genericuser

So you run those crappy sites that totally aren't squatting domains but just have a useless collection of links using referrals and affiliate marketing and ads but no actual content on domains that are places people accidentally wind up either due to typos or clicking your link in search results for something you are linking to?

The rest of us call the people who run websites like that domain squatters, because they are adding zero value to the internet and simply tie up a domain which they would likely sell for the 'right' offer.

Yeah I feel like if he actually cared about things being fair and honest he would of become upset when he saw this obvious scam taking place, which he more or less recognizes as such.

However all he does is attempt to confirm is that he won't be the party to lose money in this scam. He does it thinking well either he will get shop.com and win (at the cost of the owners of shop.com), or it will be a scam and he will get his money back from Paypal and Paypal may or may not get the money back from the seller, in which case either Paypal loses money or everything is back where it began.

He try's to find a no-lose position in someone else's scam, basically trying to scam a scammer. You know what I could respect that, but whining about how you failed to scam the scammer is just annoying.

Eh I say if people honestly can't learn to accept that things about other people from a significant time ago might no longer be relevant, then have SEO become a more personal service, and if people want to have their search results managed, because of whatever, they can manage it themselves or hire a professional, much like they would a lawyer, accountant, plumber, electrician, realtor, or agent. I mean they are having to hire lawyers presumably to get forgotten.

It won't be hard to bury a 6 year old photo of a random person shitting on the beach under all the new content.

Yes, but it is effectively saying that the "right to be forgotten" means that the right extends to the topic/event covered on the pages as it relates to that person not the pages themselves.

Hopefully this will not extend to all new content created about the past events and the person, because there could at times be a reason for new content on an old topic to be relevant to the public and people should be able to find it then. I fear it will however.

I'd tie it more to the popularity of video games among adults(as I see adults, and younger people introduced to them by adults as the main driving force behind this board game resurgence), and the idea that there are always people looking to do things which are novel to them, and that things do not stay novel forever so there are people which shift to new or out of favor things which will be novel to them.

NBC I feel nailed it down with their tagline "If you haven't seen it, it's new to you"

I think of it like a band (Could well apply to a company too) which occasionally replaces members. So long as they replace few enough members each time that people can associate it with its previous roster, people will accept it as the same band.

Even if after 20 years of incremental changes to the band none of the original members are left it will still be considered by many to be the same band (although they will all likely lament the loss of such and such member) By being recognized as the same band it inherits many of the same rights such as performing the same songs as the previous incarnations of the band (assuming of course it owns, or pays royalties to the right holders, but that is an unrelated topic).

However if too many members change at once, or they lose a member whose presence independently defined the band then people will likely not consider it the same band.

The identity is a label applied to the set, as the set changes so does the definition of the label. For the most part assuming members of the original set do not get placed in different new sets all identifying as the original label, people will generally accept the label as applying to the new set which was formed.

I would chalk it up to people being stupid, or language being imprecise. The alternative seems to be to consider every change to the set to require a new label and be identified as a new set.

No but I don't think they would of been faster either was my point.

Hence, to answer to the question posed "So how many vulnerable cars are on the roads of the world right now because the UK High Court wanted to "protect consumers""

I would answer 'possibly zero, BECAUSE of that' and once they are manufactured and sold they exist regardless of the owner, till they are destroyed.

It sounds like the same thing was redacted from this version that they asked be redacted from that version as this one doesn't have the specific codes necessary to make it work.

Take your PRN medication, press button.

So why were the researchers willing to publish a redacted version now, but were not willing to publish the redacted version 3 years ago when they were researching the issue?

I am actually curious because this is the only part of this whole thing that does not make sense to me. Even if I disagree with Volkswagon's decision to not notify existing owners that there was a vulnerability known or eventually provide them with a fix, the decision at least makes sense because it probably was deemed more profitable for VW.

"The scientists wanted to publish their paper at the well-respected Usenix Security Symposium in Washington DC in August, but the court has imposed an interim injunction. Volkswagen had asked the scientists to publish a redacted version of their paper – Dismantling Megamos Crypto: Wirelessly Lockpicking a Vehicle Immobiliser – without the codes, but they declined."

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/26/scientist-...

Except that VW at somepoint quit using the transponder in question because of this issue so new cars made are no longer susceptible.

I personally have never gotten that sense, but as both of us are too lazy to check, to each their own.

If you bought an $80k Porshe you knowingly bought something you know will be a target for theft, and probably have enough money to have anti-theft insurance and be able to afford the inconvenience which would be your car vanishing. Yes apparently the ease of it being stolen is slightly greater than you thought when you bought it. But if not having your car stolen was a top priority for you then you would not of bought a car which people would want to steal as much.

As they mention in the article this would of been a difficult thing to fix on existing models, they did however change the system so it doesn't apply to new models.

The bill with a known serial number quits being tangible when you deposit it into an account because you are only owed a bill not that bill. If you had put the bill with a known serial number in your safety deposit box, for instance if it was your first dollar ever earned you could sue for that bill the same way the coin is sued for by stating its serial number, since the bank was storing it as a tangible good, and not simply as a product of its value.

While other people have correctly stated this point elsewhere in this topic. I think you have phrased it in a very simple and easy to understand way, which I feel anyone not able to understand would not be someone worth having a conversation on this topic with. Thank you for what I believe to be a correct and extremely dumbed down way of expressing the absurdity of anyone getting upset about this ruling. I will be stealing your analogy, as close to verbatim as I can remember, should I encounter a conversation on this topic in the future as it is much easier than trying to explain it in more abstract terms.

They don't actually tell you explicitly it is an ongoing process, but everyone with clearance I know seems to acknowledge they are probably being kept tabs on at least a little. I mean it would seem kind of irrational to have all these watch lists and not watch the people with privileged information.

Fewer people they need to monitor with the level of scrutiny, people with clearance safely assume they are being monitored at.

They will say existing security clearance required, because that greatly speeds up their hiring process. However there really is a severe drought of qualified developers with clearance, to the degree that even the worthless ones don't really get fired if they show up and don't anger security. And while for some of the jobs that may indeed be a hard requirement, for most of them its more of a preference. If you are a good programmer and fairly confident you will be able to be cleared, then they will sponsor you through the clearance process. Pro-tip just don't lie about shit and should be able to get clearance, they will look over most past issues if you acknowledge them and state that they are no longer an issue.

4 was awesome but I just experienced way too much grief from it crashing, hanging, and otherwise being the buggiest game I had played at the time to consider it my favorite. Later when I revisited after finding a QFG Anthology CD in a bargain bin it handled the increased CPU speed of the day even worse than the other games and would crash almost every time I left the cave at the beginning.

I do remember loving it enough the originally to put up with all the bugs and play through it. I should probably get the gog versions and try them as those are I assume the best copies available.

Hero's Quest was the original name, the EGA version of the first one was released under. Due to Sierra not trademarking it, the name had to be changed to Quest for Glory. 1 and 2 are still some of my favorite games of all time, if you haven't played the VGA port of 2 that was done by agd interactive I strongly recommend it.

While I agree with your criticisms of Wikipedia, I do not think it is appropriate to make the connection, which your post seems to strongly imply, between Wikipedia editors with these traits in general and Autism.

It really depends on what type of relationship you have to the person asking it in the US in my experience. A stranger or a person you know in a professional manner and yes social doctrine seems to dictate you should reply with a positive remark. But while it is still intended as a greeting in more friendly situations, it is quite common for me to give and for people to give me vague but non-positive answers. For instance 'shitty', 'uhg don't even want to talk about it', or just staring with dead eyes and shaking your head no (while I don't actually know that this last one is acceptable, I use it a lot and love it, and no one seems to give me shit about it).

What seems to be unacceptable and would probably be in German also is just completely unloading with all the problems of your day in detail. Basically keep it to under like 10 words and it is an acceptable answer among friends, at least in my experience.

It seems like power lines would be able to be detected with system measuring changes in magnetic fields, perhaps based off current induction sensors. However clearly a system like that does not yet exist and that would not help with other obstacles. And I agree with your statement that this is currently not workable.

That is definitely not the only time you need to worry about collisions, it is the most dangerous time but not the only time, as there are many things taller than 200 ft, as well as birds and unequipped vehicles using the airspace in an unauthorized manner for you to worry about.

First I recognize you said maybe, but the range would need to be much larger than 100 meters.

As out of the box hobbyist drones can already travel at 50 mph [1] (or more I assume). And 100 meters assuming approach of a stationary object would provide just over 4 seconds for the drone to respond and avoid the object.

While 4 seconds is sufficient time, it will lead to drones flying very close to objects before avoiding them which will not inspire public confidence. Also as faster drones appear that window will become even smaller. They should probably have radar with a range measured in nautical miles to avoid having to implement a new system almost immediately. I would say at least 5 nautical miles, although I feel even that would be on the short sighted end of implementation.

[1]http://www.dji.com/product/inspire-1

ADS-B being a broadcast would also notify anyone else listening to ADS-B broadcasts allowing for the potential of a golden age of drone piracy. Which would be quite profitable if you could avoid being caught.

ADS-B broadcasts contain a unique ICAO code, 6 hexidecimal characters filled in by the Transponder. The collision avoidance logic is handled by the TCAS unit on aircraft.

While new collision avoidance logic is being developed for unmanned vehicles in order to allow them to legally fly in airspace once the FAA restrictions are changed from see and avoid to sense and avoid, when it is released implementing it on an air frame will not be cheap, or light so will be reserved for larger drones. Think about 100k and 20-30 lbs in equipment for an ACAS-Xu Unit, Transponder, and antenna.

And because ADS-B is an internationally used system, changes like the addition of new messages to provide any other information commercial entities wanted their drone to provide would be unlikely to happen quickly if at all, as they would have to go through committee review.

Well thanks for the info. I unfortunately clearly didn't pay attention to the fact it required side loading when I heard about it. So yeah, no more support (if it means no more store) will suck more than I thought for Ouya owners.

In my experience it has been that way for quite a while when you look at lower price point items in developing areas of technology, due in part to the speed at which minor changes are iterated and implemented in new models of devices.

But I acknowledge it may not of been this way except recently, and my memory could be painting over the 'good ol days' so I am not any more bitter and cynical about things changing than I already am.

Why would one expect the usefulness of their Ouya console to change and be anything other than useless? (this is a joke at Ouya's expense, I am pointing it out because based on my past experience making jokes here someone will take this seriously and get all defensive about how great Ouya is)

Seriously though in 12 months Ouya will be 3 years old, I don't think expecting a company to actively support a piece of cheap (affordable for those that find the word cheap insulting) hardware for more than 3 years is a reasonable expectation. Ouya had already added the play store I thought (as pointed out below, I thought wrong), and so discontinuing support will probably amount to the Ouya store ceasing to exist and a lack of future patches. I mean its a device to play games mainly in a local manner, it will continue to be able to do that as well as it can now.

The times I interviewed at google it was made clear to me that I was interviewing for a position on a specific team, and not a general hiring pool. So far as I met most of the team members, maybe you are correct though and the team size was just very flexible.

The company I work for very much does that, as have others I have interviewed at and knew people working at. The company I currently work for is legally required to interview N (I don't know what N is) candidates for each position, hiring takes a long time due to clearances, and they have firm dates they need to have people started by so they can finish projects on time as they get projects. In the case they can not find enough qualified candidates where I work they relax the criteria and interview unqualified ones and hire the best they can find in that bunch, probably how I got hired with no experience. A candidate search usually starts 6 months prior to a project starting, with a decision made at least 2 months prior. While it is not the company I currently work for Salesforce.com is a company I have good reason to believe uses a system of choosing a single person out of a pool of interviewed people after a certain number have been interviewed.

Since google has the multiple rounds of interviews and they very much had notes on my first time interviewing for my second time interviewing (neither of which did I make it to the second round of in person interviews). I suspect that googles last day of in person interviews, (2nd day? 3rd day? don't know how many days of in person interviews they have but I know it is more than one) is when they perform things in the manner you are describing. I have been told all the technical portions of the interview are over by the last day of in person interviews by some people who work there, although I am taking that information on faith based off the fact they are people I trust, and do not know first hand. Also from what I could tell Google does not use a short time window for their interview process either, as each time I entered the process it took over 3 weeks to go from recruiter to the first in person round.