Google also describes how advertisers will be able to use a customer's profile 'to exclude a customer from being considered for an offer based on exclusion criteria identified by a business,' such as age, job title, purchasing history, clothing size, or other 'desirable' characteristics.
For example, if you're at home when a football game is on, then obviously you're a fan of the sport.
Most people who vote for the Hottest 100 do not post stuff on the internet, so the statisticians will need to account for and attempt to remove the bias towards the style of music people who are active online prefer. That's not easy.
It depends whether you consider a "vote" to be a song choice, or a person who voted.
Voters submit a list of their favourite handful of songs, they don't pick one. Triple J usually picks the number of song submissions, not the number of people who voted, since it's the songs themselves that they count.
Fairly impressive for a country with a population of ~23M.
A lot of the votes aren't by australians. Triple J streams worldwide for free and they have extremely good taste in music. Their charter requires, by law, that they do not have any ads except to promote music and culture, which means they promote music and festivals that they think are interesting, but don't collect any revenue for it.
So there are plenty of people around the world who tune in.
The event is several hours long, and it takes place on a national public holiday when everyone is off work. I've been invited to more than one party, to spend the whole day listening to music, drinking beer, eating bad food and trying to find some shade and/or water (bloody hot here this time of year!).
Or even better, just tell google they have to stop selling services in Europe for a period of time, say 90 days. So nobody in Europe would be allowed to buy ads off Google while the ban was in place.
This would give competitors, who presumably adhere to EU law, a chance to step in and earn some revenue of their own.
Personally I think that the biggest problem with Slashdot is the abundance of comments like this. Seriously, it might not meet your standards. I understand. Now get over it and stop wasting my time writing it for the thousandth time or actually submit an article that raises the bar. Whining is not really going to change anything.
Sorry, but I really had to.
Bullshit. The only way to improve is for people to point out when something is below standard. Complaints should be encouraged. You just shouldn't give credence to all of them.
I actually think it's an interesting thought experiment. It immediately forces the reader to think about how pieces of code are used in the real world, both within and beyond their intended application. But it is also likely impossible to settle to anyone's satisfaction.
And since it's impossible to settle, it's a total waste of time to even think about it. I don't know what the most often-run piece of code is. I don't have any idea. And I'm pretty sure nobody else on/. does so what's the point of even reading comments? I wouldn't be here if I wasn't bored out of my mind...
This really is the worst ask/. I've ever seen. I wish they'd asked something interesting, like "what did you have for breakfast?" at least I can answer that with some hope of knowing the answer.
Can you write and compile your own software on your iPhone? It sounds like your "workstation" PC is actually just a dumb terminal.
My workstation PC is a mac with a pair of 27" displays, possibly a third coming. I write server side linux software on it at my day job, Mac/iOS software as a hobby (open source stuff).
And I can write and compile software on my iPhone. As soon as I commit any changes to github, within a few seconds the mac mini we have in the cloud will start running tests and doing a build, which I can then download onto the iPhone to execute it (assuming it's an iOS app).
If it's a Windows or Mac app, I can VNC into some hardware running that platform and test it there.
I was an emacs user... but none of the many linux servers I ssh into have it. I'm not going to install emacs three times a week, so I learned vi instead.
Anyway, control+a is hard to type on an iOS keyboard (possible, since a good terminal emulator adds a control key, but not productive).
My iPhone can do everything I can do on my workstation. The screen is too small to be productive at some tasks, but it can do everything.
Sure, I can't access a bash prompt on localhost, unless I jailbreak it, but I definitely have an ssh client and have logged into my server many times... even solved a catastrophe once using just my phone, vi works surprisingly well using the iOS keyboard.
Things that would kill today's keyboards dead, it simply brushed off as a non-event.
I wish things were built like that today, rather than this planned obsolesence bullsh*t.
My Leopold keyboard was pretty cheap (~$100), has hard PBT plastic key caps (which are a widely used standard design and replacable), the switches are guaranteed to last at least 50 million presses *for each key* and are mounted to a thick steel plate that feels stronger than the desk it sits on top of. The switches are also commonly available and can also be replaced with a bit of soldering, but i've never heard of them failing (monitor falling on them might do it). I dunno about cat piss but liquid generally only harms low voltage electronics when it is corrosive (eg coke) so I think it would be fine - especially if you clean it quickly.
There are perfectly good keyboards available today, if you bother to look.
I'm the project lead for a GPL product that started out as a fork of someone else's GPL'd project. It had about 50,000 lines but is now over 300,000 lines. Almost every line of original code has been completely re-written, because it was either using long outdated API's (even when we started the project) or just plain buggy.
Even though we wrote virtually every line of code that exists today, it is still a "derivative" and we are bound to follow GPL to the letter. This means, for example, no port of our app to the iPad (despite many requests) because unless we do a complete re-write we are not allowed to distribute it on the App Store.
It has nothing to do with people getting credit. It's about RMS trying to recreate the "feel free" hacker atmosphere from 70's MIT.
If that was his goal, he failed miserably.
In all my years working with GPL'd code, complying with the license has been a huge headache even for projects that have every intention of keeping the code open.
I've sworn off GPL now. I won't get involved in any more projects that use the license.
Without copyright law and the GPL my company could take an open source product and use it to build a closed source product that we never published the source code for. I could then simply protect our version of the source using an NDA that all staff had to sign before they came to work for me. I can then concentrate on porting any changes made to the open source version into our version but the open source version would not get access to any improvements we made.
So you prefer the opposite, where the somebody simply chooses not to use your code at all and you still don't get access to any improvements?
I've written a lot of GPL'd code. These days, I prefer public domain (or as close as I can get). I like it when other people get benefit from my work, whether they choose to share it or not. Often they do choose to share it.
PS: Why do you focus so much on companies? GPL applies to everyone, whether they work for a company or not. I'm not a company, and several times GPL has prevented me from doing things I wanted to do.
only film I can think of where stereo 3D was done properly has been Avatar. Regardless of what you think about plot originality or hamfisted delivery, it was an excellent use of stereo 3D.
There have been others. Up was also a very nice 3D movie. And I've seen a few where you'd barely even notice they were 3D until there's a flying scene.
In my mind, Avatar isn't a story, it's a work of art.
It's not my opinion, it's self evidently true. Take any 3D film and lose the 3D effect - you've lost none of the story. Indeed that's exactly what they do at cinemas - show the 3D films also in 2D.
Now take any film with a complex story and watch it for the first time with the sound off. You're going to lose lots of the story.
I watched avatar the first time in 3D, and some of the scenes took my breath away. I nearly walked out of the cinema while watching it a second time in 2D.
As an experiment, I went back and watched it again in 3D a few days later and once again the movie was stunning.
So, in my opinion, you are wrong. It's not as important as sound, but I'd rather watch a colour movie in black and white than a good 3D movie in 2D.
Well, 3D tickets are more expensive, so theaters favor the 3D showings over 2D. At my favorite movie theater, the recent Tintin movie was showing in 3D in two of the best projection rooms, at all hours, while the 2D version was only showing at midday, on a smaller screen, with less performant audio. I went to the 3D showing, and had it definitely confirmed I'm one of the people that get sick at 3D - had to leave about midway through the movie, and I probably won't try another 3D show soon.
It's too bad you get sick watching 3D, but you're still whining. I usually throw up when I go out on boats, but I don't whine about it. I just avoid boats. There are plenty of other things to do.
You could try writing a letter to the theatre asking to screen 2D movies at better times. It's worth a try. It's also worth talking to your GP, because it might be something you can solve (hopefully without any medication).
3D tickets are expensive because it costs a lot of money to make a 3D compatible screen and the projectors aren't cheap either (you basically need two projectors, perfectly synchronised, and the screen needs to preserve the polarisation of light bouncing off it, which is a very rare property).
And the sad part is, I really don't think it 3D adds much to most movies. It does give Lucas a chance to reissue "Phantom menace" in 3D, but I wouldn't count that in its favor:)
Now on that point I disagree. Sure, you don't need 3D to convey a story, but by the same token you don't need colour either. Comparing 2D to 3D is like comparing black and white to colour.
If phantom menace was re-created in 3D (and if they did a good job of it) I would absolutely watch the 3D version. I've watched the flying scenes in avatar in 2D and 3D, and in 2D I almost wished for a fast forward button, while in 3D it took my breath away. Literally. I actually *felt* like I was a thousands of feet up in the air.
3D is an overpriced and overrated variation that is taking far to much valuable real estate that would be better used attracting a wider audience.
The same thing could be said for colour movies. Heck, we should all just go back to reading novels.
The only movie I ever watched in both 2D and 3D, was absolutely better in 3D. Sure some are shit, but give the industry a chance to learn how to make a good 3D movie.
My problem stems not from nostalgia for the good old days, mostly, but rather from the lack of characterization in modern films. Take, for example, the film Aliens. I can remember the characters, rattle off their names and personality quirks, and remember exactly how each one died.
Now take Battle: Los Angeles. I watched it. I can't remember a damned thing about it or any of the characters, except that the butt-chin guy who played Harvey Dent in The Dark Knight was in it. His little squad of characters may as well have been named Disposable Latin Guy, Disposable Black Guy, Disposable White Guy. Completely unmemorable.
And how many movies from "the good old days" were just as unmemorable?
Perhaps you can only remember the absolute best of the old movies, and the only ones you'd bother to show your kids are those ones.
Or maybe you just didn't watch any of the shit movies? When I was a kid, I only watched a handful of movies each year. Now I watch a few movies a week, and only a handful each year are actually any good.
Colour me sceptical, but I honestly think tv shows and movies are better today than they were in the past. Sure, most of it stinks, but every now and then I still walk out of the cinema thinking "damn that was a good movie!"
Customers tend to stick with a single domain registrar for decades, so 21,000 domains is millions of dollars in lost revenue, in just one day. If they continued to support SOPA it would have really hurt.
And that doesn't even take into account all the customers who're too lazy to switch existing domains, but will switch for future ones.
You can bet godaddy will think twice before supporting anything like SOPA ever again.
Bitcoin can't compete with Western Union Money Transfer, let alone forex trading, because the total volume in bitcoins is tiny. Yesterday's Bitcoin volume was about $50,000. (Some days are higher, but that's mostly the same money trading back and forth. There are trading programs running.) If one business the size of a typical supermarket converted a day's receipts in Bitcoins to dollars, the Bitcoin market would crash.
The volume of bitcoins is capable of growing and shrinking based on the number of users it has. Right now it might be $50,000, but it's perfectly capable of being worth trillions.
A business cannot convert a day's worth of receipts from bitcoins to dollars unless they first *possess that many bitcoins*. If even two or three individuals had that many bitcoins, then no single party could completely crash the market.
Bitcoin is behaving like a penny stock. It crashed from $31 to $2, and now it's noodling around in the $2 to $4 range.
Give it a break, it's a currency in it's infancy. If it ever grows up, it will be more stable. Personally I'm not going to use it unless it does grow up.
Anyone remember Beenz? Flooz? DigiCash? CyberCoin? This isn't the first try at a "digital currency". I suspect that someone will probably make this work, but that somebody will be Facebook. Apple, or a telco.
Those were nothing like BitCoin. This really is something new.
Bullshit. Apple fanbois say "I have never been hacked. And I've never met any mac user who has".
No doubt there are one or two idiots who really do think macs are perfectly secure, but there are idiots among any group. Mostly it's just windows fanbois putting words in our mouths.
Hey, it's actually ground for a class-action suit, since they advertise them as "virus-resistant"! Let's all buy Macs en masse and hire some shady russian coders to create a virus for OSX. In the end, we still won't have abused the legal system as much as Apple does.
Were does Apple say that? When has Apple ever said macs are "virus-resistant"? Every month or two they're releasing security updates to patch critical flaws, they know full well that it isn't a perfectly secure operating system.
The only security marketing I've ever seen from Apple, is that Mac OS is more secure than Windows, and iOS is more secure than Android. Both of which are absolutely true. If anything, Apple is focusing too much on security, especially in the last few years (eg: you cannot run unsigned code on iOS, and only the built in safari browser can use JIT compilation, not any other app in the system).
But "more secure" doesn't mean "perfectly secure".
Slashdot Mirror
Google also describes how advertisers will be able to use a customer's profile 'to exclude a customer from being considered for an offer based on exclusion criteria identified by a business,' such as age, job title, purchasing history, clothing size, or other 'desirable' characteristics.
For example, if you're at home when a football game is on, then obviously you're a fan of the sport.
No thanks, I won't be buying anything off Nest.
Most people who vote for the Hottest 100 do not post stuff on the internet, so the statisticians will need to account for and attempt to remove the bias towards the style of music people who are active online prefer. That's not easy.
That doesn't sound right.
It depends whether you consider a "vote" to be a song choice, or a person who voted.
Voters submit a list of their favourite handful of songs, they don't pick one. Triple J usually picks the number of song submissions, not the number of people who voted, since it's the songs themselves that they count.
Fairly impressive for a country with a population of ~23M.
A lot of the votes aren't by australians. Triple J streams worldwide for free and they have extremely good taste in music. Their charter requires, by law, that they do not have any ads except to promote music and culture, which means they promote music and festivals that they think are interesting, but don't collect any revenue for it.
So there are plenty of people around the world who tune in.
The event is several hours long, and it takes place on a national public holiday when everyone is off work. I've been invited to more than one party, to spend the whole day listening to music, drinking beer, eating bad food and trying to find some shade and/or water (bloody hot here this time of year!).
Worse, most of their spy agencies are just as bad as the NSA.
When did a european spy agency pay the largest security firm in the world to put a back door in their encryption?
There is nobody in the world as bad as the NSA.
Or even better, just tell google they have to stop selling services in Europe for a period of time, say 90 days. So nobody in Europe would be allowed to buy ads off Google while the ban was in place.
This would give competitors, who presumably adhere to EU law, a chance to step in and earn some revenue of their own.
Personally I think that the biggest problem with Slashdot is the abundance of comments like this. Seriously, it might not meet your standards. I understand. Now get over it and stop wasting my time writing it for the thousandth time or actually submit an article that raises the bar. Whining is not really going to change anything.
Sorry, but I really had to.
Bullshit. The only way to improve is for people to point out when something is below standard. Complaints should be encouraged. You just shouldn't give credence to all of them.
I actually think it's an interesting thought experiment. It immediately forces the reader to think about how pieces of code are used in the real world, both within and beyond their intended application. But it is also likely impossible to settle to anyone's satisfaction.
And since it's impossible to settle, it's a total waste of time to even think about it. I don't know what the most often-run piece of code is. I don't have any idea. And I'm pretty sure nobody else on /. does so what's the point of even reading comments? I wouldn't be here if I wasn't bored out of my mind...
This really is the worst ask /. I've ever seen. I wish they'd asked something interesting, like "what did you have for breakfast?" at least I can answer that with some hope of knowing the answer.
It's not a dupe, it's just that everyone installs from source on OpenBSD, so signing the binary never made much sense.
Can you write and compile your own software on your iPhone? It sounds like your "workstation" PC is actually just a dumb terminal.
My workstation PC is a mac with a pair of 27" displays, possibly a third coming. I write server side linux software on it at my day job, Mac/iOS software as a hobby (open source stuff).
And I can write and compile software on my iPhone. As soon as I commit any changes to github, within a few seconds the mac mini we have in the cloud will start running tests and doing a build, which I can then download onto the iPhone to execute it (assuming it's an iOS app).
If it's a Windows or Mac app, I can VNC into some hardware running that platform and test it there.
I was an emacs user... but none of the many linux servers I ssh into have it. I'm not going to install emacs three times a week, so I learned vi instead.
Anyway, control+a is hard to type on an iOS keyboard (possible, since a good terminal emulator adds a control key, but not productive).
My iPhone can do everything I can do on my workstation. The screen is too small to be productive at some tasks, but it can do everything.
Sure, I can't access a bash prompt on localhost, unless I jailbreak it, but I definitely have an ssh client and have logged into my server many times... even solved a catastrophe once using just my phone, vi works surprisingly well using the iOS keyboard.
They could but an iPhone is very heavy so it would add something like $20,000 to the cost of the launch.
Every gram is critical.
Things that would kill today's keyboards dead, it simply brushed off as a non-event.
I wish things were built like that today, rather than this planned obsolesence bullsh*t.
My Leopold keyboard was pretty cheap (~$100), has hard PBT plastic key caps (which are a widely used standard design and replacable), the switches are guaranteed to last at least 50 million presses *for each key* and are mounted to a thick steel plate that feels stronger than the desk it sits on top of. The switches are also commonly available and can also be replaced with a bit of soldering, but i've never heard of them failing (monitor falling on them might do it). I dunno about cat piss but liquid generally only harms low voltage electronics when it is corrosive (eg coke) so I think it would be fine - especially if you clean it quickly.
There are perfectly good keyboards available today, if you bother to look.
I'm the project lead for a GPL product that started out as a fork of someone else's GPL'd project. It had about 50,000 lines but is now over 300,000 lines. Almost every line of original code has been completely re-written, because it was either using long outdated API's (even when we started the project) or just plain buggy.
Even though we wrote virtually every line of code that exists today, it is still a "derivative" and we are bound to follow GPL to the letter. This means, for example, no port of our app to the iPad (despite many requests) because unless we do a complete re-write we are not allowed to distribute it on the App Store.
It has nothing to do with people getting credit. It's about RMS trying to recreate the "feel free" hacker atmosphere from 70's MIT.
If that was his goal, he failed miserably.
In all my years working with GPL'd code, complying with the license has been a huge headache even for projects that have every intention of keeping the code open.
I've sworn off GPL now. I won't get involved in any more projects that use the license.
Without copyright law and the GPL my company could take an open source product and use it to build a closed source product that we never published the source code for. I could then simply protect our version of the source using an NDA that all staff had to sign before they came to work for me. I can then concentrate on porting any changes made to the open source version into our version but the open source version would not get access to any improvements we made.
So you prefer the opposite, where the somebody simply chooses not to use your code at all and you still don't get access to any improvements?
I've written a lot of GPL'd code. These days, I prefer public domain (or as close as I can get). I like it when other people get benefit from my work, whether they choose to share it or not. Often they do choose to share it.
PS: Why do you focus so much on companies? GPL applies to everyone, whether they work for a company or not. I'm not a company, and several times GPL has prevented me from doing things I wanted to do.
only film I can think of where stereo 3D was done properly has been Avatar. Regardless of what you think about plot originality or hamfisted delivery, it was an excellent use of stereo 3D.
There have been others. Up was also a very nice 3D movie. And I've seen a few where you'd barely even notice they were 3D until there's a flying scene.
In my mind, Avatar isn't a story, it's a work of art.
It's not my opinion, it's self evidently true. Take any 3D film and lose the 3D effect - you've lost none of the story. Indeed that's exactly what they do at cinemas - show the 3D films also in 2D.
Now take any film with a complex story and watch it for the first time with the sound off. You're going to lose lots of the story.
I watched avatar the first time in 3D, and some of the scenes took my breath away. I nearly walked out of the cinema while watching it a second time in 2D.
As an experiment, I went back and watched it again in 3D a few days later and once again the movie was stunning.
So, in my opinion, you are wrong. It's not as important as sound, but I'd rather watch a colour movie in black and white than a good 3D movie in 2D.
Well, 3D tickets are more expensive, so theaters favor the 3D showings over 2D. At my favorite movie theater, the recent Tintin movie was showing in 3D in two of the best projection rooms, at all hours, while the 2D version was only showing at midday, on a smaller screen, with less performant audio. I went to the 3D showing, and had it definitely confirmed I'm one of the people that get sick at 3D - had to leave about midway through the movie, and I probably won't try another 3D show soon.
It's too bad you get sick watching 3D, but you're still whining. I usually throw up when I go out on boats, but I don't whine about it. I just avoid boats. There are plenty of other things to do.
You could try writing a letter to the theatre asking to screen 2D movies at better times. It's worth a try. It's also worth talking to your GP, because it might be something you can solve (hopefully without any medication).
3D tickets are expensive because it costs a lot of money to make a 3D compatible screen and the projectors aren't cheap either (you basically need two projectors, perfectly synchronised, and the screen needs to preserve the polarisation of light bouncing off it, which is a very rare property).
And the sad part is, I really don't think it 3D adds much to most movies. It does give Lucas a chance to reissue "Phantom menace" in 3D, but I wouldn't count that in its favor :)
Now on that point I disagree. Sure, you don't need 3D to convey a story, but by the same token you don't need colour either. Comparing 2D to 3D is like comparing black and white to colour.
If phantom menace was re-created in 3D (and if they did a good job of it) I would absolutely watch the 3D version. I've watched the flying scenes in avatar in 2D and 3D, and in 2D I almost wished for a fast forward button, while in 3D it took my breath away. Literally. I actually *felt* like I was a thousands of feet up in the air.
3D is an overpriced and overrated variation that is taking far to much valuable real estate that would be better used attracting a wider audience.
The same thing could be said for colour movies. Heck, we should all just go back to reading novels.
The only movie I ever watched in both 2D and 3D, was absolutely better in 3D. Sure some are shit, but give the industry a chance to learn how to make a good 3D movie.
My problem stems not from nostalgia for the good old days, mostly, but rather from the lack of characterization in modern films. Take, for example, the film Aliens. I can remember the characters, rattle off their names and personality quirks, and remember exactly how each one died.
Now take Battle: Los Angeles. I watched it. I can't remember a damned thing about it or any of the characters, except that the butt-chin guy who played Harvey Dent in The Dark Knight was in it. His little squad of characters may as well have been named Disposable Latin Guy, Disposable Black Guy, Disposable White Guy. Completely unmemorable.
And how many movies from "the good old days" were just as unmemorable?
Perhaps you can only remember the absolute best of the old movies, and the only ones you'd bother to show your kids are those ones.
Or maybe you just didn't watch any of the shit movies? When I was a kid, I only watched a handful of movies each year. Now I watch a few movies a week, and only a handful each year are actually any good.
Colour me sceptical, but I honestly think tv shows and movies are better today than they were in the past. Sure, most of it stinks, but every now and then I still walk out of the cinema thinking "damn that was a good movie!"
Customers tend to stick with a single domain registrar for decades, so 21,000 domains is millions of dollars in lost revenue, in just one day. If they continued to support SOPA it would have really hurt.
And that doesn't even take into account all the customers who're too lazy to switch existing domains, but will switch for future ones.
You can bet godaddy will think twice before supporting anything like SOPA ever again.
Bitcoin can't compete with Western Union Money Transfer, let alone forex trading, because the total volume in bitcoins is tiny. Yesterday's Bitcoin volume was about $50,000. (Some days are higher, but that's mostly the same money trading back and forth. There are trading programs running.) If one business the size of a typical supermarket converted a day's receipts in Bitcoins to dollars, the Bitcoin market would crash.
The volume of bitcoins is capable of growing and shrinking based on the number of users it has. Right now it might be $50,000, but it's perfectly capable of being worth trillions.
A business cannot convert a day's worth of receipts from bitcoins to dollars unless they first *possess that many bitcoins*. If even two or three individuals had that many bitcoins, then no single party could completely crash the market.
Bitcoin is behaving like a penny stock. It crashed from $31 to $2, and now it's noodling around in the $2 to $4 range.
Give it a break, it's a currency in it's infancy. If it ever grows up, it will be more stable. Personally I'm not going to use it unless it does grow up.
Anyone remember Beenz? Flooz? DigiCash? CyberCoin? This isn't the first try at a "digital currency". I suspect that someone will probably make this work, but that somebody will be Facebook. Apple, or a telco.
Those were nothing like BitCoin. This really is something new.
While bitcoin has failed as a currency,
What?
Bitcoin is still in it's infancy. Come back in ten years, and then we can discuss whether or not it "failed" as a currency.
Apple fanbois say that. Nobody else does.
Bullshit. Apple fanbois say "I have never been hacked. And I've never met any mac user who has".
No doubt there are one or two idiots who really do think macs are perfectly secure, but there are idiots among any group. Mostly it's just windows fanbois putting words in our mouths.
Hey, it's actually ground for a class-action suit, since they advertise them as "virus-resistant"! Let's all buy Macs en masse and hire some shady russian coders to create a virus for OSX. In the end, we still won't have abused the legal system as much as Apple does.
Were does Apple say that? When has Apple ever said macs are "virus-resistant"? Every month or two they're releasing security updates to patch critical flaws, they know full well that it isn't a perfectly secure operating system.
The only security marketing I've ever seen from Apple, is that Mac OS is more secure than Windows, and iOS is more secure than Android. Both of which are absolutely true. If anything, Apple is focusing too much on security, especially in the last few years (eg: you cannot run unsigned code on iOS, and only the built in safari browser can use JIT compilation, not any other app in the system).
But "more secure" doesn't mean "perfectly secure".