2173 posts • joined Wednesday 10th June 2009 16:31 GMT
Here's what you have to ask.
Can a content PROVIDER be expected to act in all fairness when it can also (like Comcast and Time Warner, who both own television networks) be a competitive content PRODUCER? Since being a common carrier would crimp its own products, why wouldn't Comcast or Time Warner put a crimp on competitor companies like Netflix? It's like demanding a railroad carrier (by law a common carrier) not discriminate when it also happens to own mines or timber plots.
Supposedly, Net Neutrality is meant to address what looks like an inherent conflict of interests.
Here's a challenge...
On a tangent pertaining to the drive to innovate an Internet that's harder to censor, how would you go about it under the auspices of "no expectation of privacy" (as in, all traffic is subject to monitoring and encryption is banned by law)? That seems like a challenge of almost DARPA level to me.
If I recall...
...bubble memory lost out because it was too finicky (warmup times and all that) and offered too little nonvolatile memory for what it offered. Plus it lost out to the hard drive. At least these new techs have a measuring stick in the incumbent flash memory and are supposed to be superior to flash in multiple aspects (access rates, density, longevity, et al), potentially making them fair competition. What I'm waiting for, though, is their first COMMERCIAL applications. Once they actually hit the market, then we can see if they're really ready for prime time.
But they haven't seemed to have solved for vertical parallax yet. The tech also seems to be ridiculously expensive, too, IIRC. Then there's the likelihood that the signal required for it wouldn't work in any existing television transmission standards. Doubt we'll see this in the average home anytime soon.
Natural rotations, maybe?
It may have to do with geography. The Japanese scientist, indeed most of the western world, lives in the Northern Hemisphere. The natural tendency of spinning motions (like water drains and so on) is to spin clockwise because of the influence of the Earth's rotation.
So how about this for a loop? Try the test on a South African or Australian? Being in the Southern Hemisphere, their natural rotational tendencies will be reversed and will tend toward anticlockwise.
The effect doesn't really work that well on porn because of the closeness of the...actors. To fully appreciate stereoscopy, you need distance between the parts of the scene. Unfortunately, since porn involves being "up close and personal" and since the human body does not itself provide a lot of distance cues, the effect kinda washes out, especially in close-ups.
Once upon a time, even before the advent of 3D TVs was an erotic 3D movie called Erotek. I believe it relied on the interlaced nature of CRT TVs then along with special shutter glasses (timed to the video signal) to pull off the effect. The whole production was rather forced with one scene, a rotating platform, and weird camera angles that remind me of those 3D sportscasts where the camera travels very low along the ground. As I recall, the idea was never replicated.
Not 1st, 3rd.
The first law says objects will maintain their state of stillness or motion as long as they're not acted upon.
What you want is the third law, which specifies reactions.
Oh, and just to fill in the gap, the second law describes the relationship of acceleration to mass and force (IOW, just what happens when an object IS acted upon).
Hit it before it goes MIRV.
I think the idea is you hit it before it goes MIRV on you. Hit it high up, but while it's STILL going up. MIRVs, IIRC, don't deploy until they go over the top--otherwise, their flight plans aren't as predictable.
As for a detonate-on-kill, since it's nominally halfway between you and the enemy, you stand as much chance of being blasted with an EMP as the enemy, so a "hot" launch is usually not advised.
Don't those already exist?
Are you referring to technologies like Net Nanny? I've never used them myself, but do these softwares BLACKlist or WHITElist? For the purposes of making a guarded webspace for children to surf (still supervised), I would think the WHITElist approach would be safer so that "stranger" sites are excluded until they've been vetted first by either the provider or the parent.
I've been hearing some of these "sprinting" missiles can do some pretty wild turns on approach and still hit target. Is this an exaggeration or does a CIWS have a means to compensate for such a weapon?
It may not have to be that fast...
...if it operates as part of a tandem pair. Either way could offer advantages. A staggered firing would provide a better opportunity to harass a target with a stream of rounds, while a simultaneous fire might be of help against more elusive targets--each could help the other to nail it even if it wanted to move.
Good With The Bad
"The 80's was about Rock, Alternative Roc, Hard Rock, Heavy Metal, Contemporary R&B, Hip Hop, Post Punk, New Wave, Techno, House, etc. - a decade where music artists pushed the boundaries to where they still are today."
True, but many would say there was still some noticeably crap music in that age, too. Some people will cringe at the mention of Eurhythmics, for example. Or perhaps Wham!. Not arguing the 80's had some good music (such as Aerosmith hitting its prime around that time); just saying there were definitely some songs on the radio we'd sooner forget (if we could).
You're thinking Rosco Coltrane (who, anyway, is in JD Hogg's pocket and is an in-law to boot).
That's assuming you take the low road.
However, in naval gunnery, the preferred method is to take the high road. Reason being you have a chance at hitting one of the less-armored parts of a ship: the deck. That's why dive bombers packed such a punch during WW2: not only were they delivering bombs from beyond terminal velocity, but they were targeting a pretty vulnerable part of the ship.
Given assistance from an AWACS, computers should be able to provide a targeting solution that takes a higher arc, allowing them to nail a target even at just beyond the horizon.
Noting like an eye in the sky to give you a view over your sea-level horizon.
That's a lot of missiles you're firing.
In terms of the maths, the delivery system in this case (the missile) is the more-expensive consumable in your equation. And for a multi-shot bombardment, that's going to add up the war costs. OTOH, once you have the railgun in place, the projectiles aren't exactly much more expensive than your warheads (at worst, you'll probably be using up some relatively-cheap sabots). Given enough juice, you could launch a bunch of them for much less cost than using a bunch of missiles. Not only that, the projectiles could be made quicker since they're simpler.
Target of Opportunity?
Perhaps Assange targets the US because that's where he gets the most dirt. It's not like it's easy to get anything out of REALLY repressive countries like China, whose standards of secrecy are probably much tighter (if only because of practices that would shock more decent societies). Think of it this way: how do you break into an organization who only takes natives, checks you and your family forwards and backwards for outside contact, and demands as a right of passage what would qualify as an act of treason in western nations?
Can't be pressure.
As Assange is anti-American, any posturing on the US's part would likely be replied with some polite version of the one-fingered salute. As for being seen as not doing anything, considering their public face at the moment, one could say it might be wiser to simply shut up and only LOOK like an idiot.
Or just wait for a sale.
I do admit that I personally have a noticeable collection of BluRays now (as well as a PS3 and BluRay Player with which to watch them). However, I play it cagey and usually don't buy a movie on release day (unless it's the odd title I really want). Usually, I can find it later on either used or on sale (Now's a good time for bargain hunting--after-Black-Friday clearance sales can find you some BluRays cheap--at least in my experience).
One problem with that idea.
The USPTO is part of the US Department of Commerce. This means it's an established part of the federal government. And one of the general rules is that you cannot directly sue a sovereign government, since what it says goes (look up "Sovereign Immunity"). Now, the US does allow rare exceptions, but the USPTO does not perform actions that would result in a qualifying lawsuit (it usually has to be deliberate--a case of tort).
Any kind of crime committed by a kid under your legal custody, in addition to the kid serving some juvenile term, the parent must also serve a term of some sort (say for "contributing to the delinquence of a minor by negligence" or something) relative to the severity of the kid's crime. Perhaps that would enforce the idea of parents looking after their children as they would normally be obligated by moral and legal custom.
But sites are getting smart.
The sites booby-trap the sites to make sure you bite. NoScript filters by domain, and guess where the history-sniffer code's going to reside? In the same domain as the video player, which you MUST allow in order to get anything productive out of the site. So no videos without a history sniff.
Some people have delayed reactions to sites (reconsidering after moving on) or run into situations that require them to backtrack. It's for those kinds of people (and the people that close tabs/windows by mistake) that the browser history exists so they can get back to that site they wanted but no longer remember how they reached (and sometimes, not even searching helps--I've had that happen a few times personally).
You ignore the costs.
The costs involved per individual ad are so minuscule as to be nearly zero. A hit in a million is actually GOOD for the site and means PROFITS. That's why spam persists even with all the filtering in the world--they only need to get lucky once in a long while to earn enough to keep going.
If anyone has access to the chart, where does South Korea fit into the list? I figured it to be near the top as well.
Re-tooling as in...
...modifying the existing tools to produce a slightly different product. Like what happened in auto plants during World War II. The equipment was basically the same; they just started building different things. Are you saying that OLEDs cannot be made at existing LCD facilities without making more than minor adjustments to existing equipment?
Simple: They ASK.
The idea of the privacy advocates is that any form of personally valuable information should not be obtained by any other party unless they are (a) government and keepers of that data anyway for legal reasons, or (b) given your EXPRESS and EXPLICIT consent to do so, and this consent would follow the "lazy" rule (to borrow from RegEx parlance) in that it applies only to those specific instances consented. Anything beyond that, or any extension of the instance would require another explicit consent.
And for those who break the rules? For accidental exposures, they could be charged with criminal neglect. Intentional instances may be construed as Identity Theft. Oh, and either instance could result in civil damages, too.
Can't you retool, though?
If you can adapt your existing equipment (without massive additonal outlay) to do OLEDs, which is what Stu is noting, then why not switch over a smaller plant or the like? You'll still be paying off the mortgage, just in a slightly different way.
I was referring to Verizon the landline instead of Verizon Wireless (mobile carriers are still considered CONTRACT carriers--their communications scope is still limited). But if Verizon (landline) were to charge extra for a call to an AT&T landline customer (landline telephone, OTOH, is a COMMON carrier), there would be a legal investigation.
But wouldn't that kind of conspiracy be considered anti-competitive cartel behavior?
But some have made a point. Most carrier businesses aren't producers as well. It'd be like Norfolk Southern (North American rail carrier) also owning a mining stake. There'd be an overpowering interest to carry their own ore over someone else's.
That should be brought before the FCC--see if carriers should be allowed to be simultaneous producers, and if so, under what conditions?
That's if latency is an issue.
But lottery systems aren't really that time-sensitive (except as drawing cutoff approaches, but that's always been "caveat emptor"). If latency isn't a big issue, then it's simpler to just use the satellite both ways. It's not exactly as if even a heavy playslip stream overloads the line (each play is a handful of bytes, plus likely encryption overhead, and each response is a small bit containing ticket number, final numbers, cost, and verification).
At that level...
...why not just WHITELIST instead. This would also take care of the possibility of new bad sites that have yet to be inspected; instead you deny by default and only allow those sites which have been 100% inspected clean and their webmasters bound (maybe even bonded) to vouch for their sites at all times under severe legal penalty.
The Forbidden Fruit Effect
To quote from a comic book, "If it ain't kind of creepy and dirty and mysterious and forbidden, guys don't get off."
We Westerners seem to have an innate curiosity for those things which we can't figure out. Put a "Do Not Touch" sign, and someone will touch it just for the sake of it: disregarding any potential dangers because, "I'm bored." Put that together with a fundamental biological instinct (which is sex at the most fundamental level), and you have to wonder what the conservative Christians (who are the groups behind the strongest sex taboos) are thinking: unless, as some do, that instinct is considered evil and that the human condition to do it because "I'm bored" needs to be bred out of humanity in order to save its collective soul (1984 ring a bell?--similar ideas).
Not safe, either.
Perfectly legitimate sites, even banks and even ones where you type in the URL, can be hit with drive-bys. Could make things hard for banks with no brick & mortar presence where you live.
So what happens...
if someone brings in a CD-RW that happens to have a fake label on it (maybe even silkscreened so you can't tell it's fake) and knows how to re-enable, unplug, or even jury-rig a USB port? Maybe it's time to bring back pure read-only drives and bring back BIOS that have no USB support at all. But next thing you know, they'll know how to rig a data transfer device into the keyboard port (which CAN'T be disabled or you can't log in--since the USB ports needed for a bioscan are supposedly disabled).
Sounds like Level 3 is trying to force the FCC's hand.
They may have found a means to force the FCC to an end to the Net Neutrality war. With this issue, they'll HAVE to come down on one side or the other, and each side has important consequences. It basically boils down to whether or not ISPs like Comcast are considered COMMON Carriers or CONTRACT Carriers.
The most important distinction is that if ruled COMMON Carriers, then by US common law they cannot DISCRIMINATE the traffic that flows on their lines. It would be like...Verizon charging extra for you to call non-Verizon customers, you could say.
I've yet to see one that overscans.
Now, some will perform an accommodating zoom, but that usually isn't on by default, and it's usually only used on the analog inputs. DTV, HDMI, and digital component almost always use unzoomed modes, and there are two ways to notice the lack of overscan. One is to hook up a computer with DVI or HDMI output to the HDMI input of the TV. If the picture goes corner-to-corner upon setting to the right res, then there's no overscan. The other is to check out a DTV channel using either the internal TV tuner or an HDTV box hooked up to either HDMI or component (an HDTV box will almost always allow for digital component). Find a channel with a logo watermark (I know most US stations do this now; does Europe do it, too?) The watermark is positioned so that it's still visible right at the corner of the old CRT TVs; on HD screens with no overscan, they'll be further into the screen vertically.
Sounds like a no-win to me.
You NEED to be able to withdraw the address bar because of the iPhone's limited viewing size; otherwise, there's so little space as to be impractical (the iPad tags along because of the common OS).
So how do you PROVE a site is authentic in an environment where the OS has to hide itself out of necessity? And you can't rely on outside contact because people may not have access to it (or it costs them money each time, in the case of many SMS). And furthermore, how can you produce a security element that miscreants can't eventually replicate on their malware sites (as seen here)?
PS. And alternative browsers are no safe haven, either. Since Browser ID is a trivial thing to pick up, the malware can be tuned to whatever ID tag is presented and present whatever false facade, indicator icons, etc. are needed.
And it's not just the UK lottery that uses it.
As I understand it, Italian firm GTECH, which provides many lottery machines worldwide, was the first to use satellite networks for its lottery terminals. I know, for example, that Virginia's lottery went satellite when GTECH updated them to new Altura terminals about three years ago. I've also read reference to satellites being in use in other lotteries such as Idaho and California.
Space-worthy, yes, but not launch-worthy.
Thus the article says it's a worthy thrust system once you're already out in space. However, to start the initial thrust from 0 to escape velocity requires at least a couple orders of magnitude improvement in the thrust-to-weight ratio, and I think there are a few physics limitations in the way of improving it by one order at the moment.
How about a router on a router?
Add on an anonymity service like Freenet, TOR, or i2p, and the hardwired router will probably won't be able to figure out where you're going or what you're doing. And you can't block encryption wholesale because you need encryption for money-related e-services. And note that these anonymity networks are DESIGNED for use in "hostile" environments.
What about encrypted connections?
Encrypted connections can't be inspected and can go anywhere if they're part of an anonymity system. As others have said, packet filters will be useless against darknets.
Collateral Damage is the one thing they're trying to avoid right now. Really stirs up trouble when you accidentally kill the good guys. They probably won't start taking such measures until the Flashbang round is ready. Then it'll make more tactical sense just before a storming.
I commend you on your efforts.
Still, I have to ponder if things are going on which you may not be aware. As in, kids finding ways to go online that you can't necessarily track or filter. Have you been taking pains to make sure the computer doesn't have a hidden anonymity (TOR/i2p) router or virtual computer hidden inside and that there isn't a hidden WiFi device around the house?
All I'm saying is that just because all's quiet on the bedroom front doesn't mean another front may be opening without your notice.
But how do you supervise them...
...when they know your routine and know ways around them? You may now even know they get lettes from strangers because they beat you to the post and pocket all the incriminating evidence. How you control SMS when they get their own personal phones from college-age friends? How do you keep them off the web when they've learned to piggy-back off the neighbor's wireless link on an iPod Touch they can easily pocket?
But as me this.
How do you outsmart the kids when the kids are smarter than you? It's not easy since they have access to things the parents may have never even heard of (like secret wireless routers they conceal in the furniture or, as said, the iPod Touch they can easily pocket).
IIRC, overscan is mostly a holdover from the CRT days (because CRTs can't aim pixel-perfect). But with digital display technologies like LCDs, there is usually no overscan (easy to see with a TV that takes computer input from DVI or HDMI; it takes the picture corner-to-corner, so no overscan).
Think of it this way.
GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out
If the original BluRay transfer was shoddy or the original film is very grainy (I think of the Godfather trilogy at this point), then those imperfections are MORE likely to show up on a BluRay because the higher resolution allows those imperfections to show (whereas on a DVD they tend to get covered up due to interpolation and necessary smoothing).
BTW, some of the worst BluRays are really nothing more than DVD upscales. So it'll show virtually no difference vs. an upscaling DVD player (which is doing essentially the same thing).