Basically, you wave your radio-barcode through the induction field and the payment terminal then goes online using the ring's serial number instead of your credit card number?
So yeah, more complicated than that. It's also *possible* that it's contactless MSD, which is essentially reading MSR data at a distance, but I'm guessing it's EMV since the latter is extremely insecure.
You mean the Google that is moving to a Chromecast model where the TV has no real Smart OS* and instead relies on smartphone apps to direct it to content? 2016 Vizio and Sharp TVs have this model (and others Android TV based TVs such as Sony have Google Cast of course but also the whole Android TV enchilada).
P.S., Google Cast doesn't inject any ads.
* Of course there's an OS, but the user-facing smarts aren't on the TV.
I don't think that's the point. What's happening is men are going out of their way to even bother rating shows aimed at women.
Pretty sure it's okay for men to rate any show they want.
I read this,
The publication cites an example of "Sex and the City", a show which apparently won plenty of awards and ran for many years on TV, getting hammered by males on IMDb. Compared to women, who amounted to 60% of the people who rated the show with an average of 8.1, men gave it a 5.8 rating.
There's nothing there to indicate men are "sabotaging" the vote. In fact it's rather the opposite, an large percent of the total reviewers are women, and men are only rating 20% lower than women on average.
...said the guy whose house was burgled because the wrong person found out he'd be out that night.
Paranoia was list item #1. We covered that already. How about sitting outside your house in a car and waiting for you to leave? No l33t sk1lz required.
Most people in our country think that a talented artist should be able to do it professionally, as their source of income.
I don't think that. Art has no monetary value beyond what people are willing to pay for it, like anything else. If you can get money for your art, terrific, but you don't deserve anything just because someone crowned you a "talented artist".
OTOH, if you want to do your art on nights and weekends after working for a living like the Rest Of Us, that's fine too.
There are dozens of videos from movie and game reviewers about this, who are constantly barraged by baseless takedown notices.
Exactly. Googling on this topic shows quite the opposite of what most people are taking away from TFA. It's not that valid copyright holders can't get takedowns, it's that valid copyright holders are having their videos taken offline because of invalid DMCA takedowns. In other words, Youtube is acting on the (supposed) copyright holder's behalf too aggressively.
You don't need a lawyer to get a DMCA takedown. It's quite easy and requires no proof / evidence.
3. Keep all that revenue after the complaint is found to be baseless
I tried hard to back this up but AFAICT this isn't true. It does temporarily cutoff the revenue stream (which is very bad, especially for smaller creators) but they get the revenue eventually.
It is important to music listeners (you?) because income is what motivates many artists to produce music (initially and on a continuing basis),
What percent of people that consider themselves "artists" make a profit? 1%? Less probably. No, artists aren't motivated by money. They are motivated by a love of the art. If money comes they take it like anybody would, and they take measures to increase their profitability like anyone would, but it isn't their motivation.
The proof is the fantastic amount of art out their produced by nobodies be it music, visual, coding, etc. If you shut off payment for art all together there'd still be fantastic artists.
Youtube is deliberately and with malice of forethought providing a streamlined method for massive copyright violation
Youtube is also the largest and most successful promotional vehicle for artists that's ever existed. Artists want the free promotional platform that earns them money through advertising and the subsequent record and concert sales, but also want Youtube to pay for for the massive effort of managing copyright violations for them.
An artist should be able to say to youtube "anything with my name on it is prohibited", and then it becomes the responsibility of the uploader to demonstrate that the material is not covered by copyright.
where income is continually transferred from the pockets of musicians and creators of all types, and siphoned directly into their own pockets
No, money is siphoned from consumers' pockets to theirs (Youtube's). The creator never had the money, and would never had it anyway since they don't own a distribution platform. What creators need to get over is that the magic isn't in their creation, it's in the distribution of their creation.
If they aren't leaving it's not alienating by definition. Any change they introduce is going to have some subset of people whining. And a small subset of people on Facebook is a lot of people.
Did I hurt your feelings? Oh you poor, ignorant, little baby. Maybe mommy government will ban all the things you don't like and make it all better. Reply to This
My feelings hurt by an antisocial 13 year old that hasn't learned how to deal with people in the real world yet?:)
It's going to be tough for you when you get out of your mom's basement. I predict a few bloody noses. You'll learn eventually though.
Says the person who is absolutely terrified of a stoned driver when research shows that if there is any added danger it is negligible. Take your fear-mongering and shove it up your ass.
Exactly. You can make up shit and put words in other peoples' mouths all you like. Trust me, it doesn't serve your purpose. You just alienate people against your own goals.
E.g., I disagree with one aspect here, and it's "hatred", "fear mongering", "ignorant", "asinine", and so on. You are the reason your cause is going to stay in your mom's basement with your skull bong and stack of High Times.
are you intentionally ignoring facts because they disagree with message of hatred?
Yes, you are right. Not wanting people to drive while high is pure hatred. Tell me, does completely blowing shit out of proportion serve you well in other aspects of your life?
Like Microsoft and Mobile,Google seems to be unable to do social media.
That's not true.
Google+ was generally liked and appreciated, but it's a matter of critical mass. No one is going to use a new social media platform because it's pointless unless your friends are there. And BTW, your friends are thinking the same thing. Nothing is going to beat Facebook until either Facebook does something to alienate their users or Google or someone else comes up with something fantastic that Facebook can't copy. Both of those are extremely unlikely.
That chip is really crushing your shoulder. Please quote where I said I hated stoners, or said anything bad at all about pot. No, I don't think people should drive while high (or drunk, or preoccupied, or tired). That's all I said.
If you have interpreted where I joke about stoners and Cheetos as "hate", that's your problem friend. Grow a sense of humor and a little thicker skin.
But if you like, keep going. The hole is getting pretty deep.
Sigh. You do realize that when someone says "always" they don't literally mean that. Did you really think that I meant EVERY, SINGLE person that speeds also tailgates? Did you think I was suggesting I had knowledge of every single driver in the the universe? I mean really where the F are you coming from Mars?
Of course, the most important thing you can do on the road is not drive beyond your abilities
And THAT'S the thing. No one gets on the road and says "I'm going to drive beyond my abilities today". People are the worst judges of their own abilities. Don't believe me? Take a look at the number of road deaths. Do you think those people were knowingly driving beyond their limits?
That's why we have objective limits in road speed and rules. It's not that some people can't drive safe at 80, 100, 150. Some can. Some can't. So we set objective rules that are low enough to keep most people safe.
And anyway, it's well known that speed relates to accidents. Reaction times are reduced. Accidents are more severe since more energy is involved. Basic physics.
Yeah, you measure reflexes and decision making skills, and take them off the road if they are unsafe.
None of that matters, until it matters of course. I may be doing perfectly fine until I am not doing fine anymore and don't see the oncoming car. That's why even if you blow a 0.19 you are still going to get a DUI even if you can recite a alphabet backwards.
And yeah, "decision making skills". Sounds like something that can be tested objectively on a road side. Here's my idea: "Sir, there's a baby and a bag of Fritos on the train track, which do you save?"
so you make up arbitrary (and wrong) limits for chemicals, not related to the safety of the driver. Great system.
The issue is that in lieu of a definitive test for for impairment when it comes to smoking pot (like BAC levels), they are taking a zero-tolerance approach. The alternative is just having no regulations at all. I'd rather have a few safe-to-drive stoners go without their Cheetos than err on the side of killing people. Call me crazy.
Is it really this generation's Vietnam if people aren't allowed to drive while high?
There is also reason to believe that the NHS studies showing impairment as a result of marijuana are flawed and either overstated or outright incorrect.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a contactless EMV card without the plastic.
http://www.smartcardalliance.o...
Basically, you wave your radio-barcode through the induction field and the payment terminal then goes online using the ring's serial number instead of your credit card number?
So yeah, more complicated than that. It's also *possible* that it's contactless MSD, which is essentially reading MSR data at a distance, but I'm guessing it's EMV since the latter is extremely insecure.
Visa: buy shit easier.
Seems like a move straight out of Google.
You mean the Google that is moving to a Chromecast model where the TV has no real Smart OS* and instead relies on smartphone apps to direct it to content? 2016 Vizio and Sharp TVs have this model (and others Android TV based TVs such as Sony have Google Cast of course but also the whole Android TV enchilada).
P.S., Google Cast doesn't inject any ads.
* Of course there's an OS, but the user-facing smarts aren't on the TV.
I don't think that's the point. What's happening is men are going out of their way to even bother rating shows aimed at women.
Pretty sure it's okay for men to rate any show they want.
I read this,
The publication cites an example of "Sex and the City", a show which apparently won plenty of awards and ran for many years on TV, getting hammered by males on IMDb. Compared to women, who amounted to 60% of the people who rated the show with an average of 8.1, men gave it a 5.8 rating.
There's nothing there to indicate men are "sabotaging" the vote. In fact it's rather the opposite, an large percent of the total reviewers are women, and men are only rating 20% lower than women on average.
...said the guy whose house was burgled because the wrong person found out he'd be out that night.
Paranoia was list item #1. We covered that already. How about sitting outside your house in a car and waiting for you to leave? No l33t sk1lz required.
Men don't like shows focused at women. More news at 11.
Most people in our country think that a talented artist should be able to do it professionally, as their source of income.
I don't think that. Art has no monetary value beyond what people are willing to pay for it, like anything else. If you can get money for your art, terrific, but you don't deserve anything just because someone crowned you a "talented artist".
OTOH, if you want to do your art on nights and weekends after working for a living like the Rest Of Us, that's fine too.
There are dozens of videos from movie and game reviewers about this, who are constantly barraged by baseless takedown notices.
Exactly. Googling on this topic shows quite the opposite of what most people are taking away from TFA. It's not that valid copyright holders can't get takedowns, it's that valid copyright holders are having their videos taken offline because of invalid DMCA takedowns. In other words, Youtube is acting on the (supposed) copyright holder's behalf too aggressively.
You don't need a lawyer to get a DMCA takedown. It's quite easy and requires no proof / evidence.
3. Keep all that revenue after the complaint is found to be baseless
I tried hard to back this up but AFAICT this isn't true. It does temporarily cutoff the revenue stream (which is very bad, especially for smaller creators) but they get the revenue eventually.
It is important to music listeners (you?) because income is what motivates many artists to produce music (initially and on a continuing basis),
What percent of people that consider themselves "artists" make a profit? 1%? Less probably. No, artists aren't motivated by money. They are motivated by a love of the art. If money comes they take it like anybody would, and they take measures to increase their profitability like anyone would, but it isn't their motivation.
The proof is the fantastic amount of art out their produced by nobodies be it music, visual, coding, etc. If you shut off payment for art all together there'd still be fantastic artists.
Youtube is deliberately and with malice of forethought providing a streamlined method for massive copyright violation
Youtube is also the largest and most successful promotional vehicle for artists that's ever existed. Artists want the free promotional platform that earns them money through advertising and the subsequent record and concert sales, but also want Youtube to pay for for the massive effort of managing copyright violations for them.
An artist should be able to say to youtube "anything with my name on it is prohibited", and then it becomes the responsibility of the uploader to demonstrate that the material is not covered by copyright.
Yes that's not ripe for abuse or anything at all.
I can listen to any copyrighted song I want pretty much just by using Youtube.
Yes, and you'll never listen to those copyrighted songs that aren't on Youtube because no one knows or cares about the.
where income is continually transferred from the pockets of musicians and creators of all types, and siphoned directly into their own pockets
No, money is siphoned from consumers' pockets to theirs (Youtube's). The creator never had the money, and would never had it anyway since they don't own a distribution platform. What creators need to get over is that the magic isn't in their creation, it's in the distribution of their creation.
If they aren't leaving it's not alienating by definition. Any change they introduce is going to have some subset of people whining. And a small subset of people on Facebook is a lot of people.
Did I hurt your feelings? Oh you poor, ignorant, little baby. Maybe mommy government will ban all the things you don't like and make it all better.
Reply to This
My feelings hurt by an antisocial 13 year old that hasn't learned how to deal with people in the real world yet? :)
It's going to be tough for you when you get out of your mom's basement. I predict a few bloody noses. You'll learn eventually though.
Says the person who is absolutely terrified of a stoned driver when research shows that if there is any added danger it is negligible. Take your fear-mongering and shove it up your ass.
Exactly. You can make up shit and put words in other peoples' mouths all you like. Trust me, it doesn't serve your purpose. You just alienate people against your own goals.
E.g., I disagree with one aspect here, and it's "hatred", "fear mongering", "ignorant", "asinine", and so on. You are the reason your cause is going to stay in your mom's basement with your skull bong and stack of High Times.
are you intentionally ignoring facts because they disagree with message of hatred?
Yes, you are right. Not wanting people to drive while high is pure hatred. Tell me, does completely blowing shit out of proportion serve you well in other aspects of your life?
Like Microsoft and Mobile,Google seems to be unable to do social media.
That's not true.
Google+ was generally liked and appreciated, but it's a matter of critical mass. No one is going to use a new social media platform because it's pointless unless your friends are there. And BTW, your friends are thinking the same thing. Nothing is going to beat Facebook until either Facebook does something to alienate their users or Google or someone else comes up with something fantastic that Facebook can't copy. Both of those are extremely unlikely.
That chip is really crushing your shoulder. Please quote where I said I hated stoners, or said anything bad at all about pot. No, I don't think people should drive while high (or drunk, or preoccupied, or tired). That's all I said.
If you have interpreted where I joke about stoners and Cheetos as "hate", that's your problem friend. Grow a sense of humor and a little thicker skin.
But if you like, keep going. The hole is getting pretty deep.
I didn't say the abilities of the car, I said the abilities of the driver.
So because you are an idiot, it must be hard.
Ah yes, calling names, the tool of the 'tard when they've run out of things to say.
Not always.
Sigh. You do realize that when someone says "always" they don't literally mean that. Did you really think that I meant EVERY, SINGLE person that speeds also tailgates? Did you think I was suggesting I had knowledge of every single driver in the the universe? I mean really where the F are you coming from Mars?
Yet ironically, it's always the people that drive the fastest that are also tailgating. QED.
Of course, the most important thing you can do on the road is not drive beyond your abilities
And THAT'S the thing. No one gets on the road and says "I'm going to drive beyond my abilities today". People are the worst judges of their own abilities. Don't believe me? Take a look at the number of road deaths. Do you think those people were knowingly driving beyond their limits?
That's why we have objective limits in road speed and rules. It's not that some people can't drive safe at 80, 100, 150. Some can. Some can't. So we set objective rules that are low enough to keep most people safe.
And anyway, it's well known that speed relates to accidents. Reaction times are reduced. Accidents are more severe since more energy is involved. Basic physics.
Yeah, you measure reflexes and decision making skills, and take them off the road if they are unsafe.
None of that matters, until it matters of course. I may be doing perfectly fine until I am not doing fine anymore and don't see the oncoming car. That's why even if you blow a 0.19 you are still going to get a DUI even if you can recite a alphabet backwards.
And yeah, "decision making skills". Sounds like something that can be tested objectively on a road side. Here's my idea: "Sir, there's a baby and a bag of Fritos on the train track, which do you save?"
so you make up arbitrary (and wrong) limits for chemicals, not related to the safety of the driver. Great system.
The issue is that in lieu of a definitive test for for impairment when it comes to smoking pot (like BAC levels), they are taking a zero-tolerance approach. The alternative is just having no regulations at all. I'd rather have a few safe-to-drive stoners go without their Cheetos than err on the side of killing people. Call me crazy.
Is it really this generation's Vietnam if people aren't allowed to drive while high?
There is also reason to believe that the NHS studies showing impairment as a result of marijuana are flawed and either overstated or outright incorrect.
Reason to believe. Those are strong words.