Slashdot Mirror

I don't remember Intel being involved, but this is probably the more salient one. Being some 15+ years ago I'm probably remembering some of the specifics wrong. I don't recall now whether it was this one or, the former I cited. Perhaps even yet I different one.

Regardless, as far as I can tell this is still a patented tech.

It is possible that I quoted the wrong patent however. A little more digging turned up this one. This was quite some time ago. i.e. 15+ years ago. I don't remember Intel being the parent, just that it was a pair of guys, there was a blink and you missed it limited offering by a "never heard of" company.

So you're saying that murdering people for their believes is a traditional conservative viewpoint? How fitting.

Are you deliberately dense?

He's mocking you - by saying you only impose your ideals on Christians and give Muslims a complete pass.

He's making fun of you for ignorantly saying a religion whose main tenets are "love thy neighbor" and "turn the other cheek" is worse than the religion whose main intellectual driver is LITERALLY "kill the unbeliever by smiting him in the neck". Did you even fucking know that Islam literally translates as "submission"? Why do I think not...

Christianity is based on Jesus Christ sacrificing himself to save everyone else. Islam is based on killing everyone else.

And you really fucking thing Christianity is worse and are willing to give Islam a pass?

WHAT THE FLYING FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?!?!?!

Oh? And do you have the stones to say who's currently going around the US saying they're going to attack their political opponents? I think they call it "punching Nazis". Would it be those "progressive antifas" who've openly adopted actual Nazi and Fascist tactics of political violence?

The problem with christianity as well as islam is both holy books are filled with multiple instructions both to be nice to everyone and fucking kill anyone who's not the same as you. Especially the old testament in the bible. Try reading it one day.

So you're saying that murdering people for their believes is a traditional conservative viewpoint? How fitting.

Are you deliberately dense?

He's mocking you - by saying you only impose your ideals on Christians and give Muslims a complete pass.

He's making fun of you for ignorantly saying a religion whose main tenets are "love thy neighbor" and "turn the other cheek" is worse than the religion whose main intellectual driver is LITERALLY "kill the unbeliever by smiting him in the neck". Did you even fucking know that Islam literally translates as "submission"? Why do I think not...

Christianity is based on Jesus Christ sacrificing himself to save everyone else. Islam is based on killing everyone else.

And you really fucking thing Christianity is worse and are willing to give Islam a pass?

WHAT THE FLYING FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?!?!?!

Oh? And do you have the stones to say who's currently going around the US saying they're going to attack their political opponents? I think they call it "punching Nazis". Would it be those "progressive antifas" who've openly adopted actual Nazi and Fascist tactics of political violence?

I wonder if Logitech forgot about the patent on this

Why would it matter? That isn't a patent, it's a patent application. The application was rejected in 2005 (because of prior art) and abandoned by the PTO when the lawyers didn't respond for 6 months.

You can see the complete history by going to USPTO PAIR, searching for application 10/737483, and going to the Image File Wrapper tab.

I wonder if Logitech forgot about the patent on this

Of course there's some corner case scenario where someone determined to hack my TV might be able to exfiltrate data

so there is a tornado/flash flood/armed gunman/gas leak/etc in the area, you're watching TV to see if you are in danger, it's hacked, and you die

Apparently I should be concerned mostly about poisoning. https://www.google.com/imgres?...

But this one says heart disease first, then cancer : https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fasta...

At least my TV isn't doing the cooking.

Third party here...no, I think the issue is that NodeJS is REALLY NOT a language, but is rather a framework and approach for writing JavaScript.

Actually, you raise an interesting point. Node.js really does muddy the water but that doesn't make it illegitimate. I'm not exactly sure what Node.js the term specifically refers to in their stack. Chrome V8 Javascript engine and Javascript are two distinct entities. JavaScript as you pointed out is a language. Said language is interpreted, meaning it requires a runtime. Chrome uses the V8 Javascript engine. Node.js also uses that. JavaScript is interpreted by other technology in Firefox, Safari and IE/Edge. Node.js I suppose you could say hosts the V8 Javascript engine and glues it together to make it work from a console application. Where one ends and the other begins would require some further investigation. But what's the point? Do I really need to understand that to spin up a REST service? No.

FWIW, I'm an old gray hair programmer too. I started on the Vic 20 and shortly after the C64. Just because Node.js is different doesn't mean it isn't a real programming stack. In fact it is part of what is referred to as the MEAN stack. Whether you want to admit it or not, a lot of today's mobile apps are written in this fashion minus Angular/ReactJS/Ember/etc. sometimes for a more thick client experience. Ever piece of software has a different set of needs and you must select the right tools for the job to get to market quickly and effectively.

Also, to criticize MEAN would be to criticize LAMP. There are many long-lived commercial web applications running on that stack too. I just get the sense that the naysayers here are people that are pining for the days of assembly language or C/C++ programming. Look, don't get me wrong, those compile time languages have their applications, for example gaming. I spent quite a few years programming in them. C++11 has made strides to adopt functional language programming semantics to be more like a modern language but these types of languages are not meant for spinning up web or mobile apps. They're just not. Hell, Microsoft didn't have a way to spin up a web application in C++ until Cassandra and that was only a few years ago. I think it's now called the CPP Rest SDK. Very late to the game. About 10 years ago, I worked at a company that was bought by another company. The buying company had decided to invent their own HTTP server in C. They absolutely could not keep up with Apache and IIS and were always running into problems and eventually scrapped it in favor of industry standard tools.

People who suffer from NIHS always lose. Hey I've re-invented a few wheels in my days too. Even though it's a lot of fun, I can objectively say it's pointless especially today if someone has already done it perfectly well. Don't be an elitist douche.

Remember Domino's sorta-brilliant "Failure is an Option." campaign? Trying new things that might not work moved a moribund business into a pizza to be reckoned with.

A good programming editor has the ability to make 'whitespace' characters visible somehow. IMHO, lack of that feature is one of the criterion for being good or being suitable for programming. (Yes, you can also write War and Peace in notepad.exe if you really have to.)

VIM has 'set list'.

Sublime shows whitespace on selected text.

Atom has the editor.toggle-invisible setting (and lots of packages to add menu option for it.)

Visual Studio has CTRL + R, CTRL + W Menu: Edit -> Advanced -> View White Space

In EMACS you have to write a little lisp code.

At the end of the day this is about as annoying as finding the missing semicolon in ALGOL-style code.

The Newton Messagepad could have forged the path to our current smartphones, and with handwriting recognition they would be much better today.

It exists. And it's just less convenient than a swiping keyboard.

https://www.google.com/#&q=hom...
How is this unlike building a television from kit, or upgrading individual components of a computer?

"My (corrected) response: "If you have to ask that question, than you know nothing about success.""

"THEN" you two-seat taking dumbass!

Two important points about success.

1) Generally speaking, you can't succeed if you measure your success by what other people think of you.

I don't think creimer gives a rats ass whether his spelling or grammar are perfect in a quickly tossed post, and I would venture to guess that he especially doesn't care what "AC on the internet" thinks.

2) Success has been studied in-depth, and creimer has grasped probably the most important aspect.

Your response makes me think of this George Carlin quote:

There’s a reason you don’t talk to [your HS classmates] for 25 years. Because you don’t particularly like them! Besides, I already know what the captain of the football team is doing these days: mowing my lawn.

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Learn what a ghost gun is, where and how they're made, and hoe many of them end up in the US on a given day, thank come talk to me.

As someone with ties to law enforcement, I can tell you that the reality is far from what the media would have you believe. When you've actually had a beer with someone who stopped a trunk-full of hand made Colt 1911 clones from illegally crossing the border, then you can talk to me about how many illegal guns enter the country legally.

You're working form an ignorant viewpoint and quoting media-approved statistics while I have firsthand knowledge.

Furthermore, you're trying to claim we can "make [guns] inaccessible" while admitting that some number of guns enter the country illegally. You can't have it both ways. You can make guns less accessible, but as long as they exist they'll be accessible to anyone sufficiently motivated.

Beyond that, have you stopped for one moment to think there's a reason we kill each other in this country and that guns have nothing at all to do with it? The kinds of guns people of your ilk most often try to remove from circulation (black rifles) account for fewer deaths than knives (which you seem to be fine with), blunt objects (basically every solid object without a blade falls into this category and you seem to be fine with that), or *gasp* fists and feet.

In 2014 (the most recent data I can find), that's 248 rifle deaths. That's all rifles, not just the scary black ones, so the number is even smaller for those, but the FBI doesn't differentiate so I'll be generous and give you all of those. Compare that to 1756 knife deaths, 435 blunt objects, and a whopping 660 people killed with fists or feet. Hell, on that last point I'll add in all other non-pistol firearms: 262 shotgun deaths and 93 "other gun" deaths. That brings the non-handgun firearm total (where the type of firearm was known) up to a whopping 613, still fewer than fists and feet. If we divvy up the "type not stated" category proportionally, we can add 29 rifle deaths, 84 shotgun deaths, and 78 "other gun" deaths, for a total of 804 non-handgun firearm deaths. Finally, we've stretched the numbers so that non-handgun guns kill more people than fists and feet, though the number still pales in comparison to knives.

That's not to say guns don't account for most murders in this country; they certainly do when you also consider handguns, but nobody is calling for those to be banned.

That's right, the simple handgun accounts for more than half of this country's murder rate; yet, I can more easily get a handgun than a black rifle. Why is that?

Also, I am reminded of our previous argument, where I pointed out that, per capita, "gun-free" Francs has more gun violence than the US. Yes, the US has higher overall numbers; we also have a higher overall population; if our population was the size of France, or vise-versa, they would very much outrank us in terms of overall numbers.

But that reality makes you uncomfortable, so you refuse to face it.

It's not my fault you never learn and can't face reality.

Here's a fun exercise: Look at this data (source) and tell me where you, if murdered, are most likely to have been murdered by a gun. The answer is Liechtenstein, followed closely by Puerto Rico, but they've got incomplete data, so we'll have to look at #3, which is Sierra Leone, ranked #164 worldwide in gun ownership with 0.6 firearms per capita and 128 annual homicides by firearm. That's 2.28 per 100,000, to the US' 2.97, where the US has 88.8 guns per capit

In a similar publicity stunt in Israel, a local chocolate company did this for chocolate bar wrappings, with much more elegant designs (done in collaboration with HP). You can see some of the designs in this image search: https://www.google.com/search?...

That you've never read any of them (LOL you think there's just one) just demonstrates your ignorance.

Well, here, let's throw a few fucking citations out for ya.

https://www.mymovingreviews.co...

Now, bear in mind that moving cost is only for a mere 1225 miles. If we're talking cross-country, it goes up much higher. The $4K is an average.

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

$5,600. Again, prices might vary, this is yet another average.

I'll trust these independently-operating people who can report reliable and fairly consistent numbers over you.

The common ground between a physiologist, psychologist, and feng shui expert would be sunlight. I've felt it most as I entered a tiny bathroom in the middle of a dingy building, and all of a sudden I felt great. I looked everywhere for what could explain my mood change and finally realized the light above me was from a small solar tube. It happened a 2nd time in a different building and I've been wondering ever since why they're not everywhere, if the architecture doesn't design it in to begin with.

I imagine that most VPNs don't also forward the SMS that Google Voice's enrollment process sends to verify your existing number (source).

Too bad, this channel is a social media account and not a press conference. Davison v. Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, 2016 WL 4801617 (E.D. Va. Sept. 14, 2016).

Defendants concede that in adopting a Social Media Comments Policy, see Compl. Exh. 11 [Dkt. 1-11], the County designated its Facebook page a limited public forum. See Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss [Dkt. 4] at 13-14; see also Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819, 830 (1995) (a state policy facilitating speech creates a "metaphysical" forum). Once opened, the public may utilize a limited public forum to the extent consistent with the restrictions placed upon it by the state. See id. at 829; see also Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37, 71 n.7 (1983) (a limited public forum is "created for a limited purpose such as use by certain groups . . . or for the discussion of certain subjects.").

"Once it has opened a limited forum . . . the State must respect the lawful boundaries it has itself set." Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 829. This rule applies as much to Defendants' Facebook page as to any other limited public forum. See Bland v. Roberts, 730 F.3d 368, 386 (4th Cir. 2013), as amended (Sept. 23, 2013) (noting that speech on Facebook is subject to the same First Amendment protections as speech in any other context).

Once you open a limited public forum, you cannot exclude those qualified to participate on the basis that they are posting content or expression that you do not like. Full stop, per the Rosenberger Supreme Court case.

Arbitration-only and class-action-blocking clauses both seem like prime candidates to be found unenforceable.

Is there any case law along those lines?

Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court has explicitly held that arbitration clauses in the main are enforceable (ironically enough, in a case against AT&T Mobility)

That said, there are specific provisions of arbitration clauses that can be held unconscionable and thus unenforceable (e.g., allocating costs in a way that will effectively prevent the little guy from seeking arbitration at all), along the same theories long used in general contract law as you mention.

The issue isn't duration of data retention. It's who controls the data retention. Yes Google can potentially keep your voice search data for longer, but they let you review and delete it if you want. Amazon also lets you erase Alexa's recordings if you want.

Apple lets you erase your search history, but it's unclear if that also deletes the audio recordings they have of you.

Google and Amazon = YOU decide
Apple = They decide for you what's best

So this about sums up your feelings then.

In contrast, my Lenovo Thinkpad's keyboard cost all but $10, and I replaced it myself in just a few minutes.

That, and they also have a service manual collection detailed enough to hint at potential mods.

I don't see Apple ever letting one of these happening easily. Or even allowing raw logic boards to be in the hands of the "unwashed".

I also don't see them allowing enough documentation for various x220 screen upgrades, keyboard mods for x230's, or even an out-of-spec processor support upgrade for a W520.

Ya, both sides are equivalent. Hilary running her own email server is the same as Trump colluding with a foreign adversary (getting Russian sanctions out of Rep platform, and we've probably not scratched the surface yet).

Hillary explicitly using unsecured communications channels for classified data, not turning over the server when the investigation started ("Did you wipe the server?" "with a cloth?" "No, with Bleachbit..."), cherry picking which e-mails get to be submitted as evidence...maybe not *quite* the same, but still thoroughly inexcusable..

My point stands.

Benghazi is the same as Iraq (the cause of 1+million human deaths).

Iraq, the war that Hillary voted in favor of and Trump spoke out against?

Ha!, no Trump spoke out FOR the Iraq war, and Hillary as a New York politician was politically forced to make a bad decision, one she open admits to regretting - something that honest people do. The vote was for giving the President a big stick, and he abused that power. This is a reason why we should always take all the evidence into consideration. In this case, there was plenty of evidence the White House put forward that would later be proven untrue. Nothing close to as obnixious as the current pres, but lies nonetheless.

"Obamacare", ugly as it was, added millions to the number of insured and got rid of the donut hole and that's equivalent to Trump Care, which removes those advantages for the non-rich.

The 2,300 page bill that Nancy Pelosi said we needed to pass to find out what was in it? The bill that wasn't a tax until the question of whether or not it was Constitutional was raised, then it became a tax? That bill? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that people got coverage, but has this turned into an ends-justifies-the-means situation?

Support for TrumpCare was tough to find, even among Republicans.

My point stands.

Climate change is going to affect the poor way more than the rich,

This is true - the costs of addressing climate change are going to roll downhill until they end up manifesting as price increases for household goods, but let's not pretend that taxing companies into compliance is going to come out of the C-level exec's annual bonuses.

Silly. Multiple studies have found a correlation between trickle-down economics and reduced growth, and that higher taxes on the wealthy are linked to economic growth.

AND green jobs in some states already outnumber fossil fuel jobs,

Absolutely...and in other states, fossil fuels are still economic powerhouses (Pennsylvania and North Dakota, I'm looking at you), turning it into a numbers game.

You missed the point - renewables are the economic powerhouse of the [present and] future. Backasswards in coal and oil (I'm looking at you Russia) are in trouble, and are going to miss the boat if you don't start working on it, instead of spending your country's resources on astroturfing the internet.

but getting rid of jobs and sacrificing future prosperity, hey it's all equivalent, I don't know which side to support.

Amongst the reasons Trump won was because he promised that manufacturing and oil drilling and coal mining would end up becoming domestic tasks again. Now yes, to an extent he was just making campaign promises (i.e. he was full of it), but the definition of 'gett

I wish Google would offer the option to store such a string and add it automatically to every query you send.

They offer something similar. https://chrome.google.com/webs...

Those glasses remind me more of East Germany than hipster,

Shawshank Warden

East German Dictator

Those glasses remind me more of East Germany than hipster,

Shawshank Warden

East German Dictator

When Google Reader died off ( https://www.google.com/reader/ ) I built my own snews.eu where I added Slashodt and other news aggregators. When there is something interesting I follow the links and that way I find other sources. I add them to my aggregator and when crappy articles start popping up I remove them... Takes time to build the portfolio that suits you but then you are rewarded with great articles every day.

Now I don't add news sources that often but time to time somebody posts on Slashdot or elsewhere some really interesting source...

How does that address the patent issue?

My point was that the maker of the linked device obviously figured out a way around the EpiPen patent.

I am 100% behind patent reform, the system needs work, I get that. But the inventor of the EpiPen device actually did create a better way for people to inject themselves, I think that deserves patent protection. But now, that patent (assuming its this one) is 10 years old, probably about time for that device to become public domain.

In my googling I came up with this interesting article, explaining why they feel that patents aren't the issue here. http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016... (I don't know a thing about ipwatchdog, up to you if you take the article at face value or not. Their points seemed valid.)

Here's a HOWTO.

I use wkhtmltopdf in one of my apps, but pagination doesn't work well (at least with the way I have it set up). I wonder if Chrome would do a better job.

> Driver size doesn't meaningfully limit bass response.

That's incorrect. Why do you think people Sono-Subs ???

First, it is NOT about volume.

Second, using a larger driver provides two key benefits:

* Efficiency -- a larger driver has to work LESS to move the same VOLUME of air as a smaller driver. Which leads to me next point.

* Less Distortion -- a larger driver typically has less distortion then a smaller driver via the fact that it typically has to work less.

> The lack of actual cabinetry to promulgate bass energy is a much bigger problem

Definitely a huge problem. A larger driver requires a larger cabinet -- which is necessary for the lower extension. Maybe you don't care ~20 Hz, but I do -- and so do many movies when they go BELOW 20 Hz. (Yes, you _can't_ hear below 20 Hz, but you most certainly can FEEL it.)

I'd be VERY curious to see the SPL vs Freq. graph for the HomePod and the Hz where it falls off at. I'd be willing to bet it starts to fall off around ~55 Hz.

> Tannoy DC-10 DC-10A. Those are $8-16k speakers

I've haven't listened to those Tannoys -- but a friend of my brother has Tannoy Horns. Wonderful speakers.

But what does this have to do with the price of Tea in China ??? You DON'T need to spend north of 8 grand to have a 10" driver. Have you actually LOOKED at ANY subs in the past 10 years???

Hell, VTF subs are less then a grand each.

* VTF1 MK3 has al 10" driver for $399.
* VTF3 MK3 has a 15" driver for $799.

> Small rooms cant accommodate 10 inch drivers. It's just going to be far too loud.

Again, it ISN'T about volume but about clean, efficient bass.

The HomePod doesn't sound all that great.

On 21 February 2017 the New York City Medical Examiner's Office released the preliminary results of an autopsy performed on Churkin, which states that the cause of death needed further study, which often indicates the need for toxicology tests.[21] A gag order issued in March pursuant to a request of the U.S. State Department suppressed release of the cause of death, citing Churkin's ongoing posthumous diplomatic immunity.[22] Churkin was posthumously awarded the Russian Order of Courage on 21 February 2017[23] and the Order of the Serbian Flag 1st class.[24]

Hey Komahaa goon, you forgot to wipe that wikipedia page! (hrm, maybe I should've taken russian instead of chinese in high school)

Oh, yeah. I really want my safety to be weighed against someone's profit margin in a spreadsheet somewhere.

While I probably agree with you in this particular case (though I haven't read all the details), and I'm generally suspicious of relying on businesses to audit themselves, this policy isn't always true in general. Government can also have bad motivations and conflicts of interest.

Take the TSA and airport security for example. Before 9/11, airport security was mostly a private affair, and it generally functioned well. 9/11 wasn't even really a failure of airport security, since the hijackers actually only took approved items through security. Compare that to the TSA, which routinely tends to let 90%+ of dangerous materials through.

(A few internet searches for reports from the 1980s and 1990s indicate failure rates to detect weapons, etc. in FAA audits of only 10-20%, instead of 90% for the TSA now. That's despite reports back then criticizing low pay and frequent turnover as obstacles to better detection rates -- and yet they did SO much better than the TSA does now. In 1987, it was a huge scandal that 20% of weapons got through FAA testing, leading to significant changes that ultimately reduced that number to ~10% in the 1990s. The TSA has rarely managed to FIND more than 20% of weapons in any audit since it has been created; the highest rate I could find in any TSA audit was a 30% success rate.)

Airports and airlines who funded security had a strong motivation before 9/11 to prevent hijackings, since they affected public perception of flying, and they knew any such events could have severe repercussions to their bottom lines. (On the other hand, there was at least some regard for efficiency in choosing security methods, because there was limited funding.)

But the government? It has basically little motivation to implement effective security. Why? Government is not only interested in protecting citizens -- it has a conflict of interest because it likes power too. Government also knows that fear is a strong motivator to get people to the polls. A minor breach will be motivation for more power and more control, along with allocation of billions more from the basically unlimited "taxpayer checkbook" to pay to 3rd-party cronies in pork-barrel spending. A major breach would lead to Patriot Act 2.0 (or 3.0 or whatever we're on now), with even more powers and less government oversight. Sure, there might be minor disgust among voters immediately for security failures, but that will turn around in a few months with Patriot Act 2.0 and the right rhetoric.

I know this sounds quite cynical, but how else can you explain the existence of the charade that is the TSA, with its high costs and repeated 90%+ failure rate in just about every security audit it has been subjected to? The government either knows the number of actual motivated terrorists who want to bomb planes is so low that they won't even attempt to get through such a weak net, or the government just figures, "Meh -- it's win-win either way for us."

Sometimes businesses who actually are invested in something might actually be more motivated to "do the right thing."

...the FAA's update has been called "the worst boondoggle ever", the (Iirc) 3rd failed update effort, eating tens of billions of dollars.

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

I know the narrative is that "every trump idea is stupid" but this plan has worked several times in other countries quite well, including Canada...

Trump fires [Attourney General] Yates after she refuses to enforce his immigration ban[, which was later found to be illegal by the Supreme Court] (NYT, Jan. 30, 2017).

FTFY

I'm surprised you got this comment in before the Russian trolls started, nice.

But you did miss these from the same citation:

April or May
The FBI focuses on Kushner as a person of interest in their investigation as that effort intensifies. (WP, May 25, 2017).

May 10
Trump fires Comey, citing the recommendation of Sessions (WP, May 10, 2017). In the letter firing Comey, Trump includes a line saying that he appreciates Comey telling him “on three separate occasions” that he is not under investigation (May 10, 2017). The president later tells NBC’s Lester Holt that the firing was because “this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story” (CNN, May 12, 2017). Sources indicate that Kushner was a prominent voice behind the firing (CBS, May 17, 2017).

May 11
In a private meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Kislyak, Trump reveals classified information shared with the United States by an ally, later reported to be Israel (WP, May 15, 2017). He also reportedly disparages Comey as a “nut job” to Lavrov and Kislyak and says that he “faced great pressure because of Russia,” which was now “taken off” with the firing of Comey (NYT, May 19, 2017).

May 12
Lawyers representing Trump release a statement indicating that the president’s tax returns don’t show income from Russian sources, with a few exceptions (NYT, May 12, 2017).

May 17
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appoints former FBI director Robert Mueller as special counsel to oversee the Russia investigation

And to Anon Ivan's complaint that many of these come from the Post, the answer is that you can find the same information elsewhere too.

The language is called Blockly, and it translates into other languages with a click. While not exactly a flow chart, Blockly appears to be puzzle pieces.

I know FreeDFD to convert from flow chart to code, but it was just the project of a young student. It isn't maintained. Her a video in Spanish

I know PSeInt to convert from pseudocode to code, but it is also a small project the project of a young student. It is still maintained.

If somebody have to program a utility like that, it would be nice to be based or included in the project Dia2Code that actually generates code from uml DIA diagrams.

Excuse my poor English

Perhaps you are right.However, my use case is as follows:
We verify users using various modalities (fingerprints, etc). One cannot possibly write and distribute a native app for each and every supported OS. Therefore, we simply used a web application and published the URL. When java applets were still supported, they provided access to the client hardware. (Granted, one still had to install additional OS software in some cases, but that was a one-time effort) With java applets gone, the only usable devices accessible from the web browser, are the photo camera and the microphone.

With Webassembly, one might eventually be able to write device code that'll provide some access to the hardware. Something such as direct access via WebUSB.

A partner is a YouTube user who has an address in a supported country, 10,000 total views of public videos, an AdSense account, and at least one original video approved for advertisement. It doesn't necessarily mean "media corps". I guess you might be referring to Content ID, access to which requires approval because the process is so CPU-intensive. But what other parts of YouTube copyright enforcement are conditioned on having been granted access to Content ID?

It's not as much about diet as survival at this point now that I am 47. I don't make enough for fresh or healthy food here - that stuff can get expensive,

There are plenty of cheap and nutritious foods: lentils, beans, peas, carrots, beans, peanuts, potatoes, rice, noodles, chicken, etc.

There are plenty of online recipes: https://www.google.com/search?...

I was born and have lived in Silicone Valley all my life.

Well, maybe you should consider moving out of "Silicone Valley" to some a place that matches your capacity for earning a living.

"Wrong box" sounds like a user interface problem. In my opinion, a user interface that is confusing to navigate is defective. Did you take a screenshot of the confusing part of YouTube's form?

Your "regular citizen or gold tier" appears to be a paraphrase. What phrasing did YouTube actually use? Using the same terminology that YouTube uses may help other readers understand exactly what went wrong.

The "bot entrance" appears to be related to the Content ID system. I have read that because Content ID is the most CPU-intensive takedown means, YouTube offers Content ID only to copyright owners whose work is uploaded most often. Is this qualification part of what you meant by "gold tier"?

Why isn't the FDA shutting this down.

Because thanks to Orin Hatch (R-Utah) the burden of proof is on the FDA. Meaning, THEY will have to do the studies and THEY have to prove that the claims are bogus.

Which is as it should be.

Otherwise you have a government agency responsible for any failure of safety regulations, but no burden of cost for implementing those regulations.

And thus it costs $2.5 billion to bring a drug to market because of paranoid bureaucrats terrified of being held responsible for failure...

A stagnant medical industry, littered with improvements that can't be brought to market because they wouldn't be cost effective...

Small-population diseases for which we have cures, but which can't be implemented due to the costs involved with testing...

And the inability for patients with terminal illnesses to "opt out" of the regulation by informed choice, if they want to take a hail-mary chance with a new or innovative solution.

Oh, and mentioning Orrin Hatch is an "appeal to the character of the person", it's basically an emotional argument. I don't know why that's relevant when you could just discuss the issue rationally.

>"Congress never ratified the Paris Agreement. In fact, Obama never sent it to Congress for ratification. there is nothing to "withdraw" from...we were never in it."

Don't try to use logic or reason here with any topic in which the word "Trump" is injected. It apparently doesn't work...

Agreed.

But Trump did do exactly what he promised the voters in his election campaign promises.

Disagree. Almost everything he promised on day one hasn't even been done yet - 100+ days out.

Had he not, then the same people would be complaining that he was a liar or didn't do what he said he would do.

If you actually look at the previous link or probably find any other metric, compare by numbers with Hillary or *any* other president (potential or not), you find the difference astounding. The man is, by all unbiased metrics, the biggest liar we've ever seen at this level, by (very) far.

I don't like Trump, nor some of what he does, but the alternative was not any better (just in different ways). I think South Park put it the best- we had a choice between a turd sandwich or a giant douche.

Hillary was attacked by the right for decades, Russia added a ton more propaganda to make the country believe in crazy conspiracy theories. Pizzagate is not a thing. The FBI said her crimes were piddly and would be laughed out of court. You can't compare running her own email server to the possibility of perjury, espionage, and treason that the current Administration is under investigation for. The current topic of Paris agreement is an economic no-brainer. Those are oil & gas companies saying we should go forward with it because there is money to be made in leading the world in technology. If you believe the scientists, this is a huge moral issue with millions of lives at stake. Secretary of Defense James Mattis sees climate change as a national security threat. This choice is a ridonculous one, and you can't compare this Administration to the boringness of what Clinton's would have been.

I would even say that the USA pretty much has the perfect latitude, as a whole.

It's not that simple - the US is huge and has almost every climate. Norway is fairly large but not geographically diverse. If you compare Norway to the parts of the US that resemble Norway, then you don't have such a crazy disparity. Oslo and Houston are just too different to try and compare. I tried to use NYC because it is very urban and has a similar-ish climate. Still, it has older housing stock and older infrastructure.

From this document:

In 2011, the most recent year for which data is available, the average New Yorker consumed 121 MMBtu in total source energy, which includes fuel for transportation and heating as well as electricity.

(note this report also collaborates what you said about heating vs. cooling in the NYC climate: "Heating makes up the largest share of in-building energy use in NYC, while cooling makes up the lowest single category")

I'm having trouble finding Oslo total per-capita energy usage. Presumably it is lower than the country at large. From Google's magic data-mining I see that Norwegians each use 232.MMBtu of energy - significantly more than New Yorkers. In fact, the US numbers aren't really that horrifyingly different at 274.49 MMBtu.

The problem is that people in the USA use way to much gas in their way to big cars.

Yes, much of the population is in that situation. Much of it is not - you paint with too broad a brush. If there is a silver lining, it's that small changes in car fleet efficiency result in large drops in fuel usage. Cars are low-hanging fruit and CAFE standards have been pretty effective.

The problem is that you need a backup heater for cases when the temperature drop below about -15 C.
Because of that, a minority of houses have a heat pump in cold climates.

Yes, the context of that comment was the South. I'm in Philly and heat pumps are marginal - I don't have one but some people do. South of me they are quite economical.

Already happens.

Link to guardian

It is not simply a matter of suffocation, but studies (including on the ISS) show issues with cognitive function, kidney function and bone loss.

?! Seriously?! I worked during 2 years for a company whose business was focused on emissions (mostly from internal combustion engines) and, as per my knowledge, all the industry wasn't even considering CO2 as a pollutant until relatively recent times.

And? This means what, that because they didn't do something, they couldn't be wrong? The history of industry being ignorant of problems is well established.

Also I wasn't aware about the fact that humans (or any other living being) are systematically generating poisonous-to-themselves compounds.

Well, that's a feather in your cap, ain't it, to be ignorant of human and other living beings, having biological processes that are harmful to themselves.

Are you saying that just breathing is bad for your health?!

You've never been to LA in a smog alert, or just a dust storm, I take it?

Wow! You should quickly let everyone know about your discoveries because there are lots of people wrong out there. The medical community should start recommending people not breathing and/or not being around of other breathing things.

Indeed, the medical community does have to make a lot of recommendations regarding being around other people, for a lot of reasons. Why most of the places I've seen have had signs warning patients to avoid contact, and not get too close to each other.

Logically, I believe that all what you are saying is completely true, but just for future readers not knowing you, your knowledge and intentions as well as I do (random other AC), would you mind to share some reference from a reasonably trustworthy source somehow supporting your words?

I did give you sufficient reference, to a NASA flight surgeon, but as I was on mobile, so I found it more difficult than it was worth to seek out a link for you. Sorry.

Of course, your sarcastic response now disinclines me to provide you with anything more either.

You could simply search for it yourself.

The Paris agreement technically covers all relevant GHGs.

According to Wikipedia, you mean H2O, CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, CFCs, HCFCs, HFCs. If this is true (why or how could I doubt about the reliability of such a trustworthy source of knowledge as you have proven to be?!), it would mean that, out of the main pollutants from internal combustion engines, they only care about the referred CO2. Note that N2O has nothing to do with the dangerous NOx (NO + NO2), also that its other name (laughing gas) gives a good idea about its actual relevance.

Don't worry, as internal combustion engines mostly use , all of their waste products are covered.

It's really easy to read the agreement, and see how open-ended it is. It's not as limited as say the Montreal Protocol.

Sorry, two for two.

Yes, I agree I think that the first paragraph reflects much better your surprisingly i

Exactly.

*NEWS FLASH* SCANDAL: Facebook lobbies governments.

If this is how they lobby, then this is some of the mildest I've seen. Compare this to NRA or Tobacco lobbies. E.g.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/pol...

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

hmmmm. Well there was the 2007-8 econopocaplyse thanks to the housing bubble (and rising gas prices). 10 years ago.

There was the 2000-2 dot-com collapse, and the following drop from the terrorist attacks. 6 years before that.

Most of the 90's were pretty good weren't they? There was apparently a little recession around 1991, and the savings and loan crisis. ~10 years prior, ish.

The Iranian revolution in '79 would only be ~2 years. And the OPEC oil embargo was early 70's, ~8 years.

Really, all this is shown in the Annualized GDP charts. On the flip-side, we haven't had great growth for a really long time. Typically big crashes are from exuberance. Yeah, every now and then things go south. And if you had shorted everything in 2006, you would have made a mint. But if you had shorted everything in 1990... you simply wouldn't have lost as much. Most people didn't touch their stocks through any of these and came through more or less fine. The people that were devastated were those who needed the money and were forced to sell at the low-point. Like retirees who NEED to pull out $1000 worth of stock every month, regardless of how much stock that is. The investors though, they saw their value bounce back, even from massive econopocalypse. 2009-10 saw a HUGE bounce. Play the market if you want, but the rest of us can relax as long as we make more money than we spend.

Of course... Rome DID fall thanks in part to a string of incompetent emperors.

I guess the question is does laptop imply a physical keyboard

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

or merely a size and the ability to type even if it is a virtual keyboard that has relocated the typing surface to the screen?

No. https://www.google.com/search?...

While I agree with you Google isn't authoritative and can see an argument to the contrary.

I guess the question is does laptop imply a physical keyboard

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

or merely a size and the ability to type even if it is a virtual keyboard that has relocated the typing surface to the screen?

No. https://www.google.com/search?...

While I agree with you Google isn't authoritative and can see an argument to the contrary.