Slashdot Mirror

One important caveat, I do not believe that link (https://myaccount.google.com/permissions) automatically includes all 3rd parties. For others, here is an article about this, that is NOT behind a paywall, from the BBC dated July 3, 2018: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44699263.

The link at the end of the above https://myaccount.google.com/p...">article, has a link to Google's Security Checkup Page, funny when I went there, it said I have one app, that I did give access too, that I might want to consider removing...fyi, that site cannot read my emails, what is funny, is when I go to the link provided above looking for applications that I gave Permission to to read my email, that app is NOT listed...my guess is it is a "3rd Party application with limited (cannot read emails) access to my account.

In fact, per that page, I have NOT given any applications access to my Google gMail account. Of course I know it (Google's Primary checkup page) is NOT checking for 3rd party sites.

Like everything online, the devil is in the details and most people (me included sometimes) do not make time to dig into the details...deep in the bowls of the FREE website. Hey its FREE, we are giving them something, else its not cost effective for them to provide that service for FREE.

And if you do read the Terms of Service (ToS) of every website, there is a very good chance you would miss the sentenance where you gave them access to everything about you as they are rarely straight forward.

For Reference:
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-26677607Here is a 2012 article about this same issue with Microsoft

I am sure I could find this for every other email service, especially if it is free, online, to be honest I do not want to bother looking.

An important point to consider,

my guess is all the websites work like this, to be sure check your email application's FAQs or better yet other blogs not controlled by the company that put out that email package

, is that if you have given a 3rd party access, even when you later turn it off, it will NOT automatically turn off ALL 3rd Party access, only future 3rd party access.

From Microsoft Outlook: If Integrated Apps is turned off, apps that have already been installed and have permission to access information won't be uninstalled, and the permissions won’t be removed. Even though Integrated Apps is turned off,....

Look for a place where each app is listed and can individually be turned off if you want to later block third party applications!

One important caveat, I do not believe that link (https://myaccount.google.com/permissions) automatically includes all 3rd parties. For others, here is an article about this, that is NOT behind a paywall, from the BBC dated July 3, 2018: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44699263.

The link at the end of the above https://myaccount.google.com/p...">article, has a link to Google's Security Checkup Page, funny when I went there, it said I have one app, that I did give access too, that I might want to consider removing...fyi, that site cannot read my emails, what is funny, is when I go to the link provided above looking for applications that I gave Permission to to read my email, that app is NOT listed...my guess is it is a "3rd Party application with limited (cannot read emails) access to my account.

In fact, per that page, I have NOT given any applications access to my Google gMail account. Of course I know it (Google's Primary checkup page) is NOT checking for 3rd party sites.

Like everything online, the devil is in the details and most people (me included sometimes) do not make time to dig into the details...deep in the bowls of the FREE website. Hey its FREE, we are giving them something, else its not cost effective for them to provide that service for FREE.

And if you do read the Terms of Service (ToS) of every website, there is a very good chance you would miss the sentenance where you gave them access to everything about you as they are rarely straight forward.

For Reference:
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-26677607Here is a 2012 article about this same issue with Microsoft

I am sure I could find this for every other email service, especially if it is free, online, to be honest I do not want to bother looking.

An important point to consider,

my guess is all the websites work like this, to be sure check your email application's FAQs or better yet other blogs not controlled by the company that put out that email package

, is that if you have given a 3rd party access, even when you later turn it off, it will NOT automatically turn off ALL 3rd Party access, only future 3rd party access.

From Microsoft Outlook: If Integrated Apps is turned off, apps that have already been installed and have permission to access information won't be uninstalled, and the permissions won’t be removed. Even though Integrated Apps is turned off,....

Look for a place where each app is listed and can individually be turned off if you want to later block third party applications!

You might want to look at uMatrix (link for Chrome version). It does some of what you want (site specific handling of calls to different resources with a default that blocks external resources), but I don't think it allows you to substitute your own code.

Probably my 'if you had to use just one ...' extension.

just bribes. They'll get big money from Amazon, Apple, Foxconn and the like. And everybody looks the other way because we've got wedge issues to worry about.

Nobody thinks they needed to give Foxconn $4 billion anymore than anybody in Kansas thought that bloody Ark think was really going to pay for itself with tourism and jobs. It's just corruption. Want this to stop? Stop voting for people who take corporate money. Here's one now. Here's a whole bunch of them. Not sure if there are any on the R side though. I don't know of any, and I know of a rather famous example of the exact opposite. If anyone knows anyone who's made the "no PAC & corp money" pledge on that side let me know.

just bribes. They'll get big money from Amazon, Apple, Foxconn and the like. And everybody looks the other way because we've got wedge issues to worry about.

Nobody thinks they needed to give Foxconn $4 billion anymore than anybody in Kansas thought that bloody Ark think was really going to pay for itself with tourism and jobs. It's just corruption. Want this to stop? Stop voting for people who take corporate money. Here's one now. Here's a whole bunch of them. Not sure if there are any on the R side though. I don't know of any, and I know of a rather famous example of the exact opposite. If anyone knows anyone who's made the "no PAC & corp money" pledge on that side let me know.

just bribes. They'll get big money from Amazon, Apple, Foxconn and the like. And everybody looks the other way because we've got wedge issues to worry about.

Nobody thinks they needed to give Foxconn $4 billion anymore than anybody in Kansas thought that bloody Ark think was really going to pay for itself with tourism and jobs. It's just corruption. Want this to stop? Stop voting for people who take corporate money. Here's one now. Here's a whole bunch of them. Not sure if there are any on the R side though. I don't know of any, and I know of a rather famous example of the exact opposite. If anyone knows anyone who's made the "no PAC & corp money" pledge on that side let me know.

For some bizarre reason I keep getting ads for women's clothing. Does this mean I'm going to desire a sex change in the future? Google knows it now- but I haven't figured it out for myself yet.

I have ads blocked, so I don't know what I get, but Google things I'm a women, which is news to me. You can see here what they think about you.

Useful idiots like Merkel just brought on the much needed police state. Once those pesky rapefugees are gone, they'll be using those tools on the native population.

All apart of the plan.

Useful idiots like Merkel just brought on the much needed police state. Once those pesky rapefugees are gone, they'll be using those tools on the native population.

All apart of the plan.

Yeah, right. About that...

It would appear that unrestricted immigration and taking refugees is something the people don't want, both in the EU and here in the US.

In the US we allow about 1.1 million legal immigrants per year, which is generous in comparison to any other country. That's enough to skew the economy, make jobs hard to get, and puts a burden on the infrastructure. Letting unrestricted migrants in could cripple the country, possibly bring it down.

Non-citizens can apparently vote, and there's a big push in CA to force the census bureau to remove the citizenship question in the next census.

After the census is tallied, it means that CA gets 3 [US House] more representatives due to non-citizens, and for all states non-citizens total about 7 house representatives.

(Question: Is giving non-citizens legislative power like that insane? Asking for a friend...)

I have no Earthly idea why Merkel and the rest of the EU is so hell-bent on getting more refugees. Refugees are causing a lot of problems, it's clearly something the member states don't want, and there's apparently no end in sight. The whole refugee thing started because of Arab Spring (remember that?), which was 8 years ago!

My best guess is that being called "nazi" is still a big thing in Europe, and they'll do anything to save face and avoid being called that name. Trash their own country by virtue signalling.

Anyway...

The basic problem is that the people really don't want unrestricted immigration. It's something that people can readily see, and that affects them directly. Trump's approval rating actually went *up* during the recent protests.

When the government does something the people *really* don't like, it's the government that has to change.

Here's a link to check what 3rd party apps have account access and what type

https://myaccount.google.com/permissions

and don't need a heart stint of bypass at 50 or blood pressure medicine. Also so long as you never hurt yourself. Also if you've got a nice piece of land with plenty of water that doesn't need modern irrigation, fertilizer and pest control techniques.

There's a whole host of reasons why Galt's Gultch isn't a nice place to live.

I guess beavers disagree.

Anyway, in Europe basically every river is upstream dammed to make it ship able, generate power and slow down the river flow. The river flow needs to be slowed down because otherwise so much debris carried around that you have to use diggers to keep the river bed deep enough for ships ...

Bottom line the dams provide nice lake like basins, no disaster.

https://www.google.com/maps/pl...

If you go upstream, that is south, there is another dam a few kilometers away.

Obama's UN Ambassador Samantha Power is most upset over this.

She won't be able to blame coworkers over unmasking any more Trump campaign workers.

What were the UN ambassador's coworkers doing using her credentials to dig through the archives of the entire US intelligence community to spy on the campaign workers of a rival political campaign?

Shhhh... You're not supposed to ask that question!

Google cloud isn't supposed to be enterprise grade? I bet that's news to google.

Maybe it is news to Google...

https://cloud.google.com/solut...

Why cloud storage makes sense for small and medium businesses...

https://cloud.google.com/

The home page literally says "Trusted by enterprises, startups, and everyone in between."

Writing a case study on SMBs doesn't mean they don't think they're enterprise grade....

Google cloud isn't supposed to be enterprise grade? I bet that's news to google.

Maybe it is news to Google...

https://cloud.google.com/solut...

Why cloud storage makes sense for small and medium businesses...

That's why you also configure a failover at a secondary location.

Isn't that exactly what the Google cloud is sold as - a huge 'cloud' of servers for massive redundancy?

Here, read the sales blurb: https://cloud.google.com/solut...

Here are quite a few for you to choose from.

https://www.google.com/search?...

are still pretty low. The odds of her getting knocked up are much higher. We regulate sex more than violence because relatively few people want to commit wanton acts of violence while just about everybody want sex. And if you've ever known anyone who's had an unplanned pregnancy or had one yourself you know it's just as life changingly devastating. Maybe moreso. Blow me away and my life insurance kicks in but if I go knock somebody up I've got a $12k+/mo bill for at least the next 18 years.

LMGTFY: https://www.google.com/search?...

Google doesn't have its own towers, but it does operate an MVNO on Sprint and T-Mobile called Project Fi. Service with unmetered data is $720 per year, and that's without renting any games. For that price, you could buy a New Nintendo 2DS and a dozen games.

Google has that pretty well covered. https://cloud.google.com/about...

Inciting Violence. I'm going to be completely blunt. The reason the right wing (I refuse to call people in favor of radical change "Conservative") get more bans is there's a lot of them hinting at violence. There's a good example right here. Jones backpedaled as best he could but the meaning was clear. It's so common there's a name for it: Dog Whistling

Alex Jones?? Alex Jones is your "example" of a " conservative "? Alex Jones is a nutter fringe conspiracy theorist. Trying to portray him as somehow representing conservatives in general is reasonably taken as one or more of: uninformed, blinded by ideology, dishonest, incompetent, membership in the nutter fringe at a another point.

The radical right has a lot of unhinged people than even the extreme left. There have been no cases of left wing terrorism since the 70s.

By that do you mean none that you are willing to mention? Like this mass political assassination attempt from last year?

Steve Scalise

Stephen Joseph Scalise (/sklis/; born October 6, 1965) is the current United States House of Representatives Majority Whip and representative for Louisiana's 1st congressional district . . . . . On June 14, 2017, Scalise was shot by a far left-wing activist[4][5] at a practice session for the congressional baseball team in Virginia, and was taken to the hospital in critical condition.

Oh, this explains it:

James T. Hodgkinson, Attempted Assassin Of Steve Scalise, Already Being Erased From History

. . . a Bernie Bro named James T. Hodgkinson shoots at a bunch of congressmen for the explicit reason that he hates Republicans and wants them dead? How do we fit that into the preferred narrative?

- - - - - -

You're entitled to your opinion right up until it becomes incitement to violence.

2016 was a deadly year for cops — and BLM may be to blame

The cop murders in Dallas were carried out on July 7 by an African-American ex-Army reservist who’d expressed his hatred of Caucasians, particularly Jews. He shot to death five white police officers and injured seven others and two civilians before being blown to bits by a police bomb-squad robot.

Ten days later in Baton Rouge, a Marine Corps veteran, described by an official as a “black separatist,” shot to death one black and two white law enforcement officers and injured three others as revenge for the shooting death of a black man by police, before being gunned down by cops.

Is that more of that "right wing violence" you're warning about?

and ask the black and LGBTQ communities about how they're treated down south some time.

It's surprising how much nuance can inject itself into that question.

Atima Omara

STOP THE PRESSES: Lupe Valdez, an LGBT Latina woman formerly Sheriff of Dallas just secured the Democratic nomination for Governor in Texas. Y’ALL. - 7:44 PM - 22 May 2018

Houston’s Annise Parker, a gay ma

It's neither dishonesty nor hyperbole when 45's "fine people" are literally marching in the streets with the swastika. Sorry, not sorry... if it talks like a nazi, goose-steps like a nazi, and sieg heil's like a nazi; it's a goddamned nazi.

Inciting Violence. I'm going to be completely blunt. The reason the right wing (I refuse to call people in favor of radical change "Conservative") get more bans is there's a lot of them hinting at violence. There's a good example right here. Jones backpedaled as best he could but the meaning was clear. It's so common there's a name for it: Dog Whistling

You're entitled to your opinion right up until it becomes incitement to violence. The radical right has a lot of unhinged people than even the extreme left. There have been no cases of left wing terrorism since the 70s. Abortion doctors OTOH can point to multiple instances of terrorism and ask the black and LGBTQ communities about how they're treated down south some time. The right words said to the right person equals violence. The right have a well documented history of spreading those words and using them to oppress. Hate speech turns into actions all too often. You don't get to shout fire in a theater and you don't get to exclaim out loud how if only someone would rid you of this meddlesome priest.

This is pretty much how all broadcast TV is tracked. Neilson gives families trackers that listen for signals and then collects them. These psychoacoustic encodings are broadcast every 2.5 seconds. Facebook seems to have patented using a smartphone to do this rather than a dedicated device.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/w...

Ooh, someone's an angry little kiddy fiddler isn't he? Alright McQuown, I'll just point out to you and the rest of the world that this isn't the first time you tried to play Internet Tough Guy and lost so very, very hard:

https://plus.google.com/+AlexM...

What are you going to do now I wonder, threaten to sue the entire Internet? Or are you just going to find another kiddy butthole to take your "frustrations" out on?

Here's a little hint "Khyber," nobody's ever been afraid of you. Not your threats, not your rampant pedophilia, nothing. They've only ever considered you an annoyance at best. How does that feel, knowing that at best, you've had about as much impact on anyone's life as any other sex offending furfaggot?

At the same time, it is pathetic that Google was not at the highest level of membership already. See, there is a significant faction at Google that hates Linux and everything GPL. This faction has largely had the upper hand so far because of apathy in the executive suite. The usual theory "we are so rich so everything we do must be right". Including treating Linux as a second class citizen in favour of their BSD stable. Now they are forced by Microsoft to take a position. Ironic indeed.

It really does work much better if the link you provide actually supports your claim (that Google is hostile to Linux/GPL). Some dude's blog about myriad topics with no prominent references to your claim whatsoever tends to detract from what you said.

At the same time, it is pathetic that Google was not at the highest level of membership already. See, there is a significant faction at Google that hates Linux and everything GPL. This faction has largely had the upper hand so far because of apathy in the executive suite. The usual theory "we are so rich so everything we do must be right". Including treating Linux as a second class citizen in favour of their BSD stable. Now they are forced by Microsoft to take a position. Ironic indeed.

Citing inside climate news is like citing the daily mail.

There's any number of sites that have the memo on them. I cited those two because they have the actual scan of the memo on them, not merely the text file, and added the New York Times article, as a mainstream media source, but if you don't like those, I can send you a few dozen other links to the file. Or you could just google it.

By the way, everything you're accusing Exxon of is actually what a group of environmentalists and plaintiff's lawyers decided to do,

I gave a citation and links to three different sources. Where is yours?

Ah, you don't have a citation, you're making that up. Right. That's a trick right out of Göbbels, that "the cleverest trick used in propaganda" is to accuse your enemies of what you yourself are doing.

with funding by various Rockefeller foundations (among others). The main people that would benefit from this case being successful would be the class action attorneys, who would stand to make hundreds of millions if not billions.

Have you fully thought about the fact that the fossil fuel industry is a trillion dollar industry? Mere "hundreds of millions" is less than penny ante to them.

Who is more likely to fund a campaign, an industry that has a trillion dollars at stake, or some random collection of lawyers who say wait, maybe if we believe the science, some time in the far distant future some laws might or might not get written that might or might not allow a new grounds for lawsuit? Oh, wait, we know the answer to that, because we already have the American Petroleum Institute memo laying out their campaign and asking for 2 million dollars in funding... for the first year.

Yes, that's right-- the API considered this so important that they could ask fossil fuel companies to contribute a whopping 0.0002% of their cash flow to deal with it.

Read the original paper yourself: https://drive.google.com/file/...

But there are alternative definitions of "Moore's law" that are more or less accepted. One is the increase in performance per time period (which wasn't really "created" by Moore but is strongly linked with the law).

Moore's law isn't really about maximum possible transistor density but of maximum _economical_ number of _components_ per device. As process yields have improved and manufacturing streamlined to reduce overall costs die sizes can be increased. In 1965 silicon wafers weren't as good (fault density) as current designs and they were ~2" diameter compared to the 30cm (11.8") used now. Dies can be put closer together as the dicing technology have improved etc.

What hit a wall wasn't some time ago wasn't really Moore's law but other aspects not covered by the law itself (but mentioned in the paper above): heat and the impact of heat itself. Dennard scaling (decreased transistor size improved efficiency) slowed considerably, more computer devices are mobile so heroic cooling of high power devices aren't acceptable, the heroic cooling efforts would in some cases not be enough to keep the chip functioning as heat would build up before the cooler being able to transport it away.

I know your kneejerk reaction is to assume GOV'MINT BAD! and that any regulation leads to monopolies,

Apparently you are a mind reader and know who I am or what I think.

Oh sorry man, I thought that was implied, I didn't mean to... hold up....

Regulation increases the barrier to entry for competition strengthening the existing companies position.

.... yes. Yes, see that's exactly what I assumed you'd said. Thank you for... exactly showcasing my point?

Apparently you DID jerk that knee and assume that network neutrality regulation increases the barriers to entry and strengthens existing companies positions therefore leading to monopolies. You could.... you know.... read the rest of the post before reciting the mantra, but HEY! sure, let's go for it.

NN actually encourages a neutral level playing field, both on the Internet and for those providing the connection.

No, it doesn't.

Such eloquence. I gave you a pretty clear example of how the LACK of network neutrality would create an unfair playing field and lead to monopolies. You gave me... Well alright, you've got a point with the different handling between cell networks and landlines. Yeah, I never liked that disticntion either, but they've been playing different games for decades. I think it's because cable grew out of the phone line system while the cell network had to raise all those towers, so they whined harder for more free money from uncle Sam. REGARDLESS, even now with putting the telecoms back under title i, they're still playing under different rules, so your main complaint is kinda moot.

You know all those past violations of network neutrality? How many times did the FTC step in and fix it? None? That's because they deal with fraud. And as long as the terms and service state somewhere that "these terms can change", they're pretty free to do whatever they want. Nobody reads that junk.

If increasing regulation and increasing the barriers to entry is your idea of promoting competition then you are delusional.

. . . you realize that the FTC is a regulatory body as well right? You're saying they can stop anti-competitive practices. What would you say about.... increasing their funding? Encouraging them to start more cases? Expanding the sort of issues that are worth their time? It stops anti-competitive behaviour? Right? More FTC would do more of that. Are you in favor of increasing the regulation set forth by the FTC?

But no. Network neutrality stops giant players from abusing their position in power to make a buck. Enforcing that lowers the barrier to entry, levels the playing field, promotes competition, and keeps the Internet working like we all know and love. If you believe otherwise you're blinded by your party's dogma.

In the case of http caching, HSTS, cert pinning, etc all BROKE caching.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Nothing related to HTTPS affects client-side caching in any way. Besides, Chrome phased out key pinning by version 67 anyway in favor of Certificate Transparency because it was too easy for someone to exploit a misissued certificate for hostile pinning (source).

HTTPS breaks only intermediate caching by intercepting proxies. There are cases where operators of intercepting proxies have (ab)used their position to insert advertisements into documents that a user is viewing, Comcast being among them. If a user does want to opt into use of a proxy, web browsers still allow installation of a proxy's private root certificate.

I used to work at Amazon...

Here is my performance review that basically said "Last chance before you are fired"

https://drive.google.com/open?...

Note: It is long

- Eliminated the ability to have 3rd party process managers that can access all the info about processes through /proc (while conveniently system_server still can). The correct answer to a security concern would be to make it a permission, but then you couldn't take away user freedom through false claims of security needs.
https://issuetracker.google.co...

- Same thing with eliminating the ability to get BATTERY_STATS permission without complex adb workarounds. Because how dare a user want to use a custom app to access battery stats.
https://forum.xda-developers.c...

- And most telling is the absolute abomination that is SafetyNet. Pure user restriction in the name of security -- preventing use of important apps unless the user deigns to use a ROM that is in the exact state Google wants it to be. If it were really about protecting the user from unknown malware, you would have a way to do custom signatures so the user could define what they consider "clean". But of course, that's not really the point. The point is to limit user freedom, and also to let apps dictate whether users can do things like spoof locations, take screenshots, etc.

Well except if you read the actual paper (PDF warning) that Moore wrote which created the whole concept, everything seems to be framed in terms of square area and component size.

=Smidge=

Basically he was cramming in a lot of digits into a keyboard buffer, but the phone didn't even think about most of them. Meaning that even if he guessed the correct pin, it's most likely it wouldn't have worked because it would be discarded without checking.

Yes. My point was, that wasn't super clear from how this was reported.

While I'm nitpicking ... Apple didn't "refute" this either ... they denied it. "Refuting" would involve presenting some sort of proof, not just saying "you're wrong; check your work".

(Though I notice that Google has now added a second meaning of simply "deny or contradict" ... lovely.)

I'll just leave this here.

Does Bayes play here? https://www.google.com/search?... I don't have access to PubMed but others here might. Would those May 2017 research articles suggest the area of research around treatment that is now publishing?

Posting anonymously to avoid legal problems by disclosing the following information.

Not only fake journals are a problem. Supposedly "serious" journals with a corrupt editor using a coercive citation scheme are also an important issue. Coercive citation is typically used to increase the metrics of the journal, but I have seen at least one case in which it is used to increase the metrics of the Journal Editor (!)

Specific example: Springer's Journal of Supercomputing is edited by infamous Hamid Arabnia. Yes, this is the same folk that used to run the WorldComp conference series in Vegas, which is now rebranded as CSCE after it was widespread that they accepted any crap as long as you paid for registration.

Well, I submitted some years ago a real research paper to this Journal of Supercomputing. It was serious research, not top-level, but reasonable. Reviews were reasonable, but H. Arabnia requested to add citations to FOUR of his own personal papers, completely unrelated with our submission, in order to accept the paper. We didn't add any (and the paper was eventually accepted), but we could check that he did this routinely: you can check for example this paper, in which authors cite TEN unrelated papers from the editor of this journal. I don't blame the authors: in many cases, they badly need the publication and agree to the coercive mechanism.

You can also check H. Arabnia's Google Scholar page, with a very high h-index value. However, this page also allows you to check the citations of the papers. If you check the 88 citations to this paper from 1995, you can see that it was almost unnoticed for twenty years, and suddenly it resurged in 2015... with ALL citations coming from the Journal of Supercomputing, which he edits!!

The funny fact: The journal of Supercomputing has a JCR impact factor of 1.326 in the last (2016) list, being in the second quartile (Q2) of its category. Let's see the update, coming in a few days/weeks. According to the rankings, this should be a respected journal, but it happens to be the playground of this clown, abusing it to increase his own metrics.

Posting anonymously to avoid legal problems by disclosing the following information.

Not only fake journals are a problem. Supposedly "serious" journals with a corrupt editor using a coercive citation scheme are also an important issue. Coercive citation is typically used to increase the metrics of the journal, but I have seen at least one case in which it is used to increase the metrics of the Journal Editor (!)

Specific example: Springer's Journal of Supercomputing is edited by infamous Hamid Arabnia. Yes, this is the same folk that used to run the WorldComp conference series in Vegas, which is now rebranded as CSCE after it was widespread that they accepted any crap as long as you paid for registration.

Well, I submitted some years ago a real research paper to this Journal of Supercomputing. It was serious research, not top-level, but reasonable. Reviews were reasonable, but H. Arabnia requested to add citations to FOUR of his own personal papers, completely unrelated with our submission, in order to accept the paper. We didn't add any (and the paper was eventually accepted), but we could check that he did this routinely: you can check for example this paper, in which authors cite TEN unrelated papers from the editor of this journal. I don't blame the authors: in many cases, they badly need the publication and agree to the coercive mechanism.

You can also check H. Arabnia's Google Scholar page, with a very high h-index value. However, this page also allows you to check the citations of the papers. If you check the 88 citations to this paper from 1995, you can see that it was almost unnoticed for twenty years, and suddenly it resurged in 2015... with ALL citations coming from the Journal of Supercomputing, which he edits!!

The funny fact: The journal of Supercomputing has a JCR impact factor of 1.326 in the last (2016) list, being in the second quartile (Q2) of its category. Let's see the update, coming in a few days/weeks. According to the rankings, this should be a respected journal, but it happens to be the playground of this clown, abusing it to increase his own metrics.

Posting anonymously to avoid legal problems by disclosing the following information.

Not only fake journals are a problem. Supposedly "serious" journals with a corrupt editor using a coercive citation scheme are also an important issue. Coercive citation is typically used to increase the metrics of the journal, but I have seen at least one case in which it is used to increase the metrics of the Journal Editor (!)

Specific example: Springer's Journal of Supercomputing is edited by infamous Hamid Arabnia. Yes, this is the same folk that used to run the WorldComp conference series in Vegas, which is now rebranded as CSCE after it was widespread that they accepted any crap as long as you paid for registration.

Well, I submitted some years ago a real research paper to this Journal of Supercomputing. It was serious research, not top-level, but reasonable. Reviews were reasonable, but H. Arabnia requested to add citations to FOUR of his own personal papers, completely unrelated with our submission, in order to accept the paper. We didn't add any (and the paper was eventually accepted), but we could check that he did this routinely: you can check for example this paper, in which authors cite TEN unrelated papers from the editor of this journal. I don't blame the authors: in many cases, they badly need the publication and agree to the coercive mechanism.

You can also check H. Arabnia's Google Scholar page, with a very high h-index value. However, this page also allows you to check the citations of the papers. If you check the 88 citations to this paper from 1995, you can see that it was almost unnoticed for twenty years, and suddenly it resurged in 2015... with ALL citations coming from the Journal of Supercomputing, which he edits!!

The funny fact: The journal of Supercomputing has a JCR impact factor of 1.326 in the last (2016) list, being in the second quartile (Q2) of its category. Let's see the update, coming in a few days/weeks. According to the rankings, this should be a respected journal, but it happens to be the playground of this clown, abusing it to increase his own metrics.

Posting anonymously to avoid legal problems by disclosing the following information.

Not only fake journals are a problem. Supposedly "serious" journals with a corrupt editor using a coercive citation scheme are also an important issue. Coercive citation is typically used to increase the metrics of the journal, but I have seen at least one case in which it is used to increase the metrics of the Journal Editor (!)

Specific example: Springer's Journal of Supercomputing is edited by infamous Hamid Arabnia. Yes, this is the same folk that used to run the WorldComp conference series in Vegas, which is now rebranded as CSCE after it was widespread that they accepted any crap as long as you paid for registration.

Well, I submitted some years ago a real research paper to this Journal of Supercomputing. It was serious research, not top-level, but reasonable. Reviews were reasonable, but H. Arabnia requested to add citations to FOUR of his own personal papers, completely unrelated with our submission, in order to accept the paper. We didn't add any (and the paper was eventually accepted), but we could check that he did this routinely: you can check for example this paper, in which authors cite TEN unrelated papers from the editor of this journal. I don't blame the authors: in many cases, they badly need the publication and agree to the coercive mechanism.

You can also check H. Arabnia's Google Scholar page, with a very high h-index value. However, this page also allows you to check the citations of the papers. If you check the 88 citations to this paper from 1995, you can see that it was almost unnoticed for twenty years, and suddenly it resurged in 2015... with ALL citations coming from the Journal of Supercomputing, which he edits!!

The funny fact: The journal of Supercomputing has a JCR impact factor of 1.326 in the last (2016) list, being in the second quartile (Q2) of its category. Let's see the update, coming in a few days/weeks. According to the rankings, this should be a respected journal, but it happens to be the playground of this clown, abusing it to increase his own metrics.

It's an ad blocker, and erases cookies and history when closed,
https://play.google.com/store/...

Hosts protect when addons can't (or as well):

Bad sites (past ads)
Botnet C&Cs
DNS down/poisoned
Trackers (dns logs/ads/transparent ISP proxy)
Dns blocks
Spam/phish payload
Ads in videostreams
Slowdown 2 ways: adblocks & hardcodes
Hosts = Ez edit.

AB+ 151mb https://www.google.com/search?q=Adblock+memory+consumption&btnG=Search&hl=en&gbv=1/

UBlock 64MB https://www.google.com/search?q=UBlock+memory+consumption&btnG=Search&hl=en&gbv=1/

Hosts~6mb

Addons = ClarityRay defeatable & crippled http://www.businessinsider.com/google-microsoft-amazon-taboola-pay-adblock-plus-to-stop-blocking-their-ads-2015-2/

NoScript tag parses. Hosts block script prior to it!

No 1 addon does as much.

Stacked addons slowup.

ADDONS = EXPLOITABLE https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11166303&cid=55266729/

APK

P.S.=> For something better https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12266978&cid=56837540/

Hosts protect when addons can't (or as well):

Bad sites (past ads)
Botnet C&Cs
DNS down/poisoned
Trackers (dns logs/ads/transparent ISP proxy)
Dns blocks
Spam/phish payload
Ads in videostreams
Slowdown 2 ways: adblocks & hardcodes
Hosts = Ez edit.

AB+ 151mb https://www.google.com/search?q=Adblock+memory+consumption&btnG=Search&hl=en&gbv=1/

UBlock 64MB https://www.google.com/search?q=UBlock+memory+consumption&btnG=Search&hl=en&gbv=1/

Hosts~6mb

Addons = ClarityRay defeatable & crippled http://www.businessinsider.com/google-microsoft-amazon-taboola-pay-adblock-plus-to-stop-blocking-their-ads-2015-2/

NoScript tag parses. Hosts block script prior to it!

No 1 addon does as much.

Stacked addons slowup.

ADDONS = EXPLOITABLE https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11166303&cid=55266729/

APK

P.S.=> For something better https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12266978&cid=56837540/

Hosts protect when addons can't (or as well):

Bad sites (past ads)
Botnet C&Cs
DNS down/poisoned
Trackers (dns logs/ads/transparent ISP proxy)
Dns blocks
Spam/phish payload
Ads in videostreams
Slowdown 2 ways: adblocks & hardcodes
Hosts = Ez edit.

AB+ 151mb https://www.google.com/search?q=Adblock+memory+consumption&btnG=Search&hl=en&gbv=1/

UBlock 64MB https://www.google.com/search?q=UBlock+memory+consumption&btnG=Search&hl=en&gbv=1/

Hosts~6mb

Addons = ClarityRay defeatable & crippled http://www.businessinsider.com/google-microsoft-amazon-taboola-pay-adblock-plus-to-stop-blocking-their-ads-2015-2/

NoScript tag parses. Hosts block script prior to it!

No 1 addon does as much.

Stacked addons slowup.

ADDONS = EXPLOITABLE https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11166303&cid=55266729/

APK

P.S.=> For something better https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12266978&cid=56837540/

Hosts protect when addons can't (or as well):

Bad sites (past ads)
Botnet C&Cs
DNS down/poisoned
Trackers (dns logs/ads/transparent ISP proxy)
Dns blocks
Spam/phish payload
Ads in videostreams
Slowdown 2 ways: adblocks & hardcodes
Hosts = Ez edit.

AB+ 151mb https://www.google.com/search?q=Adblock+memory+consumption&btnG=Search&hl=en&gbv=1/

UBlock 64MB https://www.google.com/search?q=UBlock+memory+consumption&btnG=Search&hl=en&gbv=1/

Hosts~6mb

Addons = ClarityRay defeatable & crippled http://www.businessinsider.com/google-microsoft-amazon-taboola-pay-adblock-plus-to-stop-blocking-their-ads-2015-2/

NoScript tag parses. Hosts block script prior to it!

No 1 addon does as much.

Stacked addons slowup.

ADDONS = EXPLOITABLE https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11166303&cid=55266729/

APK

P.S.=> For something better https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12266978&cid=56837540/

Look, squirrel!

Sports with robots as players have already arrived both physically and virtually. The E-Sports industry is expected to surpass the $1 billion income mark next year. Though not autonomous or physical robots, this is still virtual robotics. And their viewership routinely surpasses professional sports.

Sports have long been a reflection of military activities. If we developed new sports to reflect the current battlefield, wouldn't they have to use robotics? Drones are robots and critical on the modern battlefield. Guided missiles are robots. Homing missiles are more advanced robots. There is so much automation going on in planes (many of which can't be flown without a computer to stabilize them) and tanks these days that they should be considered manned robots. Even a landmine is an autonomous mechanism that kills without command.

Also, with the introduction of a few sensors in the equipment that we probably should have anyway for safety reasons, big gains in the judgement accuracy of the systems can be made. It isn't fair to artificially limit the system to work with video just because we have to use eyes and ears.

It is all over the net but sure it Yvan propaganda.

"Stuxnet was a game-changer because it opened people's eyes to the fact that a cyber event can actually result in physical damage," says Mark Weatherford, deputy undersecretary for cybersecurity in the National Protection Programs Directorate at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

This is not rocket science. Not very hard to apprehend. Seems just like some people do not want to understand. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" -- Upton Sinclair

I get what you're saying, but we could also go with an actual definition of the word shortage:
"a state or situation in which something needed cannot be obtained in sufficient amounts."

The amounts are available, the price may be a little higher to get them, but no actual shortage.