Okay, thanks. That's good to know. I redoubled my effort to find the Slashdot discussion and I couldn't find it. Perhaps I am wrong and it was a hypothetical situation.
Is there a way to search all your old comments? My best effort so far has been to use Google to search for: username usernumber keywords site:slashdot.org
At this risk of sounding like a troll, or maybe just a fuddy-duddy: I think there are more important things for Slashdot to work on than adding new features.
There are a lot of bugs and limitations on the site. The last time Slashdot posted one of their "Hey, look what we did!" stories there were a lot of good positive often-repeated suggestions - many of which were ignored. Unicode support was moderated to 5 many times in that story. Instead we get achievements, idle, and Slashdot TV. Unicode support, working & faster preview, better comments section, etc. were top suggestions that have been ignored for years. Maybe I'm biased: I use Slashdot because it is entirely text based so this feature doesn't excite me terribly. Nonetheless, I think priorities need to be straightened here.
Part of the deal to purchase NBC Universal required that Comcast offer equal access to NBC content over other networks. But making it free bandwidth for your customers, but not for other customers, seems to violate the intent of that requirement while perhaps adhering to the letter of it.
*This* is why you cannot have one company as the service provider and the content provider.
Prior to the merger, the justice department released a Competitive Impact Statement which is concerned with Comcast not allowing access to NBC (and others) content. But it did not consider the possibility of Comcast offering special benefits to the content for their subscribers. Now that I think about it, nothing stops Comcast from offering content cheaper, faster, better quality, in 3D, etc.
Comcast's web site has the regulatory approval document which explains their limitations. It doesn't seem to specifically say they can't do this, but it looks like other people figured they couldn't do this. This blog entry from Mediapost says that the ruling:
Does not disadvantage rival online video distribution through its broadband Internet access services and/or set-top boxes.
Does not enter into agreements to unreasonably restrict online distribution of its own video programming or programming of other providers.
So I think most people believed that this was illegal.
There is another example of this problem in Australia:
Australian ISPs also offer a local cache for iTunes downloads. The idea was established by the Australian government because iTunes downloads were eating into their undersea cables. (There was a Slashdot article on this a year or two ago, but I can't find it now.) The problem with this is that the Australian government just skewed the market by aiding one individual corporation over its competitors. So iTunes downloads are now faster than Amazon downloads or others. If the government wanted to do this to conserve bandwidth, they needed to offer a cache that was available for any company.
This Comcast issue is similar. I thought that when Comcast bought NBC there was a promise that they would not do anything to inhibit access to NBC material elsewhere. I guess they figure this doesn't count.
And suddenly you are denied a license to the various patents required to decrypt the over-the-air television signals. They also won't give you a decryption key for HDCP unless you agree to include the cameras. You can't release a TV that has no inputs!
That's how they play the game. Best of all: it's not considered a cartel under U.S. law!
In America, the cold war is over. Russians live here, go to school here, and work here. Their children grow up here. From what I can tell, there's no anti-Russian rhetoric amongst the American population. Is my social group merely skewed, and this anti-Russian sentiment does exist? Or is it truly just one-sided?
You know, Michael Snyder doesn't look like the extreme cheeseburger eating type. A Google search for him shows some full body shots. From the article, it sounds like they have evidence of a viral + genetic cause for type 2 diabetes.
Moral of the story: when deciphering all the spin in the media, truth is always somewhere in the middle.
I used to espouse this as well, but I'm beginning to realize even this caveat is too simple.
After following some war coverage, I realized that the truth is not always somewhere in the middle. There are cases where story A says something like "10 Taliban fighters were killed, and 2 American's were wounded" and story B says "20 unarmed women and children were killed" and the truth is probably not in the middle. One of the two sides is completely lying.
Data cannot be destroyed. Truly destroying it requires significant skill and effort.
This is a lesson society has learned from the computer age. While a record can be deleted, it is really still there. On the drive, on a backup, on someone's laptop, on a flash drive, in a cache file, in an email, or some combination. Laws exist to make it illegal for governments, service providers, telecoms to delete data. So once it finds it's way to certain points it is protected from deletion.
If we really want DNA to not be held, then it must never be collected in the first place. And since it is so easy to do, and so prevalent it is unlikely that will ever happen.
Yes. It happens every day. How else do you expect to recover stolen property? You make a sworn statement to the police. If you are lying, they can bring you up on criminal charges.
According to the article, the exact opposite is true. Dictionary attacks use the same kinds of words and phrases humans use. So picking something hard to guess on an everyday, human to human level, is exactly what you should do to make good passwords and good multiword passwords.
people will blatantly ignore security advice about choosing nonsense phrases and choose things like “Manchester United” or “Harry Potter.”
Based on my read of the article, I conclude it as saying that pass phrases really are good, just not a panacea. We already knew that people pick stupid passwords. It turns out that people pick stupid passphrases too. That's too bad, but it is really unsurprising.
One thing I can say from personal experience: smart people still pick stupid passwords. I think most people just aren't paranoid about it, and don't care until something bad happens to them as a result. This might be something that parents need to teach their children: Don't talk to strangers, brush your teeth everyday, and don't pick obvious passwords. Maybe once a generation is imbued with this as obvious then the problem will diminish.
I've wanted to do this since I was a kid! Awesome! Sometimes it takes someone with a big budget and reason to waste it to do something cool like this. Can I buy one of these, but hold the car?
The real kicker is the art resources. The kid sees a soldier walking around and thinks they want to make their mom walk around in their game. Well, first you need a motion capture system, then you need to reskin the characters. That requires very expensive tools and a major time commitment.
Today, to create something on par with a commercial game requires millions of dollars in software and hardware, and tens of thousands of man hours. But in the 80's, it required tens of dollars of software and hundreds of man hours. Even with the free tools available it isn't the same.
Amen on the single use construction toys! I buy Mega Blocks for my 3 year old and the sets have few "generic" pieces but lots of custom single-use pieces. Ex: A custom piece for the front of the farm house, a custom piece for the chicken to stand on. Your best bet is to buy a miscellaneous set from eBay, Craigslist, momswap, etc. Preferably get a set where lots of the custom pieces are missing, so you don't get trapped into building only the fixed things it was designed to build.:-)
Are kids these days bored because they only have single use toys?
Yes! Get the kid a video camera, or play dough, so they can make whatever they want.
I learnt because I was fascinated by how I could get the computer to do stuff, other then the prescribed functions that came with the machine.
A friend of mine once set it best. "Some times you just want to make the computer dance."
Education is an enabler for whatever motivations are already there. If you are seeking the education to get a job to make money, then that is extrinsic. If you are seeking the education to learn about something that interests you, that is intrinsic. I experienced both throughout school: The ray tracing class was because I wanted to know how they work. The archaeology class was to get a humanities credit to graduate. Graduation was to make money. As an adult, my education is entirely for my own enjoyment - I wish I had more time to spend on it.
Mythbusters says redheads have a lower pain tolerance, but the linked article says the opposite. Mythbusters also claims that women have a higher pain tolerance than men, which is not true according to a recent Johns Hopkins study. (Probably the same one this redheads article is based on).
Mythbusters is cool for certain things like "is it possible to do X" but not for statistical things. You need thousands of samples and good controlled environments to determine these kinds of things.
Okay, I apologize then. I think it was the word "stretching" that made me jump to the conclusion. But yes, they might be able to get a little more area by including parts of the film they didn't use in the broadcast. If that really worked then no objections.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, thanks. That's good to know. I redoubled my effort to find the Slashdot discussion and I couldn't find it. Perhaps I am wrong and it was a hypothetical situation.
Is there a way to search all your old comments? My best effort so far has been to use Google to search for:
username usernumber keywords site:slashdot.org
At this risk of sounding like a troll, or maybe just a fuddy-duddy: I think there are more important things for Slashdot to work on than adding new features.
There are a lot of bugs and limitations on the site. The last time Slashdot posted one of their "Hey, look what we did!" stories there were a lot of good positive often-repeated suggestions - many of which were ignored. Unicode support was moderated to 5 many times in that story. Instead we get achievements, idle, and Slashdot TV. Unicode support, working & faster preview, better comments section, etc. were top suggestions that have been ignored for years. Maybe I'm biased: I use Slashdot because it is entirely text based so this feature doesn't excite me terribly. Nonetheless, I think priorities need to be straightened here.
Part of the deal to purchase NBC Universal required that Comcast offer equal access to NBC content over other networks. But making it free bandwidth for your customers, but not for other customers, seems to violate the intent of that requirement while perhaps adhering to the letter of it.
*This* is why you cannot have one company as the service provider and the content provider.
Prior to the merger, the justice department released a Competitive Impact Statement which is concerned with Comcast not allowing access to NBC (and others) content. But it did not consider the possibility of Comcast offering special benefits to the content for their subscribers. Now that I think about it, nothing stops Comcast from offering content cheaper, faster, better quality, in 3D, etc.
Comcast's web site has the regulatory approval document which explains their limitations. It doesn't seem to specifically say they can't do this, but it looks like other people figured they couldn't do this. This blog entry from Mediapost says that the ruling:
Does not disadvantage rival online video distribution through its broadband Internet access services and/or set-top boxes. Does not enter into agreements to unreasonably restrict online distribution of its own video programming or programming of other providers.
So I think most people believed that this was illegal.
There is another example of this problem in Australia:
Australian ISPs also offer a local cache for iTunes downloads. The idea was established by the Australian government because iTunes downloads were eating into their undersea cables. (There was a Slashdot article on this a year or two ago, but I can't find it now.) The problem with this is that the Australian government just skewed the market by aiding one individual corporation over its competitors. So iTunes downloads are now faster than Amazon downloads or others. If the government wanted to do this to conserve bandwidth, they needed to offer a cache that was available for any company.
This Comcast issue is similar. I thought that when Comcast bought NBC there was a promise that they would not do anything to inhibit access to NBC material elsewhere. I guess they figure this doesn't count.
Shit, should have patented it.
Just publish it so no one else does.
And suddenly you are denied a license to the various patents required to decrypt the over-the-air television signals. They also won't give you a decryption key for HDCP unless you agree to include the cameras. You can't release a TV that has no inputs!
That's how they play the game. Best of all: it's not considered a cartel under U.S. law!
So why is this?
In America, the cold war is over. Russians live here, go to school here, and work here. Their children grow up here. From what I can tell, there's no anti-Russian rhetoric amongst the American population. Is my social group merely skewed, and this anti-Russian sentiment does exist? Or is it truly just one-sided?
You know, Michael Snyder doesn't look like the extreme cheeseburger eating type. A Google search for him shows some full body shots. From the article, it sounds like they have evidence of a viral + genetic cause for type 2 diabetes.
Moral of the story: when deciphering all the spin in the media, truth is always somewhere in the middle.
I used to espouse this as well, but I'm beginning to realize even this caveat is too simple.
After following some war coverage, I realized that the truth is not always somewhere in the middle. There are cases where story A says something like "10 Taliban fighters were killed, and 2 American's were wounded" and story B says "20 unarmed women and children were killed" and the truth is probably not in the middle. One of the two sides is completely lying.
Data cannot be destroyed. Truly destroying it requires significant skill and effort.
This is a lesson society has learned from the computer age. While a record can be deleted, it is really still there. On the drive, on a backup, on someone's laptop, on a flash drive, in a cache file, in an email, or some combination. Laws exist to make it illegal for governments, service providers, telecoms to delete data. So once it finds it's way to certain points it is protected from deletion.
If we really want DNA to not be held, then it must never be collected in the first place. And since it is so easy to do, and so prevalent it is unlikely that will ever happen.
Yes. It happens every day. How else do you expect to recover stolen property? You make a sworn statement to the police. If you are lying, they can bring you up on criminal charges.
If you drop charges from the case then you should pay the legal fees for the defense. Or is this up to the judge?
Taking evidence from theft prevention and tracking apps is the exact same as taking the victim's word for it.
Agreed. And that word has been good enough in the past.
According to the article, the exact opposite is true. Dictionary attacks use the same kinds of words and phrases humans use. So picking something hard to guess on an everyday, human to human level, is exactly what you should do to make good passwords and good multiword passwords.
people will blatantly ignore security advice about choosing nonsense phrases and choose things like “Manchester United” or “Harry Potter.”
Based on my read of the article, I conclude it as saying that pass phrases really are good, just not a panacea. We already knew that people pick stupid passwords. It turns out that people pick stupid passphrases too. That's too bad, but it is really unsurprising.
One thing I can say from personal experience: smart people still pick stupid passwords. I think most people just aren't paranoid about it, and don't care until something bad happens to them as a result. This might be something that parents need to teach their children: Don't talk to strangers, brush your teeth everyday, and don't pick obvious passwords. Maybe once a generation is imbued with this as obvious then the problem will diminish.
Unfortunately, many people stopped pushing AI when games went online. Single player games seem to use poor dumb AI + scripted actions.
I've wanted to do this since I was a kid! Awesome! Sometimes it takes someone with a big budget and reason to waste it to do something cool like this. Can I buy one of these, but hold the car?
The real kicker is the art resources. The kid sees a soldier walking around and thinks they want to make their mom walk around in their game. Well, first you need a motion capture system, then you need to reskin the characters. That requires very expensive tools and a major time commitment.
Today, to create something on par with a commercial game requires millions of dollars in software and hardware, and tens of thousands of man hours. But in the 80's, it required tens of dollars of software and hundreds of man hours. Even with the free tools available it isn't the same.
Amen on the single use construction toys! I buy Mega Blocks for my 3 year old and the sets have few "generic" pieces but lots of custom single-use pieces. Ex: A custom piece for the front of the farm house, a custom piece for the chicken to stand on. Your best bet is to buy a miscellaneous set from eBay, Craigslist, momswap, etc. Preferably get a set where lots of the custom pieces are missing, so you don't get trapped into building only the fixed things it was designed to build. :-)
Are kids these days bored because they only have single use toys?
Yes! Get the kid a video camera, or play dough, so they can make whatever they want.
I learnt because I was fascinated by how I could get the computer to do stuff, other then the prescribed functions that came with the machine.
A friend of mine once set it best. "Some times you just want to make the computer dance."
Education is an enabler for whatever motivations are already there. If you are seeking the education to get a job to make money, then that is extrinsic. If you are seeking the education to learn about something that interests you, that is intrinsic. I experienced both throughout school: The ray tracing class was because I wanted to know how they work. The archaeology class was to get a humanities credit to graduate. Graduation was to make money. As an adult, my education is entirely for my own enjoyment - I wish I had more time to spend on it.
Many people think that the word "homeopathic" means "natural medicine" or "herbal medicine" because it is marketed as such.
Mythbusters says redheads have a lower pain tolerance, but the linked article says the opposite. Mythbusters also claims that women have a higher pain tolerance than men, which is not true according to a recent Johns Hopkins study. (Probably the same one this redheads article is based on).
Mythbusters is cool for certain things like "is it possible to do X" but not for statistical things. You need thousands of samples and good controlled environments to determine these kinds of things.
And who will test the testers?
Okay, I apologize then. I think it was the word "stretching" that made me jump to the conclusion. But yes, they might be able to get a little more area by including parts of the film they didn't use in the broadcast. If that really worked then no objections.