I just looked for lmbtfy.com for "let me bing that for you." The site exists, but it searches Google by default! So apparently, you can Bing something using Google. So Bing should lose their trademark too.
Who said that the goal of using them was to raise test scores? Why is that even a meaningful metric?
The benefit of putting laptops in schools is that kids learn how to use laptops. They learn about the networks and the internet, they learn how to use a mouse and how to type, they learn about digital data, they learn responsible use of those laptops. They have fun. They see how the world really works.
No matter what the result, if a headline has the word "test scores" in it everyone will go insane. If the scores didn't go up, it means schools aren't working. If the scores did go up, it's because they are teaching the test. Test scores measure certain things well, and other things not at all. In this case, you might as well say that introducing laptops failed to change the price of milk. It would be just as relevant.
No. Shame on those who force their users to conform to their world view. I'm glad Slashdot doesn't kick people off for disliking network neutrality, or posting that Slashdot sucks.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall (not Voltaire, as it is often assigned)
Aggreed. Did manning release anything that benefited the public? It seems more like manning released random documents just because he/she had access to them and felt like it
I remember some fun tidbits: It was funny to find that some of Iran's allies were asking us to attack Iran. That was the "cut the head of the snake" thing. But the result was decreased communication between us and other nations because they saw that we didn't keep their conversations secret. That benefits no one. We learned some details about Guantanamo Bay detainees - mostly that they were psychotic, had no real charges against them, and were tortured for useless information. But we already knew all that. The rest was just a random dump, probably in the hopes that the press would find something juicy in it to use.
So if I make a social media app, and KKK and Nazi members start using it, my app gets banned? How far will they take that? What if they start using MineCraft?
So first we start by blocking White Supremist groups. Then what? Will we start silencing people who want to keep the Robert E. Lee statues next? Then maybe we will go "Oh, there were lots of Christians in the south so let us silence them." This is a dangerous slope and we, as a nation, vowed not to do this. I don't like their position, but we cannot silence them. The best way to silence idiotic racist ideas is to let them be heard, and let their own words be used against them. If we force them into a dark web, they will fester there like a virus and we will only see them when they rise up against us.
Much like some of the comments on previous articles, I'll believe it when I see it. FoxConn probably gets tons of subsidies from the Chinese government. So they are probably shopping to see if they can get that here. Heck, maybe Trump can build the plant with his own money!
1. And what percentage of that $10B stays within the state? I'm sure lots of that is electronic parts, foreign steel, shipping, etc. 2. The articles state "The $3 billion incentives package includes about $2.85 billion in cash payments from taxpayers." But I'm not sure I understand that $2.85 billion in cash payments. I have never heard ofa city giving a cash payment like this, especially to a foreign company. That's ridiculous. Tax breaks alone are debatable, but cash??? I really hope I am misunderstanding.
Did Godaddy and Google cancel the domain name registrations, or the hosting services? It matters. The articles aren't technical and they keep mixing the terms.
Godaddy and Google can do whatever they want as hosting companies. There's a million of them and anyone with an unpopular view can just host the domain themselves if they have to. Godaddy and Google are regulated monopolies as registrars. There's a small number of them and their license is granted by ICANN and not just anyone can become a registrar. ICANN rules forbid discrimination. Thank goodness they do, or my pro flying-spaghetti-monster libertarian web site could be shut down by those liberals!
whole appeal of the streaming model becomes diluted when there are too many "Netflixes."
This is another case of companies just not understanding the internet. They use a completely different, and frustrating, business model to distribute something online rather than retail.
Pick any movie studio. There are probably 1000 stores that sell DVDs for that movie studio. Target, Walmart, Sam's Club, Best Buy, FYE, Barnes and Noble, etc. And the price is almost the same. We take this for granted: It is in the best interest of the studio to sell their product at as many retailers as possible.
But you want to sell it online, oohhhh well that's totally different! They want to negotiate exclusive rights - you can watch it on Amazon Prime but not Netflix, or HBO Go but not Hulu. PBS but not Nick Jr. Why is this happening!?!?
Content providers seem to have no problem selling the same product at the same price to all these stores. Yet for some reason, they go through complicated exclusive licensing deals to distribute the same product digitally. Going back to the Disney example, Disney even has retail stores, yet they don't sell items exclusively at those stores. So why would they want to open a web site and offer their digital product exclusively at the web site. Why would they choose such a stupid business model?
I hate to propose a legislative fix, but we almost need one. I can buy a DVD and give it away or sell it to anyone I want. We need the system thing with digital distribution. Anyone should be able to buy the rights to stream a show/movie. There should be a simple web interface to license the content, and the system shouldn't give a hoot if it was Netflix delivering it or Hulu or Amazon or YouTube or a porn site. The studio gets their money, the user gets their content, and everyone should be happy.
ANYTHING can be used for evil.... It's the kind of clueless hysterical fear-mongering that you see when politicians say we need to ban encryption to stop crimes.
Yes, anything can be used for evil. Encryption has legitimate uses. what about things that can *only* be used for evil? Is it a crime to create them? If not, is it a crime to distribute them to someone else to profit from? If not, is it a crime to sell them? If not, is it a crime to use them?
This comes up in copyright too: DropBox is legal, but Mega was not. What's the difference since both tools can be used to distribute piracy? The argument is that the mens rea was different. But, this is a banking trojan. Are you saying it is legal to create a banking trojan and give to a hacker to sell? That seems like a stretch to me.
How so? Both demonstrate that star ratings are not useful. 937 shows an example of how averaging them is useless, and 1098 shows that 80% of the scale is meaningless.
Years ago, internet advertisers realized that nobody clicked the ads. They used to charge based on click-throughs, now they charge based on "impressions" which is the number of ads served.
I've got maybe 4 apps that aren't stock on my phone. It runs slow as piss compared to the two years ago when I bought it used. A freakin Samsung S5.
I have an S5 with the same issue. I haven't installed OS updates in over a year because even if I move every app to my SD card, I still don't have enough space to install the upgrade. I think I need to root it to uninstall all the built-in crud, so I can install the OS upgrade.
Yes, that is a key part of my suggestion. Consider this: it works for electronics. Almost every product sold in the US has the "UL" mark of Underwriters Laboratories. In Europe and Japan they require the "CE" mark. It's really an industry thing. Retailers won't sell electronics that don't have the mark. Homeowners insurance won't pay for your burnt down house if the fire was caused by a non-uL approved device. I have that issue because my 3D printer was a kit so it isn't ul approved.
If people don't want to pay for it, or don't want to pay extra for it, then they literally don't find it that valuable.
True. I think they just don't know.
They see the headlines about how some ISP went down for 2 days causing a massive outage, but they don't know that it was because a million Americans bought compromised IOT devices. But if we had labels and guidelines, they could at least know. Retailers might refuse to carry devices that don't meet the guidelines. Companies like Microsoft or Sony or Nintendo or Google would tout how their devices meet the guidelines. The public would become aware. We just need a brand or a label to get behind.
Lots of people know what "Energy Star" is or "MPAA ratings" are. Even if it is meaningless, at least they are aware.
He added that the legislation was intended to remedy an "obvious market failure" that has left device manufacturers with little incentive to build with security in mind.
This guy gets it. But I was hoping for a market solution. The government could start by requiring vendors of US government products to meet certain guidelines. States could require that police and government tech meets a standard. That typically makes civilian companies jump on board and require similar guidelines. Then individuals start to say "Oh, I only buy IP cameras that meet FIPS-12345 standards."
This approach is nice because it is flexible, and allows the market to decide what standards to apply. I fear Senators trying to write tech legislation.
The problem is that tens of millions of people chose him over 2 dozen Republicans of varying but largely superior qualifications to be their nominee
The Republican party nominated Donald Trump because the nomination process is mathematically stupid. He won with a minority of the voters supporting him. The party didn't choose him, the poor process did. It really only works if there are only 2 candidates. With so many, it was botched.
Had he not eeked out enough votes in the end to get the required, the decision would have gone to the party leadership. They would have picked someone else. If the other Republican candidates weren't so arrogant, they could have dropped out earlier and rallied around one other candidate. The parties need to fix their nomination process. But even after this debacle they still won't. The voting public just doesn't understand the process. I wonder if you gave them a vote, but the vote was meaningless, if they would still support the process.
Slashdot Mirror
I just looked for lmbtfy.com for "let me bing that for you." The site exists, but it searches Google by default! So apparently, you can Bing something using Google. So Bing should lose their trademark too.
Who said that the goal of using them was to raise test scores? Why is that even a meaningful metric?
The benefit of putting laptops in schools is that kids learn how to use laptops. They learn about the networks and the internet, they learn how to use a mouse and how to type, they learn about digital data, they learn responsible use of those laptops. They have fun. They see how the world really works.
No matter what the result, if a headline has the word "test scores" in it everyone will go insane. If the scores didn't go up, it means schools aren't working. If the scores did go up, it's because they are teaching the test. Test scores measure certain things well, and other things not at all. In this case, you might as well say that introducing laptops failed to change the price of milk. It would be just as relevant.
No. Shame on those who force their users to conform to their world view. I'm glad Slashdot doesn't kick people off for disliking network neutrality, or posting that Slashdot sucks.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- Evelyn Beatrice Hall (not Voltaire, as it is often assigned)
Is a registrar permitted to suddenly drop your domain? That sounds like it should violate ICANN rules.
I don't think Godaddy doesn't get to decide that. ICANN does.
Aggreed. Did manning release anything that benefited the public? It seems more like manning released random documents just because he/she had access to them and felt like it
I remember some fun tidbits: It was funny to find that some of Iran's allies were asking us to attack Iran. That was the "cut the head of the snake" thing. But the result was decreased communication between us and other nations because they saw that we didn't keep their conversations secret. That benefits no one. We learned some details about Guantanamo Bay detainees - mostly that they were psychotic, had no real charges against them, and were tortured for useless information. But we already knew all that. The rest was just a random dump, probably in the hopes that the press would find something juicy in it to use.
So if I make a social media app, and KKK and Nazi members start using it, my app gets banned? How far will they take that? What if they start using MineCraft?
So first we start by blocking White Supremist groups. Then what? Will we start silencing people who want to keep the Robert E. Lee statues next? Then maybe we will go "Oh, there were lots of Christians in the south so let us silence them." This is a dangerous slope and we, as a nation, vowed not to do this. I don't like their position, but we cannot silence them. The best way to silence idiotic racist ideas is to let them be heard, and let their own words be used against them. If we force them into a dark web, they will fester there like a virus and we will only see them when they rise up against us.
I remind everyone of the words on the Holocaust memorial:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Jet Airliners and Jet Fighters...Neither of them take off or land by themselves.
Actually, then do:
Jet Airliners:
Every major Jet Airliner must have an automatic land feature.
Jet fighters:
The F/A-18 Hornet and the EA-6 Prowler have it. Looks like it is used for carrier landings since they are so difficult. Ooh, so does the F-35. The experimented with it on the F-16
Last time this came up, I saw this comment posted:
Is this the Foxconn plant in Wisconsin that's been on the drawing board since 2010?
and I see a prior article talking about a FoxConn plant in Pennsylvania, that I think never was built.
Much like some of the comments on previous articles, I'll believe it when I see it. FoxConn probably gets tons of subsidies from the Chinese government. So they are probably shopping to see if they can get that here. Heck, maybe Trump can build the plant with his own money!
1. And what percentage of that $10B stays within the state? I'm sure lots of that is electronic parts, foreign steel, shipping, etc.
2. The articles state "The $3 billion incentives package includes about $2.85 billion in cash payments from taxpayers." But I'm not sure I understand that $2.85 billion in cash payments. I have never heard ofa city giving a cash payment like this, especially to a foreign company. That's ridiculous. Tax breaks alone are debatable, but cash??? I really hope I am misunderstanding.
Did Godaddy and Google cancel the domain name registrations, or the hosting services? It matters. The articles aren't technical and they keep mixing the terms.
Godaddy and Google can do whatever they want as hosting companies. There's a million of them and anyone with an unpopular view can just host the domain themselves if they have to.
Godaddy and Google are regulated monopolies as registrars. There's a small number of them and their license is granted by ICANN and not just anyone can become a registrar. ICANN rules forbid discrimination. Thank goodness they do, or my pro flying-spaghetti-monster libertarian web site could be shut down by those liberals!
BPA in plastics (although some argue plastics in general are not food safe)
Lead in paint, gasoline, and metals
Piracy isn't the reason they play these licensing games. The pirated content came from the DVDs and Blu-Rays.
whole appeal of the streaming model becomes diluted when there are too many "Netflixes."
This is another case of companies just not understanding the internet. They use a completely different, and frustrating, business model to distribute something online rather than retail.
Pick any movie studio. There are probably 1000 stores that sell DVDs for that movie studio. Target, Walmart, Sam's Club, Best Buy, FYE, Barnes and Noble, etc. And the price is almost the same. We take this for granted: It is in the best interest of the studio to sell their product at as many retailers as possible.
But you want to sell it online, oohhhh well that's totally different! They want to negotiate exclusive rights - you can watch it on Amazon Prime but not Netflix, or HBO Go but not Hulu. PBS but not Nick Jr. Why is this happening!?!?
Content providers seem to have no problem selling the same product at the same price to all these stores. Yet for some reason, they go through complicated exclusive licensing deals to distribute the same product digitally. Going back to the Disney example, Disney even has retail stores, yet they don't sell items exclusively at those stores. So why would they want to open a web site and offer their digital product exclusively at the web site. Why would they choose such a stupid business model?
I hate to propose a legislative fix, but we almost need one. I can buy a DVD and give it away or sell it to anyone I want. We need the system thing with digital distribution. Anyone should be able to buy the rights to stream a show/movie. There should be a simple web interface to license the content, and the system shouldn't give a hoot if it was Netflix delivering it or Hulu or Amazon or YouTube or a porn site. The studio gets their money, the user gets their content, and everyone should be happy.
It might also be helpful in making jet fuel from electricity, which the US Navy would like to do to make aircraft carriers more sustainable.
ANYTHING can be used for evil.... It's the kind of clueless hysterical fear-mongering that you see when politicians say we need to ban encryption to stop crimes.
Yes, anything can be used for evil. Encryption has legitimate uses. what about things that can *only* be used for evil? Is it a crime to create them? If not, is it a crime to distribute them to someone else to profit from? If not, is it a crime to sell them? If not, is it a crime to use them?
This comes up in copyright too: DropBox is legal, but Mega was not. What's the difference since both tools can be used to distribute piracy? The argument is that the mens rea was different. But, this is a banking trojan. Are you saying it is legal to create a banking trojan and give to a hacker to sell? That seems like a stretch to me.
How so? Both demonstrate that star ratings are not useful. 937 shows an example of how averaging them is useless, and 1098 shows that 80% of the scale is meaningless.
Years ago, internet advertisers realized that nobody clicked the ads. They used to charge based on click-throughs, now they charge based on "impressions" which is the number of ads served.
I've got maybe 4 apps that aren't stock on my phone. It runs slow as piss compared to the two years ago when I bought it used. A freakin Samsung S5.
I have an S5 with the same issue. I haven't installed OS updates in over a year because even if I move every app to my SD card, I still don't have enough space to install the upgrade. I think I need to root it to uninstall all the built-in crud, so I can install the OS upgrade.
then the entity which has control of (i.e. the creator of the device) must be held responsible and must pay the fine.
So what if that entitiy is in China? Or Russia?
Many of those businesses are located in China. We won't be able to sue them.
Yes, that is a key part of my suggestion. Consider this: it works for electronics. Almost every product sold in the US has the "UL" mark of Underwriters Laboratories. In Europe and Japan they require the "CE" mark. It's really an industry thing. Retailers won't sell electronics that don't have the mark. Homeowners insurance won't pay for your burnt down house if the fire was caused by a non-uL approved device. I have that issue because my 3D printer was a kit so it isn't ul approved.
If people don't want to pay for it, or don't want to pay extra for it, then they literally don't find it that valuable.
True. I think they just don't know.
They see the headlines about how some ISP went down for 2 days causing a massive outage, but they don't know that it was because a million Americans bought compromised IOT devices. But if we had labels and guidelines, they could at least know. Retailers might refuse to carry devices that don't meet the guidelines. Companies like Microsoft or Sony or Nintendo or Google would tout how their devices meet the guidelines. The public would become aware. We just need a brand or a label to get behind.
Lots of people know what "Energy Star" is or "MPAA ratings" are. Even if it is meaningless, at least they are aware.
He added that the legislation was intended to remedy an "obvious market failure" that has left device manufacturers with little incentive to build with security in mind.
This guy gets it. But I was hoping for a market solution. The government could start by requiring vendors of US government products to meet certain guidelines. States could require that police and government tech meets a standard. That typically makes civilian companies jump on board and require similar guidelines. Then individuals start to say "Oh, I only buy IP cameras that meet FIPS-12345 standards."
This approach is nice because it is flexible, and allows the market to decide what standards to apply. I fear Senators trying to write tech legislation.
The problem is that tens of millions of people chose him over 2 dozen Republicans of varying but largely superior qualifications to be their nominee
The Republican party nominated Donald Trump because the nomination process is mathematically stupid. He won with a minority of the voters supporting him. The party didn't choose him, the poor process did. It really only works if there are only 2 candidates. With so many, it was botched.
Had he not eeked out enough votes in the end to get the required, the decision would have gone to the party leadership. They would have picked someone else. If the other Republican candidates weren't so arrogant, they could have dropped out earlier and rallied around one other candidate. The parties need to fix their nomination process. But even after this debacle they still won't. The voting public just doesn't understand the process. I wonder if you gave them a vote, but the vote was meaningless, if they would still support the process.