When I remodeled my kitchen, I dropped it the fan that came with the hood, and bought about external roof mounted fan instead. That way I could get a massively more powerful fan, and you barely hear it from the kitchen, and I get the nice classy look of a stainless steel hood.
Had to do a little bit of wiring myself and get an adaptor kit so the hood buttons could control the external fan, but it was all pretty easy.
I know people who often set off the smoke alarm from their cooking escapades - today, roasts, frying. Even just doing a stir fry I see tons of spatters of oil everywhere. I think the results of the study seem more "common sense" than "BS"
4g isn't fast enough data for me. After a fun day with my family, with a load of photos and videos, it takes hours to sync then to the cloud (iCloud, Google photos, or I use One Drive). And I can't really start sharing, processing, editing then until they're uploaded.
Mamas don't let your babies grow up to be programmers. [because of raised H1-B cap]. Like journalism in the 90s programming is a dying field. Steer clear. There's a reason why "Learn to Code" became an insult/slur.
I'm a professional programmer, and previously I taught coding to 8th through 11th graders, and supervised it to university undergrads and masters students.
I don't see "learn to code" as an insult/slur amongst any of my work colleagues or social colleagues. I will certainly encourage my kids (currently in preschool) to learn to code. Not because I expect them to get a job as a grunt developer in a large shop. Not because I expect them to get a job as a high-flying programmer at Google or the like.
I'll encourage my kids to code because (1) I think the ability to understand code will become "table-stakes" in being an informed citizen in our civilization in the not-too-distant future. It won't be solid coding like we professional developers do. It'll be basic things like understanding a spreadsheet, writing a macro for it, scraping data off the internet, calculating what-if mortgage scenarios.These skills will distinguish who is enfranchised from who isn't. (2) I think every white collar job will end up incorporating a little coding of some sort. For a sales person, they'll write macros and crunch numbers. For a lawyer, they'll work through huge volumes of depositions, or write better contracts. For a clinical doctor, they'll leverage their robot tools better. Sure, many folks in these jobs will get by without coding. But the ones who can think in code will have an edge over their peers.
Prices do indeed constitute communication, but they are in the open. Something done openly is not collusion.
https://definitions.uslegal.co... "Such agreements are usually secretive". The fact that the definition includes the word "usually" implies that collusion is not always secret.
But really we should be looking at the actual anti-trust law, rather than the definition of collusion:
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDi... Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal
When two business have algorithms, and they key off of each other's behavior to result in both picking a higher price -- (Q1) do the two business or their two algorithms constitute a combination? (Q2) does it restrain trade/commerce?
Well, really we should be looking at the anti-trust case law rather than the statute. Here I have no idea.
If two algorithms are setting prices and learning from how each other is setting prices, then they are communicating. It's a fairly low bitrate communication but it's certainly communication.
As for intent? I don't know to use that word in relation to algorithms.
That can be both a bug and a feature. No backups mean that there's no cache of deleted emails. Some users may want the ability to truly delete data, not have it able to "appear" due to legal proceedings 5 years from now. I'd say it's on the users to back up their email using a client that locally caches IMAP folders or downloads via POP3.
I used to do that, starting in 1993. But I've used so many different computers since then, so many different email clients. My archive got too big to fit conveniently on my computer's storage. So then I was stuck with a load of separate volumes of backups that were hard to search. I wrote software to merge volumes of archives when I upgraded to bigger disks, also to export them into other formats.
In the end, it was too much work for an inadequate solution. Now I just pay $8/month for an Exchange365 account. I have my own domain, I can do whatever email administration is needed, and I have free online unlimited storage that's easily searchable. Microsoft has demonstrated that they bend over backwards to serve their corporate customers well, and I'm using the same product (and paying the same fee) as them, so I feel safe. I believe that the Exchange365 is more robust (i.e. less likely to suffer data loss) than a couple of storage devices in a safe in my home.
(Note: I'm sure free-Google would do what I want and more cheaply; I've just felt more comfortable being a paying customer for something so important to me. I'm sure that G-suite would do what I want too at a comparable price to the Microsoft offering but never looked into it.)
First we were told cockroaches were the only things that were survive a nuclear war. Now we are to believe that insects are super fragile? I don't think so, they have a super short lifespan and prodigious replication rates so as to be able to out-evolve any threat and take over any exposed ecological niche.
SuperKendall, you are making incorrect logical steps. I'll spell out for you where.
The popular press article said "More than 40% of insect species are declining". That relates to a sentence from the original academic paper, "Our work reveals dramatic rates of decline that may lead to the extinction of 40% of the world's insect species over the next few decades." https://www.sciencedirect.com/...
Obviously that means that 60% of insect species AREN'T declining.
Your faulty logic was (1) from the figure that 40% are declining you understood that all insect species are fragile, and (2) you know that cockroaches are robust and assumed they must be in the 40% of declining species, rather than in the 60% of non-declining species.
If we abandon that faulty logic and instead think how to reconcile the data which suggests decline in some species, with the knowledge that cockroaches are robust? Here's one obvious resolution, building as it does upon your own statement about fast-breeding and adaptability:
https://www.bbc.com/news/scien... "Fast-breeding pest insects will probably thrive because of the warmer conditions, because many of their natural enemies, which breed more slowly, will disappear, " said Prof Dave Goulson from the University of Sussex who was not involved in the review.
"It's quite plausible that we might end up with plagues of small numbers of pest insects, but we will lose all the wonderful ones that we want, like bees and hoverflies and butterflies and dung beetles that do a great job of disposing of animal waste."
Prof Goulson said that some tough, adaptable, generalist species - like houseflies and cockroaches - seem to be able to live comfortably in a human-made environment and have evolved resistance to pesticides.
Here's some interesting reporting. (it's biased of course, coming from Gillette/P&G, but it's the only data I could find).
https://www.independent.co.uk/... sales following the ad’s release remain largely unchanged, revealed Jon Moeller, chief financial officer at Procter and Gamble (P&G), which owns Gillette... a survey of 2,000 American adults conducted by brand intelligence firm Morning Consult found that 61 per cent of viewers reacted positively to Gillette’s ad... 71 per cent said they shared the brand’s values after watching it.
https://morningconsult.com/for... Before watching the commercial, 42 percent of consumers said they agreed Gillette “shared their values.” After watching, that figure jumped to 71 percent... Asked to rate how positively they felt about the ad... 61 percent gave it high marks, 23 percent were more neutral and 17 percent gave the commercial low marks. Gillette customers were slightly more likely than the average consumer to have a positive reaction... Harry’s and Dollar Shave Club customers are more likely to buy Gillette after watching.
Given the background -- that in the previous years Gillette had been badly losing market share to Harry's and Dollar Shave Club, and had been forced to cut prices to stay in the game -- then it seems like this commercial squarely hit the mark for what Gillette wanted to achieve, and without downsides.
It's also very clear that the 10-1 ratio of dislikes to likes on youtube isn't representative of (1) the general population, (2) Gillettte's customers, (3) Gillette's target market. This ratio reflects badly on youtube, making youtube seem dangerously out of touch. I'm not surprised youtube want to do something to safeguard their image.
Actually objectively it was a very bad commercial. Sales went down after it aired due to massive boycotts.
Citation needed.
The only report I could find was from P&G who said "sales haven't budged". (of course they're not a disinterested party; but I couldn't find anything else). https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/23...
Trouble is, if you're using something like UBI to replace SS, or food stamps, etc....what happens with irresponsible people (and yes, there are a number of them today on these welfare programs), goes out 2-3 months in a row and blows their entire UBI income check on drugs, partying, etc.?
I'm not sure if you're against UBI for other reasons and this is just something you latched onto to criticize it, or if you're honestly concerned about this possibility.
There are irresponsible folks today who blow their money and have nothing left also. In the UK, for instance, there are complaints of cases where (say) someone is sick in hospital and so can't show up to the unemployment office and their money gets cut off.
If you are honestly concerned about this possibility, the right approach would be to see how many people get stuck with nothing today for whatever reason, vs how many people would get stuck with nothing under UBI, and make informed estimates about which is worse - or about how amenable each system is to being tweaked.
The problem is not technical, the problem is that the news agencies both want Google to link to their data so that they gets traffic from Google while at the same time getting paid from Google for them linking to their data.
That feels disingenuous. The news agencies see that Google has created an entire business where (1) it obtains content that it didn't create or pay for, (2) it uses that content to get ad impressions and revenue.
Google: "I have a great idea! Let's reproduce other people's copyrighted material to earn ourselves ad money!"
Google lawyer: "Hey, you can't do that. It breaks copyright law."
Google: "Okay, how about we claim fair use?"
Google lawyer: "Maybe. The trouble is that fair use is murky and it's not even clear that what you plan is covered as fair use."
Google: "Okay, how about we justify it this way. Sure we'll earn advertiser's money when people read our news aggregator, and we'll also get a cut of the ad money when the copyright owners get ad clicks, but the fact that they also get a share of revenue from those ad clicks should make our whole endeavor equitable. Right?"
Google lawyer: "Try it if you want. Bear in mind that they might not agree with you that the share we're apportioning out to them is a fair share."
We're just in the stage of parties negotiating what is a fair share. Naturally it's a messy negotiation because there are a huge numbers of parties involved, each with different ideas of what's fair. All parties have threats they can make - the copyright owners do hold copyright and can indeed withhold reproduction rights; google is indeed a major traffic gateway for them.
"stealing" content that is publicly available, published by the content producers exactly to entice people to view their content (remember: we're talking about images and a summary here) and that actually links through when clicked to the publisher of the content, where they get ad revenue? That's a weird definition of stealing...
It is indeed wrong to use the word "stealing". More technically, it is reproducing without permission material that is copyrighted and publicly available. The fact that it's publicly available doesn't in any way lessen the rights of the copyright holders to control who gets to reproduce it.
Copyright law has exemptions for fair use, of course. The proposed EU Article 11 (so-called "link tax") also explicitly has exemptions to allow people like Google to reproduce non-substantial portions of the article, and spells out explicitly that hyperlinking to a site isn't copyright infringement.
The version of the directive voted on by European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs contained explicit exemptions for the act of hyperlinking and "legitimate private and non-commercial use of press publications by individual users"
The proposal attaches several new conditions to the right, including expiry after one year and exemptions for either copying an "insubstantial" part of a work or for copying it in the course of academic or scientific research...
So (1) it specifically and explicitly isn't a "link tax", and (2) it only prevents a News Aggregator from copying substantial parts of a work. Of course that's uselessly vague so it would have to go on to case law to determine what counts as substantial and what doesn't.
No they shouldn't. They should be free to do business in the EU while at the same time complying with the laws of the country in which they do business or face fines as a result.
There's an easy technological solution!
Background: News publishers already hold copyright in their works, i.e. they get to decide who can reproduce or make adaptions of them. Google already benefits from "fair use" which allows for extracts/snippets. The proposed EU copyright law says that other people can't reproduce "substantial" extracts but didn't make clear what that means. Google believes that news sources will die without being featured in Google News.
<meta name="licensed-summary" content="The cow jumped over the moon"> <meta name="licensed-picture" content="http://www.myblog.com/pic1.jpg"> <meta name="licensed-autosummary" content="50">
Each HTML page could have some or all of these tags. The "licensed-summary" tag would explicitly grant any news aggregator or anyone the right to reproduce this summary when linking to the article. The "licensed-picture" would explicitly grant them the right to use that picture when linking. The "licensed-autosummary" would explicitly grant them the right to generate their own textual summary of up to (in this case) 50 words.
(It could be accompanied by a legal clarification that every summary consisting of not more than 10 words (?? not sure the exact number) is fair use.)
This way, everyone gets what they want. Google gets to publish summaries from the news publishers that have the wisdom to allow it. Other publishers can decline, up to the limits of fair use.
Bruce Schneier's analysis was that "it's an example of two systems without a security vulnerability coming together to create a security vulnerability."
Meh. I'm split here... The blame should be placed on USERS, followed by COMPANIES that allow LINKS with a hash to BYPASS AUTHENTICATION.
The original article also has a link to analysis by Bruce Schneier https://www.schneier.com/blog/... where he says "it's an example of two systems without a security vulnerability coming together to create a security vulnerability".
I agree that having users validate their email addresses before using it for the first time would solve the problem. I've always been irritated by the companies that do so, imagining they did it solely to make sure that someone used a real email address rather than a throwaway spam email address, i.e. solely so they could send unsolicited spam. I guess there's a real reason for it after all. Probably they also want to reduce friction with an entire generation of folks who don't really use or care for email.
Personally I hesitate to blame users. These are products designed for the general public. The makers should do what they can to help everyone fall easily into the "pit of success".
Why does Slashdot do this all the time? Include links to dumb shallow copies of the original story that add nothing but instead take away necessary technical content? The article linked to in this case failed to actually explain how the scam works!
So, fix the regulations. Do something like France did and decide on one design and spread out the regulatory costs among many of the same design.
The regulations amount to basically just "pay for the eventual cleanup costs and to reduce the risk of severe accident". The free market has evaluated the costs to adhere to these regulations (i.e. to pay for cleanup costs and defray risk) and found them to be non cost effective compared to solar, heck even to wind.
I think your choice boils down to "socialism to pay for the risks".
a 'smart' thermostat needs no camera, needs no microphone. needs no 'cloud' backing it up..
I've frequently controlled my Nest via smartphone from under the warmth+safety of my own duvet covers when it was too cold to get out.
I'm not sure how this would best be done. It can't be via bluetooth (out of range). Doing it via cloud, as Nest does, seemed to work fine. Another option would be if the nest app on my phone is able to seek out local devices on the local area network, I guess like AirPlay and other streaming protocols.
Also, on most vacations, I've realized I forgot to turn down the heating and I've done it remotely from the airport. I think "cloud" is the only viable option here. (I used to have a home server running OpenSuse, and could have figured out something there, but stopped it once I realized that (1) I'm don't have the admin skills+knowledge to keep it secure, and (2) with three toddlers I don't have the time to acquire those skills nor the time to keep it secure.)
The Windows telemetry on the other hand probably has no trouble connecting whatsoever.
I'd hope so! Because if it couldn't, then everyone at Microsoft would be running completely blind as to whether people are running into this problem and in what number. It's only with telemetry that they can figure out what group of people are affected and go from there to a cause.
(They could try to figure out who's affected without telemetry, solely by going from feedback that people themselves write on twitter or forum posts. But that's always a lower-quality signal, and would overrepresent tech-savy folks).
I'm quite serious here. Everyone knee-jerk criticizes telemetry without thinking through the effectiveness of alternative means of discovering and prioritizing bugs.
Slashdot Mirror
When I remodeled my kitchen, I dropped it the fan that came with the hood, and bought about external roof mounted fan instead. That way I could get a massively more powerful fan, and you barely hear it from the kitchen, and I get the nice classy look of a stainless steel hood.
Had to do a little bit of wiring myself and get an adaptor kit so the hood buttons could control the external fan, but it was all pretty easy.
I know people who often set off the smoke alarm from their cooking escapades - today, roasts, frying. Even just doing a stir fry I see tons of spatters of oil everywhere. I think the results of the study seem more "common sense" than "BS"
4g isn't fast enough data for me. After a fun day with my family, with a load of photos and videos, it takes hours to sync then to the cloud (iCloud, Google photos, or I use One Drive). And I can't really start sharing, processing, editing then until they're uploaded.
I'd love much faster data.
Mamas don't let your babies grow up to be programmers. [because of raised H1-B cap]. Like journalism in the 90s programming is a dying field. Steer clear. There's a reason why "Learn to Code" became an insult/slur.
I'm a professional programmer, and previously I taught coding to 8th through 11th graders, and supervised it to university undergrads and masters students.
I don't see "learn to code" as an insult/slur amongst any of my work colleagues or social colleagues. I will certainly encourage my kids (currently in preschool) to learn to code. Not because I expect them to get a job as a grunt developer in a large shop. Not because I expect them to get a job as a high-flying programmer at Google or the like.
I'll encourage my kids to code because (1) I think the ability to understand code will become "table-stakes" in being an informed citizen in our civilization in the not-too-distant future. It won't be solid coding like we professional developers do. It'll be basic things like understanding a spreadsheet, writing a macro for it, scraping data off the internet, calculating what-if mortgage scenarios.These skills will distinguish who is enfranchised from who isn't. (2) I think every white collar job will end up incorporating a little coding of some sort. For a sales person, they'll write macros and crunch numbers. For a lawyer, they'll work through huge volumes of depositions, or write better contracts. For a clinical doctor, they'll leverage their robot tools better. Sure, many folks in these jobs will get by without coding. But the ones who can think in code will have an edge over their peers.
Prices do indeed constitute communication, but they are in the open. Something done openly is not collusion.
https://definitions.uslegal.co... "Such agreements are usually secretive". The fact that the definition includes the word "usually" implies that collusion is not always secret.
But really we should be looking at the actual anti-trust law, rather than the definition of collusion:
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDi...
Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal
When two business have algorithms, and they key off of each other's behavior to result in both picking a higher price -- (Q1) do the two business or their two algorithms constitute a combination? (Q2) does it restrain trade/commerce?
Well, really we should be looking at the anti-trust case law rather than the statute. Here I have no idea.
If two algorithms are setting prices and learning from how each other is setting prices, then they are communicating. It's a fairly low bitrate communication but it's certainly communication.
As for intent? I don't know to use that word in relation to algorithms.
That can be both a bug and a feature. No backups mean that there's no cache of deleted emails. Some users may want the ability to truly delete data, not have it able to "appear" due to legal proceedings 5 years from now. I'd say it's on the users to back up their email using a client that locally caches IMAP folders or downloads via POP3.
I used to do that, starting in 1993. But I've used so many different computers since then, so many different email clients. My archive got too big to fit conveniently on my computer's storage. So then I was stuck with a load of separate volumes of backups that were hard to search. I wrote software to merge volumes of archives when I upgraded to bigger disks, also to export them into other formats.
In the end, it was too much work for an inadequate solution. Now I just pay $8/month for an Exchange365 account. I have my own domain, I can do whatever email administration is needed, and I have free online unlimited storage that's easily searchable. Microsoft has demonstrated that they bend over backwards to serve their corporate customers well, and I'm using the same product (and paying the same fee) as them, so I feel safe. I believe that the Exchange365 is more robust (i.e. less likely to suffer data loss) than a couple of storage devices in a safe in my home.
(Note: I'm sure free-Google would do what I want and more cheaply; I've just felt more comfortable being a paying customer for something so important to me. I'm sure that G-suite would do what I want too at a comparable price to the Microsoft offering but never looked into it.)
First we were told cockroaches were the only things that were survive a nuclear war. Now we are to believe that insects are super fragile? I don't think so, they have a super short lifespan and prodigious replication rates so as to be able to out-evolve any threat and take over any exposed ecological niche.
SuperKendall, you are making incorrect logical steps. I'll spell out for you where.
The popular press article said "More than 40% of insect species are declining". That relates to a sentence from the original academic paper, "Our work reveals dramatic rates of decline that may lead to the extinction of 40% of the world's insect species over the next few decades." https://www.sciencedirect.com/...
Obviously that means that 60% of insect species AREN'T declining.
Your faulty logic was (1) from the figure that 40% are declining you understood that all insect species are fragile, and (2) you know that cockroaches are robust and assumed they must be in the 40% of declining species, rather than in the 60% of non-declining species.
If we abandon that faulty logic and instead think how to reconcile the data which suggests decline in some species, with the knowledge that cockroaches are robust? Here's one obvious resolution, building as it does upon your own statement about fast-breeding and adaptability:
https://www.bbc.com/news/scien...
"Fast-breeding pest insects will probably thrive because of the warmer conditions, because many of their natural enemies, which breed more slowly, will disappear, " said Prof Dave Goulson from the University of Sussex who was not involved in the review.
"It's quite plausible that we might end up with plagues of small numbers of pest insects, but we will lose all the wonderful ones that we want, like bees and hoverflies and butterflies and dung beetles that do a great job of disposing of animal waste."
Prof Goulson said that some tough, adaptable, generalist species - like houseflies and cockroaches - seem to be able to live comfortably in a human-made environment and have evolved resistance to pesticides.
We saw how wrong polls can be with the last American presidential election.
Indeed we saw that polls were 2-5% off the actual result: https://projects.fivethirtyeig...
If that's the accuracy you're comparing to, I think you're reinforcing my point!
No it wasn't [a good commercial]...
Here's some interesting reporting. (it's biased of course, coming from Gillette/P&G, but it's the only data I could find).
https://www.independent.co.uk/...
sales following the ad’s release remain largely unchanged, revealed Jon Moeller, chief financial officer at Procter and Gamble (P&G), which owns Gillette...
a survey of 2,000 American adults conducted by brand intelligence firm Morning Consult found that 61 per cent of viewers reacted positively to Gillette’s ad...
71 per cent said they shared the brand’s values after watching it.
https://morningconsult.com/for...
Before watching the commercial, 42 percent of consumers said they agreed Gillette “shared their values.” After watching, that figure jumped to 71 percent...
Asked to rate how positively they felt about the ad... 61 percent gave it high marks, 23 percent were more neutral and 17 percent gave the commercial low marks. Gillette customers were slightly more likely than the average consumer to have a positive reaction...
Harry’s and Dollar Shave Club customers are more likely to buy Gillette after watching.
Given the background -- that in the previous years Gillette had been badly losing market share to Harry's and Dollar Shave Club, and had been forced to cut prices to stay in the game -- then it seems like this commercial squarely hit the mark for what Gillette wanted to achieve, and without downsides.
It's also very clear that the 10-1 ratio of dislikes to likes on youtube isn't representative of (1) the general population, (2) Gillettte's customers, (3) Gillette's target market. This ratio reflects badly on youtube, making youtube seem dangerously out of touch. I'm not surprised youtube want to do something to safeguard their image.
Actually objectively it was a very bad commercial. Sales went down after it aired due to massive boycotts.
Citation needed.
The only report I could find was from P&G who said "sales haven't budged". (of course they're not a disinterested party; but I couldn't find anything else). https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/23...
In other related sales reports https://www.gq.com/story/gille...
Nike’s revenues leapt after unveiling its campaign starring Colin Kaepernick, Patagonia posted massive sales after directly attacking President Trump
Trouble is, if you're using something like UBI to replace SS, or food stamps, etc....what happens with irresponsible people (and yes, there are a number of them today on these welfare programs), goes out 2-3 months in a row and blows their entire UBI income check on drugs, partying, etc.?
I'm not sure if you're against UBI for other reasons and this is just something you latched onto to criticize it, or if you're honestly concerned about this possibility.
There are irresponsible folks today who blow their money and have nothing left also. In the UK, for instance, there are complaints of cases where (say) someone is sick in hospital and so can't show up to the unemployment office and their money gets cut off.
If you are honestly concerned about this possibility, the right approach would be to see how many people get stuck with nothing today for whatever reason, vs how many people would get stuck with nothing under UBI, and make informed estimates about which is worse - or about how amenable each system is to being tweaked.
The problem is not technical, the problem is that the news agencies both want Google to link to their data so that they gets traffic from Google while at the same time getting paid from Google for them linking to their data.
That feels disingenuous. The news agencies see that Google has created an entire business where (1) it obtains content that it didn't create or pay for, (2) it uses that content to get ad impressions and revenue.
Google: "I have a great idea! Let's reproduce other people's copyrighted material to earn ourselves ad money!"
Google lawyer: "Hey, you can't do that. It breaks copyright law."
Google: "Okay, how about we claim fair use?"
Google lawyer: "Maybe. The trouble is that fair use is murky and it's not even clear that what you plan is covered as fair use."
Google: "Okay, how about we justify it this way. Sure we'll earn advertiser's money when people read our news aggregator, and we'll also get a cut of the ad money when the copyright owners get ad clicks, but the fact that they also get a share of revenue from those ad clicks should make our whole endeavor equitable. Right?"
Google lawyer: "Try it if you want. Bear in mind that they might not agree with you that the share we're apportioning out to them is a fair share."
We're just in the stage of parties negotiating what is a fair share. Naturally it's a messy negotiation because there are a huge numbers of parties involved, each with different ideas of what's fair. All parties have threats they can make - the copyright owners do hold copyright and can indeed withhold reproduction rights; google is indeed a major traffic gateway for them.
"stealing" content that is publicly available, published by the content producers exactly to entice people to view their content (remember: we're talking about images and a summary here) and that actually links through when clicked to the publisher of the content, where they get ad revenue? That's a weird definition of stealing...
It is indeed wrong to use the word "stealing". More technically, it is reproducing without permission material that is copyrighted and publicly available. The fact that it's publicly available doesn't in any way lessen the rights of the copyright holders to control who gets to reproduce it.
Copyright law has exemptions for fair use, of course. The proposed EU Article 11 (so-called "link tax") also explicitly has exemptions to allow people like Google to reproduce non-substantial portions of the article, and spells out explicitly that hyperlinking to a site isn't copyright infringement.
Google should stand up against retarded legislation (like this link tax).
The word "link tax" for Article 11 is deliberately misleading to the point of falsehood: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The version of the directive voted on by European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs contained explicit exemptions for the act of hyperlinking and "legitimate private and non-commercial use of press publications by individual users"
The proposal attaches several new conditions to the right, including expiry after one year and exemptions for either copying an "insubstantial" part of a work or for copying it in the course of academic or scientific research...
So (1) it specifically and explicitly isn't a "link tax", and (2) it only prevents a News Aggregator from copying substantial parts of a work. Of course that's uselessly vague so it would have to go on to case law to determine what counts as substantial and what doesn't.
No they shouldn't. They should be free to do business in the EU while at the same time complying with the laws of the country in which they do business or face fines as a result.
There's an easy technological solution!
Background: News publishers already hold copyright in their works, i.e. they get to decide who can reproduce or make adaptions of them. Google already benefits from "fair use" which allows for extracts/snippets. The proposed EU copyright law says that other people can't reproduce "substantial" extracts but didn't make clear what that means. Google believes that news sources will die without being featured in Google News.
<meta name="licensed-summary" content="The cow jumped over the moon">
<meta name="licensed-picture" content="http://www.myblog.com/pic1.jpg">
<meta name="licensed-autosummary" content="50">
Each HTML page could have some or all of these tags. The "licensed-summary" tag would explicitly grant any news aggregator or anyone the right to reproduce this summary when linking to the article. The "licensed-picture" would explicitly grant them the right to use that picture when linking. The "licensed-autosummary" would explicitly grant them the right to generate their own textual summary of up to (in this case) 50 words.
(It could be accompanied by a legal clarification that every summary consisting of not more than 10 words (?? not sure the exact number) is fair use.)
This way, everyone gets what they want. Google gets to publish summaries from the news publishers that have the wisdom to allow it. Other publishers can decline, up to the limits of fair use.
He never explained why email verification upfront would fail to solve the issue. I still believe it is a problem of the sites or services in question.
https://www.schneier.com/blog/...
Bruce Schneier's analysis was that "it's an example of two systems without a security vulnerability coming together to create a security vulnerability."
Meh. I'm split here... The blame should be placed on USERS, followed by COMPANIES that allow LINKS with a hash to BYPASS AUTHENTICATION.
The original article also has a link to analysis by Bruce Schneier https://www.schneier.com/blog/... where he says "it's an example of two systems without a security vulnerability coming together to create a security vulnerability".
I agree that having users validate their email addresses before using it for the first time would solve the problem. I've always been irritated by the companies that do so, imagining they did it solely to make sure that someone used a real email address rather than a throwaway spam email address, i.e. solely so they could send unsolicited spam. I guess there's a real reason for it after all. Probably they also want to reduce friction with an entire generation of folks who don't really use or care for email.
Personally I hesitate to blame users. These are products designed for the general public. The makers should do what they can to help everyone fall easily into the "pit of success".
No, that's not it at all!
The technical story is explained at the original site https://jameshfisher.com/2018/... along with good impact analysis and recommendations
The article has the wrong link. The correct link to the original is https://jameshfisher.com/2018/...
Why does Slashdot do this all the time? Include links to dumb shallow copies of the original story that add nothing but instead take away necessary technical content? The article linked to in this case failed to actually explain how the scam works!
Ads are a blight on our cities. And even the countryside. Miles and miles of billboards along roads. It's disgusting.
From Ogden Nash, apparently 1932 https://www.newyorker.com/maga...
I think that I shall never see
a billboard lovely as a tree.
Perhaps, unless the billboards fall,
I'll never see a tree at all.
So, fix the regulations. Do something like France did and decide on one design and spread out the regulatory costs among many of the same design.
The regulations amount to basically just "pay for the eventual cleanup costs and to reduce the risk of severe accident". The free market has evaluated the costs to adhere to these regulations (i.e. to pay for cleanup costs and defray risk) and found them to be non cost effective compared to solar, heck even to wind.
I think your choice boils down to "socialism to pay for the risks".
a 'smart' thermostat needs no camera, needs no microphone. needs no 'cloud' backing it up..
I've frequently controlled my Nest via smartphone from under the warmth+safety of my own duvet covers when it was too cold to get out.
I'm not sure how this would best be done. It can't be via bluetooth (out of range). Doing it via cloud, as Nest does, seemed to work fine. Another option would be if the nest app on my phone is able to seek out local devices on the local area network, I guess like AirPlay and other streaming protocols.
Also, on most vacations, I've realized I forgot to turn down the heating and I've done it remotely from the airport. I think "cloud" is the only viable option here. (I used to have a home server running OpenSuse, and could have figured out something there, but stopped it once I realized that (1) I'm don't have the admin skills+knowledge to keep it secure, and (2) with three toddlers I don't have the time to acquire those skills nor the time to keep it secure.)
The Windows telemetry on the other hand probably has no trouble connecting whatsoever.
I'd hope so! Because if it couldn't, then everyone at Microsoft would be running completely blind as to whether people are running into this problem and in what number. It's only with telemetry that they can figure out what group of people are affected and go from there to a cause.
(They could try to figure out who's affected without telemetry, solely by going from feedback that people themselves write on twitter or forum posts. But that's always a lower-quality signal, and would overrepresent tech-savy folks).
I'm quite serious here. Everyone knee-jerk criticizes telemetry without thinking through the effectiveness of alternative means of discovering and prioritizing bugs.
I have basically three passwords (really three patterns for passwords):
Sites I really don't care about. Post on a Fox News comment with my handle; [snip]
Compared to just using LastPass or similar, I think your approach sounds more complicated, more time-consuming and less secure.