Speed chess is fun if you aren't taking seriously, play it as a way to spend the five minutes till your RideShare gets there, or as a drinking game. It's hardly "the game of Kings" if you intend to do more than just outhink, outlast... wait, that's Survivor.
The article and writeup are really saying "people can now cheat at lots more games." Previous posters have mentioned Go, and of course we know about FPS cheats as well. If the goal is "to win" without regards to having personal ethics and morals then this will go on. Even the top Donkey Kong record holder, Billy Mitchell, was stripped of his "title" for the same.
So if the point is - you can find a variant of the game where it's "harder to cheat", yes, that's absolutely right.
If the point is "Damn, it's now easier to cheat at everything", that too is right.
If the point is "If you give a rat's *** about ethics and morals and a code of conduct and your goal is to play the game honestly" then a discussion about how to accomplish that would be great by me. I don't think technical countermeasures will solve this. I think it's a cultural thing.
Respectfully,
Ehud "Yes, I play chess" Gavron
Tucson, Arizona, US
It used to be you could exchange letters and play "postal chess". Now, it's difficult to trust that the "person" you're playing is an unaided person.
It used to be you could play online poker. Now it's difficult to trust that the "person" you're playing is an unaided person and that their banks of poker chips are real. When they "go all in" [poker] is it the house betting against you -- because they know the cards -- or a real player somewhere in the world who thinks their cards are better than yours.
You can have multiple cameras, but those won't detect a background script running an analysis tool "advising" the best strategy.
If you don't know the people you're playing don't wager real money, USCF/FIDE points, etc. Play for fun and enjoy the game. Don't confuse it with sitting across the table from a real unaided person.
I know people who hid Monopoly money behind the toilet so they could take a bathroom break and stock up on cash. That's just one example... and that was in person.
Ok, then stop arguing. Protocol is not a comprehensive list of what's NOT permitted. Protocol is about proper communication. In times of emergencies we find other ways if necessary, but twitter during peace and calm ain't it.
Communication protocols specify how things DO WORK not which thousands or millions of ways they won't.
Why do you think Twitter is not permitted?
What I think isn't the operative question. Twitter isn't a listed protocol for the CIC to communicate.
If you can't get around that, try this: "What in the law prevents him from scribbling on a paper airplane and throwing it in your eye?" Nothing. It's still not protocol.
Is there a constitutional provision or statute that requires that?
The COTUS is a guiding document, but it's not the end-all be-all of codified law. There is USC, CFR, CFE, and those are just a few at the federal level.
It doesn't say in COTUS anything about the right to life or the right not be killed if you're a murderer yourself. You have to look at other avenues.
In this case, there are processes by which the POTUS communicates. For example, EOs are signed by him (with his signature, even if the page is blank) and promulgated further.
I gurantee you "Twitter" and "Social Media" are not listed anywhere in USC/CFR, etc. as methods of communication. If you would like to argue they SHOULD BE we'd get into the whole "Nagh, if anyone's social media account can be easily hacked by you in your momma's basement then it SHOULD NOT BE ever authorized for communication of orders."
I'm not sure why this is hard to understand... but he could SHOULD THROUGH A MEGAPHONE at his adoring stupid crowds, and everything he says is absolutely 100% NOT an order of any kind... even if we see him doing it.
> Obviously only left wingers...
...sort of obvious that it's mainly conservatives...
There's nothing "obvious" linking political extremism to tech.
Nor is there anything "obvious" about pretending these are facts.
Obviously people who draw conclusions from political extremism to use of telephone tech know nothing about actually listening or reading the political opinion AND THEN basing their prejudicial label on that opinion.
In short, if I have a cellphone, don't label me a "Liberawwwl". If I have a rotary phone (ad absurdum) don't label me a "Conservateeeev". You know nothing about me and my choice of phone dial methodology is irrelevant.
And he can communicate his declassification orders in any manner he chooses.
Formal orders from the White House aren't sent "in any matter he chooses." So, no, that's not how it works. If it's a real order-portent it's followed by an official dispatch to the right agency.
He can also fire everyone in DOJ tomorrow, at his whim.
No, he can't do that either. There's a process for termination of staffers (vs appointees).
Imagine if Tesla's new Model 3 -- that has a 360 mile range -- had its odometer modified to show smaller miles. That would make its EV go 400-450 miles without greatly affecting much other than depreciation. (There are no 6,000 mile oil changes ;-)
Would anyone stand for it? Would the FTC allow it? It seems to me to clearly qualify under 18 USC §1341 (fraud).
Yet here we have AT&T convincing Apple to add the icon without providing 5G, Verizon offering a "blended 5G" where you get a 5G indicator but the connection is all 4G or 3G.
Now we have half the people believing this shit, so obviously "consumer confusion" is now a thing.
Where are the FTC and the FCC and the "concerned" senators and the people entrusted to protect the Stupids?
Lots of links call her "convicted" but I also can find no reference to such a finding by a court of law. Still, she hijacked two planes. That's the problem when you start accepting hijackers as law-abiding citizens.
Donald Trump hasn't been convicted of tax fraud, grabbing women by their private parts without their permission, cheating US taxpayers out of millions of dollars, etc. He's not been convicted of anything.
Conviction and prison are the end. Accusation is just the beginning.
It's not a question of whether you can feed almost half a million people 100Mbps each with a constellation of 12K birds. Internet usage as measured in bps over a prolonged period of time averages out to around 2-10% residential inbound and 10-20% business inbound and 20-30% hosting outbound.
If you size your network for peak usage, you need to be able to deliver 20% inbound 30% outbound to 485K people. That's doable.
Musk isn't crazy. People who think a 100Mbps circuit should deliver 100Mbps 24x7 for all customers at the same time are.
OB DISC: I'm from Israel so it's assumed I'm anti anyone who is against Israel. Not so.
What she did 50 years ago is almost irrelevant. She's paid her debt to society. I say "almost" because she still has a perspective to share. That can be relevant.
Zoom, Facebook, Microsoft, TechDirt, Slashdot, all exist as private companies which choose which content to share. (Mike's many posts on content moderation included by reference.)
That Zoom chose to censor this talk is... in my opinion... wrong. However, the talk could have been taken to any number of other platforms such as MS, Skype, WebEx, etc. The message there is "Hey Zoom, you start censoring our chats... and we'll stop scheduling them on your platform."
Does Zoom care? Who cares? If FB really censored everything that was libelous, stupid, churlish, annoying, white nationalist, republican (oh sorry to repeat myself) would people stop using FB?
If they did it would send a message.
Maybe it's time Zoom got a message. I just don't think it's "wrong" of them to censor. It's their right. Just as it is OUR RIGHT to say "thanks so much for your censorship; we're going somewhere else."
See you on Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, Skype [MS], meet.jit.si, or any non-Zoom product.
Trump was sued in his official capacity. The DoJ will respond. Even if he wasn't he could hire and has always hired a lawyer. Trump doesn't write out legal things. People who have had strokes don't write. Nor read.
Nars is a planet.
Covfefe is what you have in the morning.
Hamburder is what you eat and also give to pro athletes as a win.
Walter Reed is where you go after 3 mini strokes.
What this administration has taught is us we need one little law.
RIGHTS NOT EXPRESSLY PROVIDED TO THE ADMINISTRATION ARE RESERVED FOR THE PEOPLE.
We [speaking democratically] elected the biggest fraud and thief to the highest office in the US and the third most powerful job in the world. We elected people in the Senate like Moscow Mitch and Lying Lyndsey to support him.
Where's the promised filing? And how did DoC get involved???
So... in Docket #20 Defendant (Donald) says:
Defendants will prepare and file public, redacted versions of these materials on the Court’s regular docket later today.
Defendant [Donald in his official capacity] filed no such docs yesterday nor today.
Docket item #21 shows the Department of Commerce involving itself... and I am not sure that's legit but it's also under seal.
Docket item #22 shows opposition to Plaintiff's motion for an injunction and expedited hearing, and finally we learn that even though the suit was brought against Donald, the government is trying to interject the Secy. of Commerce as the real person... but not doing it through a request to amend a pleading, adding new defendants, removing old defendants, etc.
I'm not a lawyer but this seems to be not the way the US federal rules of pleading allow adding parties. I've looked through the FRCP... but... am not an expert.
E
So, not being a lawyer, I'm not sure if the court's order
On the post: COVID-19 Is Driving The Uptake Of Chess -- And Of Surveillance Tools To Stop Online Players Cheating
Speed chess (and other variants)
Speed chess is fun if you aren't taking seriously, play it as a way to spend the five minutes till your RideShare gets there, or as a drinking game. It's hardly "the game of Kings" if you intend to do more than just outhink, outlast... wait, that's Survivor.
The article and writeup are really saying "people can now cheat at lots more games." Previous posters have mentioned Go, and of course we know about FPS cheats as well. If the goal is "to win" without regards to having personal ethics and morals then this will go on. Even the top Donkey Kong record holder, Billy Mitchell, was stripped of his "title" for the same.
So if the point is - you can find a variant of the game where it's "harder to cheat", yes, that's absolutely right.
If the point is "Damn, it's now easier to cheat at everything", that too is right.
If the point is "If you give a rat's *** about ethics and morals and a code of conduct and your goal is to play the game honestly" then a discussion about how to accomplish that would be great by me. I don't think technical countermeasures will solve this. I think it's a cultural thing.
Respectfully,
Ehud "Yes, I play chess" Gavron
Tucson, Arizona, US
On the post: COVID-19 Is Driving The Uptake Of Chess -- And Of Surveillance Tools To Stop Online Players Cheating
Online gaming
It used to be you could exchange letters and play "postal chess". Now, it's difficult to trust that the "person" you're playing is an unaided person.
It used to be you could play online poker. Now it's difficult to trust that the "person" you're playing is an unaided person and that their banks of poker chips are real. When they "go all in" [poker] is it the house betting against you -- because they know the cards -- or a real player somewhere in the world who thinks their cards are better than yours.
You can have multiple cameras, but those won't detect a background script running an analysis tool "advising" the best strategy.
If you don't know the people you're playing don't wager real money, USCF/FIDE points, etc. Play for fun and enjoy the game. Don't confuse it with sitting across the table from a real unaided person.
I know people who hid Monopoly money behind the toilet so they could take a bathroom break and stock up on cash. That's just one example... and that was in person.
E
On the post: DOJ Says Trump's Tweets Declassifying All Russia Investigation Docs Doesn't Mean Anything; Judge Says They Better Go Ask Him
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: who's the Boss
Ok, then stop arguing. Protocol is not a comprehensive list of what's NOT permitted. Protocol is about proper communication. In times of emergencies we find other ways if necessary, but twitter during peace and calm ain't it.
E
On the post: DOJ Says Trump's Tweets Declassifying All Russia Investigation Docs Doesn't Mean Anything; Judge Says They Better Go Ask Him
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: who's the Boss
Communication protocols specify how things DO WORK not which thousands or millions of ways they won't.
What I think isn't the operative question. Twitter isn't a listed protocol for the CIC to communicate.
If you can't get around that, try this: "What in the law prevents him from scribbling on a paper airplane and throwing it in your eye?" Nothing. It's still not protocol.
E
On the post: DOJ Says Trump's Tweets Declassifying All Russia Investigation Docs Doesn't Mean Anything; Judge Says They Better Go Ask Him
Re: Re: Re: who's the Boss
The COTUS is a guiding document, but it's not the end-all be-all of codified law. There is USC, CFR, CFE, and those are just a few at the federal level.
It doesn't say in COTUS anything about the right to life or the right not be killed if you're a murderer yourself. You have to look at other avenues.
In this case, there are processes by which the POTUS communicates. For example, EOs are signed by him (with his signature, even if the page is blank) and promulgated further.
I gurantee you "Twitter" and "Social Media" are not listed anywhere in USC/CFR, etc. as methods of communication. If you would like to argue they SHOULD BE we'd get into the whole "Nagh, if anyone's social media account can be easily hacked by you in your momma's basement then it SHOULD NOT BE ever authorized for communication of orders."
I'm not sure why this is hard to understand... but he could SHOULD THROUGH A MEGAPHONE at his adoring stupid crowds, and everything he says is absolutely 100% NOT an order of any kind... even if we see him doing it.
We live in idiot times.
E
On the post: Half Of Smartphone Users Incorrectly Think They Already Have 5G
Re: Re: Re:
There's nothing "obvious" linking political extremism to tech.
Nor is there anything "obvious" about pretending these are facts.
Obviously people who draw conclusions from political extremism to use of telephone tech know nothing about actually listening or reading the political opinion AND THEN basing their prejudicial label on that opinion.
In short, if I have a cellphone, don't label me a "Liberawwwl". If I have a rotary phone (ad absurdum) don't label me a "Conservateeeev". You know nothing about me and my choice of phone dial methodology is irrelevant.
E
On the post: DOJ Says Trump's Tweets Declassifying All Russia Investigation Docs Doesn't Mean Anything; Judge Says They Better Go Ask Him
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: who's the Boss
The DA for which federal district is chicken? Of whom is the DA afraid?
E
On the post: DOJ Says Trump's Tweets Declassifying All Russia Investigation Docs Doesn't Mean Anything; Judge Says They Better Go Ask Him
Re:
Wasn't that back like 36 years ago? I think we've been at peace with Eurasia. He declared war on Eastasia.
E
On the post: Half Of Smartphone Users Incorrectly Think They Already Have 5G
Re:
Nobody said "left-wingers" anything. I see you want to make it about libs vs cons. It's a discussion about 5G vs "it's not really here".
Difficult to fathom, I know, that people could discuss something without putting on their red or blue hats and yelling stupid shit. But here we are.
E
On the post: DOJ Says Trump's Tweets Declassifying All Russia Investigation Docs Doesn't Mean Anything; Judge Says They Better Go Ask Him
Re: who's the Boss
Formal orders from the White House aren't sent "in any matter he chooses." So, no, that's not how it works. If it's a real order-portent it's followed by an official dispatch to the right agency.
No, he can't do that either. There's a process for termination of staffers (vs appointees).
HR is a thing, as are official memos.
E
On the post: Half Of Smartphone Users Incorrectly Think They Already Have 5G
5G icon
Imagine if Tesla's new Model 3 -- that has a 360 mile range -- had its odometer modified to show smaller miles. That would make its EV go 400-450 miles without greatly affecting much other than depreciation. (There are no 6,000 mile oil changes ;-)
Would anyone stand for it? Would the FTC allow it? It seems to me to clearly qualify under 18 USC §1341 (fraud).
Yet here we have AT&T convincing Apple to add the icon without providing 5G, Verizon offering a "blended 5G" where you get a 5G indicator but the connection is all 4G or 3G.
Now we have half the people believing this shit, so obviously "consumer confusion" is now a thing.
Where are the FTC and the FCC and the "concerned" senators and the people entrusted to protect the Stupids?
E
On the post: DOJ Says Trump's Tweets Declassifying All Russia Investigation Docs Doesn't Mean Anything; Judge Says They Better Go Ask Him
This is a person who has been shown to be a liar over 20,000 times.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/07/13/president-trump-has-made-more-than-20000-f alse-or-misleading-claims/
What makes anyone think that Donald "I'm lying again" Trump will [b]need[/b] to admit he lied?
E
On the post: Internet Of Broken Things Jumps The Shark With IoT Chastity Penis Lock That Can Be Hacked
Unintentional double entendre?
"not something I want to here"...
I don't want those tools here either!
E
On the post: If You're Going To Sue YouTube For Infringement, Maybe First Don't License Your Music To YouTube Or Setup Fake Accounts To Upload Your Own Works
Analysis
Brilliant. Kudos.
E
On the post: Hypocrite FCC Commissioner Cheers On Zoom Block Usage By Person He Disagrees With; While Insisting Social Media Shouldn't Block People
Re: "Convicted" terrorist
Lots of links call her "convicted" but I also can find no reference to such a finding by a court of law. Still, she hijacked two planes. That's the problem when you start accepting hijackers as law-abiding citizens.
Donald Trump hasn't been convicted of tax fraud, grabbing women by their private parts without their permission, cheating US taxpayers out of millions of dollars, etc. He's not been convicted of anything.
Conviction and prison are the end. Accusation is just the beginning.
E
On the post: Hypocrite FCC Commissioner Cheers On Zoom Block Usage By Person He Disagrees With; While Insisting Social Media Shouldn't Block People
Re: Re: Re: Re: Working in the communication business
You are, however, free to make everyone else shut up on YOUR limited private platform.
So "agree with the majority or else"? The minority never gets a voice OR if they do the company goes out of business?
That's not democracy.
E
On the post: Report Notes Musk's Starlink Won't Have The Capacity To Truly Disrupt U.S. Telecom
Oversubscription - yes. Peak subscription - no.
It's not a question of whether you can feed almost half a million people 100Mbps each with a constellation of 12K birds. Internet usage as measured in bps over a prolonged period of time averages out to around 2-10% residential inbound and 10-20% business inbound and 20-30% hosting outbound.
If you size your network for peak usage, you need to be able to deliver 20% inbound 30% outbound to 485K people. That's doable.
Musk isn't crazy. People who think a 100Mbps circuit should deliver 100Mbps 24x7 for all customers at the same time are.
E
On the post: Hypocrite FCC Commissioner Cheers On Zoom Block Usage By Person He Disagrees With; While Insisting Social Media Shouldn't Block People
First Am Rights
OB DISC: I'm from Israel so it's assumed I'm anti anyone who is against Israel. Not so.
What she did 50 years ago is almost irrelevant. She's paid her debt to society. I say "almost" because she still has a perspective to share. That can be relevant.
Zoom, Facebook, Microsoft, TechDirt, Slashdot, all exist as private companies which choose which content to share. (Mike's many posts on content moderation included by reference.)
That Zoom chose to censor this talk is... in my opinion... wrong. However, the talk could have been taken to any number of other platforms such as MS, Skype, WebEx, etc. The message there is "Hey Zoom, you start censoring our chats... and we'll stop scheduling them on your platform."
Does Zoom care? Who cares? If FB really censored everything that was libelous, stupid, churlish, annoying, white nationalist, republican (oh sorry to repeat myself) would people stop using FB?
If they did it would send a message.
Maybe it's time Zoom got a message. I just don't think it's "wrong" of them to censor. It's their right. Just as it is OUR RIGHT to say "thanks so much for your censorship; we're going somewhere else."
See you on Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, Skype [MS], meet.jit.si, or any non-Zoom product.
Ehud
On the post: TikTok And The DOJ Still Fighting It Out In Court Despite Oracle 'Deal'
Re: Oh if only...
Trump was sued in his official capacity. The DoJ will respond. Even if he wasn't he could hire and has always hired a lawyer. Trump doesn't write out legal things. People who have had strokes don't write. Nor read.
Nars is a planet.
Covfefe is what you have in the morning.
Hamburder is what you eat and also give to pro athletes as a win.
Walter Reed is where you go after 3 mini strokes.
What this administration has taught is us we need one little law.
RIGHTS NOT EXPRESSLY PROVIDED TO THE ADMINISTRATION ARE RESERVED FOR THE PEOPLE.
We [speaking democratically] elected the biggest fraud and thief to the highest office in the US and the third most powerful job in the world. We elected people in the Senate like Moscow Mitch and Lying Lyndsey to support him.
Time to fix.
E
On the post: TikTok And The DOJ Still Fighting It Out In Court Despite Oracle 'Deal'
Where's the promised filing? And how did DoC get involved???
So... in Docket #20 Defendant (Donald) says:
Defendant [Donald in his official capacity] filed no such docs yesterday nor today.
Docket item #21 shows the Department of Commerce involving itself... and I am not sure that's legit but it's also under seal.
Docket item #22 shows opposition to Plaintiff's motion for an injunction and expedited hearing, and finally we learn that even though the suit was brought against Donald, the government is trying to interject the Secy. of Commerce as the real person... but not doing it through a request to amend a pleading, adding new defendants, removing old defendants, etc.
I'm not a lawyer but this seems to be not the way the US federal rules of pleading allow adding parties. I've looked through the FRCP... but... am not an expert.
E
So, not being a lawyer, I'm not sure if the court's order
Next >>