You see kids, this is just another reason why you need *layered* security. Biometrics, PKI, keyfobs, enryption, uids/passwords, alone they all suck. When you start using them in combination, *then* you start putting up reasonable barriers to would be adversaries.
Yes, 54Mbps is plenty for a single HD stream. The maximum bit-rate allowed by the blu-ray standard is 40Mbits
Except that you never really do get 54Mbps. You'd be lucky to maintain a constant 10Mbps. 54Mbps wireless is completely unacceptable for HD Content because the player is expecting a semi-constant stream of data which the wireless router typically can't deliver. I'd stick with a hardline.
My wife is a worry-wart and I use this argument against my spouse for doing things: I could walk outside and have my head replaced by a falling meteor. Does that mean that I shouldn't go out today? The chances for that are enormous to the point of why should I even worry about it? I can't let the possibility of bad things happening overshadow the probability. Probability is what we should be using in risk modeling, not possibility, because hey, anything is possible.
I mean hey, with the crash of that airplane near Buffalo, NY, do think the occupants of that house thought to themselves, "I think I should sleep in a hotel tonight because a plane might crash on my house?" No, because if you were to enumerate all the possible ways you could die, you might as well just kill yourself and be done with it.
But here's the real question: even if we did know when something was coming, is there really anything we could do about?
It's a play on words. 'Right' in this context doesn't just mean 'correct', but also the 'right' as opposed to 'left' (which also has a totally different contextual meaning). Chalk up another point for words that are spelled the same but have very different contextual meaning, as well as words that sound the same (to, two, too) but are very different contextually as well. You don't learn to appreciate this until you converse with people in another language asking you how you tell them apart.
Not to mention that Facebook really aren't going to have the slightest interest in the average user, nor in using their content if and when they leave the site.
Exactly. The people that really should be worried about what they put on there are those that stand to lose from the property they use to gain, ie corporations or entertainment personalities. I see this as a good thing. I find it annoying that grass-roots people form communities that later get raided by corporations looking to exploit and plunder them. I find it goofy when corps redirect you to "Go look us up on Facebook/MySpace/etc."
OK, after doing some more research (OMG!) and torrent downloads (because hey!, you can only back as far as 2005 to get online National Geographic archives), I was able to pin it down to the right issue. The May 1991 issue contains a cool article entitled "Once and Future Landfills".
It's interesting to note that when I had read this article for the first time I had not yet reached puberty, yet I was able to recall the details for my original post. One can only hope the good memory will continue...
Risking being off-topic, but seeing these all the time since the new "Web 2.0" upgrades to the slashcode has now drawn out the 'troll'.
Please! Put the 'moderate' *button* back. Simply putting taking action on an index change on the drop down list makes it so that people can accidentally mod the wrong way. It's only by good fortune that there are some people who decided to post something in response to remove the moderation. By putting the button back to confirm the selection, you avoid the mess of people posting to remove moderation and posts like these to beg for that simple piece of functionality be put back.
The irony of your comment comes from the fact that I learned about this topic when reading a National Geographic several years ago. They could tell where they were in the 'landfill record' by trashed newspapers and reading the expiration labels on discarded wrappers.
Not only that, but the biodegradability of such a substance is over-played as well. Take a drive down to the local landfill, dig down quite a bit and you will find that many biodegradable substances that have been there for 20+ years have not really biodegraded at all. This is caused by the fact that the biodegradability of a substance is often dependent on the oxygen available to organisms to breakdown the substance. Thus, if you pack the trash too tightly, you create an anaerobic environment where organisms are less efficient at breaking things down.
What we really need is a better method of disposal, not necessarily creating new kinds of substances.
This is the reason smartphone makers cripple their devices.
This may be a reason, but not the only. Service providers monetize additional services, features on their phones to make money. I remember getting a phone a few years ago where the manufacturer clearly enabled it to have pc to phone communication, but the provider disabled that feature in software as a 'carrot' to get me to upgrade to a different phone.
I fail to see how this affects "my rights online".
That's because you fail to recognize the non-trivial connection between what happens online and offline. You make the assumption that the online interactions have a tenuous relationship to the real world, when in fact they are directly related. The erosion of our rights offline have direct connection to the erosion of our rights 'online' because there is no 'online'. Life is the same throughout, it just happens to be another channel for experiencing it.
I agree. I decided to give Vista (another) try and didn't mind doing menial tasks like surfing, coding, and email. I left my XP partition for gaming. However, I found myself just booting straight into XP because it seemed bothersome to go somewhere that gave me less functionality and endure a reboot just to game.
Well, when my child is misbehaving the console itself goes bye-bye. It gets hidden beyond reach and doesn't come back again for some time (days or weeks at a time). He has learned very quickly that mom and dad mean business when it comes to listening to what they say.
Well, in a 'me too' age, they're just joining the ranks of content producers who feel a certain level of entitlement when technology is being used in ways that copyright law did not anticipate.
You jest, but that's what I do too. All my console systems, TV, ethernet switch (for those devices), speakers, everything but the alarm clock get turned off via the power switch at night. Why pay for something that I'm not going to be using for the next 7+ hours?
So you never spend money? Nor talk to anyone else about any product, ever?
Maybe I needed to be a little more explicit, so I'll help you learn what's going on here. Here's a link to Push-Pull Marketing.
I am very resistant to push marketing, at least online, because I typically buy things on a 'need-only' basis. I don't care if you want me to purchase the latest greatest thing. When I'm ready, I'll come seek you out, but don't spam me with messages trying to artificially create a need there. The other part of it is that because the ads are not well targeted to my needs, I have never clicked on (let alone purchased) anything because of an advertisement.
So from my point of view, let's cut to the chase and remove the noise altogether. I don't have to see the ad, advertiser saves on bandwidth. Win-win.
I don't think it's a case of having to pay twice as both programs can share development costs in various ways.
I think there's something else that is a little more subtle, but with bigger implications. It's our endeavors to accomplish certain goals that expose problems and their accompanying solutions that have greater benefits to humanity than than was originally intended.
For example, the DARPA Urban Challenge exposes needs for better sensors in detecting objects and obstacles, has created better algorithms for best-path detection, etc.
A space weapons program would open other engineering opportunities that have great civilian benefits.
Well, there's also no contract (implied or explicit) that in order to consume the content you have to look at an ad. NoScript is just a way of expressing 'No Solicitation' as bytes arrive at your door.
You're assuming that I am a target for online advertising. Because the ads are irrelevant to me, they're better off saving bandwidth and showing them to someone else. Besides, your logic would dictate that because I press the mute button (or skip them all together!) during commercials, that I should now start having to pay for OTA transmissions.
There was no architectural reason why DX10 couldn't have been ported to XP.
The reason we won't see DX10 on XP is because it was a gimmick to get you to buy Vista. They had dropped WinFS and so many other features. IE 7 had an XP port. Except for Avalon, the new UI, MS had no leverage to get people to migrate. Too bad they botched the initial release of DX10, because that niche market (gamers) were totally turned off by them dorking it up.
Reminds me of the movie Gattaca, though. "Who looks at photographs anymore?" The problem with your statement is that people would likely start relying on a technology that doesn't really establish identity. It only establishes the authenticity of the document.
Did the devs just have a brainfart when designing the iPhone or was it their intention all along to release such a great new feature that you couldn't upgrade to without upgrading the whole phone, thereby having to buy a new one?
Heh, I remember in the late '90s when car makers came out with the 'three door pickup'. It was the next evolution of pickups! I remember thinking, what will they think of next, the FOUR DOOR PICKUP?
I wish they had better ebook offerings for the iPhone, as mine is always with me. It would be great if you could buy the Kindle versions of books and load them on the iPhone.
I use Bookshelf. I've used its predecessor on the 1.x iPhone before the app store and found it to be quite nice for loading up txt and html. I'll even download PDFs and convert them for text for offline reading. Funny they metioned Freakonomics, because I read that on my iPhone too.
Slashdot Mirror
You see kids, this is just another reason why you need *layered* security. Biometrics, PKI, keyfobs, enryption, uids/passwords, alone they all suck. When you start using them in combination, *then* you start putting up reasonable barriers to would be adversaries.
Yes, 54Mbps is plenty for a single HD stream. The maximum bit-rate allowed by the blu-ray standard is 40Mbits
Except that you never really do get 54Mbps. You'd be lucky to maintain a constant 10Mbps. 54Mbps wireless is completely unacceptable for HD Content because the player is expecting a semi-constant stream of data which the wireless router typically can't deliver. I'd stick with a hardline.
My wife is a worry-wart and I use this argument against my spouse for doing things: I could walk outside and have my head replaced by a falling meteor. Does that mean that I shouldn't go out today? The chances for that are enormous to the point of why should I even worry about it? I can't let the possibility of bad things happening overshadow the probability. Probability is what we should be using in risk modeling, not possibility, because hey, anything is possible .
I mean hey, with the crash of that airplane near Buffalo, NY, do think the occupants of that house thought to themselves, "I think I should sleep in a hotel tonight because a plane might crash on my house?" No, because if you were to enumerate all the possible ways you could die, you might as well just kill yourself and be done with it.
But here's the real question: even if we did know when something was coming, is there really anything we could do about?
It's a play on words. 'Right' in this context doesn't just mean 'correct', but also the 'right' as opposed to 'left' (which also has a totally different contextual meaning). Chalk up another point for words that are spelled the same but have very different contextual meaning, as well as words that sound the same (to, two, too) but are very different contextually as well. You don't learn to appreciate this until you converse with people in another language asking you how you tell them apart.
Sorry, we Americas drive on the right side of the road. There is no driving on the left side, only the WRONG side.
Not to mention that Facebook really aren't going to have the slightest interest in the average user, nor in using their content if and when they leave the site.
Exactly. The people that really should be worried about what they put on there are those that stand to lose from the property they use to gain, ie corporations or entertainment personalities. I see this as a good thing. I find it annoying that grass-roots people form communities that later get raided by corporations looking to exploit and plunder them. I find it goofy when corps redirect you to "Go look us up on Facebook/MySpace/etc."
OK, after doing some more research (OMG!) and torrent downloads (because hey!, you can only back as far as 2005 to get online National Geographic archives), I was able to pin it down to the right issue. The May 1991 issue contains a cool article entitled "Once and Future Landfills".
I happen to find a direct download here.
It's interesting to note that when I had read this article for the first time I had not yet reached puberty, yet I was able to recall the details for my original post. One can only hope the good memory will continue...
Risking being off-topic, but seeing these all the time since the new "Web 2.0" upgrades to the slashcode has now drawn out the 'troll'.
Please! Put the 'moderate' *button* back. Simply putting taking action on an index change on the drop down list makes it so that people can accidentally mod the wrong way. It's only by good fortune that there are some people who decided to post something in response to remove the moderation. By putting the button back to confirm the selection, you avoid the mess of people posting to remove moderation and posts like these to beg for that simple piece of functionality be put back.
The Karma Whores will love you for it.
The irony of your comment comes from the fact that I learned about this topic when reading a National Geographic several years ago. They could tell where they were in the 'landfill record' by trashed newspapers and reading the expiration labels on discarded wrappers.
Not only that, but the biodegradability of such a substance is over-played as well. Take a drive down to the local landfill, dig down quite a bit and you will find that many biodegradable substances that have been there for 20+ years have not really biodegraded at all. This is caused by the fact that the biodegradability of a substance is often dependent on the oxygen available to organisms to breakdown the substance. Thus, if you pack the trash too tightly, you create an anaerobic environment where organisms are less efficient at breaking things down.
What we really need is a better method of disposal, not necessarily creating new kinds of substances.
This is the reason smartphone makers cripple their devices.
This may be a reason, but not the only. Service providers monetize additional services, features on their phones to make money. I remember getting a phone a few years ago where the manufacturer clearly enabled it to have pc to phone communication, but the provider disabled that feature in software as a 'carrot' to get me to upgrade to a different phone.
I fail to see how this affects "my rights online".
That's because you fail to recognize the non-trivial connection between what happens online and offline. You make the assumption that the online interactions have a tenuous relationship to the real world, when in fact they are directly related. The erosion of our rights offline have direct connection to the erosion of our rights 'online' because there is no 'online'. Life is the same throughout, it just happens to be another channel for experiencing it.
I agree. I decided to give Vista (another) try and didn't mind doing menial tasks like surfing, coding, and email. I left my XP partition for gaming. However, I found myself just booting straight into XP because it seemed bothersome to go somewhere that gave me less functionality and endure a reboot just to game.
Well, when my child is misbehaving the console itself goes bye-bye. It gets hidden beyond reach and doesn't come back again for some time (days or weeks at a time). He has learned very quickly that mom and dad mean business when it comes to listening to what they say.
Well, in a 'me too' age, they're just joining the ranks of content producers who feel a certain level of entitlement when technology is being used in ways that copyright law did not anticipate.
You jest, but that's what I do too. All my console systems, TV, ethernet switch (for those devices), speakers, everything but the alarm clock get turned off via the power switch at night. Why pay for something that I'm not going to be using for the next 7+ hours?
So since when is it against the law for The People to pass laws that represent their interests?
So you never spend money? Nor talk to anyone else about any product, ever?
Maybe I needed to be a little more explicit, so I'll help you learn what's going on here. Here's a link to Push-Pull Marketing.
I am very resistant to push marketing, at least online, because I typically buy things on a 'need-only' basis. I don't care if you want me to purchase the latest greatest thing. When I'm ready, I'll come seek you out, but don't spam me with messages trying to artificially create a need there. The other part of it is that because the ads are not well targeted to my needs, I have never clicked on (let alone purchased) anything because of an advertisement.
So from my point of view, let's cut to the chase and remove the noise altogether. I don't have to see the ad, advertiser saves on bandwidth. Win-win.
I don't think it's a case of having to pay twice as both programs can share development costs in various ways.
I think there's something else that is a little more subtle, but with bigger implications. It's our endeavors to accomplish certain goals that expose problems and their accompanying solutions that have greater benefits to humanity than than was originally intended.
For example, the DARPA Urban Challenge exposes needs for better sensors in detecting objects and obstacles, has created better algorithms for best-path detection, etc.
A space weapons program would open other engineering opportunities that have great civilian benefits.
Well, there's also no contract (implied or explicit) that in order to consume the content you have to look at an ad. NoScript is just a way of expressing 'No Solicitation' as bytes arrive at your door.
You're assuming that I am a target for online advertising. Because the ads are irrelevant to me, they're better off saving bandwidth and showing them to someone else. Besides, your logic would dictate that because I press the mute button (or skip them all together!) during commercials, that I should now start having to pay for OTA transmissions.
This is why we won't see dx10 on XP.
There was no architectural reason why DX10 couldn't have been ported to XP.
The reason we won't see DX10 on XP is because it was a gimmick to get you to buy Vista. They had dropped WinFS and so many other features. IE 7 had an XP port. Except for Avalon, the new UI, MS had no leverage to get people to migrate. Too bad they botched the initial release of DX10, because that niche market (gamers) were totally turned off by them dorking it up.
Reminds me of the movie Gattaca, though. "Who looks at photographs anymore?" The problem with your statement is that people would likely start relying on a technology that doesn't really establish identity. It only establishes the authenticity of the document.
Did the devs just have a brainfart when designing the iPhone or was it their intention all along to release such a great new feature that you couldn't upgrade to without upgrading the whole phone, thereby having to buy a new one?
Heh, I remember in the late '90s when car makers came out with the 'three door pickup'. It was the next evolution of pickups! I remember thinking, what will they think of next, the FOUR DOOR PICKUP?
I wish they had better ebook offerings for the iPhone, as mine is always with me. It would be great if you could buy the Kindle versions of books and load them on the iPhone.
I use Bookshelf. I've used its predecessor on the 1.x iPhone before the app store and found it to be quite nice for loading up txt and html. I'll even download PDFs and convert them for text for offline reading. Funny they metioned Freakonomics, because I read that on my iPhone too.