I mean, WWII through '78 (when "shareholder supremacy" was advanced as a theory, that's how the United States worked. NB, that was a pretty awesome time from an economic growth perspective.
services and characteristics sent by the device are publicly documented services
Well, according to the article, the JS versions can only access those devices meeting a GATT-based specification, not the application specific variants thereof (similar to allowing unicode, but disallowing those blocks reserved for application specific code.)
Now, I suppose a dongle could lie, and it could claim a random protocol and put out encrypted data, but...
Well, first, yes, trivially, because my complete suite of compatibility tools includes the ability to use whatever OS I need (well, among Windows/OSX/Linux). But more easily, possibly, depending on what the contents of the.dmg/.msi file are (both are primarily containers that can be accessed ). More precisely, other than games, I'm not sure there is close source software that is only available on one OS or another that I use. And yes, I can recompile the source on my OS of choice.
Really? Leaving aside the fact that I've never had that problem, finding something just searching for software designed to run on my platform from the start, I have a Java virtual machine, DosBox, other virtual machines, and the ability to compile C/C++ to any architecture (pretty much true). Further, Bluetooth GATT is a standard protocol, so I can use any old software with any peripheral.
I wonder how much longer we'll need any native software at all with stuff like this coming out.
Forever, if you want to be able to store your data on your machine, not pay rent to keep using your cloud software, work offline, not have forced updates remove features or totally break your software, be constantly spied upon, or otherwise be at the mercy of losing everything because of an "update" in the EULA.
This web protocol uses the GATT protocol. That means that the bluetooth devices must be open-protocolled. Therefore, you don't have to worry about closed sourced apps, someone can always build an osx/windows/linux version.
You're assuming that it was partisanship. It could simply have been knowledge of the law being passed (use often gets more media coverage), misunderstanding of what the law allowed, or simply a lack of imagination (assuming it would be used for more standard criminal matters).
And, far more importantly, hating this use in no way implies supporting its passage. That was a anti-liberal smear put forth by an AC who is backing it because Trump is doing it. There's nothing in evidence that suggests that people opposing it supported when Obama did it. It's merely an attempt at mutual muddying the waters that obscures the important point: X is happening, and X is bad and should be stopped. I don't care if Alice pissed on my Cheerios yesterday, if Bob's pissing on my Cheerios right now, that's the problem I can try to stop.
Funny how political extremists always seem to be the first to embrace new technologies to further their agendas
You have survivor bias. An extreme candidate without such an advantage loses and is forgotten. You should also look at the/. story today about how the Brexit vote and Trump used psychometric profiles for similar "new technologies make unexpected outcomes happen".
That said, I know nothing about this candidate, and have no reason to believe (or disbelieve) he is an extremist.
wouldn't all machines come to the same conclusion?
Most will. So will most humans. There will be some contrarian AI just like there are contrarian humans. And both will prosper as long as they are a small enough percentage.
Would you prefer that only native apps be able to access Bluetooth devices?
I'd prefer if only (a) offline and (b) opt-in programs have bluetooth permissions. Visiting a random webpage is not the same as downloading and running an program.
just because people object to Trump using overreaching laws, doesn't mean that they supported Obama - or more particularly Obama's signing of the enabling law. And even if they did, changing your mind about the proper scope of presidental powers as you see them used, or on any other political issue, being met with derision, "told you so" or "our turn now that we won, ha ha" is the opposite of helpful. It's just being an ass Also, the way you wrote that implies you are okay with Trump using this law, so you may want to be aware of that.
Or you can invent absurd things like "infinity" and so find that 1-2+3-4+5-... to infinity ends up rather oddly as 0.25
That's... not true. Like at all. You can group the terms and then argue it comes out to negative infinity. Or positive infinity. But I don't see any way to make it come out to 0.25.
Trump didn't claim just "total audience". He specified "in person" and "on tv" (as well as "total"), and because it's a proxy for "people in town for the inauguration", he claimed "metro riders". "In person" was absolutely a lie. As was "on tv" and "metro riders". As for the idea that the streaming audience made up for that... well, there's no basis for that you've put forward.
I'm just curious what percentage of the costs are server/bandwidth/storage and what percentage are marketing and what percentage are development. Do the filings tell us?
The problem is those are hardware fault solutions, not general solutions. Going bit by bit:
"RAID is not a backup" is a mantra. Given that the data was deleted, not merely a physical disk failure, RAID did not mitigate it. It was successfully deleted across all disks. (unless one failed, but who cares?)
They had replication to off-site storage. However, the deletion also replicated to the off-site location.
They did have backups it seems, because they were able to roll back 6 hours to a restorable point in time.
I'm outraged because medical data should be privileged - just like legal advice and the discussion between married couples. Both* of those - and statements to a doctor - are beyond the reach of a warrant.
Beyond it simply being privileged because it is medical data, I think data without the ability to opt out is scary, and needs to be protectable - because the default state of "don't create the data" doesn't exist.
Just to be clear, you're suggesting that instead of asking for feedback in app, that I link to an external website? Or that I contact people via alternate means (e.g. email) when they are not using my product?
That may make sense, I'm just trying to imagine how I would respond. Or is there a better way you can explain the user experience.
As a side note, I've used Survey Monkey before to do similarish things, but only with internal users where they're use was mandatory (hey, that wasn't my rule).
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, I was aware of (and have written) custom services. I thought Web Bluetooth forbid access to them. My mistake.
I mean, WWII through '78 (when "shareholder supremacy" was advanced as a theory, that's how the United States worked. NB, that was a pretty awesome time from an economic growth perspective.
False dilemma. You can get some benefit without only your benefit being considered.
That's stupid. It should read 0, 0++, 0++++, 0++++++,...
Well, according to the article, the JS versions can only access those devices meeting a GATT-based specification, not the application specific variants thereof (similar to allowing unicode, but disallowing those blocks reserved for application specific code.)
Now, I suppose a dongle could lie, and it could claim a random protocol and put out encrypted data, but...
Well, first, yes, trivially, because my complete suite of compatibility tools includes the ability to use whatever OS I need (well, among Windows/OSX/Linux). But more easily, possibly, depending on what the contents of the .dmg/.msi file are (both are primarily containers that can be accessed ). More precisely, other than games, I'm not sure there is close source software that is only available on one OS or another that I use. And yes, I can recompile the source on my OS of choice.
Good luck building a program that uses x86 instructions on an ARM processor. How is that helpful?
I'm specifically saying that the bluetooth devices will not be locked to a specific hardware, even without this js. That's all that matters.
Really? Leaving aside the fact that I've never had that problem, finding something just searching for software designed to run on my platform from the start, I have a Java virtual machine, DosBox, other virtual machines, and the ability to compile C/C++ to any architecture (pretty much true). Further, Bluetooth GATT is a standard protocol, so I can use any old software with any peripheral.
Forever, if you want to be able to store your data on your machine, not pay rent to keep using your cloud software, work offline, not have forced updates remove features or totally break your software, be constantly spied upon, or otherwise be at the mercy of losing everything because of an "update" in the EULA.
This web protocol uses the GATT protocol. That means that the bluetooth devices must be open-protocolled. Therefore, you don't have to worry about closed sourced apps, someone can always build an osx/windows/linux version.
You're assuming that it was partisanship. It could simply have been knowledge of the law being passed (use often gets more media coverage), misunderstanding of what the law allowed, or simply a lack of imagination (assuming it would be used for more standard criminal matters).
And, far more importantly, hating this use in no way implies supporting its passage. That was a anti-liberal smear put forth by an AC who is backing it because Trump is doing it. There's nothing in evidence that suggests that people opposing it supported when Obama did it. It's merely an attempt at mutual muddying the waters that obscures the important point: X is happening, and X is bad and should be stopped. I don't care if Alice pissed on my Cheerios yesterday, if Bob's pissing on my Cheerios right now, that's the problem I can try to stop.
You have survivor bias. An extreme candidate without such an advantage loses and is forgotten. You should also look at the /. story today about how the Brexit vote and Trump used psychometric profiles for similar "new technologies make unexpected outcomes happen".
That said, I know nothing about this candidate, and have no reason to believe (or disbelieve) he is an extremist.
Most will. So will most humans. There will be some contrarian AI just like there are contrarian humans. And both will prosper as long as they are a small enough percentage.
I'd prefer if only (a) offline and (b) opt-in programs have bluetooth permissions. Visiting a random webpage is not the same as downloading and running an program.
Android doesn't have granular permissions, it has enumerated permissions. iOS does have granular permissions.
People are committing preplanned crimes while logged into Facebook. It's not newsworthy, but it is pretty outrageous.
just because people object to Trump using overreaching laws, doesn't mean that they supported Obama - or more particularly Obama's signing of the enabling law. And even if they did, changing your mind about the proper scope of presidental powers as you see them used, or on any other political issue, being met with derision, "told you so" or "our turn now that we won, ha ha" is the opposite of helpful. It's just being an ass Also, the way you wrote that implies you are okay with Trump using this law, so you may want to be aware of that.
That's... not true. Like at all. You can group the terms and then argue it comes out to negative infinity. Or positive infinity. But I don't see any way to make it come out to 0.25.
Trump didn't claim just "total audience". He specified "in person" and "on tv" (as well as "total"), and because it's a proxy for "people in town for the inauguration", he claimed "metro riders". "In person" was absolutely a lie. As was "on tv" and "metro riders". As for the idea that the streaming audience made up for that... well, there's no basis for that you've put forward.
I'm just curious what percentage of the costs are server/bandwidth/storage and what percentage are marketing and what percentage are development. Do the filings tell us?
The problem is those are hardware fault solutions, not general solutions. Going bit by bit:
"RAID is not a backup" is a mantra. Given that the data was deleted, not merely a physical disk failure, RAID did not mitigate it. It was successfully deleted across all disks. (unless one failed, but who cares?)
They had replication to off-site storage. However, the deletion also replicated to the off-site location.
They did have backups it seems, because they were able to roll back 6 hours to a restorable point in time.
I agree - coffee is way too expensive.
I'm outraged because medical data should be privileged - just like legal advice and the discussion between married couples. Both* of those - and statements to a doctor - are beyond the reach of a warrant.
Beyond it simply being privileged because it is medical data, I think data without the ability to opt out is scary, and needs to be protectable - because the default state of "don't create the data" doesn't exist.
* Note sure about married couples in all states.
Dang, not a programmer (github) or person (facebook). What else am I missing out on?
Just to be clear, you're suggesting that instead of asking for feedback in app, that I link to an external website? Or that I contact people via alternate means (e.g. email) when they are not using my product?
That may make sense, I'm just trying to imagine how I would respond. Or is there a better way you can explain the user experience.
As a side note, I've used Survey Monkey before to do similarish things, but only with internal users where they're use was mandatory (hey, that wasn't my rule).