Part of it is Amazon's forcing customers into Amazon Prime. I order items off of Amazon maybe 2 or 3 times a year. I do not order items off of Amazon often enough to justify paying a monthly fee for Prime. Yet the last time I ordered something from Amazon they automatically opened a Prime account for me. I do not want Prime, it is not worth it for me. I do not care if streaming TV or music is bundled with it...I do not want it; do not force it upon me. I had to cancel, which is a pain because they do not make it easy to find. Then once I found where I could cancel they asked me to confirm 2 or 3 times before they processed the cancellation request. Evidently they think their customers are stupid!!! Because of this I will not buy from them again.
In Japan they can build an advanced cryogenic containment system for a reactor disaster for $300 million.
California needed $1100 million to patch a leaky spillway at a dam. It would take a few trillion dollars for California to contain a damaged reactor.
A few trillion??? A containment system would not cost anything, because it would not get built.
I doubt that a containment system could EVER get built in California. If a reactor in California had an accident, the enviro-nut jobs would be in court trying to prevent building a containment system because of the perceived the environmental damage it would do. And since the 9th District Court is so freaking full of libtards they would decide in favor of the enviro-nut jobs. A California environ-libtard-nut job can not see the forest for the trees. So a small bug that might be made extinct by the containment system is more important than the radiation pouring out of the damaged reactor. So no...a containment system would not cost a few trillion, It would not get built!
It is not a matter of people being too lazy to protect their data. It is more that corporations, web sites, corrupt or not, do things that make it difficult for the public to protect their data. With obscure wording of privacy protection settings, burying privacy settings so deep in a hierarchy those settings can not be found, to requiring multiple selections be set a certain way to get the privacy expected corporations are purposely making it difficult for the public to protect their privacy. Since what most consider private data is so ripe for commoditization we can not expect corporate entities such as Google, Microsoft, and Facebook to self regulate. In fact we have seen not only to they not self-regulate, they do all they can to make it more difficult for the users to control their private data. After all, these corporations are making money hand over fist from using data that the public may or may not what them to have.
Why do these corporations want to track everywhere I go on the web? So they can feed me ads? I have an ad-blocker so I do not see advertisements. It is not that I do not want ads, but I do not want 20 or 30 irrelevant ads per web page served to me. For example, a friend sent me a link to page telling me about the new car he ordered from the factory. If I follow that link, I will now have new car advertisements showing up in my web pages for the next 6 months!!! Why? Am I in the market for a new car? No! These ads are 100% irrelevant to me and a waste of the advertisers money. So not only is my web surfing privacy violated, the advertiser is screwed by paying for ads shown to people who do not give a shit about the product they are trying to shill. But yet these ads are sold as being directed to a audience who is in the market for their product. Not quite true.
Lets look at Microsoft Outlook. I recently made flight reservations...and Outlook complained that it could not read my email to add this information to my PUBLIC calendar. Why is Outlook invading my privacy in this way? If I want an event added to my calendar, let me decide when to do it!!! BTW i would NEVER post this on my calendar as it is a security threat. Outlook is invading my privacy and endangering my well being by doing this. What is more, from the web interface, I can not remove any calendar entries. Who knows who has access to this calendar that I did not request or make use. And before you say anything, I have quit using Outlook because of that behavior. This behavior should be opt-in, not the default and definitely not a behavior that is impossible to opt-out. It is well past time for the US government to establish regulations to protect the public's privacy due the the failure of the corporations to do as they have promised so many times in the past.
Another sign that Slashdot's editorial standards have disappeared over the last few years.
Those editing obviously do not give a shit about what they are doing. Like a traffic cop who writes bogus tickets knowing they will not lose their job over it..the editors now just slap anything out there, much like a spaghetti coder hopes it will stick, to be able to say they hit or quota of stories for the day...
How much lower can they go?
How is this "News"?? This has to be one of the of dumbest things I have seen posted on Slashdot!!! Slashdot's standards have dropped significantly if this is considered "News." At one time, Slashdot would have rejected an idiotic story like this. I guess there are no minimum standards to get an article posted on Slashdot.
Come on now!!! Don't be so hard on that government drone. He can't help that he will never be anything but a government drone. That cheesy acronym allows him to justify his 6 figure salary!!!!!!
The problem is in the microcode of the CPU. This is a problem with how the chips are designed to handle instruction look ahead processing, and as such is Intel's responsibility as they designed and licensed buggy microcode. To fix an issue of this type properly you must fix the microcode AND replace the micro processor. Intel is trying to distance themselves from any responsibility as they would stand to lose a truckload of money replacing CPU chips. But as the continuing problems with the patch issues indicate, you can not fix a problem internal CPU using external measures. This is like trying to fix a leaky pipe in your home by putting a tarp on the roof!!!! Intel's suggesting BIOS and OS patches is a purposeful misdirection of blame in order to avoid a lawsuit. Each day Intel does not PROPERLY address the matter, brings them one day closer to that lawsuit they are trying to avoid.
The problem with hate speech is that it can't be defined. It has the same definition as pornography years ago, "I cant explain it to you, but I know it when I see it!!!" That is where the problem lies. When drafting hate speech and hate crime laws, basic definitions fall to intent, not to actual content or execution of the act.
When BLM supporters call for all "whiteys" to be killed, I would classify that as hate speech. To me it reeks of hate. But you never see any one who spouts that crap called out for their words. No, if anything they are praised in liberal media. As long as you talk against Liberal opponents you can get away with saying quite literally ANYTHING, no matter how outrageous.
Now lets look at a conservative who says "ISIS should be exterminated". Since ISIS is engaging in what most civilized people would consider crimes against humanity you would not think that statement would not cause problems. Unfortunately, a conservative's words will be twisted. In this case the MSM and liberal politicians would morph these word into a statement of Muslim genocide. Oh, and never mind the fact that the Koran teaches "infidel genocide".
Saying hate speech is obvious by intent is ludicrous, Speech is hateful if the person listening want to take it as hateful. "Hate speech" is a tool liberals use to pound down those whom they disagree. Just like crying "Racism", "hate speech" is a label to hide behind, to justify censoring those ideas and silencing those people you do not like.
Facebook needs to do far more than just curtail fake news. It tries to curtail "hate speech", however does not have a clear policy on what exactly constitutes "hate speech". As a result, Facebook moderators routinely curtails the free expression of conservative ideas. Just because a person disagrees with you does not make it "hate speech". Just because you do not like what a person has posted does not make it "hate speech". In truth, very little of what gets labeled as "hate speech" is truly "hate speech". Facebook should remember that it MUST embrace the concept of ideological neutrality or it will be working hand in hand with those that produce fake news.
While Samuel Adams et. al. were considered leftist, they were not leftist of the "present day type" i.e. sexually confused, Christian hating, name calling, snowflakes who are so afraid of different ideas they want to stifle free speech. I am sure leftist of the "present day type" would not survive living under the conditions of life back than.
I currently use Facebook to stay in contact with a few friends I PERSONALLY know. I am not into collecting "friends" from around the world whom I have never met, nor have any intention of ever meeting. I want to know why is Zuckerberg doing this? The current "People You Might Know" is fucked up. I understand why friends of my friends show up or people who live within a few miles of me being on my list, but why do I get people that have no link what so ever to me show up on my list. I do not understand why people who live on the other side of the planet, whose name is in a language I can not identify, let alone understand shows up in this list! I do not care if they are 5 or 6 levels of "friends" out, I don't want them on my page! When I click to remove them, they show up again when the damn page refreshes. If I take the time to remove them, how about eliminating them permanently???? So fuck who I "SHOULD" know, lets get people who I "MIGHT" personally know working right first!!!!
The way they cut the motherboard safely for notebook covers is by using multi-ton presses. The even use presses to punch out the rivet holes for attaching the hardware to the cut motherboards. There will be no particulates to speak of but the only drawback is that you can only cut straight lines. If he is wanting to cut out anything more than a straight edge he might have to experiment with nibbling away small sections until he gets the shape he wants.
With a little thought he could probably design an adequate press using commonly available bottle stye hydraulic jacks. A few things he needs to be aware. Since the cutting time will be slower than a industrial press, it is possible he will splinter the board along the edge being cut. This can probably be avoided using a sharp cutting edge, or possibly a scissor type cutting action.
After the piece is cut, a little urethane should be enough to seal the edges to keep them from unraveling.
What they forget, a little bullshit fertilizes...too much will burn the roots and kill the plant. People see though the FUD these guys try to pawn off as fact. When will they get it through their small deformed heads w/ extra thick skulls to their walnut sized brains that the distribution paradigm they use is flawed. BSA associated companies DEMAND the customer make payment before obtaining a copy of the product, supposedly without ever knowing if the product will do what it is supposed to do, or the customer even knowing if it fit for the customers application of the product. Then on top of that, the customer is unable to return the product once the package seals are broken. Who in their right mind will pay a couple hundred dollars for software they have not tried before and supposedly can not return once they open the package. There are software shops that expect to rake in thousands per package for their product. Frigging insane. And they wonder why people used pirated software!!!
It appears that Ken has a major case of sour grapes. I am a user of ad blockers. I use them not only to eliminate annoying ads, I use them to protect my privacy. I do not like the idea of personalized advertising based upon what websites I visit. I do not like the idea of advertisers downloading cookies on to MY computer just because I view a web page that contains one of their ads. What web sites I view, is between me and the web site I am viewing, not some advertiser. I view web ads as an infection, needing to be controlled. AD BLOCKERS PROVIDE THAT CONTROL!!!
Ken rants against Internet users who do not experience the Internet in the fashion that would render maximum profits to Ars Technica, stopping just short of calling them thieves. It is obvious that he cares not one iota about users privacy concerns. No where does he indicate that Ars takes any steps to ensure that ads do not place tracking cookies and the such. All he does is cry about ad blockers depriving him of profits! Ken obviously cares not about users privacy issues as long as ad revenues flow.
He also displaying some ignorance of the subject on which he is pontificating. For example when he is discussing the radio and television advertising model he states "advertisers in those mediums are paying for potential to reach audiences, and not for results." I am sorry but no company spends money for "potential to reach audiences". All companies spend advertising money with the expectation of results i.e. more business. If a company spends money on a particular form of advertising and it does not produce results, they do not continue throwing money away. They go to a different form of advertising. Ken also states "They have complex models which tell them if X number are watching, Y will likely see the ad." This is true. Radio and television have complex models because they take into consideration those who do not respond to advertising.
When he states "they really have no true idea who sees what ad, and that's why it's a medium based on potential and not provable results" he is making an assertion which is false. While it is true the advertisers have no idea WHO is seeing the ad, they do know how many people are exposed it. Neilsen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen_ratings and several other rating companies provide rating services for both local and national broadcasting entities. The advertising rate for advertising during a broadcast is determined by the historical rating a broadcast has obtained. The higher the rating the higher the ad rate. Everyone remember the millions paid for a 30 second ad during the Super Bowl. Ken says that because the advertiser does not know WHO viewed the ad, there are no provable results. If that were true, why would a company spend MILLIONS on a single ad if there were no provable results? That just makes no sense.
Now Ken also states "on the Internet everything is 100% trackable and is billed and sold as such." Here Ken is indicating that either the Ars Technica's advertising department is being dishonest, selling clients the idea that 100% of Ars visitors will click through to the client's site or that Ars is willing to conspire with their clients to place adware of some form on each visitor's computer. Combined with Ken's stressing the exaggerated importance of knowing WHO views an ad, my guess is the later, since that is the ONLY way for Ars to guarantee 100% of anything getting to a client. Why else would ad blockers cause him such heartburn.
Either way...now that I know this about Ars...I will never visit that site again without an ad blocker of some kind.
No, you are not being a jackass. It is far better to ask questions and be INFORMED than make assumptions that might not be true.
As an Extra class amateur radio operator licensee I can tell you that the FCC considers exposure to RF radiation a significant risk. To obtain an amateur radio license and to be granted greater privileges, tests are given and several questions pertain to safe exposure limits. While I would doubt that the antenna poses a hazard, for your own peace of mind there is some homework you must do, questions you must ask of the company that owns the antenna and possibly the FCC.
Is the antenna used for receiving, transmitting or both? Is the antenna directional? What kind of gain does the antenna exhibit? What does the energy distribution look like? Are you able to see a site evaluation? (the FCC might have that on record) Find out the name of the company that owns the antenna and ask these question.
Many systems use separate antennas for receiving and transmitting. Doing so allows the antenna to be optimized for the job. It is quite possible that the antenna in question is used purely for reception of the cell signals from another tower. In that case the antenna poses no risk what so ever.
If the antenna is used for transmission of microwave signals a whole new can of worms is opened and RF exposure must be considered. RF radiation exposure limits are divided into two categories, a controlled environment and an uncontrolled environment. Basically, these two categories refer to the exposure limits of people working with the equipment and the general public. Several things are considered when looking at RF exposure limits; antenna type, power delivered to the antenna and the effective power radiated. A highly directional antenna can direct the input wattage into a very narrow beam called a lobe, effectively amplifying the signal in that direction. So a signal of 200 watts can effectively become a signal of much higher strength depending upon the gain of the antenna. One of the advantages of this is that the signal to the sides of the main lobe is extremely weak. From a safety stand point, only something directly in the path of the lobe is being exposed to radiation.
Again, ask the questions I gave to you earlier of an electrical engineer working at the company owing the antenna. Make an appointment to meet at the site of the apartment. The FCC requires they keep detailed information available on their systems just for answering this type of issue.
The computer system, including the Internet connection that he used to access LinkedIn was, the address book he used to transfer data was part of a software package that his employer provided. He was plainly not smart.
Using systems owned by your "soon to be former" employer to set up your business is not very smart. It never hurts to cultivate relationships amongst your work related contacts, however do it on your own time. Manage your contacts at home on your own system as this eliminates any chance that something will be found on your old work system or in the e-mail logs. Figure out ways to strike up away for the office friendships with the contacts your are most interested. It takes time and forethought, but there are ways to "pilfer" a contact list without raising your employer's suspicions and if done right the boss will even encourage you.
when you think about it, taking a photo of the earth from space isn't (conceptually) any different from walking into a store a stealing a CD.
Talk about someone who is so full of shit it isn't funny. You must be either an IDIOT or a friggin RIAA/MPAA loon.
First of all...if you walk into a store and take a physical CD you take something someone else has purchased, which is theft.
Taking a basic outdoor photo on earth is not illegal. The photon source is either provided by the sun which is free, at least that is what all those eco-freaks blabbering about solar panels for electric generation tell us, or is provided by the camera if flash is used. Taking a photo of the earth is identical in that solar radiation is utilized. The only difference is the distance from the subject, instead of a few few or tens of feet the subject is a couple of hundred miles away.
Now if you are talking about remote sensing using generated radiation types, like using radar or microwaves to map the surface, I could see NOAA possibly wanting to have some process to ensure that the frequencies used do not cause interference to a system in operation. But in general there should be no real obstacle to any kind of remote sensing project.
So tell me, where in taking a photo of the earth is something stolen?? And leave your RIAA/MPAA lunacies at the door. Those tired, worn out arguments are losing their punch
Oh, BTW, check out my sig...if it ever applied to anyone...it sure as hell applies to you!
Slashdot Mirror
Part of it is Amazon's forcing customers into Amazon Prime. I order items off of Amazon maybe 2 or 3 times a year. I do not order items off of Amazon often enough to justify paying a monthly fee for Prime. Yet the last time I ordered something from Amazon they automatically opened a Prime account for me. I do not want Prime, it is not worth it for me. I do not care if streaming TV or music is bundled with it...I do not want it; do not force it upon me. I had to cancel, which is a pain because they do not make it easy to find. Then once I found where I could cancel they asked me to confirm 2 or 3 times before they processed the cancellation request. Evidently they think their customers are stupid!!! Because of this I will not buy from them again.
In Japan they can build an advanced cryogenic containment system for a reactor disaster for $300 million.
California needed $1100 million to patch a leaky spillway at a dam. It would take a few trillion dollars for California to contain a damaged reactor.
A few trillion??? A containment system would not cost anything, because it would not get built.
I doubt that a containment system could EVER get built in California. If a reactor in California had an accident, the enviro-nut jobs would be in court trying to prevent building a containment system because of the perceived the environmental damage it would do. And since the 9th District Court is so freaking full of libtards they would decide in favor of the enviro-nut jobs. A California environ-libtard-nut job can not see the forest for the trees. So a small bug that might be made extinct by the containment system is more important than the radiation pouring out of the damaged reactor. So no...a containment system would not cost a few trillion, It would not get built!
Welsh??? Klingon??? What is the difference??? They both sound like someone hocking up loogies...
It is not a matter of people being too lazy to protect their data. It is more that corporations, web sites, corrupt or not, do things that make it difficult for the public to protect their data. With obscure wording of privacy protection settings, burying privacy settings so deep in a hierarchy those settings can not be found, to requiring multiple selections be set a certain way to get the privacy expected corporations are purposely making it difficult for the public to protect their privacy. Since what most consider private data is so ripe for commoditization we can not expect corporate entities such as Google, Microsoft, and Facebook to self regulate. In fact we have seen not only to they not self-regulate, they do all they can to make it more difficult for the users to control their private data. After all, these corporations are making money hand over fist from using data that the public may or may not what them to have.
Why do these corporations want to track everywhere I go on the web? So they can feed me ads? I have an ad-blocker so I do not see advertisements. It is not that I do not want ads, but I do not want 20 or 30 irrelevant ads per web page served to me. For example, a friend sent me a link to page telling me about the new car he ordered from the factory. If I follow that link, I will now have new car advertisements showing up in my web pages for the next 6 months!!! Why? Am I in the market for a new car? No! These ads are 100% irrelevant to me and a waste of the advertisers money. So not only is my web surfing privacy violated, the advertiser is screwed by paying for ads shown to people who do not give a shit about the product they are trying to shill. But yet these ads are sold as being directed to a audience who is in the market for their product. Not quite true.
Lets look at Microsoft Outlook. I recently made flight reservations...and Outlook complained that it could not read my email to add this information to my PUBLIC calendar. Why is Outlook invading my privacy in this way? If I want an event added to my calendar, let me decide when to do it!!! BTW i would NEVER post this on my calendar as it is a security threat. Outlook is invading my privacy and endangering my well being by doing this. What is more, from the web interface, I can not remove any calendar entries. Who knows who has access to this calendar that I did not request or make use. And before you say anything, I have quit using Outlook because of that behavior. This behavior should be opt-in, not the default and definitely not a behavior that is impossible to opt-out. It is well past time for the US government to establish regulations to protect the public's privacy due the the failure of the corporations to do as they have promised so many times in the past.
Another sign that Slashdot's editorial standards have disappeared over the last few years. Those editing obviously do not give a shit about what they are doing. Like a traffic cop who writes bogus tickets knowing they will not lose their job over it..the editors now just slap anything out there, much like a spaghetti coder hopes it will stick, to be able to say they hit or quota of stories for the day... How much lower can they go?
How is this "News"?? This has to be one of the of dumbest things I have seen posted on Slashdot!!! Slashdot's standards have dropped significantly if this is considered "News." At one time, Slashdot would have rejected an idiotic story like this. I guess there are no minimum standards to get an article posted on Slashdot.
Come on now!!! Don't be so hard on that government drone. He can't help that he will never be anything but a government drone. That cheesy acronym allows him to justify his 6 figure salary!!!!!!
The problem is in the microcode of the CPU. This is a problem with how the chips are designed to handle instruction look ahead processing, and as such is Intel's responsibility as they designed and licensed buggy microcode. To fix an issue of this type properly you must fix the microcode AND replace the micro processor. Intel is trying to distance themselves from any responsibility as they would stand to lose a truckload of money replacing CPU chips. But as the continuing problems with the patch issues indicate, you can not fix a problem internal CPU using external measures. This is like trying to fix a leaky pipe in your home by putting a tarp on the roof!!!! Intel's suggesting BIOS and OS patches is a purposeful misdirection of blame in order to avoid a lawsuit. Each day Intel does not PROPERLY address the matter, brings them one day closer to that lawsuit they are trying to avoid.
Is this something we could apply solar cells/panels to boost efficiency?
Obvious according to who???
The problem with hate speech is that it can't be defined. It has the same definition as pornography years ago, "I cant explain it to you, but I know it when I see it!!!" That is where the problem lies. When drafting hate speech and hate crime laws, basic definitions fall to intent, not to actual content or execution of the act.
When BLM supporters call for all "whiteys" to be killed, I would classify that as hate speech. To me it reeks of hate. But you never see any one who spouts that crap called out for their words. No, if anything they are praised in liberal media. As long as you talk against Liberal opponents you can get away with saying quite literally ANYTHING, no matter how outrageous.
Now lets look at a conservative who says "ISIS should be exterminated". Since ISIS is engaging in what most civilized people would consider crimes against humanity you would not think that statement would not cause problems. Unfortunately, a conservative's words will be twisted. In this case the MSM and liberal politicians would morph these word into a statement of Muslim genocide. Oh, and never mind the fact that the Koran teaches "infidel genocide".
Saying hate speech is obvious by intent is ludicrous, Speech is hateful if the person listening want to take it as hateful. "Hate speech" is a tool liberals use to pound down those whom they disagree. Just like crying "Racism", "hate speech" is a label to hide behind, to justify censoring those ideas and silencing those people you do not like.
Facebook needs to do far more than just curtail fake news. It tries to curtail "hate speech", however does not have a clear policy on what exactly constitutes "hate speech". As a result, Facebook moderators routinely curtails the free expression of conservative ideas. Just because a person disagrees with you does not make it "hate speech". Just because you do not like what a person has posted does not make it "hate speech". In truth, very little of what gets labeled as "hate speech" is truly "hate speech". Facebook should remember that it MUST embrace the concept of ideological neutrality or it will be working hand in hand with those that produce fake news.
Like so many "present day type" liberals you were obviously not taught manners by your parents. You need that potty mouth washed out with soap!!!
While Samuel Adams et. al. were considered leftist, they were not leftist of the "present day type" i.e. sexually confused, Christian hating, name calling, snowflakes who are so afraid of different ideas they want to stifle free speech. I am sure leftist of the "present day type" would not survive living under the conditions of life back than.
Excellent link. If I had mod points I'd up vote you. Somebody do this please!!!
Outlook is no better...their so called spam filter filters jack shit!!!
I currently use Facebook to stay in contact with a few friends I PERSONALLY know. I am not into collecting "friends" from around the world whom I have never met, nor have any intention of ever meeting. I want to know why is Zuckerberg doing this? The current "People You Might Know" is fucked up. I understand why friends of my friends show up or people who live within a few miles of me being on my list, but why do I get people that have no link what so ever to me show up on my list. I do not understand why people who live on the other side of the planet, whose name is in a language I can not identify, let alone understand shows up in this list! I do not care if they are 5 or 6 levels of "friends" out, I don't want them on my page! When I click to remove them, they show up again when the damn page refreshes. If I take the time to remove them, how about eliminating them permanently???? So fuck who I "SHOULD" know, lets get people who I "MIGHT" personally know working right first!!!!
don't use a saw. Use pressure.
The way they cut the motherboard safely for notebook covers is by using multi-ton presses. The even use presses to punch out the rivet holes for attaching the hardware to the cut motherboards. There will be no particulates to speak of but the only drawback is that you can only cut straight lines. If he is wanting to cut out anything more than a straight edge he might have to experiment with nibbling away small sections until he gets the shape he wants.
With a little thought he could probably design an adequate press using commonly available bottle stye hydraulic jacks. A few things he needs to be aware. Since the cutting time will be slower than a industrial press, it is possible he will splinter the board along the edge being cut. This can probably be avoided using a sharp cutting edge, or possibly a scissor type cutting action.
After the piece is cut, a little urethane should be enough to seal the edges to keep them from unraveling.
Jezzz...evidently you don't remember the commercials Reese's used to run all the time. Don't take things so serious.
It was peanut butter in their chocolate
What they forget, a little bullshit fertilizes...too much will burn the roots and kill the plant. People see though the FUD these guys try to pawn off as fact. When will they get it through their small deformed heads w/ extra thick skulls to their walnut sized brains that the distribution paradigm they use is flawed. BSA associated companies DEMAND the customer make payment before obtaining a copy of the product, supposedly without ever knowing if the product will do what it is supposed to do, or the customer even knowing if it fit for the customers application of the product. Then on top of that, the customer is unable to return the product once the package seals are broken. Who in their right mind will pay a couple hundred dollars for software they have not tried before and supposedly can not return once they open the package. There are software shops that expect to rake in thousands per package for their product. Frigging insane. And they wonder why people used pirated software!!!
It appears that Ken has a major case of sour grapes. I am a user of ad blockers. I use them not only to eliminate annoying ads, I use them to protect my privacy. I do not like the idea of personalized advertising based upon what websites I visit. I do not like the idea of advertisers downloading cookies on to MY computer just because I view a web page that contains one of their ads. What web sites I view, is between me and the web site I am viewing, not some advertiser. I view web ads as an infection, needing to be controlled. AD BLOCKERS PROVIDE THAT CONTROL!!!
Ken rants against Internet users who do not experience the Internet in the fashion that would render maximum profits to Ars Technica, stopping just short of calling them thieves. It is obvious that he cares not one iota about users privacy concerns. No where does he indicate that Ars takes any steps to ensure that ads do not place tracking cookies and the such. All he does is cry about ad blockers depriving him of profits! Ken obviously cares not about users privacy issues as long as ad revenues flow.
He also displaying some ignorance of the subject on which he is pontificating. For example when he is discussing the radio and television advertising model he states "advertisers in those mediums are paying for potential to reach audiences, and not for results." I am sorry but no company spends money for "potential to reach audiences". All companies spend advertising money with the expectation of results i.e. more business. If a company spends money on a particular form of advertising and it does not produce results, they do not continue throwing money away. They go to a different form of advertising. Ken also states "They have complex models which tell them if X number are watching, Y will likely see the ad." This is true. Radio and television have complex models because they take into consideration those who do not respond to advertising.
When he states "they really have no true idea who sees what ad, and that's why it's a medium based on potential and not provable results" he is making an assertion which is false. While it is true the advertisers have no idea WHO is seeing the ad, they do know how many people are exposed it. Neilsen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen_ratings and several other rating companies provide rating services for both local and national broadcasting entities. The advertising rate for advertising during a broadcast is determined by the historical rating a broadcast has obtained. The higher the rating the higher the ad rate. Everyone remember the millions paid for a 30 second ad during the Super Bowl. Ken says that because the advertiser does not know WHO viewed the ad, there are no provable results. If that were true, why would a company spend MILLIONS on a single ad if there were no provable results? That just makes no sense.
Now Ken also states "on the Internet everything is 100% trackable and is billed and sold as such." Here Ken is indicating that either the Ars Technica's advertising department is being dishonest, selling clients the idea that 100% of Ars visitors will click through to the client's site or that Ars is willing to conspire with their clients to place adware of some form on each visitor's computer. Combined with Ken's stressing the exaggerated importance of knowing WHO views an ad, my guess is the later, since that is the ONLY way for Ars to guarantee 100% of anything getting to a client. Why else would ad blockers cause him such heartburn.
Either way...now that I know this about Ars...I will never visit that site again without an ad blocker of some kind.
No, you are not being a jackass. It is far better to ask questions and be INFORMED than make assumptions that might not be true.
As an Extra class amateur radio operator licensee I can tell you that the FCC considers exposure to RF radiation a significant risk. To obtain an amateur radio license and to be granted greater privileges, tests are given and several questions pertain to safe exposure limits. While I would doubt that the antenna poses a hazard, for your own peace of mind there is some homework you must do, questions you must ask of the company that owns the antenna and possibly the FCC.
Is the antenna used for receiving, transmitting or both? Is the antenna directional? What kind of gain does the antenna exhibit? What does the energy distribution look like? Are you able to see a site evaluation? (the FCC might have that on record) Find out the name of the company that owns the antenna and ask these question.
Many systems use separate antennas for receiving and transmitting. Doing so allows the antenna to be optimized for the job. It is quite possible that the antenna in question is used purely for reception of the cell signals from another tower. In that case the antenna poses no risk what so ever.
If the antenna is used for transmission of microwave signals a whole new can of worms is opened and RF exposure must be considered. RF radiation exposure limits are divided into two categories, a controlled environment and an uncontrolled environment. Basically, these two categories refer to the exposure limits of people working with the equipment and the general public. Several things are considered when looking at RF exposure limits; antenna type, power delivered to the antenna and the effective power radiated. A highly directional antenna can direct the input wattage into a very narrow beam called a lobe, effectively amplifying the signal in that direction. So a signal of 200 watts can effectively become a signal of much higher strength depending upon the gain of the antenna. One of the advantages of this is that the signal to the sides of the main lobe is extremely weak. From a safety stand point, only something directly in the path of the lobe is being exposed to radiation.
Again, ask the questions I gave to you earlier of an electrical engineer working at the company owing the antenna. Make an appointment to meet at the site of the apartment. The FCC requires they keep detailed information available on their systems just for answering this type of issue.
Regards,
W2TKW
The computer system, including the Internet connection that he used to access LinkedIn was, the address book he used to transfer data was part of a software package that his employer provided. He was plainly not smart.
Using systems owned by your "soon to be former" employer to set up your business is not very smart. It never hurts to cultivate relationships amongst your work related contacts, however do it on your own time. Manage your contacts at home on your own system as this eliminates any chance that something will be found on your old work system or in the e-mail logs. Figure out ways to strike up away for the office friendships with the contacts your are most interested. It takes time and forethought, but there are ways to "pilfer" a contact list without raising your employer's suspicions and if done right the boss will even encourage you.
when you think about it, taking a photo of the earth from space isn't (conceptually) any different from walking into a store a stealing a CD.
Talk about someone who is so full of shit it isn't funny. You must be either an IDIOT or a friggin RIAA/MPAA loon.
First of all...if you walk into a store and take a physical CD you take something someone else has purchased, which is theft.
Taking a basic outdoor photo on earth is not illegal. The photon source is either provided by the sun which is free, at least that is what all those eco-freaks blabbering about solar panels for electric generation tell us, or is provided by the camera if flash is used. Taking a photo of the earth is identical in that solar radiation is utilized. The only difference is the distance from the subject, instead of a few few or tens of feet the subject is a couple of hundred miles away.
Now if you are talking about remote sensing using generated radiation types, like using radar or microwaves to map the surface, I could see NOAA possibly wanting to have some process to ensure that the frequencies used do not cause interference to a system in operation. But in general there should be no real obstacle to any kind of remote sensing project.
So tell me, where in taking a photo of the earth is something stolen?? And leave your RIAA/MPAA lunacies at the door. Those tired, worn out arguments are losing their punch
Oh, BTW, check out my sig...if it ever applied to anyone...it sure as hell applies to you!