I took a taxi Melbourne last month. Booked it through an app. I got a confirmation message for the booking, and another message shortly before the driver arrived.
It seems taxi companies have no problems adpoting the 'good' parts of Uber's business model.
If Uber wants to compete, that's fine with me... but they're just another taxi company.
The correct multi monitor setup is multiple computers + synergy or similar.
Sure, if you never need to drag any windows from one to the next though. Synergy is good if you only need to operate multiple computers. Its useless if you want to open that excel spreadsheet you just got in your email on computer 1 on monitor 2...
And I find for your suggested scenario... I prefer to just maximize a remote desktop window on a 2ndary monitor. Then monitor 2 can be the "other computer" as needed, or can be a different computer, or can be the same computer, or if I need mroe than 2 other computers, I can window remote desktops, etc, etc.
There -ARE- specific scenarios where synergy and other KVM / switching solutions make more sense, but not many.
Password protect your phone, then don't give them the password until they obtain a warrant. Done.
And there lies the rub. A 4 digit code is all but worthless to secure my private data. And a proper password makes the phone to inconvenient to actually use.
For the moment, I've got my phone protected by a passphrase and fingerprint (Samsung Galaxy S5) but I don't really like Androids implementation:
a) It won't fail over to passphrase only after x failed fingerprints. It should.
b) And after x (5?) failed fingerprints there is a 30 second lockout, and I can't even enter the passphrase without waiting, which is also extremely annoying.
c) I'd like finer control over where a passphrase is needed...I'd like to be able to look at what movies are playing, make a local phone call, use google maps, take a picture, let the kids play games, etc without needing a passphrase,
And only need an unlock to get into pictures, emails, documents, and other things which I deem private.
And a fingerprint.. there's conflicting evidence whether I could be forced to provide it to unlock the phone.
In my case I'm mostly just worried about theives and lowlifes rather than law enforcement and the fingerprint is a good balance between convenience and security for that. But I'd like to have my legal privacy protected too... but a long passphrase is just too cumbersome to have to enter into a device repeatedly all day.
That isn't its goal. To maximize entropy is the goal. Complex systems are one way of generating a lot of entropy, but not the only way, and there are lots of very simple ways to generate a lot of entropy.
A nuclear bomb is a pretty good entropy machine for example. Remember when people were freaking out that the LHC would create a black hole that would devour the planet? Suppose such a thing actually could be engineered... now THAT would be a good entropy machine.
it will need the greatest variety of complex systems, and one complex system it can't create immediately is a system that evolved over the course of billions of years.
And my neighborhood kids run lemonade stands in front of their homes without cowering in fear that they'll be shut down by health inspectors, fined for their failure to display a business license, audited for tax evasion, and arrested for exploiting child labor. "The law is very clear." All those rules technically apply.
Your right, technically the regs apply in your scenario, but its well beneath the FAAs notice, and we all know it.
The point is there are a lot of actually interesting things to discuss on the subject without dredging up fringe scenarios like that.
If the government proposes stiffer penalties for unpaid labor, you'd be the guy arguing how no one will risk running a lemonade stand with those regs in place. Its a waste of time; a distraction from meaningful discussion.
"Hey, Harry Homeowner! I'll give you $10 and a cold beer if you'll fly that little camera 50' to the right, and check out my chimney for me, OK?" How does Harry's acceptance of that $10 make what he's doing suddenly more dangerous? Be specific.
Not that I agree or disagree with you. But that you think a neighbor casually offering $10 and a beer for a one time favor is a "commercial" anything speaks volumes about the way you think.
You probably report lemonade stands to the authorities too. No business license. Tax evasion. Child labor...
"licensed pilots" should be a different license than what you'd need to fly a commercial jet of course... or even a Cessna... there should be a separate category for unmanned drones.
And you didn't address what the drone should do if it loses communication with its pilot and/or loses GPS positioning. That's one of the more unique and interesting problems.
In 1988 or whatever, while playing, and exchanging ideas with your friends, Zork was fun.
In 2014, with the internet and guides, its a massive exercise in self restraint not ruin the game for yourself.
In 2014, without the internet and guides, and without the benefit of even having friends playing and exchanging hints with, the game is all but impossible.
I recall spending weeks on end stuck in Kings Quest IV. And in Zork. And in Pyramid 2000. And countless other games. But if you kept at it and your friends were playing the same games, you'd eventually figure it out.
But IMO Internet + GameGuides etc have largely ruined that style of game.
It's not illegal to use weapons that blind, it just cannot be their primary purpose to do so
Exactly right. Nearly all weapons can blind. But if the reason the weapon was fired was to kill a target, or destroy a missile, or sink a boat... or whatever than its 'fine' if someone gets blinded.
But if your just pulling the trigger with the intention to blind people, then its against the "rules".
By allowing humans to exist there will be more overall complexity because a greater variety of complex entities leads to a more complicated overall system, which in turn leads to greater Universal entropy.
Then it may just as plausibly eliminate them to replace them with something even more complicated and entropy producing. Are humans really the pinnacle of entropy production in the universe? No. Not even a blip on the radar.
You have failed to understand the analogy. Deutsche Bank = Microsoft Branch = servers in Ireland New York Times = EU citizens using servers in EU
I got the first 2 items. But what makes us confident the 3rd item holds true? I admit I orginally was under the mistaken impression that the warrant was for Microsofts own email documents that they'd stored in Ireland; and I see that was mistaken.
But do we actually know that the warrant is for an EU citizen, using servers in EU?
If so, then yes, I'm with you. That is quite different from what I'd originally misunderstood.
And what do you think of MS's rebuttal of that position?
"Imagine this scenario...."
That's a good scenario, and it raises some interesting questions that SHOULD also be looked at. But its fundamentally a different scenario. The part where it breaks down though is that they have a warrant to seize the documents of a New York Times reporter.
The New York Times is a wholly American company. The New York Times reporter is presumed to be an American citizen. If the "New York Times" were a wholly owned subsidiary of Deutche Bank and the New York Times employee was instead a German citizen and an employee of Deutche Bank... THEN it would be equivalent.
I have a few good reasons for visiting my bank via Tor,
Such as? I'm genuinely curious why you would need anonymity to connect to a bank, whereupon you would immediately log into an account that has your name, address, phone number, and probably even your SSN and a copy of your signature on file.
Blocking Tor is akin to saying "many robberies were performed by blacks, so we will no longer allow blacks into the bank".
Its more like blocking Tor is akin to saying "many robberies" were performed by people wearing a disguise, so we will no longer allow people wearing disguises into the bank.
I've observed that flaws in Apple products seem to most affect those who do not use Apple products.
Did it really never occur to you that the ones most likely to be affected by a 'flaw' in something would also be the ones most likely to avoid using that something?
Here are other examples:
The people most allergic to peanuts refuse to eat peanut products.
The people who got a hair in their food at a restaurant are far less likely to eat at or recommend that restaurant to others.
By definition the people using products are either relatively unaffected by the flaws, or unaware of them. The people most aware of or most affected by flaws are among the least likely to use the product.
That works, if the user is around. Most times they aren't.
Like I said, I usually do it remotely.
Or sometimes they're uncooperative
Yeah... when that happens you just do what you have to do.
I've just found that resetting someone's password is often a PITA for them... and in turn for me, and then I spend the next month getting follow up calls because some ipad or intranet app stopped working.
And with employees that are literally almost never around, and never / rarely log into a windows dekstop -- setting their system to require a new password when they log in effectively breaks a lot of stuff until they find a desktop to log into.
Asking a user for their password is against corporate policy at all the Fortune 500 companies that I worked for in Silicon Valley. The correct procedure is to inform the user that their password will get reset to a temporary password (i.e., Password123), and, after setting up their new system, check on the box on the AD account for the user to change their password when logging in. Under no circumstances should an I.T. technician know a user's passwords. That's ground for immediate termination.
Its my policy even at the nobody-ranked-them-in-fortune-magazine companies I work with.
I don't know my users passwords and I don't want to know them.
That said, the "solution" you suggest is unworkable for so many reasons it just not funny.
Do you have any idea how many things break when a users password is marked expired/change on next login? Do you have any idea how many things typically get broken when you reset a users password on them? Especially when the user isn't bog-standard logs-into-a-workstation regularly, but still authenticates against AD for a variety of 3rd party services.
My policy lately is to have the user login with *their* credentials without me resetting them, and then I'll remote in and do any additional setup that must be done.
Its not quite as convenient, but it ensures I don't need to know their passwords, and it saves me the headache of things that break (even temporarily) due to me having reset it on them.
Under no circumstances should an I.T. technician know a user's passwords. That's ground for immediate termination.
Nice. So if the user writes their password on a sticky on their laptop and you see it they just they fire YOU?;-
Or do they at least fire the user too?
What if that user is a CxO, P, or VP (because it usually is)?
I recently replaced my problem-ridden Samsung Galaxy S4 Mini with a Motorola Moto G, and the switch has been pure joy despite lower spec and a low quality camera.
Meh... my mom has one, and I don't care for it. I prefer my Galaxy. I like the tactileness of the home button for one thing.
But gone are all the Samsung customizatons, the extra apps that came with the phone which you could not be sure whether you could uninstall, and the annoying Samsung account.
Meh. I agree. The S5 is a bit schizophrenic due to having both googles crap AND samsungs crap preloaded. But at the end of the day, you seem to presume that I should prefer Google's crap. I generally don't.
I like google maps more than the alternatives, and I use the email app* (but not the gmail app); and I mostly use non-stock stuff for the rest.
I heard in lollipop they've gotten rid email and all that's left is gmail (??) and if so I'll be looking for a new mail app too after I upgrade, because I hate the 'gmail app' even when using it with gmail accounts.
I would be more enthusiastic about their open source efforts if they built less cumbersome products, rather than taking stock Android and adding layers of unneeded and unwanted stuff - just so they can "own the customer" by bringing them into their own ecosystem.
Can you blame them for not wanting to do all that work of selling and maintaining a phone just so they can hand you over to google for all future revenue?
I don't much care for the samsung ecosystem, but I have no lover for the google one either. and when push comes to shove I'd rather have both of them vying for my attention than just being fed into one or other. (And this is why I don't use an iphone anymore.)
Ugh. I dislike google but credit where credit is due.
I didn't see any:
10 things articles 6 ways articles Guess what X is Y No Celebrity gossip No pun headlines No shock headlines "X will shock you..." / "You'll be amazed by Y" etc
wow. I didn't know new like that still existed outside of places like/. nevermind that google would be behind one.
Eventually the people who have to pay for all the free stuff will twig to the fact they're living a shittier life than the people who get all the free stuff and then the fun starts.
Has that ever happened anywhere in the history of civilization? Or is it a made up end game scenario that various other contributing factors invariably end up redirecting the economy LONG before it gets anywhere near something this absurd.
Slashdot Mirror
Manufacturing a car produces a significant amount of pollution
But it doesn't produce it downtown L.A.
Unless this effect is accounted for, the headline here is meaningless.
Not if your interested in the air quality in downtown L.A.
L.A. is dirtier right now than it otherwise would have been without a recession. That's not meaningless.
Total pollution footprints are interesting in their own right but they aren't the only conversation worth having.
I took a taxi Melbourne last month. Booked it through an app. I got a confirmation message for the booking, and another message shortly before the driver arrived.
It seems taxi companies have no problems adpoting the 'good' parts of Uber's business model.
If Uber wants to compete, that's fine with me... but they're just another taxi company.
The correct multi monitor setup is multiple computers + synergy or similar.
Sure, if you never need to drag any windows from one to the next though. Synergy is good if you only need to operate multiple computers. Its useless if you want to open that excel spreadsheet you just got in your email on computer 1 on monitor 2...
And I find for your suggested scenario... I prefer to just maximize a remote desktop window on a 2ndary monitor. Then monitor 2 can be the "other computer" as needed, or can be a different computer, or can be the same computer, or if I need mroe than 2 other computers, I can window remote desktops, etc, etc.
There -ARE- specific scenarios where synergy and other KVM / switching solutions make more sense, but not many.
Password protect your phone, then don't give them the password until they obtain a warrant. Done.
And there lies the rub. A 4 digit code is all but worthless to secure my private data. And a proper password makes the phone to inconvenient to actually use.
For the moment, I've got my phone protected by a passphrase and fingerprint (Samsung Galaxy S5) but I don't really like Androids implementation:
a) It won't fail over to passphrase only after x failed fingerprints. It should.
b) And after x (5?) failed fingerprints there is a 30 second lockout, and I can't even enter the passphrase without waiting, which is also extremely annoying.
c) I'd like finer control over where a passphrase is needed ...I'd like to be able to look at what movies are playing, make a local phone call, use google maps, take a picture, let the kids play games, etc without needing a passphrase,
And only need an unlock to get into pictures, emails, documents, and other things which I deem private.
And a fingerprint.. there's conflicting evidence whether I could be forced to provide it to unlock the phone.
In my case I'm mostly just worried about theives and lowlifes rather than law enforcement and the fingerprint is a good balance between convenience and security for that. But I'd like to have my legal privacy protected too... but a long passphrase is just too cumbersome to have to enter into a device repeatedly all day.
To maximize the complexity of its overall system,
That isn't its goal. To maximize entropy is the goal. Complex systems are one way of generating a lot of entropy, but not the only way, and there are lots of very simple ways to generate a lot of entropy.
A nuclear bomb is a pretty good entropy machine for example. Remember when people were freaking out that the LHC would create a black hole that would devour the planet? Suppose such a thing actually could be engineered... now THAT would be a good entropy machine.
it will need the greatest variety of complex systems, and one complex system it can't create immediately is a system that evolved over the course of billions of years.
it is black and white.
And my neighborhood kids run lemonade stands in front of their homes without cowering in fear that they'll be shut down by health inspectors, fined for their failure to display a business license, audited for tax evasion, and arrested for exploiting child labor. "The law is very clear." All those rules technically apply.
Your right, technically the regs apply in your scenario, but its well beneath the FAAs notice, and we all know it.
The point is there are a lot of actually interesting things to discuss on the subject without dredging up fringe scenarios like that.
If the government proposes stiffer penalties for unpaid labor, you'd be the guy arguing how no one will risk running a lemonade stand with those regs in place. Its a waste of time; a distraction from meaningful discussion.
"Hey, Harry Homeowner! I'll give you $10 and a cold beer if you'll fly that little camera 50' to the right, and check out my chimney for me, OK?" How does Harry's acceptance of that $10 make what he's doing suddenly more dangerous? Be specific.
Not that I agree or disagree with you. But that you think a neighbor casually offering $10 and a beer for a one time favor is a "commercial" anything speaks volumes about the way you think.
You probably report lemonade stands to the authorities too. No business license. Tax evasion. Child labor...
Excellent suggestions.
"licensed pilots" should be a different license than what you'd need to fly a commercial jet of course... or even a Cessna ... there should be a separate category for unmanned drones.
And you didn't address what the drone should do if it loses communication with its pilot and/or loses GPS positioning.
That's one of the more unique and interesting problems.
I'm not sure you know what entropy is based upon that comment.
I definitely know what entropy is.
In 1988 or whatever, while playing, and exchanging ideas with your friends, Zork was fun.
In 2014, with the internet and guides, its a massive exercise in self restraint not ruin the game for yourself.
In 2014, without the internet and guides, and without the benefit of even having friends playing and exchanging hints with, the game is all but impossible.
I recall spending weeks on end stuck in Kings Quest IV. And in Zork. And in Pyramid 2000. And countless other games. But if you kept at it and your friends were playing the same games, you'd eventually figure it out.
But IMO Internet + GameGuides etc have largely ruined that style of game.
It's not illegal to use weapons that blind, it just cannot be their primary purpose to do so
Exactly right. Nearly all weapons can blind. But if the reason the weapon was fired was to kill a target, or destroy a missile, or sink a boat... or whatever than its 'fine' if someone gets blinded.
But if your just pulling the trigger with the intention to blind people, then its against the "rules".
Assuming everything else you said was true.
By allowing humans to exist there will be more overall complexity because a greater variety of complex entities leads to a more complicated overall system, which in turn leads to greater Universal entropy.
Then it may just as plausibly eliminate them to replace them with something even more complicated and entropy producing. Are humans really the pinnacle of entropy production in the universe? No. Not even a blip on the radar.
You have failed to understand the analogy.
Deutsche Bank = Microsoft
Branch = servers in Ireland
New York Times = EU citizens using servers in EU
I got the first 2 items.
But what makes us confident the 3rd item holds true? I admit I orginally was under the mistaken impression that the warrant was for Microsofts own email documents that they'd stored in Ireland; and I see that was mistaken.
But do we actually know that the warrant is for an EU citizen, using servers in EU?
If so, then yes, I'm with you. That is quite different from what I'd originally misunderstood.
Well TFA says:
"This is in a sense the biggest break with tradition in 10 years of Ubuntu..."
Editor fail.
And what do you think of MS's rebuttal of that position?
"Imagine this scenario...."
That's a good scenario, and it raises some interesting questions that SHOULD also be looked at. But its fundamentally a different scenario.
The part where it breaks down though is that they have a warrant to seize the documents of a New York Times reporter.
The New York Times is a wholly American company. ... THEN it would be equivalent.
The New York Times reporter is presumed to be an American citizen. If the "New York Times" were a wholly owned subsidiary of Deutche Bank and the New York Times employee was instead a German citizen and an employee of Deutche Bank
Lets compare apples to apples.
I have a few good reasons for visiting my bank via Tor,
Such as? I'm genuinely curious why you would need anonymity to connect to a bank, whereupon you would immediately log into an account that has your name, address, phone number, and probably even your SSN and a copy of your signature on file.
Blocking Tor is akin to saying "many robberies were performed by blacks, so we will no longer allow blacks into the bank".
Its more like blocking Tor is akin to saying "many robberies" were performed by people wearing a disguise, so we will no longer allow people wearing disguises into the bank.
I've observed that flaws in Apple products seem to most affect those who do not use Apple products.
Did it really never occur to you that the ones most likely to be affected by a 'flaw' in something would also be the ones most likely to avoid using that something?
Here are other examples:
The people most allergic to peanuts refuse to eat peanut products.
The people who got a hair in their food at a restaurant are far less likely to eat at or recommend that restaurant to others.
By definition the people using products are either relatively unaffected by the flaws, or unaware of them. The people most aware of or most affected by flaws are among the least likely to use the product.
That's just common sense.
Doing the science is the right answer every time, it's who you are going to test on, us or them.
I'd like to do science on you for hours in my basement.
You can't anticipate what we'll learn as a human race from it. Can we really afford not to?
That works, if the user is around. Most times they aren't.
Like I said, I usually do it remotely.
Or sometimes they're uncooperative
Yeah... when that happens you just do what you have to do.
I've just found that resetting someone's password is often a PITA for them... and in turn for me, and then I spend the next month getting follow up calls because some ipad or intranet app stopped working.
And with employees that are literally almost never around, and never / rarely log into a windows dekstop -- setting their system to require a new password when they log in effectively breaks a lot of stuff until they find a desktop to log into.
How did 100 TB get to North Korea over their dial up modem without anybody else noticing?
NSA sleeping that the wheel?
Five-eyes? All navel gazing?
Nobodies looking at the data going to North Korea?
More and more this seems like a false flag.
Asking a user for their password is against corporate policy at all the Fortune 500 companies that I worked for in Silicon Valley. The correct procedure is to inform the user that their password will get reset to a temporary password (i.e., Password123), and, after setting up their new system, check on the box on the AD account for the user to change their password when logging in. Under no circumstances should an I.T. technician know a user's passwords. That's ground for immediate termination.
Its my policy even at the nobody-ranked-them-in-fortune-magazine companies I work with.
I don't know my users passwords and I don't want to know them.
That said, the "solution" you suggest is unworkable for so many reasons it just not funny.
Do you have any idea how many things break when a users password is marked expired/change on next login? Do you have any idea how many things typically get broken when you reset a users password on them? Especially when the user isn't bog-standard logs-into-a-workstation regularly, but still authenticates against AD for a variety of 3rd party services.
My policy lately is to have the user login with *their* credentials without me resetting them, and then I'll remote in and do any additional setup that must be done.
Its not quite as convenient, but it ensures I don't need to know their passwords, and it saves me the headache of things that break (even temporarily) due to me having reset it on them.
Under no circumstances should an I.T. technician know a user's passwords. That's ground for immediate termination.
Nice. So if the user writes their password on a sticky on their laptop and you see it they just they fire YOU? ;-
Or do they at least fire the user too?
What if that user is a CxO, P, or VP (because it usually is)?
Welcome to IT ! :)
Wouldn't the numeric keypad with overlays of the Intellivision controllers count as "touch controls"?
If that counts as "touch controls", then so would a keyboard.
In other words: No.
I recently replaced my problem-ridden Samsung Galaxy S4 Mini with a Motorola Moto G, and the switch has been pure joy despite lower spec and a low quality camera.
Meh... my mom has one, and I don't care for it. I prefer my Galaxy. I like the tactileness of the home button for one thing.
But gone are all the Samsung customizatons, the extra apps that came with the phone which you could not be sure whether you could uninstall, and the annoying Samsung account.
Meh. I agree. The S5 is a bit schizophrenic due to having both googles crap AND samsungs crap preloaded. But at the end of the day, you seem to presume that I should prefer Google's crap. I generally don't.
I like google maps more than the alternatives, and I use the email app* (but not the gmail app); and I mostly use non-stock stuff for the rest.
I heard in lollipop they've gotten rid email and all that's left is gmail (??) and if so I'll be looking for a new mail app too after I upgrade, because I hate the 'gmail app' even when using it with gmail accounts.
I would be more enthusiastic about their open source efforts if they built less cumbersome products, rather than taking stock Android and adding layers of unneeded and unwanted stuff - just so they can "own the customer" by bringing them into their own ecosystem.
Can you blame them for not wanting to do all that work of selling and maintaining a phone just so they can hand you over to google for all future revenue?
I don't much care for the samsung ecosystem, but I have no lover for the google one either. and when push comes to shove I'd rather have both of them vying for my attention than just being fed into one or other. (And this is why I don't use an iphone anymore.)
Ugh. I dislike google but credit where credit is due.
I didn't see any:
10 things articles
6 ways articles
Guess what X is Y
No Celebrity gossip
No pun headlines
No shock headlines "X will shock you..." / "You'll be amazed by Y" etc
wow. I didn't know new like that still existed outside of places like /. nevermind that google would be behind one.
Thanks
Eventually the people who have to pay for all the free stuff will twig to the fact they're living a shittier life than the people who get all the free stuff and then the fun starts.
Has that ever happened anywhere in the history of civilization? Or is it a made up end game scenario that various other contributing factors invariably end up redirecting the economy LONG before it gets anywhere near something this absurd.
I'm thinking the latter.