This so much. My Galaxy S8 is nowwhere near as bezelless as the recent releases but with a phone case on I have the hardest time swiping the top menu down. Even worse is if I want to move something to a different home screen. Its nearly impossible to get your finder all the way to the edge with the case on.
Here's a fun piece of information! On Windows 10, if you boot from a live linux distro and rename sethc.exe to sethc.exe.bak and copy cmd.exe to sethc.exe. Now when you reboot, at the Windows 10 login screen you can get an administrator-level command prompt by hitting the shift key 5 times. \o/
Exactly this. Doesn't Apple bundle Safari with every single phone they sell? As far as I understand it (I don't own an Apple device) you not only can't remove Safari but you also cannot set any other browser as the default browser. You can still install chrome but iOS will refuse to use it for anything unless you manually open it and type in URLs. How is this not anticompetitive? How is this any different from what Google is doing? Does apple get away with it because they can claim their entire phone would stop working completely without their pre-bundled apps? This just seems unfair to me.
In a lot of ways you have hit at the crux of the AI problem. Another prominent example of this issue is with Automotive AI. We humans bring so much more information to the table besides the basics of how to drive a car and what a road/signs are. We have an ingrained knowledge of what another human being is going to do. We pick up subtle cues from the "body language" of other driver's and use that to inform decisions. That decision making process was created and honed in us as children when we had to understand the intent of our fellow humans. This array of knowledge informs everything we do in life and is, to use your own terms, a kind of "generic AI' that we all share. Its an interesting problem and begs the question: Is this kind of generic AI possible to create without also creating what is essentially a basic consiousness? After all, it is this basic knowledge and understanding that makes us thinking, aware creatures. Its quite a fantastic time to be alive, I can't wait to see what happens next.
One can only hope its a load of bunk but its quite a persistent rumor thats been stirring around since we found out apple was removing the headphone jack on the iphone. Following in apple's footsteps is right up samsung's alley unfortunately. I have a feeling this rumor may be true. I have to start looking for a good replacement brand now. Fuck samsung and their idiocy.
Hmm just did some testing on my own server and even with HSTS and HPKP I was able to MITM a secure connection using fiddler as long as the forged certificate's root CA was in my browsers trusted key store. I am a bit alarmed firefox v48.0.2 didn't seem to complain that the certificate passed wasn't the same as the certificates my site has pinned. I wonder if this is a configuration issue on my end or if I'm misunderstanding the way key-pinning should work.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but if a website uses both SSL and HSTS this attack becomes much more difficult, if not impossible (depending on how your browser handles HSTS) as long as its not your first time visiting the website. If you have visited the website before and HSTS is enabled on the site a forged certificate will not work and the victim will not be able to continue. Still scary but its just further reason that more sites, even those that don't transmit critical information, should use HTTPS and HSTS.
As long as the servers dropping the traffic can keep up with both the legit traffic and the bad traffic. If an attacker can overload the server which is dropping non-akamai traffic then even legit traffic wont be able to get through. Since the akamai server has to read a packet to know whether or not to drop it it is still possible to overload that part of the system.
Anyone know if this will have an immediate effect on the throttling ISP's seem to be doing to Netflix content unless they make special deals with the ISP's (I'm looking at Verizon specifically)? Does this mean it is now illegal to demand third party websites pay extra for their content to not be throttled (which is exactly the kind of scheme Verizon and other ISP's are currently running)? If so I wonder how this will effect deals already made to speed up content.
Slashdot doesn't edit stories anymore. The actual editors are lazy people who just post up whatever is submitted to them. Countless times there have been submissions in the firehose with many comments about the inaccuracies of the submitted story yet nothing is ever done. Even when simple spelling and grammar mistakes are pointed out they are never fixed.
And no matter how many times this gets said, no matter how many people say it, Slashdot keeps going downhill fast.
Maybe someone should submit a story about how horrible slashdot's editors are at correcting inaccuracies, spelling/grammare mistakes, and generally how they prefer submissions that are overly dramatic and exaggerations of the facts just for more clicks. Slashdot is just a clickbait website now that only cares about its ad revenue. And that means it will continue to post inaccurate and misleading stories, written poorly, and nothing will be done about it. Because it brings in money and money is the only thing that matters to slashdot these days. They could prove me wrong by generally doing their fucking jobs as editors but thats never going to happen.
There was an article from 2010 that talked about the theoretical limit to laser beam energy. From the article:
"At high laser intensities interaction of the created electron and positron with the laser field can lead to production of multiple new particles and thus to formation of an avalanche-like electromagnetic cascade"
One time at a normal family outing to D&B's my sister had a problem with the photo booth which required an employee come and restart the machine. As it booted up I saw something very familiar, it was a grub boot screen with a fedora core 2 OS selectable on-screen.
Because that was a feature you PAYED for when you got the system. Maybe you glazed over that feature on the box art but some of us actually bought the damn thing because of it. To have that feature removed after the fact is complete bullshit when I payed money for that specific feature. If they didn't want people to have that option they never should have included it in the first place.
Well I guess if you want to pull out very specific one-off examples that don't necessarily disprove my point about funny scientific themes (a new mathematical theorem made to explain the plot doesn't necessarily tickle my funny bone). I won't say I didn't laugh at all at the new episodes, there were certainly moments. I still feel it wasn't anywhere near the original. It maybe wasn't less funny but it was certainly different enough to not appeal to me like the original did.
Couldn't agree more with this sentiment. The old episodes felt very clever and smart with their jokes often playing on scientific themes to make the punchline. That's what I really enjoyed about the original Futurama. After their comeback it seemed like they had changed to appeal to a wider audience, making more generalized jokes and story lines. I found early on I could predict the outcome of most episodes, at first anyway. By the end of their comeback the episodes were so disjointed it felt like the entire plot twisted two or three times an episodes. In the end I'm not even the least bit surprised they were canceled again. Fans like me were hoping and expecting Futurama to come right back to the old smart funny ways but were instead greeted with another generic cartoon spewing generic jokes to a futuristic theme. Maybe it was a mistake to come back in the first place, maybe they had a good run and should have been left with the cult following it had. Now its just a flop for the general audiences. C'est la vie.
Its not the desktop that needs the wifi its the android device. The android phone connects to the local network through wifi, presumably the same network that the desktop PC is located on.
Both the summary and TFA are devoid of anything concrete on how this is actually done. It basically says what the title does, they created a diode. Telling me that light entering the opposite side doesn't make it through really doesn't tell me anything the word "diode" in the title doesn't. I'm sure the science behind this particular device is both clever and interesting but you'd never be able to tell since that information is completely missing. Reporting on stories is nice, but shouldn't journalists actually strive to make their articles contain actual information on what they are covering? You'd think a story about a new discovery would actually contain information about how it actually works (since that's the actual "new" part anyway).
Completely missed the second link to the university's release. Still not a very informative article however.
Both the summary and TFA are devoid of anything concrete on how this is actually done. It basically says what the title does, they created a diode. Telling me that light entering the opposite side doesn't make it through really doesn't tell me anything the word "diode" in the title doesn't. I'm sure the science behind this particular device is both clever and interesting but you'd never be able to tell since that information is completely missing. Reporting on stories is nice, but shouldn't journalists actually strive to make their articles contain actual information on what they are covering? You'd think a story about a new discovery would actually contain information about how it actually works (since that's the actual "new" part anyway).
I was once in the arcade of a Dave&Buster's with my family and one of the picture booths failed to work when my sister was using it with her boyfriend. An employee came over and restarted the machine for her and I was able to watch it boot up. It turned out to actually be running an older version of Fedora (I'm not sure the exact version but it was back when the name was "Fedora Core").
Apple has already had problems in the past with low-stock at launch. Why would they risk having even worse problems using unproven tech at a fab they haven't used before? There's always problems with supply when dealing with smaller fab tech, which will probably be worse with 3D being thrown in.
Just got back from a very long vacation across the US and racked up almost 20GB worth of data usage through tethered laptops/devices. I used a combination of physical tether apps like EasyTether and WiFi hotspot creators like Barnacle WiFi Tether. I never hit any such wall saying I was required to buy a tethering plan. I am on a rooted and flashed Droid 2 Global on Verizon with a Grandfathered Unlimited data plan. I was getting full speeds (depending of course on signal quality). There was no disconnection, throttling, or warnings about tethering whatsoever. I am still tethered on my laptop here at home too without problems. I suspect this is with the official app, like you say. Other apps work just fine as of now and I dont really see how they could crack down on it in the future. Android phones can generate almost any type of traffic that a similar linux or windows PC can. And even if they were performing deep packet inspection to test for PC-only data, a simple VPN would completely nullify their searches. I dont see this being enforceable at all for any of the tech-savvy people out there.
Slashdot Mirror
This so much. My Galaxy S8 is nowwhere near as bezelless as the recent releases but with a phone case on I have the hardest time swiping the top menu down. Even worse is if I want to move something to a different home screen. Its nearly impossible to get your finder all the way to the edge with the case on.
So.....
Anyone got a link to some benchmarks?
Here's a fun piece of information! On Windows 10, if you boot from a live linux distro and rename sethc.exe to sethc.exe.bak and copy cmd.exe to sethc.exe. Now when you reboot, at the Windows 10 login screen you can get an administrator-level command prompt by hitting the shift key 5 times. \o/
Security at its finest.
Exactly this. Doesn't Apple bundle Safari with every single phone they sell? As far as I understand it (I don't own an Apple device) you not only can't remove Safari but you also cannot set any other browser as the default browser. You can still install chrome but iOS will refuse to use it for anything unless you manually open it and type in URLs. How is this not anticompetitive? How is this any different from what Google is doing? Does apple get away with it because they can claim their entire phone would stop working completely without their pre-bundled apps? This just seems unfair to me.
In a lot of ways you have hit at the crux of the AI problem. Another prominent example of this issue is with Automotive AI. We humans bring so much more information to the table besides the basics of how to drive a car and what a road/signs are. We have an ingrained knowledge of what another human being is going to do. We pick up subtle cues from the "body language" of other driver's and use that to inform decisions. That decision making process was created and honed in us as children when we had to understand the intent of our fellow humans. This array of knowledge informs everything we do in life and is, to use your own terms, a kind of "generic AI' that we all share. Its an interesting problem and begs the question: Is this kind of generic AI possible to create without also creating what is essentially a basic consiousness? After all, it is this basic knowledge and understanding that makes us thinking, aware creatures. Its quite a fantastic time to be alive, I can't wait to see what happens next.
One can only hope its a load of bunk but its quite a persistent rumor thats been stirring around since we found out apple was removing the headphone jack on the iphone. Following in apple's footsteps is right up samsung's alley unfortunately. I have a feeling this rumor may be true. I have to start looking for a good replacement brand now. Fuck samsung and their idiocy.
Hmm just did some testing on my own server and even with HSTS and HPKP I was able to MITM a secure connection using fiddler as long as the forged certificate's root CA was in my browsers trusted key store. I am a bit alarmed firefox v48.0.2 didn't seem to complain that the certificate passed wasn't the same as the certificates my site has pinned. I wonder if this is a configuration issue on my end or if I'm misunderstanding the way key-pinning should work.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but if a website uses both SSL and HSTS this attack becomes much more difficult, if not impossible (depending on how your browser handles HSTS) as long as its not your first time visiting the website. If you have visited the website before and HSTS is enabled on the site a forged certificate will not work and the victim will not be able to continue. Still scary but its just further reason that more sites, even those that don't transmit critical information, should use HTTPS and HSTS.
As long as the servers dropping the traffic can keep up with both the legit traffic and the bad traffic. If an attacker can overload the server which is dropping non-akamai traffic then even legit traffic wont be able to get through. Since the akamai server has to read a packet to know whether or not to drop it it is still possible to overload that part of the system.
Anyone know if this will have an immediate effect on the throttling ISP's seem to be doing to Netflix content unless they make special deals with the ISP's (I'm looking at Verizon specifically)? Does this mean it is now illegal to demand third party websites pay extra for their content to not be throttled (which is exactly the kind of scheme Verizon and other ISP's are currently running)? If so I wonder how this will effect deals already made to speed up content.
Slashdot doesn't edit stories anymore. The actual editors are lazy people who just post up whatever is submitted to them. Countless times there have been submissions in the firehose with many comments about the inaccuracies of the submitted story yet nothing is ever done. Even when simple spelling and grammar mistakes are pointed out they are never fixed.
And no matter how many times this gets said, no matter how many people say it, Slashdot keeps going downhill fast.
Maybe someone should submit a story about how horrible slashdot's editors are at correcting inaccuracies, spelling/grammare mistakes, and generally how they prefer submissions that are overly dramatic and exaggerations of the facts just for more clicks. Slashdot is just a clickbait website now that only cares about its ad revenue. And that means it will continue to post inaccurate and misleading stories, written poorly, and nothing will be done about it. Because it brings in money and money is the only thing that matters to slashdot these days. They could prove me wrong by generally doing their fucking jobs as editors but thats never going to happen.
There was an article from 2010 that talked about the theoretical limit to laser beam energy. From the article:
"At high laser intensities interaction of the created electron and positron with the laser field can lead to production of multiple new particles and thus to formation of an avalanche-like electromagnetic cascade"
Here's the link to the article in question: http://physicsbuzz.physicscent...
That article was ultimately using this article as a source.
http://slashdot.org/?nobeta=1 that should fix it
One time at a normal family outing to D&B's my sister had a problem with the photo booth which required an employee come and restart the machine. As it booted up I saw something very familiar, it was a grub boot screen with a fedora core 2 OS selectable on-screen.
Because that was a feature you PAYED for when you got the system. Maybe you glazed over that feature on the box art but some of us actually bought the damn thing because of it. To have that feature removed after the fact is complete bullshit when I payed money for that specific feature. If they didn't want people to have that option they never should have included it in the first place.
Well I guess if you want to pull out very specific one-off examples that don't necessarily disprove my point about funny scientific themes (a new mathematical theorem made to explain the plot doesn't necessarily tickle my funny bone). I won't say I didn't laugh at all at the new episodes, there were certainly moments. I still feel it wasn't anywhere near the original. It maybe wasn't less funny but it was certainly different enough to not appeal to me like the original did.
Couldn't agree more with this sentiment. The old episodes felt very clever and smart with their jokes often playing on scientific themes to make the punchline. That's what I really enjoyed about the original Futurama. After their comeback it seemed like they had changed to appeal to a wider audience, making more generalized jokes and story lines. I found early on I could predict the outcome of most episodes, at first anyway. By the end of their comeback the episodes were so disjointed it felt like the entire plot twisted two or three times an episodes. In the end I'm not even the least bit surprised they were canceled again. Fans like me were hoping and expecting Futurama to come right back to the old smart funny ways but were instead greeted with another generic cartoon spewing generic jokes to a futuristic theme. Maybe it was a mistake to come back in the first place, maybe they had a good run and should have been left with the cult following it had. Now its just a flop for the general audiences. C'est la vie.
The hyperbole is strong with this one....
Its not the desktop that needs the wifi its the android device. The android phone connects to the local network through wifi, presumably the same network that the desktop PC is located on.
Both the summary and TFA are devoid of anything concrete on how this is actually done. It basically says what the title does, they created a diode. Telling me that light entering the opposite side doesn't make it through really doesn't tell me anything the word "diode" in the title doesn't. I'm sure the science behind this particular device is both clever and interesting but you'd never be able to tell since that information is completely missing. Reporting on stories is nice, but shouldn't journalists actually strive to make their articles contain actual information on what they are covering? You'd think a story about a new discovery would actually contain information about how it actually works (since that's the actual "new" part anyway).
Completely missed the second link to the university's release. Still not a very informative article however.
Both the summary and TFA are devoid of anything concrete on how this is actually done. It basically says what the title does, they created a diode. Telling me that light entering the opposite side doesn't make it through really doesn't tell me anything the word "diode" in the title doesn't. I'm sure the science behind this particular device is both clever and interesting but you'd never be able to tell since that information is completely missing. Reporting on stories is nice, but shouldn't journalists actually strive to make their articles contain actual information on what they are covering? You'd think a story about a new discovery would actually contain information about how it actually works (since that's the actual "new" part anyway).
I was once in the arcade of a Dave&Buster's with my family and one of the picture booths failed to work when my sister was using it with her boyfriend. An employee came over and restarted the machine for her and I was able to watch it boot up. It turned out to actually be running an older version of Fedora (I'm not sure the exact version but it was back when the name was "Fedora Core").
Apple has already had problems in the past with low-stock at launch. Why would they risk having even worse problems using unproven tech at a fab they haven't used before? There's always problems with supply when dealing with smaller fab tech, which will probably be worse with 3D being thrown in.
Just got back from a very long vacation across the US and racked up almost 20GB worth of data usage through tethered laptops/devices. I used a combination of physical tether apps like EasyTether and WiFi hotspot creators like Barnacle WiFi Tether. I never hit any such wall saying I was required to buy a tethering plan. I am on a rooted and flashed Droid 2 Global on Verizon with a Grandfathered Unlimited data plan. I was getting full speeds (depending of course on signal quality). There was no disconnection, throttling, or warnings about tethering whatsoever. I am still tethered on my laptop here at home too without problems. I suspect this is with the official app, like you say. Other apps work just fine as of now and I dont really see how they could crack down on it in the future. Android phones can generate almost any type of traffic that a similar linux or windows PC can. And even if they were performing deep packet inspection to test for PC-only data, a simple VPN would completely nullify their searches. I dont see this being enforceable at all for any of the tech-savvy people out there.
Close enough without needing to read it, that's good enough for me.