I agree with this. I am about the same (other than I browse at 0, not -1). I hit slashdot every day, not really for the stories so much as the comments. Glory days past or not, there are still a lot of good comments well worth reading. I like that there are people willing to take the time to make a reasoned case for their positions, whether I agree or not.
Yes - the companies selling the tickets need to have a financial stake in stopping the bots. Without a financial motive, the ticket sellers will continue to have crappy code. Currently, the incentives are all wrong. The ticket sellers sell tickets quickly and get all their fees under the current system. The bulk scalpers are good business for them, and they have no reason to stop them.
If anything, the ticket sellers should be required to have a system that prevents bulk scalping, with penalties for failing to do this.
And I would agree with that. As you point out, the situation is not analogous. My own thought is the OP is kind of getting ahead of him/herself. For autonomous cars to make an impact on insurance rates, you would have to have a significant portion of the vehicles be autonomous. Frankly, I can't see that happening for many years, as only a small portion of drivers can afford to go out and buy a brand new car. For buyers of used cars, it will be a long time before they can get their hands on an autonomous car. Doing a quick google for just the US, 2014 new car sales were on the order of 16 million cars. Used car sales were on the order of 41 million, about 2.5 times as many a year. Say new car owners kept their cars three years (arbitrary number) - it would be almost six years before enough cars were traded in for one year of used car sales. According to google, there are 254 million used cars in the US. Assuming six years before used cars start getting replaced, six years of new cars would be 96 million cars replaced, leaving 158 million to be replaced still. From that point figure 57 million get replaced every year, it would be another almost 5 years until all the cars are replaced. That's 9 years for what I would call a best case. I think it will likely be much longer than that, since a large number of used car buyers are buying cars more than three years old (so they'd have to wait that much longer before getting their hands on an autonomous car).
1. Dash cams are fixed and (usually) only see what is happening in front of the police car, which is normally on a public right-of-way and therefore where the public could also observe and record*. What happens elsewhere, like when an officer goes inside a private residence, isn't captured by dash cams. A body cam on the other hand would frequently be recording events that are not occurring where the public can see, and this is a significant difference for accountability....
This is the aspect that worries me. Privacy goes out the window with body cams. Anyone close to the "suspect" can get caught up in the same video, whether they have anything to do with it or not. As the parent points out, dash cams are used in public places; but body cams would be able to go into private places.
We know how well governmental bodies do with protecting private data (that is to say: poorly); imagine someone stealing a video about a controversial event, and there's your face in the video. You can get implicated by association, even though you just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Do you think your boss would be happy? Or your spouse?
This is even worse if you are a public person, where there would be even more of an incentive to steal the videos.
Actually my granddaughter loves legos, and includes things she builds out of legos in her plays. But legos can be clunky and time consuming to put together (especially if you are trying to follow a complicated layout).
I think she would prefer to build it virtually first, and hit a key and have what she built come out.
You are right however - I have no idea about the general public. I do think that if a kid is already into minecraft (and it is pretty popular among my granddaughter's friends), they would be a good candidate for 3d printing from that kind of approach.
I think this is a key question for any 3d printer / software setup. Most of the posts on Slashdot seem to center around "designing something for real" (prototyping, replacing a part, etc.)
But I think a recreational version would take off if done right. For example, my 7 year old granddaughter loves minecraft, and spends hours building things there. I think she would love the ability to print out stuff she has built there. She also likes to make her own videos. She will arrange her dollhouses and stuff animals and make up a story involving them, and record it. I think she would love the ability to design her own dollhouses, sets, etc.
For her, a minecraft approach of dropping and destroying pre-made blocks, etc., would work very well. Especially if she can paint and color her model of whatever after it is printed. She won't care about the exact dimensions, etc., as long as it fits together. Let the software handle that.
So the problem becomes, I think, "know the audience" and design appropriately for that audience.
... I am sick and tired of the overreaction to these random events whether it be aircraft crashing into a building, a workplace shooting, a bomb detonation at a public event, etc...
Yeah, me too. To tell the honest truth, when I heard about the shooting at the LA airport my thought was "Oh, this is California, where they shoot at each other on the highway. Sounds like one of those people made it into the airport". While that was probably unjust (sorry, California), the point remains. We have plenty of nuts in America that will do stupid things. Let's not overreact and swat a fly with a Buick, so to speak.
... I do not feel safe with roaming machine-gun-toting police officers or military in any venue...
Me either, but that's a little extreme. I'm perfectly fine with armed police officers doing crowd control at events, etc. I guess it's a matter of degree of arming for me. When police officers, etc. start carrying RPGs or the like, that's when I start staying home:)
I don't think it's silly at all that the EU does this...
On the "humane" aspect, I have been under anesthesia for surgery. I can testify I knew nothing, I felt nothing. If it's a question of administrating it properly, hire a anesthesiologist for the job, instead of ol' Tom down in the prison pharmacy.
To clarify my "silliness" comment, I am not mocking the EU for wanting to not have the death penalty. I have mixed feelings about the death penalty in general - some days I'm for it, some days I'm against it.
I was just commenting on the EU expecting it to matter by passing a magic law that will have no result whatsoever. I just find "make me feel good but do nothing practical" laws in general to be silly.
No. Europe's position is a longstanding one. And as the EU is a larger market than the US, an EU law forbidding a drug company to help with capital punishment carries weight.
In theory, I suppose. To me, this is just more legislative silliness. How are they really going to affect anything? There are still guns/ropes/gas chambers/rabid weasels/etc. The only thing this silliness can do it prevent using a more humane method over possibly a less humane one.
For me, it depends on the context of what I'm doing.
If I am doing something very complex, with many pieces that I have to keep in my head at once, I am much more productive if I stay with it and work late, even through the night.
But if I am doing mundane bs stuff, one hour is too long before I start becoming unproductive.
I have found multiple days of late hours will fry me if I do too many back to back. I need a night off somewhere in there or I wind up sitting in my chair just staring and doing nothing.
I can think of a few advantages of a modular system like this over standard aircraft.
- Could offer faster plane turnaround. Plane never leaves the runway. Drops off sections onto a track, that takes the sections to the terminals. Plane then immediately picks up new sections and leaves.
- Plane sections could be preloaded without the planes being there. Track moves them out to plane liftoff area.
- One plane could cover multiple destinations. Could have three sections, each going to a different city. Plane flies to A and B. Starts by getting sections for A and B, and flies to A. At A, drops off A sections, and gets more B sections, then flies to B. Passengers wouldn't have to change planes so much perhaps.
- Maybe could have fewer airports. In the state of Missouri, KC and St. Louis are pretty close - about 240 miles, or about 1/2 hour travel time by air. What if instead the passengers get preloaded in both cities, then sent to a central location like Columbia (in the middle of the state). Plane picks up a section from KC and one from St. Louis both going to the same destination. Yes I know you could use a standard train for this, but the idea is that it would be seamless. Check in at KC or St. Louis, then get to destination without having to change seats.
- Maybe more secure. If there's no physical doorway between the plane section and the plane itself, the worst a terrorist could do would be to damage one section; i.e., couldn't hijack the plane.
- Maybe better plane disaster recovery. Don't know if it's possible, but maybe a plane section could be fitted with parachutes, where if a plane is going down, it could "eject" the plane sections to fend for themselves, with maybe a drag chute to slow the plane down, then massive chutes to allow the section to land. In this scenario, the structural integrity of the section would be maintained so it could float in the event of a water landing.
I dunno. Very intriguing idea with some possibilities.
Taxes are one thing - I agree with you there. But the business license is based on where the business is. If the hosted content is outside the Philadelphia area, I don't see how they could enforce a business license. Like if I live in Philadelphia, but I own an auto parts business in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia can't charge me for a business license. I don't see how this is any different.
On a side note, how does Philadelphia even know what she paid in taxes? That should be confidential information between her and the state and the IRS.
True enough. But speaking from experience, kids can be sneaky, especially if they want to do something you told them they can't. BTW, I looked at your link, and from a "find the child" perspective, the GPS based one is better, because with the linked device, all you know is direction, not how far.
I meant it semi-humorously. My point was, once the tracking is there, anyone can possibly do this, for whatever reason. The pedophile example is far fetched, to be sure, but I could see one tracking a child to know when the best opportunity is. For a better example, what about disputed child custody cases, where the other parent is looking for an opportunity to take the child and run? Or what about a stalker? Know where the child is, know where the parent is. All of these examples may never happen, but to blindly use a technology like this without thinking about the possible implications is not a good idea.
I'm of mixed emotions on this one. As a parent (and grandparent), I like it, especially for small children. But as a privacy advocate, I feel appalled at yet another privacy invasion. Not to mention, if you can track your child, so can a pedophile (Think Of The Children!). I think the best use for this might be in a limited way, like in crowded places like parks, in case you get separated from your small child. That has happened to me, and that's scary enough.
Even if you estimate is correct, I think you may still see other benefits. For example, if this material is stronger than copper, you would likely see less breakage and shorts. I don't know its properties, but thermal expansion and shrinkage is always an issue with contacts, where copper can work its way loose. If this nanotube material is less thermally sensitive, that would be another benefit. Anyone know how it stacks up?
People love to demonize parents for not getting involved in the lives of the children but when those children are outside of their control for eight hours a day what are they to do?
Let the children learn that there are other viewpoints out there. That's what school is supposed to be for.
Well, yes and no. I think what gets lost in this discussion is the age level of the kids using the internet. There are things I'd let my kids view at 16 years old, that I wouldn't want them to view at 8 or 12 years old.
I've got four kids ranging from 15 to 23 years old. I've gotten to personally witness the development from infant to adulthood several times, and I've learned some things about the development of being able to reason, etc. (yes, yes, I know that this is anecdotal).
As a parent, I always encouraged my kids to think for themselves, and decide issues for themselves. But at the same time, their ability to reason and made judgments on any given issue is limited by their age.
Rather than blocking altogether, I would rather see an age-limiting system (say like the movies - G, PC, etc.), and let the parents sign off on their kids being able to see or not see items in a given ratings category.
Let them be more involved, but realize freedoms you claim the students don't have should not be granted by the system over the wishes of their parents.
If they feel that their children are being exposed to viewpoints that they don't agree with, let them home school their kids or send them to a private school.
I wish. Although I like my school system, I would love to have the money they spend per kid (around $8000 US if I remember correctly), and to send my kids to a private school of my choosing.
You're missing the important point: Google isn't worried so much about DEVELOPERS ripping off paid applications as they are about unscrupulous USERS getting a developmental phone (or ROM) and suddenly gaining access to any and all protected applications.
You are right - I personally didn't think about that from that angle - me, I was getting angry from a dev perspective "How Dare They!" kind of thing. I guess I'm just not evil enough...:)
The interesting thing here is the total lack of trust Google is showing for their developer community.... but exactly how many of this already small pool of people are going to be pirating? It seems to me that Google just pissed off their entire (and comparatively small vs Apple) developer community to close an awfully small hole....
Yeah, exactly. I reset the fact that Google automatically assumes devs will try to rip them off. Maybe I'm sheltered, but I know a lot of devs, and all the ones I know wouldn't steal anything. If they are that worried, take off the 24 refund policy, but don't abuse the very devs you're trying to get to support your phone.
I'm sorry but the MS solution, even if fully effective is MUCH more complicated...
Don't know about "more complicated" - the MS KB article talks about using Group Policy to change a single setting - I didn't find it complicated, but YMMV.
... than a 3 line reg file which permanently disables autorun unless it somehow gets re-associated with a correct event handler.
But I agree that it's better to permanently KO the autorun inf association. Then you don't have to worry so much about Microsoft "forgetting" something. The whole autorun mis-feature has been a real PITA for me over the years. I can't count the number of times I said to my PC, "No dammit, don't do that!" because I accidentally kicked off autorun when trying to just view something (inadvertent double clicks, that sort of thing). Better to just kill the association and be done with it.
At some point however we will have to bite the bullet and start.
I agree, but I've read a number of articles on the algae production in particular, and my understanding is that it's a problem to scale up, because you need a lot of surface area to get light to the algae. So I don't know if it's a cost problem as much as it's an engineering problem. Perhaps someone who knows more about the practical needs involved can enlighten me.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with this. I am about the same (other than I browse at 0, not -1). I hit slashdot every day, not really for the stories so much as the comments. Glory days past or not, there are still a lot of good comments well worth reading. I like that there are people willing to take the time to make a reasoned case for their positions, whether I agree or not.
Yes - the companies selling the tickets need to have a financial stake in stopping the bots. Without a financial motive, the ticket sellers will continue to have crappy code. Currently, the incentives are all wrong. The ticket sellers sell tickets quickly and get all their fees under the current system. The bulk scalpers are good business for them, and they have no reason to stop them.
If anything, the ticket sellers should be required to have a system that prevents bulk scalping, with penalties for failing to do this.
... and I question the premise
And I would agree with that. As you point out, the situation is not analogous. My own thought is the OP is kind of getting ahead of him/herself. For autonomous cars to make an impact on insurance rates, you would have to have a significant portion of the vehicles be autonomous. Frankly, I can't see that happening for many years, as only a small portion of drivers can afford to go out and buy a brand new car. For buyers of used cars, it will be a long time before they can get their hands on an autonomous car. Doing a quick google for just the US, 2014 new car sales were on the order of 16 million cars. Used car sales were on the order of 41 million, about 2.5 times as many a year. Say new car owners kept their cars three years (arbitrary number) - it would be almost six years before enough cars were traded in for one year of used car sales. According to google, there are 254 million used cars in the US. Assuming six years before used cars start getting replaced, six years of new cars would be 96 million cars replaced, leaving 158 million to be replaced still. From that point figure 57 million get replaced every year, it would be another almost 5 years until all the cars are replaced. That's 9 years for what I would call a best case. I think it will likely be much longer than that, since a large number of used car buyers are buying cars more than three years old (so they'd have to wait that much longer before getting their hands on an autonomous car).
1. Dash cams are fixed and (usually) only see what is happening in front of the police car, which is normally on a public right-of-way and therefore where the public could also observe and record*. What happens elsewhere, like when an officer goes inside a private residence, isn't captured by dash cams. A body cam on the other hand would frequently be recording events that are not occurring where the public can see, and this is a significant difference for accountability. ...
This is the aspect that worries me. Privacy goes out the window with body cams. Anyone close to the "suspect" can get caught up in the same video, whether they have anything to do with it or not. As the parent points out, dash cams are used in public places; but body cams would be able to go into private places.
We know how well governmental bodies do with protecting private data (that is to say: poorly); imagine someone stealing a video about a controversial event, and there's your face in the video. You can get implicated by association, even though you just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Do you think your boss would be happy? Or your spouse?
This is even worse if you are a public person, where there would be even more of an incentive to steal the videos.
Two Rivers Fisheries is already doing this - they fish for Asian Carp, and sell it overseas.
Article about them
Actually my granddaughter loves legos, and includes things she builds out of legos in her plays. But legos can be clunky and time consuming to put together (especially if you are trying to follow a complicated layout).
I think she would prefer to build it virtually first, and hit a key and have what she built come out.
You are right however - I have no idea about the general public. I do think that if a kid is already into minecraft (and it is pretty popular among my granddaughter's friends), they would be a good candidate for 3d printing from that kind of approach.
I think this is a key question for any 3d printer / software setup. Most of the posts on Slashdot seem to center around "designing something for real" (prototyping, replacing a part, etc.)
But I think a recreational version would take off if done right. For example, my 7 year old granddaughter loves minecraft, and spends hours building things there. I think she would love the ability to print out stuff she has built there. She also likes to make her own videos. She will arrange her dollhouses and stuff animals and make up a story involving them, and record it. I think she would love the ability to design her own dollhouses, sets, etc.
For her, a minecraft approach of dropping and destroying pre-made blocks, etc., would work very well. Especially if she can paint and color her model of whatever after it is printed. She won't care about the exact dimensions, etc., as long as it fits together. Let the software handle that.
So the problem becomes, I think, "know the audience" and design appropriately for that audience.
... I am sick and tired of the overreaction to these random events whether it be aircraft crashing into a building, a workplace shooting, a bomb detonation at a public event, etc...
Yeah, me too. To tell the honest truth, when I heard about the shooting at the LA airport my thought was "Oh, this is California, where they shoot at each other on the highway. Sounds like one of those people made it into the airport". While that was probably unjust (sorry, California), the point remains. We have plenty of nuts in America that will do stupid things. Let's not overreact and swat a fly with a Buick, so to speak.
... I do not feel safe with roaming machine-gun-toting police officers or military in any venue ...
Me either, but that's a little extreme. I'm perfectly fine with armed police officers doing crowd control at events, etc. I guess it's a matter of degree of arming for me. When police officers, etc. start carrying RPGs or the like, that's when I start staying home :)
Lethal injection is not humane ...
I don't think it's silly at all that the EU does this ...
On the "humane" aspect, I have been under anesthesia for surgery. I can testify I knew nothing, I felt nothing. If it's a question of administrating it properly, hire a anesthesiologist for the job, instead of ol' Tom down in the prison pharmacy.
To clarify my "silliness" comment, I am not mocking the EU for wanting to not have the death penalty. I have mixed feelings about the death penalty in general - some days I'm for it, some days I'm against it.
I was just commenting on the EU expecting it to matter by passing a magic law that will have no result whatsoever. I just find "make me feel good but do nothing practical" laws in general to be silly.
No. Europe's position is a longstanding one. And as the EU is a larger market than the US, an EU law forbidding a drug company to help with capital punishment carries weight.
In theory, I suppose. To me, this is just more legislative silliness. How are they really going to affect anything? There are still guns/ropes/gas chambers/rabid weasels/etc. The only thing this silliness can do it prevent using a more humane method over possibly a less humane one.
For me, it depends on the context of what I'm doing.
If I am doing something very complex, with many pieces that I have to keep in my head at once, I am much more productive if I stay with it and work late, even through the night.
But if I am doing mundane bs stuff, one hour is too long before I start becoming unproductive.
I have found multiple days of late hours will fry me if I do too many back to back. I need a night off somewhere in there or I wind up sitting in my chair just staring and doing nothing.
I can think of a few advantages of a modular system like this over standard aircraft.
- Could offer faster plane turnaround. Plane never leaves the runway. Drops off sections onto a track, that takes the sections to the terminals. Plane then immediately picks up new sections and leaves.
- Plane sections could be preloaded without the planes being there. Track moves them out to plane liftoff area.
- One plane could cover multiple destinations. Could have three sections, each going to a different city. Plane flies to A and B. Starts by getting sections for A and B, and flies to A. At A, drops off A sections, and gets more B sections, then flies to B. Passengers wouldn't have to change planes so much perhaps.
- Maybe could have fewer airports. In the state of Missouri, KC and St. Louis are pretty close - about 240 miles, or about 1/2 hour travel time by air. What if instead the passengers get preloaded in both cities, then sent to a central location like Columbia (in the middle of the state). Plane picks up a section from KC and one from St. Louis both going to the same destination. Yes I know you could use a standard train for this, but the idea is that it would be seamless. Check in at KC or St. Louis, then get to destination without having to change seats.
- Maybe more secure. If there's no physical doorway between the plane section and the plane itself, the worst a terrorist could do would be to damage one section; i.e., couldn't hijack the plane.
- Maybe better plane disaster recovery. Don't know if it's possible, but maybe a plane section could be fitted with parachutes, where if a plane is going down, it could "eject" the plane sections to fend for themselves, with maybe a drag chute to slow the plane down, then massive chutes to allow the section to land. In this scenario, the structural integrity of the section would be maintained so it could float in the event of a water landing.
I dunno. Very intriguing idea with some possibilities.
Taxes are one thing - I agree with you there. But the business license is based on where the business is. If the hosted content is outside the Philadelphia area, I don't see how they could enforce a business license. Like if I live in Philadelphia, but I own an auto parts business in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia can't charge me for a business license. I don't see how this is any different. On a side note, how does Philadelphia even know what she paid in taxes? That should be confidential information between her and the state and the IRS.
Have you ever seen 0.14 pixels? What do they look like?
... a hyper-intelligent shade of the color blue ...
True enough. But speaking from experience, kids can be sneaky, especially if they want to do something you told them they can't. BTW, I looked at your link, and from a "find the child" perspective, the GPS based one is better, because with the linked device, all you know is direction, not how far.
I meant it semi-humorously. My point was, once the tracking is there, anyone can possibly do this, for whatever reason. The pedophile example is far fetched, to be sure, but I could see one tracking a child to know when the best opportunity is. For a better example, what about disputed child custody cases, where the other parent is looking for an opportunity to take the child and run? Or what about a stalker? Know where the child is, know where the parent is. All of these examples may never happen, but to blindly use a technology like this without thinking about the possible implications is not a good idea.
I don't think that's the answer, for two reasons: Being in a noisy place where the beep isn't heard, and it still doesn't answer the question "where".
I'm of mixed emotions on this one. As a parent (and grandparent), I like it, especially for small children. But as a privacy advocate, I feel appalled at yet another privacy invasion. Not to mention, if you can track your child, so can a pedophile (Think Of The Children!). I think the best use for this might be in a limited way, like in crowded places like parks, in case you get separated from your small child. That has happened to me, and that's scary enough.
Even if you estimate is correct, I think you may still see other benefits. For example, if this material is stronger than copper, you would likely see less breakage and shorts. I don't know its properties, but thermal expansion and shrinkage is always an issue with contacts, where copper can work its way loose. If this nanotube material is less thermally sensitive, that would be another benefit. Anyone know how it stacks up?
People love to demonize parents for not getting involved in the lives of the children but when those children are outside of their control for eight hours a day what are they to do?
Let the children learn that there are other viewpoints out there. That's what school is supposed to be for.
Well, yes and no. I think what gets lost in this discussion is the age level of the kids using the internet. There are things I'd let my kids view at 16 years old, that I wouldn't want them to view at 8 or 12 years old. I've got four kids ranging from 15 to 23 years old. I've gotten to personally witness the development from infant to adulthood several times, and I've learned some things about the development of being able to reason, etc. (yes, yes, I know that this is anecdotal). As a parent, I always encouraged my kids to think for themselves, and decide issues for themselves. But at the same time, their ability to reason and made judgments on any given issue is limited by their age. Rather than blocking altogether, I would rather see an age-limiting system (say like the movies - G, PC, etc.), and let the parents sign off on their kids being able to see or not see items in a given ratings category.
Let them be more involved, but realize freedoms you claim the students don't have should not be granted by the system over the wishes of their parents.
If they feel that their children are being exposed to viewpoints that they don't agree with, let them home school their kids or send them to a private school.
I wish. Although I like my school system, I would love to have the money they spend per kid (around $8000 US if I remember correctly), and to send my kids to a private school of my choosing.
You're missing the important point: Google isn't worried so much about DEVELOPERS ripping off paid applications as they are about unscrupulous USERS getting a developmental phone (or ROM) and suddenly gaining access to any and all protected applications.
You are right - I personally didn't think about that from that angle - me, I was getting angry from a dev perspective "How Dare They!" kind of thing. I guess I'm just not evil enough ... :)
The interesting thing here is the total lack of trust Google is showing for their developer community .... but exactly how many of this already small pool of people are going to be pirating? It seems to me that Google just pissed off their entire (and comparatively small vs Apple) developer community to close an awfully small hole ....
Yeah, exactly. I reset the fact that Google automatically assumes devs will try to rip them off. Maybe I'm sheltered, but I know a lot of devs, and all the ones I know wouldn't steal anything. If they are that worried, take off the 24 refund policy, but don't abuse the very devs you're trying to get to support your phone.
I'm sorry but the MS solution, even if fully effective is MUCH more complicated ...
Don't know about "more complicated" - the MS KB article talks about using Group Policy to change a single setting - I didn't find it complicated, but YMMV.
... than a 3 line reg file which permanently disables autorun unless it somehow gets re-associated with a correct event handler.
But I agree that it's better to permanently KO the autorun inf association. Then you don't have to worry so much about Microsoft "forgetting" something. The whole autorun mis-feature has been a real PITA for me over the years. I can't count the number of times I said to my PC, "No dammit, don't do that!" because I accidentally kicked off autorun when trying to just view something (inadvertent double clicks, that sort of thing). Better to just kill the association and be done with it.
The Register says that the US-CERT article is based on an old MS article, and has since updated.
There's a right and wrong way to disable Windows Autorun
How to correct "disable Autorun registry key" enforcement in Windows
At some point however we will have to bite the bullet and start.
I agree, but I've read a number of articles on the algae production in particular, and my understanding is that it's a problem to scale up, because you need a lot of surface area to get light to the algae. So I don't know if it's a cost problem as much as it's an engineering problem. Perhaps someone who knows more about the practical needs involved can enlighten me.