It's trusted in the way that BP is trusted. They know what it is and it's been here pretty much since the internet started. Sure, there are tons of bugs and holes, but they tend to get found at least. It's got a big user base and it's fairly well known. To the kind of people who run banks - yes, it is trusted.
If I was in charge of a website for a major financial institution, I would sure as hell trust IE 6 more than I'd trust, say, Konqueror. As much as I love open source, Konqueror doesn't have enough users. There could be some critical bug going totally undetected because of that. At least with IE 6 you pretty much know what the problem areas are and can act to minimize them. And finally, if there's some massive bug in IE that costs someone huge amounts of money, you have someone else to blame.
It's the same way when buying hardware. Sure, for my own personal use I _never_ buy anything name brand. I've had some great motherboards from companies that don't even have a website in English, and RMA service that was provided through a forum that couldn't be posted to (QDI). But if I was buying for a business, I'd sure as hell be going name brand. Because a company like QDI doesn't sell nearly as many motherboards as ASUS does, and if I buy a thousand QDI mobos and they're all DOA and I can't get in contact with the company to send them back - well, I'm probably gonna get fired. If I buy a thousand ASUS mobos, I know I'm covered if any shit goes down, and nobody is going to be asking 'why didn't you buy from a reputable company?'.
There's a reason for large financial institutions to think like that. Sure, for CNN or ABC, they should support as many browsers as possible, and the newer browsers might be more efficient and better for them. But for a bank - well, a bank isn't going to build their main vault out of some brand new material that hasn't even been tested yet, so why would they do so for browsers? I'm not saying that IE is more secure, but it's old, it's trusted, and it's backed by a major corporation. If something goes wrong and your account is hacked due to a browser bug, they can say "blame Microsoft, they've had _years_ to iron out these bugs". If you're using Chrome and the same thing happens, there's a bit more of a risk to the bank of people saying "Why did you let me use this new and not fully tested browser?"
Basically, when there's a fairly significant liability there, years of experience and large corporate backing do matter. They maybe shouldn't, but they do.
What they need is easy access to the data, in event of an emergency, and a way to make sure that bypass of the long procedure is ONLY used in emergency. This is, sadly, NOT Uncle Sam's strong suit.
You propose a legal solution, when a technical one would be better. In fact, a technical one already exists. When I dial 911, my phone automatically transmits my location along with the call. When I call anyone else, it doesn't transmit the location. All you really need to do is ensure that location data is only sent to the person you are calling, unless you go through the long legal process. And that's something that, AFAIK, is already done in most cases.
Eh, it all depends on where you live as far as FedEx/UPS are concerned in my experience. For me, FedEx is usually at least a day later than UPS. And if I'm not home - FedEx tries once and leaves a note saying that if I want the package today I have to drive two hours to get it. UPS I've seen drive up and down my street 5 or 6 times in a day. They'll keep trying until it gets there. I can't comment on the theft/damage/insurance issue though, as the only carrier I've ever seen lose or damage a delivery is USPS.
That's why you should stick with PC gaming. Look at World of Warcraft. The official servers are still there, but there are also hundreds of 3rd party servers as well. And AFAIK, Blizz hasn't made any attempt to stop them. And all you have to do is edit one little text file.
When did these filtering services start blocking _all_ SSL? When I was in highschool three years ago the filter my school used didn't. I set up a couple of my own SSL proxies. That was the best way to do it - the larger, more well-known web proxies tended to get blocked within a month of going up. Sometimes within a few days.
The high charges are definitely a deterrent for users, though I hardly think these charges are justified.
They are definitely not. I would imagine when the law was created it was assumed that someone busted buying a single gram has probably bought several in the past. It sounds like they're now giving small time users the punishments that were originally designed for heavy dealers.
There's a strong trend towards Chrome because of its simplicity, and I like Firefox because of its completeness.
See, the entire reason I started using Firefox, way back when it was still Firebird I think (maybe one name before that even) is because it was _just_ a browser. Now it's just as bloated as IE. So I use Chrome. Chrome today is what Fire-whatever was nearly a decade ago. I spent the ~5 years before Chrome was released trying to avoid upgrading Firefox as long as possible and dreading each "upgrade", as each one seemed to get slower and more annoying. I shouldn't have to download a bunch of plugins to make the UI _simpler_.
If you ask me, what Mozilla should be doing is getting back that divide between Firefox and the Mozilla Suite. Am I the only one who remembers when there was actually a difference between Firefox and the Mozilla Browser? Firefox was originally the stripped down, lightweight version. Now they're essentially the same damn thing. All I want is a browser. Mozilla has apparently stopped caring about that demographic. And I bet it's larger than they think it is.
Hah, depends what book. Long ago I purchased some C++ reference book...and there were probably more code snippets with typos than not. Ended up just using Google, largely because of that.
The point I was making about Philosophy and academia in general is _not_ that you have to get all the little details right. That matters for anything. The point I was making is that in those areas, it seems that you are generally expected to be constantly reading and analyzing the works of others. If you're in Philosophy for example, you are probably expected to have read and understood much of Descartes or Heidegger or whatever past philosophers there are in your area of study. That doesn't happen in a field like Computer Science, for example. Nobody tells you to go read the Linux kernel.
Yes, precision and details and getting it right are important in any area. But you can find that information online, or in books, or from someone more experienced. The important thing, as I stated earlier, is knowing how to find that information. And thanks to the internet, when we have so many more sources of information, that has become much more important.
Well obviously you can't use Google for _everything_. My initial post did say you have to know how to find information - be it Google, the source code, or yes, even a book. But why have a several hundred page desk reference that doesn't even include everything you need when you can just pull up the Javadocs or a C reference online far quicker. Plus you have less crap cluttering your desk.
My father is an Attorney, and he always told me that in his work it's less about knowing facts and more about knowing how to find them. You can never memorize every law and case...just like you can never memorize every language and every library. You'll do much better if you focus on learning how to find the information you need than if you focus on trying to memorize as much as you can.
Yes, but is reading such papers truly necessary? I mean perhaps in academia...if you want to teach Philosophy or languages or something...but for true productive work, what does it matter? The way I look at it, the internet has made it matter less how much you know and more how much you can find and use. For all practical purposes, there's not a huge difference between memorizing entire books and being able to quickly pull the same information off Google when you need it. It's now less about what you know, and more about how you can actually use that knowledge.
True, but this scenario wouldn't be entrapment, and it already happens.
Let me alter your emphasis on that definition:
A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.
So, it's entrapment if they say 'we're going to arrest you unless you rob that store'. It's not entrapment if they pose as a 13 year old girl and ask if you want to have sex with them. That is exactly what this kind of program would be doing. And it's also exactly what is already done by vigilante organizations like Perverted Justice, which are generally backed up by local police.
Yea, to power the US with solar you'd need to cover the majority of the state of Nevada (53%). And that's assuming 100% efficient transmission and no increase in energy consumption. And assuming we use the low cost solar cells that recently won the 2010 Millennium Technology Prize, and assuming their estimates are correct, that would cost about $1 trillion.
Solar is nice to mildly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, but it's going to be a _long_ time before it's any more than that. And even if we developed dirt cheap, 100% efficient solar cells, it would still not be feasible for anything other than slightly reducing our need for other power sources.
In the US, we have collectively decided, as a society, that some information should be kept secret, even from The People, and we have empowered and entrusted the government with the power to do so.
Yes. And Hitler was elected in democratic elections as well. (I know, I know, Godwin's Law) Just because we voted on it doesn't mean it's always the best case. We generally aren't informed on what exactly we're voting on. In this specific example, we're voting on who gets to keep things secret. Which means by definition we _can't_ know what exactly we're deciding. This is exactly _why_ we need people to leak things. There's the famous saying about preferring that a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent man be punished for a crime he did not commit. I consider this to be quite similar. I'd rather have a thousand national secrets leaked than have that one thing covered up. Just because it's not the next Holocaust doesn't mean it isn't something that needs to be released. Not enough people leaked what was happening in Nazi Germany until it was too late, likely because they were afraid of the consequences. The more tools to lessen the consequences, the better.
Oh I'm sure it's a mistake. Somebody probably said 'We should put these warnings on anything in our Historical section since they may use racist terms and such'. I'm sure they never even realized that it would include the constitution and such.
Huh. See, to me that was the exact opposite of a "just learn a real instrument" post. I mean, "At what point do you just play in a real band" to me sounds like it's saying "If they keep trying to make it more realistic, eventually you'll be better off just starting an actual band"
The point of these games is that they _aren't_ real instruments, and making them more realistic may silence some critics, but it may also make the game a hell of a lot less fun.
Theoretically I suppose it's possible, but it's highly unlikely. Sound is produced by pressure waves. Those are easy to create by moving a speaker cone. Scents are actual particles floating through the air. Sure, it's theoretically possible to create particles I guess (E=mc^2), but I think that would be far worse than steak scented cartridges.
So? You aren't going to get arrested just because you happened to rent someone a tool and they used it to kill someone. I mean you might get arrested initially if they discover that you have the fishing line, but you'll be let go. I mean, assuming a perfect world and all (because this is all about what _should_ happen), you would prove you didn't have the fishing line at the time the guy was killed, and you would be released without any charges. Possession of a murder weapon isn't a crime.
It seems to me there is an accountability gap for ISPs. Those providing network connections are not held accountable for machines on their network.
And why should they be? If I sell you a fishing line, it isn't my job to ensure you don't choke somebody with it. Or for an even better analogy, look at the phone networks. Generally, if someone is calling you on the phone and harassing you, the phone company will not disconnect that person. They'll offer to change your number. It takes a _lot_ of complaints for them to cut off service to an offender. Same thing goes on the internet. Yes, botnets _will_ eventually be cut off, but it takes a lot of complaints. Otherwise, who decides what's malware?
So far I am completely unimpressed with Google's attempts at engaging the modern user. I use a lot of Google's products but none of them are really "engaging". Yeah, they're trying different engagement tactics such as copycatting the "like" feature and adding social commenting to Google Reader. They've tried and failed to engage people with Wave and Buzz. They have some input on Google News from "pros". Otherwise, it's just your typical aggregator. Not impressed.
I don't think that most of Google's current products are _supposed_ to be engaging. Seems to me that they're supposed to be transparent. Google doesn't make content, they make content discovery and distribution. Ideally you wouldn't see their apps at all, you would only see the content.
I'm not so sure that being able to look things up quickly makes you smarter. I do think it has the same net effect though. I mean, I would know a _lot_ more about programming if it wasn't for the internet. But does it matter? If I had to look up functions in a book, I would have them memorized. But when I can just pull up the javadoc or whatever at any moment, then why bother memorizing? I feel like I know less than I would without the Internet, but I'm still a better programmer than I would be without it.
On a related note, I also spend far less time reinventing the wheel than I would without the net...which can be both good and bad. I know less about the program I'm writing and how it works in detail, but I can do in hours what would have taken months.
I'd say the internet makes you far more productive, but just a little bit stupider. Of course, it also depends on what motivates you. If you're motivated by pure knowledge, then the 'net will probably make you smarter. If you're motivated by pure productivity, it'll probably make you dumber.
I guess "Release early, release often" is not a proper strategy here. I suspect Google managers are simply not mature enough (too young, in other words) to understand the business needs and do what is right.
I disagree. I mean in a year or two I would imagine that development will naturally slow down a bit. But their options right now are to either release frequently and have some fragmentation, or release rarely and have people stuck on very old releases that don't have the features they want. Remember all the complaints about how long it took Apple to get MMS on the iPhone? Besides, as far as Google is concerned, implementing the latest version isn't really their problem.
Slashdot Mirror
...enter the FCC. That's kinda what they do....
It's trusted in the way that BP is trusted. They know what it is and it's been here pretty much since the internet started. Sure, there are tons of bugs and holes, but they tend to get found at least. It's got a big user base and it's fairly well known. To the kind of people who run banks - yes, it is trusted.
If I was in charge of a website for a major financial institution, I would sure as hell trust IE 6 more than I'd trust, say, Konqueror. As much as I love open source, Konqueror doesn't have enough users. There could be some critical bug going totally undetected because of that. At least with IE 6 you pretty much know what the problem areas are and can act to minimize them. And finally, if there's some massive bug in IE that costs someone huge amounts of money, you have someone else to blame.
It's the same way when buying hardware. Sure, for my own personal use I _never_ buy anything name brand. I've had some great motherboards from companies that don't even have a website in English, and RMA service that was provided through a forum that couldn't be posted to (QDI). But if I was buying for a business, I'd sure as hell be going name brand. Because a company like QDI doesn't sell nearly as many motherboards as ASUS does, and if I buy a thousand QDI mobos and they're all DOA and I can't get in contact with the company to send them back - well, I'm probably gonna get fired. If I buy a thousand ASUS mobos, I know I'm covered if any shit goes down, and nobody is going to be asking 'why didn't you buy from a reputable company?'.
There's a reason for large financial institutions to think like that. Sure, for CNN or ABC, they should support as many browsers as possible, and the newer browsers might be more efficient and better for them. But for a bank - well, a bank isn't going to build their main vault out of some brand new material that hasn't even been tested yet, so why would they do so for browsers? I'm not saying that IE is more secure, but it's old, it's trusted, and it's backed by a major corporation. If something goes wrong and your account is hacked due to a browser bug, they can say "blame Microsoft, they've had _years_ to iron out these bugs". If you're using Chrome and the same thing happens, there's a bit more of a risk to the bank of people saying "Why did you let me use this new and not fully tested browser?"
Basically, when there's a fairly significant liability there, years of experience and large corporate backing do matter. They maybe shouldn't, but they do.
What they need is easy access to the data, in event of an emergency, and a way to make sure that bypass of the long procedure is ONLY used in emergency. This is, sadly, NOT Uncle Sam's strong suit.
You propose a legal solution, when a technical one would be better. In fact, a technical one already exists. When I dial 911, my phone automatically transmits my location along with the call. When I call anyone else, it doesn't transmit the location. All you really need to do is ensure that location data is only sent to the person you are calling, unless you go through the long legal process. And that's something that, AFAIK, is already done in most cases.
Eh, it all depends on where you live as far as FedEx/UPS are concerned in my experience. For me, FedEx is usually at least a day later than UPS. And if I'm not home - FedEx tries once and leaves a note saying that if I want the package today I have to drive two hours to get it. UPS I've seen drive up and down my street 5 or 6 times in a day. They'll keep trying until it gets there. I can't comment on the theft/damage/insurance issue though, as the only carrier I've ever seen lose or damage a delivery is USPS.
That's why you should stick with PC gaming. Look at World of Warcraft. The official servers are still there, but there are also hundreds of 3rd party servers as well. And AFAIK, Blizz hasn't made any attempt to stop them. And all you have to do is edit one little text file.
When did these filtering services start blocking _all_ SSL? When I was in highschool three years ago the filter my school used didn't. I set up a couple of my own SSL proxies. That was the best way to do it - the larger, more well-known web proxies tended to get blocked within a month of going up. Sometimes within a few days.
The high charges are definitely a deterrent for users, though I hardly think these charges are justified.
They are definitely not. I would imagine when the law was created it was assumed that someone busted buying a single gram has probably bought several in the past. It sounds like they're now giving small time users the punishments that were originally designed for heavy dealers.
There's a strong trend towards Chrome because of its simplicity, and I like Firefox because of its completeness.
See, the entire reason I started using Firefox, way back when it was still Firebird I think (maybe one name before that even) is because it was _just_ a browser. Now it's just as bloated as IE. So I use Chrome. Chrome today is what Fire-whatever was nearly a decade ago. I spent the ~5 years before Chrome was released trying to avoid upgrading Firefox as long as possible and dreading each "upgrade", as each one seemed to get slower and more annoying. I shouldn't have to download a bunch of plugins to make the UI _simpler_.
If you ask me, what Mozilla should be doing is getting back that divide between Firefox and the Mozilla Suite. Am I the only one who remembers when there was actually a difference between Firefox and the Mozilla Browser? Firefox was originally the stripped down, lightweight version. Now they're essentially the same damn thing. All I want is a browser. Mozilla has apparently stopped caring about that demographic. And I bet it's larger than they think it is.
Hah, depends what book. Long ago I purchased some C++ reference book...and there were probably more code snippets with typos than not. Ended up just using Google, largely because of that.
The point I was making about Philosophy and academia in general is _not_ that you have to get all the little details right. That matters for anything. The point I was making is that in those areas, it seems that you are generally expected to be constantly reading and analyzing the works of others. If you're in Philosophy for example, you are probably expected to have read and understood much of Descartes or Heidegger or whatever past philosophers there are in your area of study. That doesn't happen in a field like Computer Science, for example. Nobody tells you to go read the Linux kernel.
Yes, precision and details and getting it right are important in any area. But you can find that information online, or in books, or from someone more experienced. The important thing, as I stated earlier, is knowing how to find that information. And thanks to the internet, when we have so many more sources of information, that has become much more important.
Well obviously you can't use Google for _everything_. My initial post did say you have to know how to find information - be it Google, the source code, or yes, even a book. But why have a several hundred page desk reference that doesn't even include everything you need when you can just pull up the Javadocs or a C reference online far quicker. Plus you have less crap cluttering your desk.
My father is an Attorney, and he always told me that in his work it's less about knowing facts and more about knowing how to find them. You can never memorize every law and case...just like you can never memorize every language and every library. You'll do much better if you focus on learning how to find the information you need than if you focus on trying to memorize as much as you can.
Yes, but is reading such papers truly necessary? I mean perhaps in academia...if you want to teach Philosophy or languages or something...but for true productive work, what does it matter? The way I look at it, the internet has made it matter less how much you know and more how much you can find and use. For all practical purposes, there's not a huge difference between memorizing entire books and being able to quickly pull the same information off Google when you need it. It's now less about what you know, and more about how you can actually use that knowledge.
True, but this scenario wouldn't be entrapment, and it already happens.
Let me alter your emphasis on that definition:
A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.
So, it's entrapment if they say 'we're going to arrest you unless you rob that store'. It's not entrapment if they pose as a 13 year old girl and ask if you want to have sex with them. That is exactly what this kind of program would be doing. And it's also exactly what is already done by vigilante organizations like Perverted Justice, which are generally backed up by local police.
Yea, to power the US with solar you'd need to cover the majority of the state of Nevada (53%). And that's assuming 100% efficient transmission and no increase in energy consumption. And assuming we use the low cost solar cells that recently won the 2010 Millennium Technology Prize, and assuming their estimates are correct, that would cost about $1 trillion.
Solar is nice to mildly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, but it's going to be a _long_ time before it's any more than that. And even if we developed dirt cheap, 100% efficient solar cells, it would still not be feasible for anything other than slightly reducing our need for other power sources.
In the US, we have collectively decided, as a society, that some information should be kept secret, even from The People, and we have empowered and entrusted the government with the power to do so.
Yes. And Hitler was elected in democratic elections as well. (I know, I know, Godwin's Law) Just because we voted on it doesn't mean it's always the best case. We generally aren't informed on what exactly we're voting on. In this specific example, we're voting on who gets to keep things secret. Which means by definition we _can't_ know what exactly we're deciding. This is exactly _why_ we need people to leak things.
There's the famous saying about preferring that a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent man be punished for a crime he did not commit. I consider this to be quite similar. I'd rather have a thousand national secrets leaked than have that one thing covered up. Just because it's not the next Holocaust doesn't mean it isn't something that needs to be released. Not enough people leaked what was happening in Nazi Germany until it was too late, likely because they were afraid of the consequences. The more tools to lessen the consequences, the better.
Oh I'm sure it's a mistake. Somebody probably said 'We should put these warnings on anything in our Historical section since they may use racist terms and such'. I'm sure they never even realized that it would include the constitution and such.
Huh. See, to me that was the exact opposite of a "just learn a real instrument" post. I mean, "At what point do you just play in a real band" to me sounds like it's saying "If they keep trying to make it more realistic, eventually you'll be better off just starting an actual band"
The point of these games is that they _aren't_ real instruments, and making them more realistic may silence some critics, but it may also make the game a hell of a lot less fun.
I think he was saying it's wrong because there are two of them, therefore it should be 'actors'
Theoretically I suppose it's possible, but it's highly unlikely. Sound is produced by pressure waves. Those are easy to create by moving a speaker cone. Scents are actual particles floating through the air. Sure, it's theoretically possible to create particles I guess (E=mc^2), but I think that would be far worse than steak scented cartridges.
So? You aren't going to get arrested just because you happened to rent someone a tool and they used it to kill someone. I mean you might get arrested initially if they discover that you have the fishing line, but you'll be let go. I mean, assuming a perfect world and all (because this is all about what _should_ happen), you would prove you didn't have the fishing line at the time the guy was killed, and you would be released without any charges. Possession of a murder weapon isn't a crime.
It seems to me there is an accountability gap for ISPs. Those providing network connections are not held accountable for machines on their network.
And why should they be? If I sell you a fishing line, it isn't my job to ensure you don't choke somebody with it. Or for an even better analogy, look at the phone networks. Generally, if someone is calling you on the phone and harassing you, the phone company will not disconnect that person. They'll offer to change your number. It takes a _lot_ of complaints for them to cut off service to an offender. Same thing goes on the internet. Yes, botnets _will_ eventually be cut off, but it takes a lot of complaints. Otherwise, who decides what's malware?
So far I am completely unimpressed with Google's attempts at engaging the modern user. I use a lot of Google's products but none of them are really "engaging". Yeah, they're trying different engagement tactics such as copycatting the "like" feature and adding social commenting to Google Reader. They've tried and failed to engage people with Wave and Buzz. They have some input on Google News from "pros". Otherwise, it's just your typical aggregator. Not impressed.
I don't think that most of Google's current products are _supposed_ to be engaging. Seems to me that they're supposed to be transparent. Google doesn't make content, they make content discovery and distribution. Ideally you wouldn't see their apps at all, you would only see the content.
I'm not so sure that being able to look things up quickly makes you smarter. I do think it has the same net effect though. I mean, I would know a _lot_ more about programming if it wasn't for the internet. But does it matter? If I had to look up functions in a book, I would have them memorized. But when I can just pull up the javadoc or whatever at any moment, then why bother memorizing? I feel like I know less than I would without the Internet, but I'm still a better programmer than I would be without it.
On a related note, I also spend far less time reinventing the wheel than I would without the net...which can be both good and bad. I know less about the program I'm writing and how it works in detail, but I can do in hours what would have taken months.
I'd say the internet makes you far more productive, but just a little bit stupider. Of course, it also depends on what motivates you. If you're motivated by pure knowledge, then the 'net will probably make you smarter. If you're motivated by pure productivity, it'll probably make you dumber.
I guess "Release early, release often" is not a proper strategy here. I suspect Google managers are simply not mature enough (too young, in other words) to understand the business needs and do what is right.
I disagree. I mean in a year or two I would imagine that development will naturally slow down a bit. But their options right now are to either release frequently and have some fragmentation, or release rarely and have people stuck on very old releases that don't have the features they want. Remember all the complaints about how long it took Apple to get MMS on the iPhone? Besides, as far as Google is concerned, implementing the latest version isn't really their problem.