causes lots of conflicts of interest, and it just plain sucks. I could quit. I could complain to my boss. I could write my congressman or start a PAC to counteract the company's actions. But this really isn't a fair situation. We shouldn't have to make people decide between their employer and their political opinions. Maybe I like what 99% of my company does.
This situation should not happen at all. The company can't vote. My work should not be used to lobby against me. If the CEOs really want this bill passed or this candidate voted in, then they should be required to put their own personal money on the line by giving it to a PAC. Then they would have to put their names on the line publicly (PACs must disclose their contributors). They might be able to outspend me, but at least they can't use my own employers money against me. And in my example, the 95% employees can probably fight the 5% pretty well.
I don't get it. This does not make sense to me either legally, or ethically.
Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority agreed.
But Sen. Mitch McConnell...praised the court for "restoring the First Amendment rights" of corporations and unions.
Kennedy... said, "No sufficient government interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations."
Corporations do not have first amendment rights. They cannot vote. They are not individuals. They have no rights at all.
If people want to get together and spend money on a commercial about something political, because they really feel strongly enough to give their own money, they can do that via a PAC. Why the heck would we want corporations to be able to do this? No good can come of it.
but it almost certainly increases the average keyspace that needs to be searched
Not really. As the original poster pointed out, everyone starts using easily predictable passwords because the limitations are so strict, and because they have to change passwords so often. Even if the search space is theoretically good, it discourages people from using good passwords.
Furthermore, the same benefits can be achieved in other ways. Password rules should always set minimums, not maximums. So, using the original poster's example. Instead of coding a rule that says use EXACTLY 2 letters followed by EXACTLY 4 digits, make the rule that you must use AT LEAST 2 letters and AT LEAST 4 digits. That gives you at least as much complexity, without forcing the user into a pattern. All the benefits, but none of the disadvantages.
You aren't crazy - they come and go. I've noticed them before, then tested it out and it's gone a minute later. I'm not sure if it is random, or certain searches, or what.
The poster did not question his freedom to do so. He asked _why_ he would contribute to one particular project rather than another project. Your reply did not answer the question that was asked.
Slashdot moderators will give you +1 Informative for defending someone's freedom, but since they didn't attack his freedom you failed to answer the question. Wine and ReactOS are both free. So in neither case is he getting paid, and in neither case is anyone's freedom limited.
because it is not possible to POST to HTTPS via Javascript due to the same origin policy in browsers
This is the first I've heard of this. I wrote code for an AJAX site that required https for everything. The only http page was the front page, which redirected to the https site.
This case takes place looong before the Core 2 Duos. You are dead-on about one thing: For a while, Athlon was the king - technologically. Yet they never could get a major vendor to ship their chips. This is because Intel used anti-competitive practices to lock-out AMD. The vendor contracts with Intel limited the percentage of machines they could ship with AMD chips.
The FTC is not telling Intel to degrade their products. They are telling them not to make monopolistic contracts.
In addition to stability the two party system promotes centrism.
No, the two-party system destroys centrism. We waffle back-and-forth between a democratic majority, and a republican majority depending on the economy.
You can't just crank up the turnout to win over your base, you need the moderates to help you.
I think that entire paragraph is based on this one assumption, which is not correct. Cranking up the turnout to win your base is precisely what presidential candidates do. Most people decide at an early age, which party they will subscribe to. They almost never change. What controls the result of the election is what percentage of those people you get out to vote.
There is this myth of the moderate Americans who decide the vote. I wish it were true. Close elections like Ohio are often attributed to the moderate "swing vote" but the reality is that polls show (I don't have links right now) that there are almost no moderates a tall.
This is why political candidates appeal to the moderates only during primaries. They need to capture as much of their party as possible. After that, they need to move to the left or right to distance themselves from the other party and get out their base.
The premise is that China hacked Google to access the accounts of these Chinese Human rights activists. Given that Google already complies with Chinese law, why did China not openly contact Google over this?
Yes, but not these frequencies. Google for "non-ionizing radiation" 2.4Ghz radiation is absorbed by water, and technically it does affect him: it warms him up. But only about as much as an LED.
I agree with you, but only once rapid charging becomes available. Otherwise, people will not want to leave their car at the charging station overnight and walk home.
Apparently Slashdot's AJAX decided to rearrange the messages. It showed dotfile's post as a reply to my other post. Now when I go to my comments page it shows in the correct place.
Slashdot Mirror
So which one is your complaint: The fact that they are for profit? Or that they are experimental?
Cars are not limited-edition. They are not experimental.
True: experimental things are more dangerous that heavily regulated well tested things. But your post was stressing the for-profit motive, not the experimental nature of things. For the foreseeable future, manned spacecraft are limited-edition experimental craft, regardless of who makes them.
They are very, very, very heavily regulated, with vast amounts of unmanned testing before they hit the market -- none of which is happening with commercial space flight.
Somehow, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you don't work for a commercial spaceflight company. If you do, please tell me what commercial spaceflight company you are referring to. I'd like to know if someone is sending pilots and astronauts up into space without testing. Somehow, I doubt they would have much luck hiring pilots.
I have to reply to clarify my misunderstanding - After reading a New York Times article (dead tree form) it turns out the ruling is a lot smaller than I thought. Before this ruling, corporations could make political ads about issues, but not endorsing specific candidates. Now, they can do both. So the only change is the candidate part.
1) Of course the earnings aren't my business. But that doesn't mean I want to have to fight my own employer politically. Besides: as soon as they start influencing public policy, it becomes everyone's business.
2) Like I said, I could quit. But is this really the world you want to live in? Where it is employers -vs- employees, and companies can legally make back-door deals with politicians? There's just no need for it. What we had was bad enough.
Lets clarify the meaning of the word neutral:
Prioritizing Skype traffic would not be neutral. Prioritizing all real-time voice/video services would be neutral. This is called QOS (Quality of Service) which is where applications that require low-latency get low-latency. And things like email or downloads get higher latency. That is totally fine, fair, and neutral.
The problem with QOS is administering it. Who can be trusted to do this? The ISP doesn't actually know what a packet is for. Deep packet inspection is expensive and inaccurate. In theory, the client software knows and can mark packets for prioritization. But then some jerk will mark all their packets as high-priority and screw-up the system. The IP protocol actually has QOS bits built-in to the header, but it is rarely used.
As a network neutrality supporter, my concern is ISPs making back-door deals to prioritize, delay, or filter traffic. Maybe Comcast makes Google searches faster than Bing! searches. Or perhaps EA games get higher priority than games from smaller studios. Worse yet -- what about filtering? What if negative stories about my ISP don't show in my search results! Or perhaps a pharmaceutical company pays my ISP to filter negative publicity about them, or block PACs who campaign against them.
Then don't drive a car. FYI: They were made by for-profit companies.
Yes I saw it, but that was a guess that the person made, not a statement of fact. It isn't the driving force here. One does not design password restrictions just so they can store the password in the fewest bits possible. If the guess is true, it is most likely someone designed the password restrictions, then realized a nifty artifact of it.
Exception to the above: If the year is 1980 and all the users passwords must fit on a 360k floppy disk. :-)
What is the difference between...
The difference is that corporations have incentive to act against the individuals in the corporation. A PAC will only act according to the will of its members. There is never a conflict of interest.
Try this example: Suppose I am a peon working at a big corporation. That corporation want a particular bill passed. I disagree with the company position. The company decides to pay for an advertisement promoting this bill or individual. I work for that company, so some of the earnings I make for that company are being spent on something I disagree with. Worse yet: it could be that 95% of the individuals in the corporation disagree with the company position! Yet the company still does it. And maybe the 5% that DO agree with the company position only do so because it will make the company money. Perhaps the bill would even hurt them personally, but they are willing to make the trade-off in exchange for profits.
This situation causes lots of conflicts of interest, and it just plain sucks. I could quit. I could complain to my boss. I could write my congressman or start a PAC to counteract the company's actions. But this really isn't a fair situation. We shouldn't have to make people decide between their employer and their political opinions. Maybe I like what 99% of my company does.
This situation should not happen at all. The company can't vote. My work should not be used to lobby against me. If the CEOs really want this bill passed or this candidate voted in, then they should be required to put their own personal money on the line by giving it to a PAC. Then they would have to put their names on the line publicly (PACs must disclose their contributors). They might be able to outspend me, but at least they can't use my own employers money against me. And in my example, the 95% employees can probably fight the 5% pretty well.
I don't get it. This does not make sense to me either legally, or ethically.
Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority agreed.
But Sen. Mitch McConnell ...praised the court for "restoring the First Amendment rights" of corporations and unions.
Kennedy ... said, "No sufficient government interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations."
Corporations do not have first amendment rights. They cannot vote. They are not individuals. They have no rights at all.
If people want to get together and spend money on a commercial about something political, because they really feel strongly enough to give their own money, they can do that via a PAC. Why the heck would we want corporations to be able to do this? No good can come of it.
Pass phrases: Stronger. More easily remembered. Just stop using the word "password" all together. It gives people the wrong idea.
but it almost certainly increases the average keyspace that needs to be searched
Not really. As the original poster pointed out, everyone starts using easily predictable passwords because the limitations are so strict, and because they have to change passwords so often. Even if the search space is theoretically good, it discourages people from using good passwords.
Furthermore, the same benefits can be achieved in other ways. Password rules should always set minimums, not maximums. So, using the original poster's example. Instead of coding a rule that says use EXACTLY 2 letters followed by EXACTLY 4 digits, make the rule that you must use AT LEAST 2 letters and AT LEAST 4 digits. That gives you at least as much complexity, without forcing the user into a pattern. All the benefits, but none of the disadvantages.
You aren't crazy - they come and go. I've noticed them before, then tested it out and it's gone a minute later. I'm not sure if it is random, or certain searches, or what.
I don't think these illegal wiretaps lead to any convictions. So there is no case, no judge, and no defendant.
The poster did not question his freedom to do so. He asked _why_ he would contribute to one particular project rather than another project. Your reply did not answer the question that was asked.
Slashdot moderators will give you +1 Informative for defending someone's freedom, but since they didn't attack his freedom you failed to answer the question. Wine and ReactOS are both free. So in neither case is he getting paid, and in neither case is anyone's freedom limited.
I don't think there is a countermeasure in the UK. In the US, they call it the second amendment.
because it is not possible to POST to HTTPS via Javascript due to the same origin policy in browsers
This is the first I've heard of this. I wrote code for an AJAX site that required https for everything. The only http page was the front page, which redirected to the https site.
This case takes place looong before the Core 2 Duos. You are dead-on about one thing: For a while, Athlon was the king - technologically. Yet they never could get a major vendor to ship their chips. This is because Intel used anti-competitive practices to lock-out AMD. The vendor contracts with Intel limited the percentage of machines they could ship with AMD chips.
The FTC is not telling Intel to degrade their products. They are telling them not to make monopolistic contracts.
I was with you for the first half.
In addition to stability the two party system promotes centrism.
No, the two-party system destroys centrism. We waffle back-and-forth between a democratic majority, and a republican majority depending on the economy.
You can't just crank up the turnout to win over your base, you need the moderates to help you.
I think that entire paragraph is based on this one assumption, which is not correct. Cranking up the turnout to win your base is precisely what presidential candidates do. Most people decide at an early age, which party they will subscribe to. They almost never change. What controls the result of the election is what percentage of those people you get out to vote.
There is this myth of the moderate Americans who decide the vote. I wish it were true. Close elections like Ohio are often attributed to the moderate "swing vote" but the reality is that polls show (I don't have links right now) that there are almost no moderates a tall.
This is why political candidates appeal to the moderates only during primaries. They need to capture as much of their party as possible. After that, they need to move to the left or right to distance themselves from the other party and get out their base.
The premise is that China hacked Google to access the accounts of these Chinese Human rights activists. Given that Google already complies with Chinese law, why did China not openly contact Google over this?
The web interface would waste more bandwidth than it saves.
"free market" does not mean "no laws against poisons in food"
While there are probably people who believe in a a world with no laws, the term "free market" does not mean this.
By that reasoning, nothing could ever count for paranormal because as soon as there is evidence for it, it is no longer paranormal. :-)
Yes, but not these frequencies. Google for "non-ionizing radiation" 2.4Ghz radiation is absorbed by water, and technically it does affect him: it warms him up. But only about as much as an LED.
Okay, I see. Interesting. One on the block might work initially. I bet it wouldn't be financially viable though.
I would expect to see 'charging' stations
I agree with you, but only once rapid charging becomes available. Otherwise, people will not want to leave their car at the charging station overnight and walk home.
For now, though, there are enough people
Agreed.
Please disregard my reply.
Apparently Slashdot's AJAX decided to rearrange the messages. It showed dotfile's post as a reply to my other post. Now when I go to my comments page it shows in the correct place.
grrrr