Most Americans have no idea what "network neutrality" even is, and they certainly don't care about it as much as you do since you've decided that it is the type species for neutrality. When you say "neutrality," most Americans think of WWII, and those countries that were pretending to be "neutral" while helping to launder stolen gold.
And Americans know darn well we don't want to be one of the wish-washy European countries. The only reason they got to keep any of that money is that the Americans defeated the Germans before the Germans ran out of enemies in Europe. Another couple years, and the "neutral" countries would have been gobbled up as well.
But the American people do know what a government backdoor to a security system is. It is just like in one of the action-adventure heist movies, where some thief pays off the security consultant and now they're controlling the cameras that are supposed to be protecting your vault full of gold. Easy to understand. Plus, what would Fat King George have done with that power? Yeah, exactly! We can understand that shit, easy. What would Fat King George do to us without network neutrality? Nothing, the government isn't really even involved in the networking. Maybe the companies will suck, but companies do that sometimes. See how different these things are from the American perspective?
I imagine Apple is encouraging this to help make the developer's business sustainable.
Imagination is a great tool, however, I'm not sure it is useful to apply to that exact part of the subject.
They get a cut of the money. They still get a cut of the money if the app maker makes bad business decisions. If they can get half the apps to raise their prices, even if most of those went out of business, as long as other apps didn't raise their prices then Apple only makes more money.
Their users will generally only blame the individual app makers, they won't even consider it possible that it was Apple's fault. So there is no downside. For other companies, there would likely be more risk. For Apple, the only risk is mis-timing the artificial price cycles they create and pillaging less than the maximum possible.
Smart laws. Smart. Just stick them on the blockchain./s
I do totally agree though. But without a national ballot measure system, there isn't any sort of mechanism to implement smart laws. You could write a smarter law, give it to your congress critter, and even if they got it passed, it would be a totally different law that they actually passed.
Our whole system of government is built around making sure the government isn't too smart! Smart governments are too good at protecting their own power.
If the overall performance is similar to a human, but some of the mistakes it makes are as easily identified by a human as you presume, then having the human reviewing the machine performance would give a better result than just the human or just the computer.
Alas, it was just bullshit, and the humans also make mistakes that look stupid to other humans.
Security vulnerabilities are not found every day in the vast majority of my apps. They're found every day somewhere in the world, in some application but that is a very very different bar to set.
If your application vendor tricked you into thinking you need to pay them to fix Intel's hardware bugs, "there's one born every minute."
Neither can the guy who I bought a used Timex/Sinclair 1000 from 30+ years ago. But guess what? That has nothing to do with the price of a computer. And there is no fucking way I'd still be paying him.
11 years ago I was paid $25 for a 10 line Perl script that took about 15 minutes to write, including talking to the client about the requirements. Should I still be getting paid? If that fucker kept sending me payments, I'd be returning them.
If you want residual payments, instead of just saying "need" in place of "want" it might be more effective to look for a business model where it is natural for that to be the case. Businesses love recurring payments, and that implies they should learn something about them. Instead of just fantasizing. In software, that generally means either selling support or making a product where users are willing to pay for data updates. For example, an anti-virus program might reasonably be based on subscription, because the data is the product more than the software itself. Or a chess database program; it makes sense that they sell updated databases every year with new games and analysis. And it makes sense to also offer a cloud-based version of the program on subscription.
There is no reason to think you'd only have to work one time in your life, so there is no reason to even perceive a personal need for recurring payments.
As a software user. I have never used a program where I thought this program is done, absolutely perfect I will never need to upgrade it again.
That only tells me that you select low quality tools. There are very very few software tools that I use that I would want to upgrade. Some, due to their nature, will require security updates. Others will not.
I don't need to try a new paradigm, all the current user interface paradigms existed already 30 years ago, those decisions should have already been made.
I don't think you actually thought it through, I think you just regurgitate the line that sounds pro-money.
Why do application developers need recurring revenue from the application?
That like saying, "I need all your money!" It is easy to understand the motivation to want more money, but it doesn't make it a need.
I'll stick with open source apps. Those developers somehow don't "need" my money. And even though I need money generally, when I write an open source app because I wanted to use it, it doesn't cost me any money to release it. So it isn't obvious to me that there is a relationship there where money is necessary to encourage mutually beneficial behavior.
Clearly the hardware vendor needs some money in exchange for the device; once. And the network operator will need recurring payments, as the service is provided in the continuous tense.
If you know you don't have enough information to evaluate it, it is pretty hard to claim that you were misled. It is when you're given enough information to form an opinion about it, and you were given false information, that it would add up to being misled.
Obviously it wasn't criminal, that only even comes up if he traded based on the change he caused, or otherwise obtained an improper personal gain. If he merely misled the market because he was a dumbass, or an asshole, or whatever, then that results in a civil SEC action, not a criminal action. That's how far from reality most of this analysis is; there isn't even an attempt to differentiate between crimes, violations, and torts.
Setting up a software simulation of this sort takes way less time than writing it out on paper. Writing it on paper would be even slower than using a graphing calculator for this task, though that would work fine if you're experienced programming it to do this stuff.
You just don't imagine how easy math is using a statistical programming language like R, or even Matlab.
Even C would be faster than paper, for a person well-practiced in both.
But worse, on paper you could have a much wider variety of errors. Nobody else looking at your calculations could evaluate if it is correct without repeating all your work. Using a computer, there is a lot less to check as the mechanics of the math will be done correctly every time. You just have to make sure the variables are in the right places; something you have to do on paper, too.
You didn't fix anything, you comprehended the story but not any of the human comments.
The *user* is who chooses the naming. It is the *user* who is more likely to have their stuff under attack if they name it after the company. Then when the *user* makes any other error, the baddies get their data.
Obscurity isn't security, and yet it is still an important part of operational security practices including belt and suspenders.
The possibility of name collision is clearly and obviously still much higher than using a random string, and maintaining your semantic metadata privately. Don't share your metadata frivolously!
They already have soylent news, how many sites do two dozen angry neckbeards need? Especially when #gamergate gave way to #metoo, I'd think they'd all want to huddle together somewhere, "they tuk er jerbs!"
Surely it is a good idea for the campfire to come into the windows. Expect people to bend over backwards to accommodate the effort to reverse, Mac. Despite the haters.
The emblem of the Kastrioti family, as seen on the flag of Albania, is an eagle. The Scottish side of my family has a Rooster as their crest, with a single head, and I dare say that they were more feared on the battlefield. One were renowned military leaders, hired to help lead armies all across Europe during times of war; the other were not.
Looking at history, nobody was ever scared of attacking Albania. That never happened. The Greeks generally didn't even mention passing through it; the Huns had to fight their way through Thrace, and then they just appear in Greece or Italy.
What always scared off invading armies was the lack of food to pillage, due to the low population density, along with the lack of accrued wealth normal in a region surrounded on all sides by more powerful nations. They were too close to bigger fish to amass wealth unnoticed, but they also lacked the style of proximity that would give them any military advantage. And yet, perhaps too warlike in temperament to even make good vassals. As intended, to be sure, I mean no insult; you don't want your powerful neighbors to see as a good vassal, by any means! But it also isn't any sort of victory.
No, that means you're in deep shit. You're still obsessed with the rats, it is your own mental health that you should be protecting, not theirs.
You can't imagine this right now, but if you'd chill out, that would be bad for the rats. They're slaves without even any make-work to do; prisoners for nothing. You going crazy and hating them is their best chance for escape, regardless of if you can understand that, or why it would be so.
The rats are your enemy, and what is bad for you is good for them; what is good for you is bad for them.
What benefits them the most is that you don't perceive good morals as being something that benefits you! You assume bad morals benefit you, and so you take on the side of the psychological exchange that receives the most harm.
Slashdot Mirror
Most Americans have no idea what "network neutrality" even is, and they certainly don't care about it as much as you do since you've decided that it is the type species for neutrality. When you say "neutrality," most Americans think of WWII, and those countries that were pretending to be "neutral" while helping to launder stolen gold.
And Americans know darn well we don't want to be one of the wish-washy European countries. The only reason they got to keep any of that money is that the Americans defeated the Germans before the Germans ran out of enemies in Europe. Another couple years, and the "neutral" countries would have been gobbled up as well.
But the American people do know what a government backdoor to a security system is. It is just like in one of the action-adventure heist movies, where some thief pays off the security consultant and now they're controlling the cameras that are supposed to be protecting your vault full of gold. Easy to understand. Plus, what would Fat King George have done with that power? Yeah, exactly! We can understand that shit, easy. What would Fat King George do to us without network neutrality? Nothing, the government isn't really even involved in the networking. Maybe the companies will suck, but companies do that sometimes. See how different these things are from the American perspective?
I imagine Apple is encouraging this to help make the developer's business sustainable.
Imagination is a great tool, however, I'm not sure it is useful to apply to that exact part of the subject.
They get a cut of the money. They still get a cut of the money if the app maker makes bad business decisions. If they can get half the apps to raise their prices, even if most of those went out of business, as long as other apps didn't raise their prices then Apple only makes more money.
Their users will generally only blame the individual app makers, they won't even consider it possible that it was Apple's fault. So there is no downside. For other companies, there would likely be more risk. For Apple, the only risk is mis-timing the artificial price cycles they create and pillaging less than the maximum possible.
Oh, good, so that was just a red herring, I'm glad I dismissed it out of hand.
Smart laws. Smart. Just stick them on the blockchain. /s
I do totally agree though. But without a national ballot measure system, there isn't any sort of mechanism to implement smart laws. You could write a smarter law, give it to your congress critter, and even if they got it passed, it would be a totally different law that they actually passed.
Our whole system of government is built around making sure the government isn't too smart! Smart governments are too good at protecting their own power.
Please provide a citation for your claim that conversation about technical subjects is restricted to published academic materials.
If the overall performance is similar to a human, but some of the mistakes it makes are as easily identified by a human as you presume, then having the human reviewing the machine performance would give a better result than just the human or just the computer.
Alas, it was just bullshit, and the humans also make mistakes that look stupid to other humans.
That's all very hand-wavy.
Security vulnerabilities are not found every day in the vast majority of my apps. They're found every day somewhere in the world, in some application but that is a very very different bar to set.
If your application vendor tricked you into thinking you need to pay them to fix Intel's hardware bugs, "there's one born every minute."
What the fuck do I care? Why is your business model my fucking problem?
The business model is BOTH our problems, developer and user alike.
Bullshit. If your business model sucks, I'm probably not you user, or not anymore, and I have no reason to care.
Tissue?
Because I cannot live forever on $10.
Neither can the guy who I bought a used Timex/Sinclair 1000 from 30+ years ago. But guess what? That has nothing to do with the price of a computer. And there is no fucking way I'd still be paying him.
11 years ago I was paid $25 for a 10 line Perl script that took about 15 minutes to write, including talking to the client about the requirements. Should I still be getting paid? If that fucker kept sending me payments, I'd be returning them.
If you want residual payments, instead of just saying "need" in place of "want" it might be more effective to look for a business model where it is natural for that to be the case. Businesses love recurring payments, and that implies they should learn something about them. Instead of just fantasizing. In software, that generally means either selling support or making a product where users are willing to pay for data updates. For example, an anti-virus program might reasonably be based on subscription, because the data is the product more than the software itself. Or a chess database program; it makes sense that they sell updated databases every year with new games and analysis. And it makes sense to also offer a cloud-based version of the program on subscription.
There is no reason to think you'd only have to work one time in your life, so there is no reason to even perceive a personal need for recurring payments.
Don't forget to include a comment with your fine print next time.
As a software user. I have never used a program where I thought this program is done, absolutely perfect I will never need to upgrade it again.
That only tells me that you select low quality tools. There are very very few software tools that I use that I would want to upgrade. Some, due to their nature, will require security updates. Others will not.
I don't need to try a new paradigm, all the current user interface paradigms existed already 30 years ago, those decisions should have already been made.
I don't think you actually thought it through, I think you just regurgitate the line that sounds pro-money.
"Common sense" is usually wrong, though. It is a cliche that generally refers to "mount stupid," knowingly or not.
Why do application developers need recurring revenue from the application?
That like saying, "I need all your money!" It is easy to understand the motivation to want more money, but it doesn't make it a need.
I'll stick with open source apps. Those developers somehow don't "need" my money. And even though I need money generally, when I write an open source app because I wanted to use it, it doesn't cost me any money to release it. So it isn't obvious to me that there is a relationship there where money is necessary to encourage mutually beneficial behavior.
Clearly the hardware vendor needs some money in exchange for the device; once. And the network operator will need recurring payments, as the service is provided in the continuous tense.
If you know you don't have enough information to evaluate it, it is pretty hard to claim that you were misled. It is when you're given enough information to form an opinion about it, and you were given false information, that it would add up to being misled.
Obviously it wasn't criminal, that only even comes up if he traded based on the change he caused, or otherwise obtained an improper personal gain. If he merely misled the market because he was a dumbass, or an asshole, or whatever, then that results in a civil SEC action, not a criminal action. That's how far from reality most of this analysis is; there isn't even an attempt to differentiate between crimes, violations, and torts.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
You're wrong.
Setting up a software simulation of this sort takes way less time than writing it out on paper. Writing it on paper would be even slower than using a graphing calculator for this task, though that would work fine if you're experienced programming it to do this stuff.
You just don't imagine how easy math is using a statistical programming language like R, or even Matlab.
Even C would be faster than paper, for a person well-practiced in both.
But worse, on paper you could have a much wider variety of errors. Nobody else looking at your calculations could evaluate if it is correct without repeating all your work. Using a computer, there is a lot less to check as the mechanics of the math will be done correctly every time. You just have to make sure the variables are in the right places; something you have to do on paper, too.
You didn't fix anything, you comprehended the story but not any of the human comments.
The *user* is who chooses the naming. It is the *user* who is more likely to have their stuff under attack if they name it after the company. Then when the *user* makes any other error, the baddies get their data.
Obscurity isn't security, and yet it is still an important part of operational security practices including belt and suspenders.
The possibility of name collision is clearly and obviously still much higher than using a random string, and maintaining your semantic metadata privately. Don't share your metadata frivolously!
If reading types is the hard part, you're only one step past Hello World anyways.
They already have soylent news, how many sites do two dozen angry neckbeards need? Especially when #gamergate gave way to #metoo, I'd think they'd all want to huddle together somewhere, "they tuk er jerbs!"
Surely it is a good idea for the campfire to come into the windows. Expect people to bend over backwards to accommodate the effort to reverse, Mac. Despite the haters.
I'm not the one spending my leisure time window shopping for tools to murder pets.
The emblem of the Kastrioti family, as seen on the flag of Albania, is an eagle. The Scottish side of my family has a Rooster as their crest, with a single head, and I dare say that they were more feared on the battlefield. One were renowned military leaders, hired to help lead armies all across Europe during times of war; the other were not.
Looking at history, nobody was ever scared of attacking Albania. That never happened. The Greeks generally didn't even mention passing through it; the Huns had to fight their way through Thrace, and then they just appear in Greece or Italy.
What always scared off invading armies was the lack of food to pillage, due to the low population density, along with the lack of accrued wealth normal in a region surrounded on all sides by more powerful nations. They were too close to bigger fish to amass wealth unnoticed, but they also lacked the style of proximity that would give them any military advantage. And yet, perhaps too warlike in temperament to even make good vassals. As intended, to be sure, I mean no insult; you don't want your powerful neighbors to see as a good vassal, by any means! But it also isn't any sort of victory.
You were doing good, but you didn't make it far enough into my analysis to see that I addressed that.
No, that means you're in deep shit. You're still obsessed with the rats, it is your own mental health that you should be protecting, not theirs.
You can't imagine this right now, but if you'd chill out, that would be bad for the rats. They're slaves without even any make-work to do; prisoners for nothing. You going crazy and hating them is their best chance for escape, regardless of if you can understand that, or why it would be so.
The rats are your enemy, and what is bad for you is good for them; what is good for you is bad for them.
What benefits them the most is that you don't perceive good morals as being something that benefits you! You assume bad morals benefit you, and so you take on the side of the psychological exchange that receives the most harm.
is the obvious application
I just want to know what my old Perl code does. Maybe this can help!