This is related to the serious risk of false negatives - i.e. a tornado not caught.
Scientists will probably try to model the effect the windmills have on readings, but that can become a full-time job with 10 to 20 thousand wind turbines in the US (this is an estimate, I can't find the exact number), and more popping up all the time.
Also, the accuracy of these models may be a concern. Does the the effect wind farms have on radar change with wind patterns? If so where will the models get this wind information from?
Some of us like to watch shows as they come out, instead of waiting one or more years for them to come out on DVD or praying Hulu will play them. A lot of TV shows never even comes out on DVD. I personally think cable is worth it just for the half dozen high-quality shows HBO puts out.
I've actually found they are very sensitive to their public image regarding privacy. They overstep lines all the time, but they quickly retreat once the media, facebook groups, and petitions get involved.
I think they realize if they ever overstep people's comfort levels, users can leave. Social network sites are a commodity - their only value is the users. If the savvy crowd jumps ship to a higher-quality site that promises better privacy, there is a chance their friends will follow. I would argue this is the only thing that could kill Facebook at this point, however unlikely it is.
I think all they need to remember is that one of South Korea's strongest economic and military allies has a few 100 missiles pointed in their general direction:)
I think you are misreading their answer. I'm not satisfied with their answer either, but it helps to understand it. They are saying MOST of their customers are connected to the internet, and this is obviously true - the vast majority of people who play computer games have online connections. They do admit there are legitimate users who will be hurt by this, and they are looking into it. The reason why I am not satisfied with this answer is that I do not believe they will do anything about it.
I just hope when I play my roommate in 1 vs 1 LAN play that they won't require the data to go through their servers. The additional ping would just be wasteful.
"When they arrive at the station and their train is not there, usually they'll ask someone working there or start to complain to someone working there, at which point they'll get informed about the facts of life."
Apparently you have never ridden on the New York subway system:P
"At common law, entering through a preexisting opening did not constitute breaking. If one gained access through an open door or window, burglary was not committed. The same rule applied when a door or window was partially open even though it was necessary to open it further in order to enter. The rationale under-lying this rule was that one who failed to secure his or her dwelling was not entitled to the protection of the law. A majority of states no longer follow this rule and consider breaking to be the slightest application of force to gain entry through a partially accessible opening."
So, my original point was that in modern US law, you don't have to do much "breaking" to commit a break and enter.
I think the difference is obvious. Would you "break" into someone's house and try to convince the judge you didn't literally break anything when you are being charged with breaking and entering? I hope not.
I meant the name should not be taken literally, but obviously the law itself should.
"Can you be charged with breaking and entering a house that has the door left wide open?"
Nothing has to be "broken" during a breaking and entering. Not everything is so literal. As long as the person maliciously entered the system with the knowledge he didn't belong in there, it would be a virtual breaking and entering.
I thought I was arguing that less gadgets are better than more.
Anyway, this app isn't targeting everyone. But I know enough people who have been waiting for exactly this that I predict it will end up on the App Store's top selling lists. And at 80 dollars each, that wouldn't be too shabby.
1.2 GB is nothing - upgrading from the 16 GB to 32 GB iPhone costs 100 dollars, so consider it a $7.50 tax. If you would never have any interest in upgrading, than 16 GB is probably more than ample space and it's not an issue anyway. Anyway, with Moore's Law in full effect, 1 GB will seem like nothing within two years.
Also, I don't see how 100 dollars is too much. People are currently willing to spend 80 dollars on a crappy, bulky unit without bluetooth (and last I checked, GPS unit sales are going strong). Why wouldn't these same people be willing to pay a little more to use the unit they already have - a much sleeker iPhone with built-in bluetooth and phone (so you don't have to fumble with the unit when you get a phone call)?
I don't know if you drive much, but IMO the other costs of driving dwarfs the 100 dollars we're talking about here. Especially when you average that cost over several years.
I think the reason why is pretty obvious, but I have no evidence to back it up (except for the fact that I'm a semi-regular editor, like 2-10 edits a month).
Many articles on Wikipedia have become "stable". This means several people have spent years fine-tuning the articles to the point that a large change better be damn good to warrant inclusion. On these stable articles, most changes will be minor edits or vandalism related. We are starting to see the law of diminishing returns in effect - each edit does far less, so casual people have less interest in making edits. There are still plenty of important articles that need work, but the number is fewer than it was a couple of years ago, which drives down the number of edits for everyone.
One reason why regular editors are still making a lot of edits is vandalism. This also explains why the one-off edits are reverted at a high rate. I'd like to see statistics on the number of edits VS the number of reverts for these groups of people.
He said *simple* AI. I used to work on a large military UAV project - our "AI" was basically a robust straight-line path planning algorithm. Most of the time, it was just a series of way-points that the plane touches.
The most complex part of the whole thing is landing, and I would assume the most accident-prone. I hope unmanned airplanes would have some added safety requirements until their landing is shown to be safe (perhaps their own runways, or a rule that they must land on empty runways in low population density areas).
[after being kicked out of a theme park] Bender: Yeah, well... I'm gonna go build my own theme park, with blackjack and hookers. In fact, forget the park!
[after being kicked out of the lunar lander] Bender: Oh, no room for Bender, huh? Fine! I'll go build my own lunar lander, with blackjack and hookers. In fact, forget the lunar lander and the blackjack. Ahh, screw the whole thing!
Running the GPS on a phone eats up the battery, I wouldn't assume any phone company would be purposefully sabotaging the battery life of its own products to piss off its customers.
"I wonder how much "reverse fraud" is possible with this? I take a picture of a $1000 check, and the person who wrote the check says 'hey, wait a minute! I only wrote that check for $100, the person who cashed it faked that image!'"
I'm confused, in your scenario who is committing the crime? I see problems either way. If it is the person who wrote the check, there is still an image of the check. So if the check says "One thousand dollars" on it, he's out of luck - he can't claim it said 100.
If the person who is scanning the check modifies it, not only is he committing a crime, he is risking his credit rating. It's easy to get caught too - I think about half the people I know who write checks have carbon copies of their checks, and almost all businesses have electronics copies. Anyway, it's possible to modify checks as it is, that crime is nothing new.
The problem is the term "open source" in this case is vague. Does it mean several people can work on it, like a wiki? Or just that it's free, as in beer?
I would normally assume the first, but in this case he probably would be fine with the latter. That is why the misapplication of "open source" troubles me - most consumers of information don't care about the libre aspect of free, i.e. the part that actually makes it open.
"If you don't need super portability, you might as well get a more powerful machine"
You are forgetting several other variables, like battery life, heat, and cost. I personally don't need anything more than an underclocked Atom in my notebook, no matter what the size of the screen is. I imagine most people out there don't either.
I prefer a 12 inch screen and corresponding full-size keyboard to today's netbooks.
What does "source" mean when you say open source? If you mean creative commons or some other open licensing scheme, don't refer to it as "source", which specifically refers to software.
If you want a really high level overview from a source with an open licensing scheme, Wikipedia is probably good enough. Wikipedia actually has very good coverage of basic computing concepts. I realize that is a bit unprofessional though, but any open source will potentially have the same issues that Wikipedia does.
"Teenager" actually correlates with puberty pretty well. During puberty, people are drenched with abnormally high levels of various hormones which changes their behavior pretty drastically.
A society that depends on 15 years olds in any serious manner is screwed.
Most people won't do it, but a lot of people are. I've met several technophobes (I think the technical term for this on Slashdot is "joe averages") who jailbroke their phones. Why? Ringtones and wallpapers:o
This is a good point, adblockers really do circumvent an unspoken agreement with most websites. Also, I agree with you that I would refuse to visit sites with really annoying ads (unless I could block the ads).
But I feel that many sites with particularly annoying ads would still want you to visit, even if you are blocking their ads. For example, a guy who writes an article for cNet probably appreciates that people read his article, even if the proportion of people clicking on ads is lower. Likewise, cNet probably appreciates having more page views, and a higher Alexa rating.
I think a fair compromise would be a version of adblock that defaults to blocking nothing. A button at the top would allow you to permanently turn on blocking for domains that you feel have particularly intrusive or offensive ads. While I will always use an ad blocker, I would be willing to use this weakened adblock and only turn on ads for the worst websites.
Slashdot Mirror
This is related to the serious risk of false negatives - i.e. a tornado not caught.
Scientists will probably try to model the effect the windmills have on readings, but that can become a full-time job with 10 to 20 thousand wind turbines in the US (this is an estimate, I can't find the exact number), and more popping up all the time.
Also, the accuracy of these models may be a concern. Does the the effect wind farms have on radar change with wind patterns? If so where will the models get this wind information from?
I think I'd be more concerned of the paramedics.
Some of us like to watch shows as they come out, instead of waiting one or more years for them to come out on DVD or praying Hulu will play them. A lot of TV shows never even comes out on DVD. I personally think cable is worth it just for the half dozen high-quality shows HBO puts out.
I've actually found they are very sensitive to their public image regarding privacy. They overstep lines all the time, but they quickly retreat once the media, facebook groups, and petitions get involved.
I think they realize if they ever overstep people's comfort levels, users can leave. Social network sites are a commodity - their only value is the users. If the savvy crowd jumps ship to a higher-quality site that promises better privacy, there is a chance their friends will follow. I would argue this is the only thing that could kill Facebook at this point, however unlikely it is.
I think all they need to remember is that one of South Korea's strongest economic and military allies has a few 100 missiles pointed in their general direction :)
Sure, but how many crimes did it prevent? I always considered cameras more of a prevention, i.e. only idiots commit crimes in front of cameras.
Obviously, another question is how many crimes simply moved to areas without cameras.
I think you are misreading their answer. I'm not satisfied with their answer either, but it helps to understand it. They are saying MOST of their customers are connected to the internet, and this is obviously true - the vast majority of people who play computer games have online connections. They do admit there are legitimate users who will be hurt by this, and they are looking into it. The reason why I am not satisfied with this answer is that I do not believe they will do anything about it.
I just hope when I play my roommate in 1 vs 1 LAN play that they won't require the data to go through their servers. The additional ping would just be wasteful.
"When they arrive at the station and their train is not there, usually they'll ask someone working there or start to complain to someone working there, at which point they'll get informed about the facts of life."
Apparently you have never ridden on the New York subway system :P
Actually, that's the entering. Breaking is the act before entering. That's why it's called "breaking and entering". See http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/burglary
"At common law, entering through a preexisting opening did not constitute breaking. If one gained access through an open door or window, burglary was not committed. The same rule applied when a door or window was partially open even though it was necessary to open it further in order to enter. The rationale under-lying this rule was that one who failed to secure his or her dwelling was not entitled to the protection of the law. A majority of states no longer follow this rule and consider breaking to be the slightest application of force to gain entry through a partially accessible opening."
So, my original point was that in modern US law, you don't have to do much "breaking" to commit a break and enter.
I think the difference is obvious. Would you "break" into someone's house and try to convince the judge you didn't literally break anything when you are being charged with breaking and entering? I hope not.
I meant the name should not be taken literally, but obviously the law itself should.
"Can you be charged with breaking and entering a house that has the door left wide open?"
Nothing has to be "broken" during a breaking and entering. Not everything is so literal. As long as the person maliciously entered the system with the knowledge he didn't belong in there, it would be a virtual breaking and entering.
I thought I was arguing that less gadgets are better than more.
Anyway, this app isn't targeting everyone. But I know enough people who have been waiting for exactly this that I predict it will end up on the App Store's top selling lists. And at 80 dollars each, that wouldn't be too shabby.
1.2 GB is nothing - upgrading from the 16 GB to 32 GB iPhone costs 100 dollars, so consider it a $7.50 tax. If you would never have any interest in upgrading, than 16 GB is probably more than ample space and it's not an issue anyway. Anyway, with Moore's Law in full effect, 1 GB will seem like nothing within two years.
Also, I don't see how 100 dollars is too much. People are currently willing to spend 80 dollars on a crappy, bulky unit without bluetooth (and last I checked, GPS unit sales are going strong). Why wouldn't these same people be willing to pay a little more to use the unit they already have - a much sleeker iPhone with built-in bluetooth and phone (so you don't have to fumble with the unit when you get a phone call)?
I don't know if you drive much, but IMO the other costs of driving dwarfs the 100 dollars we're talking about here. Especially when you average that cost over several years.
I think the reason why is pretty obvious, but I have no evidence to back it up (except for the fact that I'm a semi-regular editor, like 2-10 edits a month).
Many articles on Wikipedia have become "stable". This means several people have spent years fine-tuning the articles to the point that a large change better be damn good to warrant inclusion. On these stable articles, most changes will be minor edits or vandalism related. We are starting to see the law of diminishing returns in effect - each edit does far less, so casual people have less interest in making edits. There are still plenty of important articles that need work, but the number is fewer than it was a couple of years ago, which drives down the number of edits for everyone.
One reason why regular editors are still making a lot of edits is vandalism. This also explains why the one-off edits are reverted at a high rate. I'd like to see statistics on the number of edits VS the number of reverts for these groups of people.
He said *simple* AI. I used to work on a large military UAV project - our "AI" was basically a robust straight-line path planning algorithm. Most of the time, it was just a series of way-points that the plane touches.
The most complex part of the whole thing is landing, and I would assume the most accident-prone. I hope unmanned airplanes would have some added safety requirements until their landing is shown to be safe (perhaps their own runways, or a rule that they must land on empty runways in low population density areas).
It's from Futurama:
[after being kicked out of a theme park]
Bender: Yeah, well... I'm gonna go build my own theme park, with blackjack and hookers. In fact, forget the park!
[after being kicked out of the lunar lander]
Bender: Oh, no room for Bender, huh? Fine! I'll go build my own lunar lander, with blackjack and hookers. In fact, forget the lunar lander and the blackjack. Ahh, screw the whole thing!
"Hell, I thought all phones did this anyway"
Running the GPS on a phone eats up the battery, I wouldn't assume any phone company would be purposefully sabotaging the battery life of its own products to piss off its customers.
And tracking of cell phones has come up in the past, and is generally quite controversial: http://www.insidetech.com/news/articles/2299-controversial-study-tracks-movement-via-cellphones
I honestly don't know why Palm thought it could get away with it without some outrage. Especially when it has such a steep hill ahead of it already.
"I wonder how much "reverse fraud" is possible with this? I take a picture of a $1000 check, and the person who wrote the check says 'hey, wait a minute! I only wrote that check for $100, the person who cashed it faked that image!'"
I'm confused, in your scenario who is committing the crime? I see problems either way. If it is the person who wrote the check, there is still an image of the check. So if the check says "One thousand dollars" on it, he's out of luck - he can't claim it said 100.
If the person who is scanning the check modifies it, not only is he committing a crime, he is risking his credit rating. It's easy to get caught too - I think about half the people I know who write checks have carbon copies of their checks, and almost all businesses have electronics copies. Anyway, it's possible to modify checks as it is, that crime is nothing new.
The problem is the term "open source" in this case is vague. Does it mean several people can work on it, like a wiki? Or just that it's free, as in beer?
I would normally assume the first, but in this case he probably would be fine with the latter. That is why the misapplication of "open source" troubles me - most consumers of information don't care about the libre aspect of free, i.e. the part that actually makes it open.
"If you don't need super portability, you might as well get a more powerful machine"
You are forgetting several other variables, like battery life, heat, and cost. I personally don't need anything more than an underclocked Atom in my notebook, no matter what the size of the screen is. I imagine most people out there don't either.
I prefer a 12 inch screen and corresponding full-size keyboard to today's netbooks.
What does "source" mean when you say open source? If you mean creative commons or some other open licensing scheme, don't refer to it as "source", which specifically refers to software.
If you want a really high level overview from a source with an open licensing scheme, Wikipedia is probably good enough. Wikipedia actually has very good coverage of basic computing concepts. I realize that is a bit unprofessional though, but any open source will potentially have the same issues that Wikipedia does.
"Teenager" actually correlates with puberty pretty well. During puberty, people are drenched with abnormally high levels of various hormones which changes their behavior pretty drastically.
A society that depends on 15 years olds in any serious manner is screwed.
Most people won't do it, but a lot of people are. I've met several technophobes (I think the technical term for this on Slashdot is "joe averages") who jailbroke their phones. Why? Ringtones and wallpapers :o
This is a good point, adblockers really do circumvent an unspoken agreement with most websites. Also, I agree with you that I would refuse to visit sites with really annoying ads (unless I could block the ads).
But I feel that many sites with particularly annoying ads would still want you to visit, even if you are blocking their ads. For example, a guy who writes an article for cNet probably appreciates that people read his article, even if the proportion of people clicking on ads is lower. Likewise, cNet probably appreciates having more page views, and a higher Alexa rating.
I think a fair compromise would be a version of adblock that defaults to blocking nothing. A button at the top would allow you to permanently turn on blocking for domains that you feel have particularly intrusive or offensive ads. While I will always use an ad blocker, I would be willing to use this weakened adblock and only turn on ads for the worst websites.
You are mistaking MADD for cops. MADD doesn't arrest drunk drivers, but yes, they do lobby for prohibition.