I haven't invested in bitcoin, but isn't the concept of a bitcoin that it can be divided indefinately? can't you buy.0001 bitcoins or something? I mean it would be a pretty untenible currency if you could only trade 500-11,000 at a time.
Right, which is more or less the misconception, (at least with regards to rules etc..., technically now autopilot has advanced enough that the pilot probably could get away with it without causing harm, but pretty sure rules and regulations still mandate at minimum one pilot paying attention at all times).
but, that already works on human drivers... set up a blue LED. Pick up a halloween police officer outfit, keep a flashlight shone in the guys face to keep him from investigating too closely. Honestly i'd say it's easier to fool humans than self driving cars (not implying it's hard to fool a bot, just even easier to fool a human)
because it was designed by engineers who know what autopilot was used for in planes, but with bad enough marketing to not understand that people think it was always some magic box that eliminated pilots. To me it's kind of baffling, we've had autopilot in planes for decades yet we all expect to hear "This is your captain speaking" intercom announcements, are aware that we not only have a pilot, but a co-pilot for him. Nobody expects autopilot in an airplane to mean the pilots should be able to spend the flight in first class sipping champagne and watching the movie, yet somehow that's what we expect it to mean in cars.
quite true there, at least once those cars become common, Much lower death count, but much higher psychological effect, 4 or 5 cars take suicide dives and hit a couple pedestrians on the way, everyone second guesses every car they get in and every approaching car they see. Most of the theft methods could have counters (extra hidden gps trackers, say placed in unexpected places that don't start transmitting until an hour after the main gps turns off.
well no one is imagining this as a fool proof your car can never be stolen idea. The lock on your front door can also be picked in under a minute by a half trained etc...
however a very large percentage of thieves are just opportunistic junkies or just desperate people etc... with little in the way of skills just stumbling into a good opportunity at a moments notice. Now I'm not saying giving law enforcement access to remote takeover your car, or the security implications when this is inevitably compromised by malicious hackers and used to steal cars or worse kidnap/rob/kill people etc... but in terms of being able to stop a good percentage of car thieves, I would say yes the potential is absolutely there.
Yeah that's an option... however probably not as good of one in the mobile era. Everyone's gotta do everything on their darn phones... and those phones can't waste the battery beyond expectations.
And of course crypto-currencies currently plummeting in price. and general reputation from things that have evilly used it without permission. I do agree it's a good concept, probably the one I'd tolerate the easiest, but it's still a tough sell, and sadly there's still quite a few people that don't see their privacy as worth anything.
I love the idea... but unfortunately that also involves the general public accepting something they've never been willing to consider. Paying for their services. Something else happened about 20 years ago. Sites realized their banner adds weren't paying the bandwidth. Then came mass splits in how to deal with it.
Some attempted to make their adds bigger and more obnoxious. Full page adds, flash ads, "please watch this video", audio ads etc...
Some tried the paywall method, either some or all of the content only availible if you pay a monthly fee.
These 2 methods were both pretty big failures in their own right. Bottom line, people didn't want to pay for access to pages as they felt that they already were paying for them by paying their ISP (though of course ISP's don't exactly give throwbacks to content creators, only hosting/bandwidth fees).
So lastly google basically created the tracking system, IE small unintrusive ads that were effective because of advanced targetting and tracking. Of course that's the privacy nightmare... but it's the first one that wasn't in peoples face. It didn't interupt the consumption of content the way obnoxious ads did, and sadly extra fee's never quite suited people.
In order to get rid of the crappy practices, someone needs to come up with a viable new system. The current methods being crap is a valid statement, if someone actually comes up with a working way to turn views into cash without tracking or ruining the experience, they'd become very wealthy very fast.
Pretty large amount of gas station atms... have a gas station. I haven't seen one before that isn't in sight range from the cash register. You can push a few buttons maybe pull off 1-2 minutes worth of tasks... I wouldn't imagine much in the way of opening doors, plugging in computers etc... as particularly viable, though even the summary mentions something along the lines of "wireless signal spoofing", OK yeah I can see it being fairly easy to get away with a wifi signal hijack
Either way, my general point still is there. The most basic console anti-piracy is good enough. The mere concept of needing to modify (or find someone who can modify) your console is a pretty big deal breaker for 95% of users, throw in the risk of bricking your console or permanently detaching it from online servers etc...
IMO the difference in piracy fears between any 2 consoles is pretty darn negligible because of the huge inherent risks of trashing your console is a pretty big universal brick wall to keep piracy from ever reaching any noteworthy percentages.
honestly I don't get why it's really worth it to go so crazy on the consoles. PC gaming hasn't exactly been killed by piracy, and that's in a world where 99.9% of the time piracy is, "download torrent, run game", if it's really complex, replace games installed exe and 1 or 2 DLLs with the pirates version. Maybe you have a 2% risk of downloading some malware.
Console piracy, you usually need someone comfortable enough to open up the console, usually solder a thing or 2, buy an external chip that runs a bit. Oh and run the risk that if the console manufacturers detect it the console may permanantly be blocked from buying or using existing games.
The reality is I'd be pretty darn shocked if console piracy even had a blip of effect on their sales, the insane amount of hurdles someone has to go through to do it, combined with the risks, drawbacks, etc... its simply insane to me to imagine that's actually worth their time to keep whack a moling it.
The initial hurdles of getting consoles modded etc... it would seem to me all that's really needed after that is. ban abusers in online games... over time set up some detections that will ban the users account. The.01% of players that are likely to be using these things aren't worth that much effort to chase.
pretty sure attempting to destroy evidence counts if you are knowingly destroying something that you know the police are going to try to search. If the police are about to search your car, and you set it on fire before they can arrive... pretty sure that counts as destroying evidence, regardless of whether the police can prove there was or wasn't evidence in the car.
How does the voice help or hurt the concept, what should I do tommorow isn't a voice assistant problem, it's an AI problem, IE does the system know me well enough to give a recommendation of what I like etc... Obviously voice is a nice way to access it, voice could be interesting when we start personifying things in a more literal sense.
Whether you ask out loud or type it into a keyboard has very little impact on how impressive it is if the computer actually calculates the answer to life the universe and everything.
I wouldn't imagine they'd have been run over or destroyed. There's 3 logical results
1. Nobody cares.. Group see's the unknown, determines it as not a threat or benefit, doesn't bother to get past signal range.
2. They care for benevolent reasons. Maybe wish to trade recipes or ask what's going on on that rock... more advanced society may or may not be able to find a use for unique plants or animals to that island/planet that don't disrupt the natural order too much.
3. Malovent reasons: Outright destroying isn't likely to be the case in most societies, It costs money, time etc... to wage a fight, even when you have all the advantages, but it is meaningless if you have nothing to gain... So possible things to gain are, geological or biological resources Slave labor would have made sense in the 15th-16th century, not so much to a society technologically advanced enough for interplanetary travel. Really they wouldn't likely bother with the humans unless something easier to obtain on earth were hard to obtain in most easilly accessible planets.
well that's true if you assume transparency etc... The reason why it needs to be discussed and pointed out, is a lot of the people don't understand this. There's a reason why pyramid schemes etc... are illegal. They make money off of ignorance. Now some of facebooks users understand everything they put on facebook is going to be mined and sold to companies willing to pay for it. Some actually are completely in the dark and just assume it's voodoo paying for their usage of it.
agreed there, that's also why arcades are dying/dead in america while they still are doing ok in japan. You look at japanese arcades and see dance dance revolution, boxing games with physical boxing gloves that you have to punch things, table flip games where you have a physical table to flip etc..
you look at an american arcade you see... 30 fighting games etc... American arcades seem to specialize in games that you can just swap out the board to turn into another game, which of course, is exactly what home consoles and PCs specialize in, yet they can't seem to get why nobody is going to them anymore.
depends on who you are meaning privacy from. Microsoft is huge on handing things over to big G without permission, google historically gives the absolute minimum required by law. Google absolutely sucks at privacy in terms of what they keep for themselves, but for the most part they aren't eager to hand it out.
That would imply the chinese government would allow products to be sold in the open that don't do what they want. Google is just now coming out with a version of their search engine that will be allowed in china. The chinese people may or may not like google, but without bypassing the great firewall using google was not possible.
Likewise if the chinese government wasn't ok with using iphones... the sales numbers wouldn't be recorded, because the iphones would be getting smuggled in after being purchased somewhere else.
I don't see where you are getting at in terms of that. I see no noteworthy difference in the time or difficulty of creating an account on say pluspora.com, versus making one on facebook.com. As far as I can see, the only increase of difficulty is
on facebook most people already have an account they made 5 years ago, so setup is moot, 2. everyone they want to talk to is already on facebook.
If you took pairs of 12 year olds that have access to e-mail and basic mouse/keyboard understanding, but don't have a social media account. Set them all the challange to make themselves accounts and send a message to eachother. Putting one pair at facebook, one at pluspora.com, and oh lets say one on mewe... with the challange of creating accounts for each of them and sending a message from one to the other.. I can't see why any group would take more or less time than any other, registration and adding people is very basic and straight foward on all 3 of those options.
Facebooks obvious advantage is... nobody has to create a new account because almost everyone has registered for facebook within the last decade or so... but obviously that's going to be a universal problem for anyone that isnt' facebook unless you allow facebook to become a master authentication service... which kinda defeats most good reasons to get off of them.
IMO facebook isn't really that complicated to redo... technically it's already done. Diaspora more or less already does this. In short, it works like e-mail. Any group can make their own smallish group of servers, users can register at them. In short it more or less works exactly lie facebook in terms that you just go to a webpage, register and set things up. You get an account more or less like "Username@domain.com"... your account is hosted by that domain. The only thing that may be slightly more complicated on the user end, is when they add a friend they need to add @domain.com . kind of like how they do with e-mail, if you don't trust or like the host you have, you can move over, and still carry over your contacts (though they have to re-approve you to grant you permissions to their things).
The real issue isn't getting the service as practical as facebook, IMO it's already there. It's getting people in enough quantities to take the time to get off of facebook... and to stick around on a not-facebook service with few users, long enough that every user doesn't come in, see nobody on and leave ad infinium.
while it's further away I'd imagine mental input might replace it. Speach recognition has a huge flaw to it... namely lack of ability to be used discretely in public. There's a reason why text messages rapidly surpassed phone calls even back when the standard input method was "tap 1 3 times for C". That advantage being the ability to talk to someone in a crowded theatre, or office meeting etc... without excessively distracting those around you, as well as the ability to communicate in very loud places without your messages being sidetracked.
well it's not like they have said they won't quit. isn't the typical sane order, first ask and express your disagreement to the people making the decision. That way in their pro's and cons list they are aware that a good portion of their employees quitting if they do it is a potential con.
well google themselves admit they aren't active users, most are people who signed up when it was required to get to youtube or things. That being said from what I've seen G+ interface and use wise I always found better than facebook... Though I value my privacy and don't give a crap about what my "friends" would say publicly to a full audience, so I don't really comprehend the appeal of either.
Well yeah there are always legal fines etc... But historically I've never seen one that's not like a parking ticket to the scale of the business out there. I highly doubt that compares to the man hours, marketing etc... that google pushed into trying to make G+ compete with facebook back in 2010
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't invested in bitcoin, but isn't the concept of a bitcoin that it can be divided indefinately? can't you buy .0001 bitcoins or something? I mean it would be a pretty untenible currency if you could only trade 500-11,000 at a time.
Right, which is more or less the misconception, (at least with regards to rules etc..., technically now autopilot has advanced enough that the pilot probably could get away with it without causing harm, but pretty sure rules and regulations still mandate at minimum one pilot paying attention at all times).
but, that already works on human drivers... set up a blue LED. Pick up a halloween police officer outfit, keep a flashlight shone in the guys face to keep him from investigating too closely. Honestly i'd say it's easier to fool humans than self driving cars (not implying it's hard to fool a bot, just even easier to fool a human)
because it was designed by engineers who know what autopilot was used for in planes, but with bad enough marketing to not understand that people think it was always some magic box that eliminated pilots. To me it's kind of baffling, we've had autopilot in planes for decades yet we all expect to hear "This is your captain speaking" intercom announcements, are aware that we not only have a pilot, but a co-pilot for him. Nobody expects autopilot in an airplane to mean the pilots should be able to spend the flight in first class sipping champagne and watching the movie, yet somehow that's what we expect it to mean in cars.
They really need to add it anyway.
quite true there, at least once those cars become common, Much lower death count, but much higher psychological effect, 4 or 5 cars take suicide dives and hit a couple pedestrians on the way, everyone second guesses every car they get in and every approaching car they see. Most of the theft methods could have counters (extra hidden gps trackers, say placed in unexpected places that don't start transmitting until an hour after the main gps turns off.
well no one is imagining this as a fool proof your car can never be stolen idea. The lock on your front door can also be picked in under a minute by a half trained etc...
however a very large percentage of thieves are just opportunistic junkies or just desperate people etc... with little in the way of skills just stumbling into a good opportunity at a moments notice. Now I'm not saying giving law enforcement access to remote takeover your car, or the security implications when this is inevitably compromised by malicious hackers and used to steal cars or worse kidnap/rob/kill people etc... but in terms of being able to stop a good percentage of car thieves, I would say yes the potential is absolutely there.
Yeah that's an option... however probably not as good of one in the mobile era. Everyone's gotta do everything on their darn phones... and those phones can't waste the battery beyond expectations. And of course crypto-currencies currently plummeting in price. and general reputation from things that have evilly used it without permission. I do agree it's a good concept, probably the one I'd tolerate the easiest, but it's still a tough sell, and sadly there's still quite a few people that don't see their privacy as worth anything.
I love the idea... but unfortunately that also involves the general public accepting something they've never been willing to consider. Paying for their services. Something else happened about 20 years ago. Sites realized their banner adds weren't paying the bandwidth. Then came mass splits in how to deal with it. Some attempted to make their adds bigger and more obnoxious. Full page adds, flash ads, "please watch this video", audio ads etc... Some tried the paywall method, either some or all of the content only availible if you pay a monthly fee. These 2 methods were both pretty big failures in their own right. Bottom line, people didn't want to pay for access to pages as they felt that they already were paying for them by paying their ISP (though of course ISP's don't exactly give throwbacks to content creators, only hosting/bandwidth fees). So lastly google basically created the tracking system, IE small unintrusive ads that were effective because of advanced targetting and tracking. Of course that's the privacy nightmare... but it's the first one that wasn't in peoples face. It didn't interupt the consumption of content the way obnoxious ads did, and sadly extra fee's never quite suited people. In order to get rid of the crappy practices, someone needs to come up with a viable new system. The current methods being crap is a valid statement, if someone actually comes up with a working way to turn views into cash without tracking or ruining the experience, they'd become very wealthy very fast.
Pretty large amount of gas station atms... have a gas station. I haven't seen one before that isn't in sight range from the cash register. You can push a few buttons maybe pull off 1-2 minutes worth of tasks... I wouldn't imagine much in the way of opening doors, plugging in computers etc... as particularly viable, though even the summary mentions something along the lines of "wireless signal spoofing", OK yeah I can see it being fairly easy to get away with a wifi signal hijack
Either way, my general point still is there. The most basic console anti-piracy is good enough. The mere concept of needing to modify (or find someone who can modify) your console is a pretty big deal breaker for 95% of users, throw in the risk of bricking your console or permanently detaching it from online servers etc... IMO the difference in piracy fears between any 2 consoles is pretty darn negligible because of the huge inherent risks of trashing your console is a pretty big universal brick wall to keep piracy from ever reaching any noteworthy percentages.
honestly I don't get why it's really worth it to go so crazy on the consoles. PC gaming hasn't exactly been killed by piracy, and that's in a world where 99.9% of the time piracy is, "download torrent, run game", if it's really complex, replace games installed exe and 1 or 2 DLLs with the pirates version. Maybe you have a 2% risk of downloading some malware. Console piracy, you usually need someone comfortable enough to open up the console, usually solder a thing or 2, buy an external chip that runs a bit. Oh and run the risk that if the console manufacturers detect it the console may permanantly be blocked from buying or using existing games. The reality is I'd be pretty darn shocked if console piracy even had a blip of effect on their sales, the insane amount of hurdles someone has to go through to do it, combined with the risks, drawbacks, etc... its simply insane to me to imagine that's actually worth their time to keep whack a moling it. The initial hurdles of getting consoles modded etc... it would seem to me all that's really needed after that is. ban abusers in online games... over time set up some detections that will ban the users account. The .01% of players that are likely to be using these things aren't worth that much effort to chase.
pretty sure attempting to destroy evidence counts if you are knowingly destroying something that you know the police are going to try to search. If the police are about to search your car, and you set it on fire before they can arrive... pretty sure that counts as destroying evidence, regardless of whether the police can prove there was or wasn't evidence in the car.
How does the voice help or hurt the concept, what should I do tommorow isn't a voice assistant problem, it's an AI problem, IE does the system know me well enough to give a recommendation of what I like etc... Obviously voice is a nice way to access it, voice could be interesting when we start personifying things in a more literal sense. Whether you ask out loud or type it into a keyboard has very little impact on how impressive it is if the computer actually calculates the answer to life the universe and everything.
I wouldn't imagine they'd have been run over or destroyed. There's 3 logical results 1. Nobody cares.. Group see's the unknown, determines it as not a threat or benefit, doesn't bother to get past signal range. 2. They care for benevolent reasons. Maybe wish to trade recipes or ask what's going on on that rock... more advanced society may or may not be able to find a use for unique plants or animals to that island/planet that don't disrupt the natural order too much. 3. Malovent reasons: Outright destroying isn't likely to be the case in most societies, It costs money, time etc... to wage a fight, even when you have all the advantages, but it is meaningless if you have nothing to gain... So possible things to gain are, geological or biological resources Slave labor would have made sense in the 15th-16th century, not so much to a society technologically advanced enough for interplanetary travel. Really they wouldn't likely bother with the humans unless something easier to obtain on earth were hard to obtain in most easilly accessible planets.
well that's true if you assume transparency etc... The reason why it needs to be discussed and pointed out, is a lot of the people don't understand this. There's a reason why pyramid schemes etc... are illegal. They make money off of ignorance. Now some of facebooks users understand everything they put on facebook is going to be mined and sold to companies willing to pay for it. Some actually are completely in the dark and just assume it's voodoo paying for their usage of it.
agreed there, that's also why arcades are dying/dead in america while they still are doing ok in japan. You look at japanese arcades and see dance dance revolution, boxing games with physical boxing gloves that you have to punch things, table flip games where you have a physical table to flip etc.. you look at an american arcade you see... 30 fighting games etc... American arcades seem to specialize in games that you can just swap out the board to turn into another game, which of course, is exactly what home consoles and PCs specialize in, yet they can't seem to get why nobody is going to them anymore.
depends on who you are meaning privacy from. Microsoft is huge on handing things over to big G without permission, google historically gives the absolute minimum required by law. Google absolutely sucks at privacy in terms of what they keep for themselves, but for the most part they aren't eager to hand it out.
That would imply the chinese government would allow products to be sold in the open that don't do what they want. Google is just now coming out with a version of their search engine that will be allowed in china. The chinese people may or may not like google, but without bypassing the great firewall using google was not possible. Likewise if the chinese government wasn't ok with using iphones... the sales numbers wouldn't be recorded, because the iphones would be getting smuggled in after being purchased somewhere else.
I don't see where you are getting at in terms of that. I see no noteworthy difference in the time or difficulty of creating an account on say pluspora.com, versus making one on facebook.com. As far as I can see, the only increase of difficulty is on facebook most people already have an account they made 5 years ago, so setup is moot, 2. everyone they want to talk to is already on facebook. If you took pairs of 12 year olds that have access to e-mail and basic mouse/keyboard understanding, but don't have a social media account. Set them all the challange to make themselves accounts and send a message to eachother. Putting one pair at facebook, one at pluspora.com, and oh lets say one on mewe... with the challange of creating accounts for each of them and sending a message from one to the other.. I can't see why any group would take more or less time than any other, registration and adding people is very basic and straight foward on all 3 of those options. Facebooks obvious advantage is... nobody has to create a new account because almost everyone has registered for facebook within the last decade or so... but obviously that's going to be a universal problem for anyone that isnt' facebook unless you allow facebook to become a master authentication service... which kinda defeats most good reasons to get off of them.
IMO facebook isn't really that complicated to redo... technically it's already done. Diaspora more or less already does this. In short, it works like e-mail. Any group can make their own smallish group of servers, users can register at them. In short it more or less works exactly lie facebook in terms that you just go to a webpage, register and set things up. You get an account more or less like "Username@domain.com"... your account is hosted by that domain. The only thing that may be slightly more complicated on the user end, is when they add a friend they need to add @domain.com . kind of like how they do with e-mail, if you don't trust or like the host you have, you can move over, and still carry over your contacts (though they have to re-approve you to grant you permissions to their things). The real issue isn't getting the service as practical as facebook, IMO it's already there. It's getting people in enough quantities to take the time to get off of facebook... and to stick around on a not-facebook service with few users, long enough that every user doesn't come in, see nobody on and leave ad infinium.
while it's further away I'd imagine mental input might replace it. Speach recognition has a huge flaw to it... namely lack of ability to be used discretely in public. There's a reason why text messages rapidly surpassed phone calls even back when the standard input method was "tap 1 3 times for C". That advantage being the ability to talk to someone in a crowded theatre, or office meeting etc... without excessively distracting those around you, as well as the ability to communicate in very loud places without your messages being sidetracked.
well it's not like they have said they won't quit. isn't the typical sane order, first ask and express your disagreement to the people making the decision. That way in their pro's and cons list they are aware that a good portion of their employees quitting if they do it is a potential con.
well google themselves admit they aren't active users, most are people who signed up when it was required to get to youtube or things. That being said from what I've seen G+ interface and use wise I always found better than facebook... Though I value my privacy and don't give a crap about what my "friends" would say publicly to a full audience, so I don't really comprehend the appeal of either.
Well yeah there are always legal fines etc... But historically I've never seen one that's not like a parking ticket to the scale of the business out there. I highly doubt that compares to the man hours, marketing etc... that google pushed into trying to make G+ compete with facebook back in 2010