Here in the US, for many decades, since long before I was born, buses have had 1-way locked cash boxes and require exact change. A thief can't get at the money. And long distance buses simply don't sell tickets from the bus. Remote sales are handled on the telephone.
A business doesn't have to take cash if they don't want to, but banning it so nobody can? I'm sure glad that wouldn't happen here.
With the banks pushing the chip reader, and since using the chip puts more security liability on the user, I'm rarely using my card anymore and now I'm mostly using cash again. I don't care what the experts say is more or less secure, I don't trust the "most secure option" to be perfect, and I don't want the liability. If it was so good, why would they want me to be the one liable if it turns out to have unanticipated holes? Maybe there are new RFID holes that they already know they don't want to be on the hook for?
Look, bub, you say that stuff about "(if i may be completely honest with you here)" and "what it's doing is demonstrating to both you and to other readers that" and "you haven't thought through what you're saying" then don't get upset when I laugh at it. And sure as fuck don't get upset that I'm laughing at you in response to you insulting me.
How about, go fuck yourself you fucking snowflake, and get off your high horse because you're a hypocrite.
what it's doing is demonstrating to both you and to other readers that... (if i may be completely honest with you here)...
LOL ok Mr Universe, tell us what other people can comprehend.
we can't *check* your conclusion, because you're not prepared to provide us with the facts or any of the logical reasoning *behind* your conclusion.
You just have to understand which direction proof goes when dealing with a negative. See, the claim was that we (people like me that value open systems) can't have what we want because the Big Bad Mr Big will stop us. The claim that we can't have what we want is what needs proof. If I point out we already have other things like this and nothing stops us, I don't need to present proof of those things. Proof of their existence would refute you conclusively, true, but that isn't called for. The claim that needs proof is the assertion that a problem would arise. That is on you, Mr. Mindreader.
And no, you don't "need" people to verify squat. Just like a thing existing in the world doesn't "need" to be simple. It doesn't "need" to be usable by "gamers" who are aliterate and can't read manuals. It doesn't need to be for you, and what you reviewed or didn't or verified or didn't doesn't "need" to have happened.
If you want people to answer questions, ask better questions. If the frame of reference for your question is stuff internal to you (what you've reviewed) then it isn't going to get serious consideration. Who the heck knows what you reviewed. Not me. And I don't care. Ask about a specific thing, or ask about something general. And don't make presumptions about what the goals have to be, because that just makes your question impossible and worthless.
sorry, i don't understand. could you possibly expand on this, perhaps help review the logic analysis behind the modular standards that i've reviewed over the past five years
No. And I just wanted to say, that is a really, really weird thing to request. And I can say, I really don't care what you've reviewed. I'm not that into you, and I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about electronics.
And no, it doesn't have to be "absolutely simple," blah blah blah. Just waving your hands and saying words doesn't mean that objects in the world have to be what you want them to be. They can be what somebody else wants them to be, and still exist, and maybe I'll even like it better than if it was what you wanted. Some guy on planet Earth didn't like fiddly bits? Who cares?
Seriously though, if you don't think the US government takes election tampering seriously, my goodness. There are going to be a wide variety of responses to be expected. I wouldn't be surprised to see arrests or intrigue.
Exactly. Just like on television; if a channel broadcasts an ad with boobies, it is the channel that gets fined, not the advertiser. Who paid for me to see Janet Jackson's nipple shield? Her? No, CBS.
What disappoints me is that if I go to the Ars of Tech site right now, there is no notice to their users of this, or any mention of the story.
You can count me in the "until somebody surfing with their pants down and no ad blocker actually sues the website that delivered it, nothing will change" camp.
Think about a RAID5 spread over several legislations, where each hard drive is in another country.
Well, I thought about thinking about it, but given the implied latency, I should probably stop and wait a week before I decide if I decided to think about it, or not.
You found a silly website I'm not going to click on, but even wikipedia can explain how Senate seniority works. You say the word "remedial," but you still haven't attempted a first pass. I'm not going to repeat what I said above that you get wrong. You didn't even understand your own link. Without reading, and because I actually follow politics on a continuous basis, I can already tell you that it is a poorly written piece that conflates the issue of committee assignments, which the parties can do however they like, with the issue of committee seniority, which is based on Senate rules not on the Party and measures time on the committee. In the situation that came up with Lieberman, they were talking about possibly changing the rules at the start of the new term.
Clue up. You could have saved yourself the idiocy of using words like "remedial" to insult me, and just looked up the part I actually said to look up instead of randomly fishing for a link that you can throw at the wall.
If it can perform the same functions and reliably survive under battlefield conditions, you can probably mark it up by $400K and make a bundle on every unit you sell.
Until he finds out what the article actually said... $600k was reported for an early prototype. It is a bit late to hit that price point; he'd have to compete at production prices, and eat the cost of his own prototypes.
After that comes a well funded intelligence sniffer...
LOL you watch too many movies, and they weren't even set in Africa! You took a double-dose of derp and even managed to get confused by Vietnam. Kinda strange.
They're not $600k, that is obvious just from the idiotic summary. An "earlier version" (prototype) cost $600k, the production version is likely much cheaper. The actual cost is negative, because manned security uses the same sensors and simply costs more because of the desire to protect humans.
In October 2010 the first MDARS vehicle went online at Nevada National Security Site (NNSS)...
The MDARS will save NNSS an estimated $1 million in annual force protection labor and equipment maintenance costs. Additionally, use of the platforms will save the site approximately $6 million in infrastructure costs for equipment such as lights, towers, cameras, trenching and burial of cables to support the towers and motion detection units needed to provide protection of remote sensitive areas.
If there is an IED on the base then who cares if it can disable the thing? If the sets it off, it saved lives. Could a high powered rifle damage it? Of course, it has cameras and sensors and stuff. But if snipers are taking up position right outside a base, directing fire onto the base, and you can get them to take pot shots at a robot, that is pretty awesome tactically.
And yeah, if somebody attacks the base and penetrates the perimeter and damages the robot... a recovery team would need to wait for combat to conclude, and would have all the normal risks of that combat without worrying about the robot.
No, you just didn't think about it. This is a straightforwards and obvious ruling, there is nothing "backwards" about it.
And they don't analyze it that way, adding and subtracting the State and Federal laws from each other. Each has to be legal on its own. The Federal law does not matter here. The State law simply isn't allowed to try to plug the loophole (that Congress intentionally included) in the Federal law by examining the content. If they want to regulate it, they have to do in a content-neutral way; with a blanket ban. What do you suppose is the problem with that? If some robocalls are banned by both, that isn't a problem.
You might have simply been confused by the headline, and jumped on a bandwagon prematurely.
Slashdot Mirror
Here in the US, for many decades, since long before I was born, buses have had 1-way locked cash boxes and require exact change. A thief can't get at the money. And long distance buses simply don't sell tickets from the bus. Remote sales are handled on the telephone.
A business doesn't have to take cash if they don't want to, but banning it so nobody can? I'm sure glad that wouldn't happen here.
With the banks pushing the chip reader, and since using the chip puts more security liability on the user, I'm rarely using my card anymore and now I'm mostly using cash again. I don't care what the experts say is more or less secure, I don't trust the "most secure option" to be perfect, and I don't want the liability. If it was so good, why would they want me to be the one liable if it turns out to have unanticipated holes? Maybe there are new RFID holes that they already know they don't want to be on the hook for?
Look, bub, you say that stuff about "(if i may be completely honest with you here)" and "what it's doing is demonstrating to both you and to other readers that" and "you haven't thought through what you're saying" then don't get upset when I laugh at it. And sure as fuck don't get upset that I'm laughing at you in response to you insulting me.
How about, go fuck yourself you fucking snowflake, and get off your high horse because you're a hypocrite.
what it's doing is demonstrating to both you and to other readers that... (if i may be completely honest with you here)...
LOL ok Mr Universe, tell us what other people can comprehend.
we can't *check* your conclusion, because you're not prepared to provide us with the facts or any of the logical reasoning *behind* your conclusion.
You just have to understand which direction proof goes when dealing with a negative. See, the claim was that we (people like me that value open systems) can't have what we want because the Big Bad Mr Big will stop us. The claim that we can't have what we want is what needs proof. If I point out we already have other things like this and nothing stops us, I don't need to present proof of those things. Proof of their existence would refute you conclusively, true, but that isn't called for. The claim that needs proof is the assertion that a problem would arise. That is on you, Mr. Mindreader.
And no, you don't "need" people to verify squat. Just like a thing existing in the world doesn't "need" to be simple. It doesn't "need" to be usable by "gamers" who are aliterate and can't read manuals. It doesn't need to be for you, and what you reviewed or didn't or verified or didn't doesn't "need" to have happened.
If you want people to answer questions, ask better questions. If the frame of reference for your question is stuff internal to you (what you've reviewed) then it isn't going to get serious consideration. Who the heck knows what you reviewed. Not me. And I don't care. Ask about a specific thing, or ask about something general. And don't make presumptions about what the goals have to be, because that just makes your question impossible and worthless.
sorry, i don't understand. could you possibly expand on this, perhaps help review the logic analysis behind the modular standards that i've reviewed over the past five years
No. And I just wanted to say, that is a really, really weird thing to request. And I can say, I really don't care what you've reviewed. I'm not that into you, and I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about electronics.
And no, it doesn't have to be "absolutely simple," blah blah blah. Just waving your hands and saying words doesn't mean that objects in the world have to be what you want them to be. They can be what somebody else wants them to be, and still exist, and maybe I'll even like it better than if it was what you wanted. Some guy on planet Earth didn't like fiddly bits? Who cares?
And by "move to block them" what do you mean, they'll dress up in a chicken suit and dance in the street? It won't work.
It is a pretty stupid conspiracy theory when all it consists of is an underpants gnome.
Maybe in your country there is some sort of process to "block" companies that anger competitors, but in most of the world it simply can't be done.
What you don't realize is that none of that means it won't happen, it just means Joe Average User won't end up buying it.
There is lots of open, modular electronics already. Your boogeyman didn't pop out.
or for that matter non air gapped systems.
Oh good, no databases. That must make IT easy.
THE COLD WAR IS BACK
Was it ever really gone, or just taking a nap?
We're gonna need more missile defense, though.
I don't care about moral high ground nearly as much as I care about American elections staying American.
All your signals are belong to us!
X0X0X0 Uncle Sam
Seriously though, if you don't think the US government takes election tampering seriously, my goodness. There are going to be a wide variety of responses to be expected. I wouldn't be surprised to see arrests or intrigue.
I hate to resort to the guardian, but... https://www.theguardian.com/us...
There are better reasons than email idiocy.
That is exactly what they do. It probably does cause a brief outage for fiber, but not for copper.
They have special subs for it. The summary seems pretty clueless. It has been widely reported for decades.
Exactly. Just like on television; if a channel broadcasts an ad with boobies, it is the channel that gets fined, not the advertiser. Who paid for me to see Janet Jackson's nipple shield? Her? No, CBS.
Yea- Ars Technica disappointed me ...
What disappoints me is that if I go to the Ars of Tech site right now, there is no notice to their users of this, or any mention of the story.
You can count me in the "until somebody surfing with their pants down and no ad blocker actually sues the website that delivered it, nothing will change" camp.
If it isn't physical, it doesn't exist; inside or outside the network.
I don't see what the hullabaloo is about.
Just wave your arms in front of your face while shouting buzzwords. Now, can you see what the hullabaloo is about?!?
As far as fractured... I'm not sure they understand the inter- in internet. If it was continuous, what even needed connecting?
Think about a RAID5 spread over several legislations, where each hard drive is in another country.
Well, I thought about thinking about it, but given the implied latency, I should probably stop and wait a week before I decide if I decided to think about it, or not.
You found a silly website I'm not going to click on, but even wikipedia can explain how Senate seniority works. You say the word "remedial," but you still haven't attempted a first pass. I'm not going to repeat what I said above that you get wrong. You didn't even understand your own link. Without reading, and because I actually follow politics on a continuous basis, I can already tell you that it is a poorly written piece that conflates the issue of committee assignments, which the parties can do however they like, with the issue of committee seniority, which is based on Senate rules not on the Party and measures time on the committee. In the situation that came up with Lieberman, they were talking about possibly changing the rules at the start of the new term.
Clue up. You could have saved yourself the idiocy of using words like "remedial" to insult me, and just looked up the part I actually said to look up instead of randomly fishing for a link that you can throw at the wall.
If it can perform the same functions and reliably survive under battlefield conditions, you can probably mark it up by $400K and make a bundle on every unit you sell.
Until he finds out what the article actually said... $600k was reported for an early prototype. It is a bit late to hit that price point; he'd have to compete at production prices, and eat the cost of his own prototypes.
After that comes a well funded intelligence sniffer...
LOL you watch too many movies, and they weren't even set in Africa! You took a double-dose of derp and even managed to get confused by Vietnam. Kinda strange.
They're not $600k, that is obvious just from the idiotic summary. An "earlier version" (prototype) cost $600k, the production version is likely much cheaper. The actual cost is negative, because manned security uses the same sensors and simply costs more because of the desire to protect humans.
(From http://www.public.navy.mil/spa... )
If there is an IED on the base then who cares if it can disable the thing? If the sets it off, it saved lives. Could a high powered rifle damage it? Of course, it has cameras and sensors and stuff. But if snipers are taking up position right outside a base, directing fire onto the base, and you can get them to take pot shots at a robot, that is pretty awesome tactically.
And yeah, if somebody attacks the base and penetrates the perimeter and damages the robot... a recovery team would need to wait for combat to conclude, and would have all the normal risks of that combat without worrying about the robot.
No, you just didn't think about it. This is a straightforwards and obvious ruling, there is nothing "backwards" about it.
And they don't analyze it that way, adding and subtracting the State and Federal laws from each other. Each has to be legal on its own. The Federal law does not matter here. The State law simply isn't allowed to try to plug the loophole (that Congress intentionally included) in the Federal law by examining the content. If they want to regulate it, they have to do in a content-neutral way; with a blanket ban. What do you suppose is the problem with that? If some robocalls are banned by both, that isn't a problem.
You might have simply been confused by the headline, and jumped on a bandwagon prematurely.
The media for the masses has a new buzz-word
For some reason for me it conjures up the 1950's Batman action sequence music. My script blockers are totally gonna win, too, I saw this episode.
We're still drooling around, where I'm from.
Which should hardly be surprising given that the sites don't run for free...
That some nearly bald apes did some stupid thing is never going to surprise me.
Luckily for me, there is an information glut and that is still true even if I only have ad-free, freely available information sources.