See, to me, this is bass-ackwards. The point of the autonomous automobile is to remove the driver from the equation of basic transportation, or to at least have the option to do so when one doesn't feel like driving.
...they should be going for things augmenting driver abilities. Lane assist, brake assist, adaptive cruise control, traction control, active stability system, etc...
Which one of those aren't implemented yet?
As for the rest of your point, I disagree inherently. I don't trust people to be smart enough to know when they should "Twitch the wheel" and then go back to reading the news. I know too many people who can't even tell they haven't hung their phone up for me to be able to trust that they've let the system properly take control.
The "profit" from an iPhone is not 90%. The materials cost may only be 10% but the rest of the revenue has to pay for R&D, Marketing, etc. A significant amount of work goes into iOS and there is no revenue from that.
I'm not saying that Apple isn't raking it in (their cash reserves are enough to dispel that) but people basing their profit estimates off of an iFixit tear-down are completely ignoring the bulk of Apples operations.
Additionally, that profit is Apple only. I can safely say that, selling iPads and Apple computers as a retailer is not very profitable at all. After free shipping (which we have to offer to stay competitive) we lose money on many iPad sales (especially if we ship a reliable method like FedEx or UPS instead of USPS) unless they're buying the accessories and/or AppleCare. Computers, off of a $2000 Mac, after free shipping, we're lucky to make $75, gross profit, so they're a bit better.
They didn't need to create the ContentID system and allow it work the way it does. But they did.
By law they needed a way to respond to DMCA notices but they didn't need to automate it. And now those chickens have come home to roost.
I thought by law they had to have a way to respond within a certain timeframe, somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 hours? As such, doing so without automating would be so expensive that they would have need of charging every user for viewings or their ads would make the annoying click bait sites look good...
Those are not acronyms, but initialisms (okay, RAM is an acronym). Acronyms are pronounced as they are spelled, such as S.H.I.E.L.D. Initialisms are not pronounced as a word, but stated as the individual letters that make them up, such as FBI and CPU.
The only reason devices that can display printed sheet music like tablets and e-ink readers are not popular is that they are essentially useless for sight reading. A foot pedal for page turns could easily create a reader for musicians. It would catch on like wild fire and the music publishers could finally start to distribute good editions again. I have been saying this for years and no one listens, it is the usual routine with industry not seeing the forest for the trees that are still being cut to print music.
You clearly have done zero research. There's a number of options, the most popular I've come across is the AirTurn, although the Cicada works well too from what I've heard.
No matter what you try to do (aside from a QR code), odds are perfect that some of your books will be completely unreadable by whoever is holding it (no equipment, wrong software, "why the frig do I have to buy an RFID reader just to borrow a book - WTF is wrong with you!?", etc.)
Seriously - some problems do not require a tech/digital answer. Get those little "Ex Libris" stickers and call it good.
I think you're misunderstanding his question. It seems to me he's just looking to be able to identify what's his and what isn't when a friend borrows it. Everyone having their own RFID reader is completely unnecessary for this purpose, merely having one himself would more than suffice. He runs the reader over the spine, sees it's not his and moves on.
You didn't read TFA, did you? DEFCON 2 was in place. That's the only reason they didn't launch. The captain on duty called the major who broadcast the coded order to strike telling him that he needed to either issue a recall of the orders or the order to go to DEFCON 1. So your argument is things likely unfolded the way the man said they did, but he's senile and crazy?
Also, your comment, "a bit of both" would imply there were only 2 options...the OP said "senile, crazy, or just making shit up." leaving us with 3 options. Just a little confusion from that, but I'm guessing you meant all of the above.
I'm not in the military, but I would think that interchangeable magazines would be a crucial factor in the field and 2 different sized weapons would make things more difficult...
I wonder why McAfee didn't just run as a libertarian. His views seem to align with a lot of libertarian beliefs.
Erm... and which party would that be?
As fars I know the mayjour parties in the US are the Republicans and the Democrats... never heard about 'the Libertarians'.
Just because they're not a major party doesn't mean they don't exist. The Libertarian Party has been around for a while (40+ years per Wikipedia). The US has hundreds if not thousands of parties in our political system, but, by a stupid clause in The Constitution ("The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed"), we have a de facto 2 party system in place for the Presidency, which is why you only hear of the Democrats and Republicans.
A prime example of a modern third party candidate is actually Bernie Sanders who has served as an Independent in the Senate for years, but rather than try to rally > 50% of the vote as an Independent, he has chosen to run as a Democrat as he closest aligns to that of the 2-parties.
That's exactly what they said. OP is using "their sphere of media" as a generic term for movies for Ebert and plays for the playwright and "not-their-sphere of media" as a generic term for video games.
That was Deep Space Nine, pretty much after Gene Rodderberry had ceased his involvement with Star Trek (it may have been after he died). DS9 writers tended to take a more pragmatic view, and reintroduced scarcity concepts.
DS9 premiered nearly 2 years after Roddenberry passed away. He was involved (albeit very loosely after S1) up until his death. About the only thing he didn't have any hand in during Star Trek's run in his lifetime was Star Trek VI from my understanding.
The grandparent referenced Sisko's cafe, as such I was directly responding to one of their questions using the given/established canon of DS9..
Sisko once referenced using up something like a year's worth of transporter rations to go home for dinner or something. I forget what exactly it was, but they clearly had some rationing of higher end goods/services.
Your statement asumes that this system you gave forth is A. Not more work for the customer (hint they think that anything new and different is more work) and B. an option in the current online marketplace. From your description, A is not the case (customer now has to create a new number EVERY TIME THEY BUY, thus more work), B is not the case either as, to my knowledge, no credit card company will verify any transaction without a billing address. So your point seems quite moot.
What? Where did I claim to not want to lose the business of lazy people? I'd be all for this becoming the standard, but the general public would not. And without the general public (or at least the banks), it never will happen.
We communicate with banks to verify transactions and that makes us insane? I don't follow your logic, but good job trolling. Call to verify failures are the bank's fraud department (often enough being overzealous) trying to prevent fraud. As such, the merchant is not going to be able to verify, contrary to your previous statement.
I can tell you this, after the trouble I get from clients when I have to ask a client what their BILLING ADDRESS is because they didn't put it in and it's not the shipping address, the general public is far too lazy to go through that process.
Also the bank is on the hook for the fraud so they rightly so will be as tight as they can get away with without losing customers. This is why I always have at least $200 in my pocket at all times. Might not be enough for tires but can generally get me food, a place to stay and a ride home should anything go wrong.
Unless it's a card not present transaction, in which case the merchant is entirely on the hook unless they can somehow prove it was the cardholder making the charge (good luck with that).
I've been happy with my credit union's fraud prevention and detection (which is outsourced to some company). Sometimes I'm 100 miles from home when I spend about $800 on electronics at Fry's or Microcenter. (The datacenter is 100 miles from my house, for now.) The transaction sometimes returns a "call to verify" code. The merchant COULD call, they are supposed to, but most cashiers just say "it didn't go through". This is a training issue on the merchants' side, in my opinion.
Actually, you're wrong. The merchant can call all they want, but the credit card companies will NOT permit the charge to go through until you approve the card. Voice of experience here, I have called it in time and time again, for the past 7-8 years (at least), we'll get nothing out of it until the card holder provides this is a valid charge. In fact, if it's a "Card not present" transaction, the merchant is not supposed to run the card again for 24 hours (according to their card member agreement). Most do it anyway, but they're running the risk of it being challenged.
Source, I work for a company that literally does a million dollars in credit card transactions (probably 99% of them "card not present") a day. I work with a verification department that THOROUGHLY investigates everything and often requires more than the credit card companies to ensure we're properly verified.
Please explain what you mean by, "properly protected using available technology." I work in online/phone based sales and we have probably the best fraud prevention known in the US, but I'd like to see what YOU think that means.
File a complaint with eBay. Report them as a Non-Performing seller which is an eBay Terms of Service Violation.
A completed sale is contractual, the seller must go through with the transaction, otherwise they are violating the contract and can even be sued by you.
Unless the seller lists as only Paypal validated addresses and your account isn't shipping to a validated address...for example. Paypal considers any non-validated address as insecure and (for lack of a better phrase) "Ship at your own risk". A good number of sellers will not ship to non-validated address and, even if you validate after the auction ends, still can't trust it.
Not according to Xpdf's About page. For those too lazy to follow the link:
Xpdf is licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL), version 2. In my opinion, the GPL is a convoluted, confusing, ambiguous mess. But it's also pervasive, and I'm sick of arguing. And even if it is confusing, the basic idea is good.
In order to cut down on the confusion a little bit, here are some informal clarifications:
If you are redistributing unmodified copies of Xpdf (or any of the Xpdf tools) in binary form, you need to include all of the documentation: README, man pages (or help files), and COPYING. The README file contains a pointer to a web page with the source code, which satisfies the GPL requirement as far as I am concerned. You are, of course, welcome to distribute the source code as well.
If you are incorporating the Xpdf source code into another program, and you are distributing that program, you'll need to release your program under the GPL, which means you'll have to make the full source available. This also applies if you are making changes to the Xpdf tools.
Slashdot Mirror
See, to me, this is bass-ackwards. The point of the autonomous automobile is to remove the driver from the equation of basic transportation, or to at least have the option to do so when one doesn't feel like driving.
...they should be going for things augmenting driver abilities. Lane assist, brake assist, adaptive cruise control, traction control, active stability system, etc...
Which one of those aren't implemented yet?
As for the rest of your point, I disagree inherently. I don't trust people to be smart enough to know when they should "Twitch the wheel" and then go back to reading the news. I know too many people who can't even tell they haven't hung their phone up for me to be able to trust that they've let the system properly take control.
The "profit" from an iPhone is not 90%. The materials cost may only be 10% but the rest of the revenue has to pay for R&D, Marketing, etc. A significant amount of work goes into iOS and there is no revenue from that. I'm not saying that Apple isn't raking it in (their cash reserves are enough to dispel that) but people basing their profit estimates off of an iFixit tear-down are completely ignoring the bulk of Apples operations.
Additionally, that profit is Apple only. I can safely say that, selling iPads and Apple computers as a retailer is not very profitable at all. After free shipping (which we have to offer to stay competitive) we lose money on many iPad sales (especially if we ship a reliable method like FedEx or UPS instead of USPS) unless they're buying the accessories and/or AppleCare. Computers, off of a $2000 Mac, after free shipping, we're lucky to make $75, gross profit, so they're a bit better.
Is this router based on Linux, or one of the BSDs?
OpenWRT based per the project's site, which should answer a number of your question, albeit not all of them. I'm curious for more details as well.
They didn't need to create the ContentID system and allow it work the way it does. But they did.
By law they needed a way to respond to DMCA notices but they didn't need to automate it. And now those chickens have come home to roost.
I thought by law they had to have a way to respond within a certain timeframe, somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 hours? As such, doing so without automating would be so expensive that they would have need of charging every user for viewings or their ads would make the annoying click bait sites look good...
Those are not acronyms, but initialisms (okay, RAM is an acronym). Acronyms are pronounced as they are spelled, such as S.H.I.E.L.D. Initialisms are not pronounced as a word, but stated as the individual letters that make them up, such as FBI and CPU.
This is Slashdot, let's get it right.
Acronym definition:
It is listed as number 2, but still valid usage of the term acronym.
The only reason devices that can display printed sheet music like tablets and e-ink readers are not popular is that they are essentially useless for sight reading. A foot pedal for page turns could easily create a reader for musicians. It would catch on like wild fire and the music publishers could finally start to distribute good editions again. I have been saying this for years and no one listens, it is the usual routine with industry not seeing the forest for the trees that are still being cut to print music.
You clearly have done zero research. There's a number of options, the most popular I've come across is the AirTurn, although the Cicada works well too from what I've heard.
(But don't get me started on ethics and the textbook industry...)
There's ethic in the textbook industry?! Since when?!
No matter what you try to do (aside from a QR code), odds are perfect that some of your books will be completely unreadable by whoever is holding it (no equipment, wrong software, "why the frig do I have to buy an RFID reader just to borrow a book - WTF is wrong with you!?", etc.)
Seriously - some problems do not require a tech/digital answer. Get those little "Ex Libris" stickers and call it good.
I think you're misunderstanding his question. It seems to me he's just looking to be able to identify what's his and what isn't when a friend borrows it. Everyone having their own RFID reader is completely unnecessary for this purpose, merely having one himself would more than suffice. He runs the reader over the spine, sees it's not his and moves on.
You didn't read TFA, did you? DEFCON 2 was in place. That's the only reason they didn't launch. The captain on duty called the major who broadcast the coded order to strike telling him that he needed to either issue a recall of the orders or the order to go to DEFCON 1. So your argument is things likely unfolded the way the man said they did, but he's senile and crazy?
Also, your comment, "a bit of both" would imply there were only 2 options...the OP said "senile, crazy, or just making shit up." leaving us with 3 options. Just a little confusion from that, but I'm guessing you meant all of the above.
But, was this a DMCA claim or is YouTube doing their own claim system that operates prior to a DMCA takedown?
I'm not in the military, but I would think that interchangeable magazines would be a crucial factor in the field and 2 different sized weapons would make things more difficult...
I wonder why McAfee didn't just run as a libertarian. His views seem to align with a lot of libertarian beliefs. Erm ... and which party would that be?
As fars I know the mayjour parties in the US are the Republicans and the Democrats ... never heard about 'the Libertarians'.
Just because they're not a major party doesn't mean they don't exist. The Libertarian Party has been around for a while (40+ years per Wikipedia). The US has hundreds if not thousands of parties in our political system, but, by a stupid clause in The Constitution ("The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed"), we have a de facto 2 party system in place for the Presidency, which is why you only hear of the Democrats and Republicans.
A prime example of a modern third party candidate is actually Bernie Sanders who has served as an Independent in the Senate for years, but rather than try to rally > 50% of the vote as an Independent, he has chosen to run as a Democrat as he closest aligns to that of the 2-parties.
That's exactly what they said. OP is using "their sphere of media" as a generic term for movies for Ebert and plays for the playwright and "not-their-sphere of media" as a generic term for video games.
That was Deep Space Nine, pretty much after Gene Rodderberry had ceased his involvement with Star Trek (it may have been after he died). DS9 writers tended to take a more pragmatic view, and reintroduced scarcity concepts.
DS9 premiered nearly 2 years after Roddenberry passed away. He was involved (albeit very loosely after S1) up until his death. About the only thing he didn't have any hand in during Star Trek's run in his lifetime was Star Trek VI from my understanding.
The grandparent referenced Sisko's cafe, as such I was directly responding to one of their questions using the given/established canon of DS9..
Sisko once referenced using up something like a year's worth of transporter rations to go home for dinner or something. I forget what exactly it was, but they clearly had some rationing of higher end goods/services.
Literally millions of dollars worth of fraud prevention is almost as bad as letting millions of dollars of fraud come through?
Your statement asumes that this system you gave forth is A. Not more work for the customer (hint they think that anything new and different is more work) and B. an option in the current online marketplace. From your description, A is not the case (customer now has to create a new number EVERY TIME THEY BUY, thus more work), B is not the case either as, to my knowledge, no credit card company will verify any transaction without a billing address. So your point seems quite moot.
What? Where did I claim to not want to lose the business of lazy people? I'd be all for this becoming the standard, but the general public would not. And without the general public (or at least the banks), it never will happen.
We communicate with banks to verify transactions and that makes us insane? I don't follow your logic, but good job trolling. Call to verify failures are the bank's fraud department (often enough being overzealous) trying to prevent fraud. As such, the merchant is not going to be able to verify, contrary to your previous statement.
I can tell you this, after the trouble I get from clients when I have to ask a client what their BILLING ADDRESS is because they didn't put it in and it's not the shipping address, the general public is far too lazy to go through that process.
Also the bank is on the hook for the fraud so they rightly so will be as tight as they can get away with without losing customers. This is why I always have at least $200 in my pocket at all times. Might not be enough for tires but can generally get me food, a place to stay and a ride home should anything go wrong.
Unless it's a card not present transaction, in which case the merchant is entirely on the hook unless they can somehow prove it was the cardholder making the charge (good luck with that).
I've been happy with my credit union's fraud prevention and detection (which is outsourced to some company). Sometimes I'm 100 miles from home when I spend about $800 on electronics at Fry's or Microcenter. (The datacenter is 100 miles from my house, for now.) The transaction sometimes returns a "call to verify" code. The merchant COULD call, they are supposed to, but most cashiers just say "it didn't go through". This is a training issue on the merchants' side, in my opinion.
Actually, you're wrong. The merchant can call all they want, but the credit card companies will NOT permit the charge to go through until you approve the card. Voice of experience here, I have called it in time and time again, for the past 7-8 years (at least), we'll get nothing out of it until the card holder provides this is a valid charge. In fact, if it's a "Card not present" transaction, the merchant is not supposed to run the card again for 24 hours (according to their card member agreement). Most do it anyway, but they're running the risk of it being challenged.
Source, I work for a company that literally does a million dollars in credit card transactions (probably 99% of them "card not present") a day. I work with a verification department that THOROUGHLY investigates everything and often requires more than the credit card companies to ensure we're properly verified.
Please explain what you mean by, "properly protected using available technology." I work in online/phone based sales and we have probably the best fraud prevention known in the US, but I'd like to see what YOU think that means.
File a complaint with eBay. Report them as a Non-Performing seller which is an eBay Terms of Service Violation.
A completed sale is contractual, the seller must go through with the transaction, otherwise they are violating the contract and can even be sued by you.
Unless the seller lists as only Paypal validated addresses and your account isn't shipping to a validated address...for example. Paypal considers any non-validated address as insecure and (for lack of a better phrase) "Ship at your own risk". A good number of sellers will not ship to non-validated address and, even if you validate after the auction ends, still can't trust it.