...especially if they solve them in less time than the duration of the audio. (Only half kidding: They solved millions of eight second long captchas in a second and a half each and Recaptcha didn't even blink.)
or maybe it did blink and that's what tipped off Google to change the system?
That's a pretty weak defense against a claim of cruelty. A human analogue: Suppose you need a bunch of healthy teeth for an experiment. Find a child and yank out a few teeth - they'll grow new ones eventually. Shoot them up full of Novocaine first and they won't even feel it. I assume no one thinks that's acceptable?
If you're ok with the process because it's only a cockroach, just admit that. Don't try to use some false justification to convince yourself that you were humane about cutting it's leg off.
Website owners can sign up on the IDL website to add a bit of code to their sites (or receive code by email at the time of a campaign) that can be triggered in the case of a crisis like SOPA. This would add an "activist call-to-action" to all participating sites - such as a banner asking users to sign petitions, or in extreme cases blackout the site, as proved effective in the SOPA/PIPA protest of January 2012.
Are they nuts? I don't want any outside site having control over my clients' sites. If they are hacked this would give the hackers a quick way to affect any site that signs up with them. Well intentioned (I hope), but count me out.
I think the summary is wrong about how the system is supposed to work. From the actual IDF site: "First, sign up. If you have a website, we'll send you sample alert code to get working in advance. The next time there's an emergency, we'll tell you and send new code. Then it's your decision to pull the trigger."
Sounds like they give you a sample code in advance so you can make it fit with your site, then if something comes up, they send you a version specific to whatever the issue is. If you don't think it's important, you can just ignore it. If you do want to include a message, you can pop it on your site. And it shouldn't screw anything up because you've previously tested/customized the code for your site. That's slightly (completely?) different than the summary which implies they give you code allowing them to automatically add alerts to your site whenever they want.
I'm still not convinced it's worthwhile, but it's not the "no way in hell I'm doing that" method that the summary describes
I am not willing to pay for news. I am also not willing to look at or click on advertising to subsidize the news. I am theoretically willing to pay for long-form journalism, although in practice I don't. I use Readability to share articles with friends. I would never subscribed to a newspaper. I am educated (multiple university degrees; one in science, one in humanities, one in social science) and politically engaged.
I know I'm the face of the problem, and I don't care.
That's an easy position to take and it's one that's probably held by many people. But it's not the ideological stand some like to make it out to be. It's just a reaction to the current reality. At the moment you can opt for a free alternative to the news you're not willing to pay for. So your lack of willingness to pay doesn't have much negative impact on you. If those free alternatives end up being scaled back significantly to the point where they don't meet your needs, then your decision over whether to pay for news would mean something different. Until that happens (if it ever does), your first line might be more correctly written as "I am not willing to pay for news since I can easily access news for free elsewhere.". That is not the same thing.
IOW a copy to one out of ever 100 living Americans?
I think I see the problem.
If only they were smart enough to also sell it to non Americans...
Actually, there is a difference. A bank will give you a loan and expect you to pay it back with a certain interest rate. When you've paid that back, you just have to pay your other costs, rest of your income goes into your pocket. With a record label you're forever stuck with only getting a small cut, and sometimes they even withhold a part of this to cover costs they think belong to the artist. This is different. I don't think anyone would ever take a loan from a bank that demands that 90% of all future income from the investment go straight to the bank.
Lots of people would if they believed the investment they made with that loan would make them rich and famous. Especially if they felt (whether correct or not) that they had no other options for getting the loan. And that only counts the people who understand what they are signing. Quite a few others would take it because the loan officer promised them everything they wanted while glossing over the details.
Actually, if there's a silver lining here (which happens to address that very point), it's the 90 day deadline. One thing I've learned is that if something needs to be ready in one year, it is pretty much guaranteed to suck and overrun its deadline (i.e. it won't really be ready in a year) and have its best features neutered and a lot of worthless crap done to it.
OTOH if someone needs something in two weeks, the techs just say "well, we have to do this, and we're already running out of time" and get it done and there aren't any meetings and expansion and nobody gets to add delays to it.
That's a great point. I've noticed that as well. Only objection I'd raise is that injecting a project with a short deadline causes delays in every other ongoing project as people have to stop whatever else they were working on to get this done. Of course if you happen to have people sitting around doing nothing, then you're not interrupting anything.
I remember these. They weren't even electronic - each button on the remote caused a tine to be pulled and released which was tuned to a specific ultrasonic frequency. This is why the early remotes were called "clickers" - releasing the tine made a metallic clicking sound. It also meant that random ambient sounds that matched the target frequency could cause your TV to turn on/off, change channels, etc on its own.
There were also remotes that weren't even wireless, with a 10' long tether wire to the unit. The advertised "advantage" of these was that they didn't need batteries.
They should have advertised the advantage as "never lose your remote again".
so the summary was updated?
Maybe, but who cares? I'm not going to bother reading the summary, or even the first 13 words of it, to find out what the title is talking about.
Face it, the summary is the new article. No one reads it. It's all about the title now.
Anyone who imagines that all fruits ripen at the same time as the strawberries, knows nothing about grapes. -- Philippus Paracelsus
