It's not interference or noise - it's the signal that they are meant to transmit, and are licenced to do so by the FCC (or appropriate authorities elsewhere).
The problem is with poor quality, unshielded amplification circuits and computer monitors working poorly when being near any RF source.
No, most often there is absolutely no common networking access between these people, and e-mail is the only connecting thing, as they all have only heavily firewalled access to the outside.
The workgroup that needs to share files can often involve people in different companies - your customers; vendors of services; (advertising companies in particular) parent company; outsourced activities; wholly-owned subsidiaries; consultants; etc), so that naturally means no common hardware servers; no common user authentification; no common software platforms; no common 'higherups' that would push for unification; no common security people that would approve exceptions.
Even in a single medium sized (~300 people and multiple sites) company such situations might occur. In any large company, it's pretty much unavoidable. I have workad at places where getting a possibility of network access from IP address A to IP adress B on port X a process that involves IT, security, and management of different companies and can take from two weeks to two months.
The shared folder system that you describe is natural, works well, and is usually implemented in that or very similar way in most places - for the local users of some branch. But there usually aren't things common for everyone - the network speeds make it impractical, as accessing the server of another branch is much, much slower, so every location tends to have it's own file storage.
Also, if the message takes five minutes to go through the network, then e-mail doesn't make the user wait for this - it is processed automatically. Using Excel or whatever on a remote, slow-speed shared folder does make the user wait for these files - so working on these folders is less user-friendly.
E-mail seems to be the only collaboration tool that works in a heterogenous environment with firewalls in-between and slow connection speeds.
Exactly!
Sending files over e-mail works, period. Getting all parts of a medium (multiple sites, >1000 people) organisation to use a common collaboration system is impossible; and you cannot collaborate with people who use a different system or none at all.
In most medium-to-large organisations, there doesn't exist any file-storage system that is accessible to all people, and e-mail is the only unifying system, as any other systems that work for their department are firewalled off for anyone from the outside.
Collaboration often needs to involve people that
a) are in different geographical areas, and so have different 'local' file storages, since distant file storages are too slow and don't get used;
b) are in different companies (wholly owned subsidiary; customer-vendor; outsourced consultants; etc), but still need to work together and regularly exchange large files; Naturally, they don't have a common way of authorisation.
Can IT provide any solution that's cheaper and as usable as mailing the files around ? If there is no better alternative, then e-mail will just have to do.
Sending 30mb excel file as e-mail attachment to 20 people is a perfectly acceptable way of transferring information if IT hasn't provided a more convenient way of doing that. Networked storage usually is local, and doesn't work when these 20 people are in your company's branches in 5 countries.
Having people copy the file somewhere, sending a link, and then spending a lot of time coordinating if they have physical access to that server and appropriate permissions - that is a completely unacceptable waste of time. The costs of an additional TB of storage and the upgrade of the network to the newest-ten-times-faster-standard are fairly small, if not completely insignificant, compared to a regular couple day's delay on some major project caused by problems of getting some document from point A to point B.
'e-mail abuse' - WTF? It works. Where is a problem? The service of e-mail is meant for things to be easy for business, if heavy use needs more resources, well, then it needs more resources and that's it. If it's cheaper and more efficient to do things some other way, then provide that other way and you'll save IT's time and money. If you can't provide a better way, then there is little use of complaining.
It is a basic fact of economics that a sales tax applies disproportionally to the poor. Poor people spend/consume 100% of their income; The rich, however, 'spend' a large part of their income on buying shares of companies, where they do not pay a sales tax for this, and other ways of getting 'value for your money' which aren't taxed.
Also, similar issues are for income tax - while income of poor people is 100% salary, which gets the full income tax, rich people gain income from their investments, which usually is taxed less or none at all, depending on the way their lawyers have made the investments to get away from taxes.
Well, but everybody is going to die from health problems in the end. And resources are limited, but health care possibilities are not - so there is some kind of limit to the health care that the world can provide (unlike food, shelter and clothing where the demand is a fixed amount in which a person is fed, dry, warm and secure, and his basic needs are satisfied).
There is a sea of difference between healthcare of 0$/year and 100$/year, that can prolong the life expectancy for many years.
However, in the developed world, there often are situations where huge amounts of money are spent to prolong life by 10-20 days. And money never is 'just money' - it's the way of distributing resources, so maybe this money would better be spent prolonging life of other people, where it would have more effect ? Maybe this money would be better spent on raising and educating children ? Maybe this money would better be spent on firefighters, who would also save lives ?
There is a simple fact, that for nearly anybody around us, we could have 'saved his life' (prolonged by some time) by simply spending more on healthcare. For anybody - but not for everybody at the same time. There is no way that everybody could have 3 full-time medics working on maintaining his health. So 'health-care' in the sense of 'expensive but life-saving procedures' can not be a basic human right - since we can't implement it. We can't save all lives that could be saved, we don't have the resources to do so.
If the watermark is 'inaudible', then you can write over some garbage 'watermark', using the exact same method, and the result will be a file with no recognizable watermark, and with 'inaudible' differences.
This is a process that can also be easily automated, and, should this method ever gain popularity, any filesharing program would 'auto-clean' these watermarks on any shared mp3's.
I am not a lawyer, but, saying simply, if you are subject to Sarbonnes-Oxley (sp?), and if there's a request for these mails, and you won't "just hand them over" yourself on a silver platter, then you'll be having huge, huge expenses to keep further from the federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison, since in any case, you are absolutely required to have these e-mails stored, not lost, and available for inspection in any case.
YES, "no one will buy a $500 video card for a game, or the latest fastest processor for a game, or 2 gigs of DDR2 RAM with little blinky lights".
No statistically significant amount of home computer users have done that. Just as the parent said, you are making the mistake of assuming that the average computer user is behaving similarly to your group - and the 'hardcore gamer' group, while very vocal on the 'net; while noticeable financially for the high-end hardware manufacturers, still it is an insignificantly tiny part of the whole Windows user population.
Well, if the countries, the law-makers are signatories of the convention and they have to prevent inappropriate use, so inappropriate use most likely was against the law even before the first computer games were imagined.
I doubt if there is even a single computer game company that is in a country that hasn't signed the Geneva Convention.
I feel that whatever you set that age, the ability to behave responsibly will come only some time after you get the responsibility and ability to learn from your mistakes.
If you are 'shielded' from much responsibility and also prevented from 'risky' things until the age of X, then I'd bet 1 to 100 that at age of X or X+1 you won't be a responsible, mature person, regardless if X is 12 or 52.
In my country, 14 year old Susie has easy access to free condoms.
In my country, 16 year old Susie has a granted right to get free access to a doctor and get birth control prescription in privacy, with her parents absolutely not getting access to any of her private medical information. (I am not sure about 14 year olds. There might or might not be such issues for them. However, 16 year olds have full rights of privacy and patient-doctor secrecy, and especially in teen STD/pregnancy cases we have full attention that this is really done this way)
In my country, 14 year old low-income non-schooled boys and girls would get information about safe sex, demanding use of condoms, STD's, toll-free phones to arrange doctor's consultations and get birth-control items, etc through messages in radio and huge posters at bus stops in cheap housing areas.
Who needs informed children when the 'feelings of the religious' could be harmed? USA has the worst teenage pregnancy and teenage STD problems of all the developed countries, and the the main difference between USA and others seems simply the information that's getting to the kids.
Re:A good online payment system is desperately nee
on
PayPal vs Google(Buy)
·
· Score: 1
Well, that's simply a bank payment (from what you write, I see no difference at all), already accessible from any bank's web-service - you get the seller's info, and make a payment.
Easy to do if you are paying the bill for the month's rent; however, completely useless for things like e-bay - because the buyer is not protected if the item is defective, or not sent at all. You need to trust the seller for this to work.
Well, but in a FPS - you see that there is an enemy in the left-top corner of the screen - so you just click on him like you would an icon, and he dies - and the motion of the screen anyway is visible and gets to your mind only after you have already completed the move-mouse-and-click action.
There was no "mainstream" internet, there was no mainstream internet content, until the pr0n made the internet audience large enough for the mainstream content.
Unknown people, sure, thats okay, and policy of auto-scanning (not by user, but by server) all attachments is neccesary.
But 'ask sender if they meant to send attachment' - come on, you are speaking as if attachments are some exceptional thing.
Here where I work, nearly half of the mails are with attachments, all documents get e-mailed around. And no, shared folders or things like that aren't possible, since these things don't work when you are communicating with people in other companies, other countries. Webservers- maybe, as soon as you get a two-click two-second way to put the document to the proper place with the proper permissions and add to the e-mail the proper link.
And since we do send sometimes funny pics and movies to coworkers, then if this came with a spoofed address of someone I know, then yes, I likely would open the attachment. Well, I would think twice about an executable, but not for other filetypes.
In many museums the main reason for disallowing cameras was that camera flashes are damaging to the artwork, if there are a lot of them (as would be if they were allowed). Since practically, simply disallowing flashes doesn't work (public too ignorant, point-and-shoot cameras autoflashing, etc), then a common policy disallowing photography is made - and that policy does allow video cameras.
Cost/benefit analyis is basically X barrels of oil vs. the cost of the car. As the price of oil changes, the cost/benefit will change as well.
If you take the into the cost/benefit analysis the cost of the car over, say, 20 years, then you ought to take not the current gas price, but the average expected gas price over 20 years - which is much, much higher than the current price.
For everyone that builds his own computer, there are a hundred Dell's, so in any discussion of potential rootkit spreads and security situation of the whole networked population, you can just disregard anyone with self-built computers and premium motherboards (which could have the backup BIOS'es proposed in the post above), since their impact on the total situation is completely insignificant.
Electronics component manufacturing is so low-margin that if you can save 25 cents per unit by not putting a chip there, that might easily double your profit. And spending 25 cents more per unit can turn it from a profit making item into a loss.
These small things do add up to real money, and margins are so low that nobody will add anything unless it's a feature that makes sales (and no, "slightly better security measures for motherboard " are not something that Joe Sixpack will notice on the feature list).
Well, but it's clearly a very Good Thing (tm) to me personally and every single one user of this system!
It means that USA will either leave the civilian signal alone (the desired outcome) or would also have to jam it's military signal, leaving their army GPS-less as well.
It seems to me a very good, nice and elegant solution if it really works this way, and it doesn't need to be 'resolved' in any way.
Being convenient for US military to jam is of no benefit to the Europe's citizens , it would be the real world equivalent of a software vulnerability allowing denial-of-service attacks.
Well, if your bounding box is growing, then it's not the fault of the rounding method, but of the calculations that allow the error to grow and accumulate over time.
As soon as you stard dealing with non-discrete values (like the dimensions of your bounding box), you need to use different methods - for example, always re-calculating from the previous state is a big no-no, even if you are simply adding (the rotation trigonometry will give the horrible results you mentioned). You need to re-calculate the bounding box every time using the original values - the original positions of the points, rotated/moved to match the position of the object. NOT the previous position re-rotated/re-moved. If properly done, it should work at the same speed anyway, it's not computationally more expensive.
For example, calculating interest from 10,000,000 accounts. You have 10,000,000 numbers that need rounding, you want the total rounding error to be as small as possible, but you can't round after accumulation, since you need to have the 10,000,000 separate values rounded as well.
Or, calculating daily interest accrual on account - you have 30 days in a month, so 30 numbers that need rounding, and at the end of the month you would post the rounding correction. (Difference between the 'add all and round' and 'round all and add' values). Naturally, you need a method that minimises this correction - and financial rounding methods are mandated by law probably everywhere, from USA to Nigeria.
Now I can conveniently, at the same time, lose (and have a stranger find)
# all my favorite bookmarks # all my appointments # all my contacts and settings # my buddy list # my documents and presentations # my important passwords and account information
Slashdot Mirror
It's not interference or noise - it's the signal that they are meant to transmit, and are licenced to do so by the FCC (or appropriate authorities elsewhere).
The problem is with poor quality, unshielded amplification circuits and computer monitors working poorly when being near any RF source.
No, most often there is absolutely no common networking access between these people, and e-mail is the only connecting thing, as they all have only heavily firewalled access to the outside.
The workgroup that needs to share files can often involve people in different companies - your customers; vendors of services; (advertising companies in particular) parent company; outsourced activities; wholly-owned subsidiaries; consultants; etc), so that naturally means no common hardware servers; no common user authentification; no common software platforms; no common 'higherups' that would push for unification; no common security people that would approve exceptions.
Even in a single medium sized (~300 people and multiple sites) company such situations might occur. In any large company, it's pretty much unavoidable. I have workad at places where getting a possibility of network access from IP address A to IP adress B on port X a process that involves IT, security, and management of different companies and can take from two weeks to two months.
The shared folder system that you describe is natural, works well, and is usually implemented in that or very similar way in most places - for the local users of some branch. But there usually aren't things common for everyone - the network speeds make it impractical, as accessing the server of another branch is much, much slower, so every location tends to have it's own file storage.
Also, if the message takes five minutes to go through the network, then e-mail doesn't make the user wait for this - it is processed automatically. Using Excel or whatever on a remote, slow-speed shared folder does make the user wait for these files - so working on these folders is less user-friendly.
E-mail seems to be the only collaboration tool that works in a heterogenous environment with firewalls in-between and slow connection speeds.
Exactly!
Sending files over e-mail works, period.
Getting all parts of a medium (multiple sites, >1000 people) organisation to use a common collaboration system is impossible; and you cannot collaborate with people who use a different system or none at all.
In most medium-to-large organisations, there doesn't exist any file-storage system that is accessible to all people, and e-mail is the only unifying system, as any other systems that work for their department are firewalled off for anyone from the outside.
Collaboration often needs to involve people that
a) are in different geographical areas, and so have different 'local' file storages, since distant file storages are too slow and don't get used;
b) are in different companies (wholly owned subsidiary; customer-vendor; outsourced consultants; etc), but still need to work together and regularly exchange large files; Naturally, they don't have a common way of authorisation.
Can IT provide any solution that's cheaper and as usable as mailing the files around ? If there is no better alternative, then e-mail will just have to do.
Sending 30mb excel file as e-mail attachment to 20 people is a perfectly acceptable way of transferring information if IT hasn't provided a more convenient way of doing that. Networked storage usually is local, and doesn't work when these 20 people are in your company's branches in 5 countries.
Having people copy the file somewhere, sending a link, and then spending a lot of time coordinating if they have physical access to that server and appropriate permissions - that is a completely unacceptable waste of time.
The costs of an additional TB of storage and the upgrade of the network to the newest-ten-times-faster-standard are fairly small, if not completely insignificant, compared to a regular couple day's delay on some major project caused by problems of getting some document from point A to point B.
'e-mail abuse' - WTF? It works. Where is a problem? The service of e-mail is meant for things to be easy for business, if heavy use needs more resources, well, then it needs more resources and that's it. If it's cheaper and more efficient to do things some other way, then provide that other way and you'll save IT's time and money. If you can't provide a better way, then there is little use of complaining.
It is a basic fact of economics that a sales tax applies disproportionally to the poor.
Poor people spend/consume 100% of their income; The rich, however, 'spend' a large part of their income on buying shares of companies, where they do not pay a sales tax for this, and other ways of getting 'value for your money' which aren't taxed.
Also, similar issues are for income tax - while income of poor people is 100% salary, which gets the full income tax, rich people gain income from their investments, which usually is taxed less or none at all, depending on the way their lawyers have made the investments to get away from taxes.
Well, but everybody is going to die from health problems in the end.
And resources are limited, but health care possibilities are not - so there is some kind of limit to the health care that the world can provide (unlike food, shelter and clothing where the demand is a fixed amount in which a person is fed, dry, warm and secure, and his basic needs are satisfied).
There is a sea of difference between healthcare of 0$/year and 100$/year, that can prolong the life expectancy for many years.
However, in the developed world, there often are situations where huge amounts of money are spent to prolong life by 10-20 days. And money never is 'just money' - it's the way of distributing resources, so maybe this money would better be spent prolonging life of other people, where it would have more effect ? Maybe this money would be better spent on raising and educating children ? Maybe this money would better be spent on firefighters, who would also save lives ?
There is a simple fact, that for nearly anybody around us, we could have 'saved his life' (prolonged by some time) by simply spending more on healthcare. For anybody - but not for everybody at the same time. There is no way that everybody could have 3 full-time medics working on maintaining his health. So 'health-care' in the sense of 'expensive but life-saving procedures' can not be a basic human right - since we can't implement it. We can't save all lives that could be saved, we don't have the resources to do so.
If the watermark is 'inaudible', then you can write over some garbage 'watermark', using the exact same method, and the result will be a file with no recognizable watermark, and with 'inaudible' differences.
This is a process that can also be easily automated, and, should this method ever gain popularity, any filesharing program would 'auto-clean' these watermarks on any shared mp3's.
Regarding "Objects coming towards us will never be going that fast.", check http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/ohmygodpart.html for an intresting read.
I am not a lawyer, but, saying simply, if you are subject to Sarbonnes-Oxley (sp?), and if there's a request for these mails, and you won't "just hand them over" yourself on a silver platter, then you'll be having huge, huge expenses to keep further from the federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison, since in any case, you are absolutely required to have these e-mails stored, not lost, and available for inspection in any case.
YES, "no one will buy a $500 video card for a game, or the latest fastest processor for a game, or 2 gigs of DDR2 RAM with little blinky lights".
No statistically significant amount of home computer users have done that. Just as the parent said, you are making the mistake of assuming that the average computer user is behaving similarly to your group - and the 'hardcore gamer' group, while very vocal on the 'net; while noticeable financially for the high-end hardware manufacturers, still it is an insignificantly tiny part of the whole Windows user population.
Well, if the countries, the law-makers are signatories of the convention and they have to prevent inappropriate use, so inappropriate use most likely was against the law even before the first computer games were imagined.
I doubt if there is even a single computer game company that is in a country that hasn't signed the Geneva Convention.
I feel that whatever you set that age, the ability to behave responsibly will come only some time after you get the responsibility and ability to learn from your mistakes.
If you are 'shielded' from much responsibility and also prevented from 'risky' things until the age of X, then I'd bet 1 to 100 that at age of X or X+1 you won't be a responsible, mature person, regardless if X is 12 or 52.
In my country, 14 year old Susie has easy access to free condoms.
In my country, 16 year old Susie has a granted right to get free access to a doctor and get birth control prescription in privacy, with her parents absolutely not getting access to any of her private medical information. (I am not sure about 14 year olds. There might or might not be such issues for them. However, 16 year olds have full rights of privacy and patient-doctor secrecy, and especially in teen STD/pregnancy cases we have full attention that this is really done this way)
In my country, 14 year old low-income non-schooled boys and girls would get information about safe sex, demanding use of condoms, STD's, toll-free phones to arrange doctor's consultations and get birth-control items, etc through messages in radio and huge posters at bus stops in cheap housing areas.
Who needs informed children when the 'feelings of the religious' could be harmed? USA has the worst teenage pregnancy and teenage STD problems of all the developed countries, and the the main difference between USA and others seems simply the information that's getting to the kids.
Well, that's simply a bank payment (from what you write, I see no difference at all), already accessible from any bank's web-service - you get the seller's info, and make a payment.
Easy to do if you are paying the bill for the month's rent; however, completely useless for things like e-bay - because the buyer is not protected if the item is defective, or not sent at all. You need to trust the seller for this to work.
Well, but in a FPS - you see that there is an enemy in the left-top corner of the screen - so you just click on him like you would an icon, and he dies - and the motion of the screen anyway is visible and gets to your mind only after you have already completed the move-mouse-and-click action.
There was no "mainstream" internet, there was no mainstream internet content, until the pr0n made the internet audience large enough for the mainstream content.
Unknown people, sure, thats okay, and policy of auto-scanning (not by user, but by server) all attachments is neccesary.
But 'ask sender if they meant to send attachment' - come on, you are speaking as if attachments are some exceptional thing.
Here where I work, nearly half of the mails are with attachments, all documents get e-mailed around. And no, shared folders or things like that aren't possible, since these things don't work when you are communicating with people in other companies, other countries. Webservers- maybe, as soon as you get a two-click two-second way to put the document to the proper place with the proper permissions and add to the e-mail the proper link.
And since we do send sometimes funny pics and movies to coworkers, then if this came with a spoofed address of someone I know, then yes, I likely would open the attachment. Well, I would think twice about an executable, but not for other filetypes.
In many museums the main reason for disallowing cameras was that camera flashes are damaging to the artwork, if there are a lot of them (as would be if they were allowed). Since practically, simply disallowing flashes doesn't work (public too ignorant, point-and-shoot cameras autoflashing, etc), then a common policy disallowing photography is made - and that policy does allow video cameras.
Cost/benefit analyis is basically X barrels of oil vs. the cost of the car.
As the price of oil changes, the cost/benefit will change as well.
If you take the into the cost/benefit analysis the cost of the car over, say, 20 years, then you ought to take not the current gas price, but the average expected gas price over 20 years - which is much, much higher than the current price.
Well, that's the point.
For everyone that builds his own computer, there are a hundred Dell's, so in any discussion of potential rootkit spreads and security situation of the whole networked population, you can just disregard anyone with self-built computers and premium motherboards (which could have the backup BIOS'es proposed in the post above), since their impact on the total situation is completely insignificant.
Electronics component manufacturing is so low-margin that if you can save 25 cents per unit by not putting a chip there, that might easily double your profit. And spending 25 cents more per unit can turn it from a profit making item into a loss.
These small things do add up to real money, and margins are so low that nobody will add anything unless it's a feature that makes sales (and no, "slightly better security measures for motherboard " are not something that Joe Sixpack will notice on the feature list).
Well, but it's clearly a very Good Thing (tm) to me personally and every single one user of this system!
It means that USA will either leave the civilian signal alone (the desired outcome) or would also have to jam it's military signal, leaving their army GPS-less as well.
It seems to me a very good, nice and elegant solution if it really works this way, and it doesn't need to be 'resolved' in any way.
Being convenient for US military to jam is of no benefit to the Europe's citizens , it would be the real world equivalent of a software vulnerability allowing denial-of-service attacks.
Well, if your bounding box is growing, then it's not the fault of the rounding method, but of the calculations that allow the error to grow and accumulate over time.
As soon as you stard dealing with non-discrete values (like the dimensions of your bounding box), you need to use different methods - for example, always re-calculating from the previous state is a big no-no, even if you are simply adding (the rotation trigonometry will give the horrible results you mentioned).
You need to re-calculate the bounding box every time using the original values - the original positions of the points, rotated/moved to match the position of the object. NOT the previous position re-rotated/re-moved. If properly done, it should work at the same speed anyway, it's not computationally more expensive.
For example, calculating interest from 10,000,000 accounts. You have 10,000,000 numbers that need rounding, you want the total rounding error to be as small as possible, but you can't round after accumulation, since you need to have the 10,000,000 separate values rounded as well.
Or, calculating daily interest accrual on account - you have 30 days in a month, so 30 numbers that need rounding, and at the end of the month you would post the rounding correction. (Difference between the 'add all and round' and 'round all and add' values). Naturally, you need a method that minimises this correction - and financial rounding methods are mandated by law probably everywhere, from USA to Nigeria.
Great!
Now I can conveniently, at the same time, lose (and have a stranger find)
# all my favorite bookmarks
# all my appointments
# all my contacts and settings
# my buddy list
# my documents and presentations
# my important passwords and account information
Fun, isn't it ?