It's back to basics, back to the time there was no such thing as "top level domain" (the generic.com/.org/etc and the country ones) and e-mail addresses were like username@digital or username@ibm
To get people to exercise, don't tell them to do exercise. Give them a fun thing to do that happens to involve physical activity but don't call it exercise as that's a chore. Walking to catch a Pokemon is not a chore, it's fun - and that you have to walk and walk and walk to get from one to the other, well, that's just part of the game.
No word in the article about return trips to Earth. For a small pioneer colony that makes total sense to me, but when you talk about setting up a 1-million strong kind of colony, or even just the minimum of 4,000 (40 flights with 100 folk on board) you'll have to consider return trips as well. Cannibalizing your own space ships doesn't sound like too good an idea for that (though staying in orbit at both Earth and Mars, does).
A more correct headline would be "Apple patents design of paper bag". Sounds a lot more sensible, doesn't it? I'm sure they've patented plenty of boxes and plastic bags and computer casings and mobile phone casings and headphones and whatnot. Pretty much anything they designed can be patented and be protected with a design patent.
This what happens when 1) someone who knows nothing about patents creates submission and 2) editors who know nothing about patents approve it. Add to that 3) a crowd of commentators who know nothing about patents and well, welcome to Slashdot.
It's just yet another a design patent, nothing to see here, please move along. Just one of many designs Apple has patented, and not just Apple but many many companies do this as a matter of course.
This ruling basically says that any for profit entity would have to not only get permission from owner of the linked site, but also validate that that entity has the rights to publish the content you are linking to them for. It's insane.
That "validation" part could be as simple as "may we link to this content on your web site, and has it been posted there legally?". Then the site linked to could answer "yes" and "yes" and you can at the very least argue that you made the link in good faith, believing the linked-to content was legally posted there.
Disagree. There should be no law that dictates what you can do with something, as such a law is often impossible to comply with.
What should go is that horrible US law DMCA, which makes reverse engineering illegal and which in turn encourages making root access hard - results of which are felt all over the world.
What are you trying to compare here? One moment it's OSes, the next it's hardware manufacturers.
There's iOS vs Android, and then there's Apple vs Samsung vs Huawei vs LG vs Moto. It's that iOS is limited to a single manufacturer, that's why it's all the same.
There have been several articles on/. about high-profile people taping off their laptop cameras as they're afraid of it being switched on without them knowing, recording whatever they're doing.
Laptop cameras have an LED to indicate they're active - some may be circumvented and switched on without triggering that indicator, sure, but not all and it's not that easy. Mobile phone cameras don't even have such an LED, there is no way to see when I look at my phone whether a camera is active or not. A camera, as there are two on my phone, as are on most smart phones.
Maybe we should start putting tape over our phone's cameras, just like we do with our laptops? Starting with the front-facing one? I'm sure phones are easier to hack, considering phone's OSes not being updated as much as they should be there will be lots of vulnerable phones out there open to attack.
WhatsApp messages are end-to-end encrypted - or so they say, at least. I'm by no means an expert so I take their word for it, including it being unbreakable and WhatsApp not being able to read my messages while in transit and so.
This means the only data WhatsApp could possibly have from me, other than my phone number and my contact list, is encrypted messages (something they can't search for clues about my interests - yes I'm conveniently ignoring the time before they encrypted it all), and how many messages I exchange with whom, and the size of those messages and maybe info about attachments (type and size).
Where is the value in such data when it comes to targeting ads?
Particularly the "human signalling something" part is not as much a LIDAR issue as it is an image/video interpretation issue. Computerised image interpretation is hard; video is even harder.
Also you'll have to teach the system to distinguish the various hand signals a police office can give (stop, go, go left, whatever), and distinguish a police officer's hand signals from a mom waving her kid goodbye as he cycles to school. Not an easy feat, and for sure a lot harder than avoiding static obstacles or predicting the path of other vehicles.
That with the temporary traffic lights, they should be able to get that under control much sooner. After all those are static objects with a rather well defined shape.
As someone with a 30+ year experience in the legal profession I'm sure there are plenty of free-lance jobs available. Make your network known that while you're not working for that company any more, you are available for hire on a contract/project basis to provide paralegal research or advice. That's the sensible thing to do, and with modern forms of communication and a more and more flexible workforce you'd fit right in.
That, assuming you'd still want to be in the paralegal field of course. If not, indeed maybe driving for Uber and Lyft is a good alternative. At least it's something totally different, and that's what is sometimes needed.
Apparently, the green water irritates eyes and smells like farts.
Both are indications the water is not suitable to swim in. It should not smell bad (bad smells are generally caused by something that's bad for us, we've evolved to find such compounds repulsive), and certainly not be irritating to the eyes. So, no, it was not safe.
Let the accident statistics speak for themselves, and see what happens. I for one would be happy to see all those incompetent human drivers off the road, would make traffic a lot safer and predictable.
People will likely use it a lot less than they use their own cars now. Instead of taking a car for that 1 km ride to the supermarket, they'd walk or take a bike. Many short trips would simply not be done by car, but by other means.
In 5 years we still won't have 'fully autonomous, self-driving' cars, they'll still be full of bugs and flaws,
Well, gotta agree in part but in part only.
I'm quite confident that by the time fully autonomous cars are released for sale to the general public (or for use as automated taxi service carrying passengers) they'll be a lot safer already than the average human driven car.
Why? Because it's in the companies' interest. They have to prove their worth, everybody is very skeptical about cars being able to drive themselves safely, so every single accident will be all over the news (just look at Tesla's autopilot crash coverage). They must gain the trust of the general public and the only way to do this is by putting a very well developed computerised car on the road.
This won't be ready for mass production in five years from now. It eventually will be, but not then. At this moment there is no working prototype that can reach such levels of confidence. Google at least is getting very far, but not sure if they're there already. Ford I never heard of any experiments, so no idea how far they really are, but I doubt they're far enough or we'd have heard about it.
This prototype is what I'm waiting for. The first fleet of maybe a dozen taxis operating in a big city, maybe with a human driver to operate an emergency stop button just in case but otherwise operating autonomously. When that is there, it's indeed just a few years for mass production.
While the amount of insight a piece of metadata provides maybe hasn't changed, the sheer amount of available metadata (and the capacity of analysing it) has increased drastically.
Why rate increases for the cloud service? The data ought to be encrypted before it even leaves the trusted host and is uploaded onto the cloud.
The problem with having your encryption done by the cloud service, is that the cloud service must have full access to your keys (not just store them with password protection). That in itself negates a large part of the reason you want to encrypt in the first place.
Encrypting everything before it leaves your own network may however cause a big headache when sharing the data with other people, which together with off-line backups is the only reason I can think of one would want to use a cloud service to store data. So anyway it's not all that easy.
Slashdot Mirror
You probably didn't use it long enough.
It's back to basics, back to the time there was no such thing as "top level domain" (the generic .com/.org/etc and the country ones) and e-mail addresses were like username@digital or username@ibm
To get people to exercise, don't tell them to do exercise. Give them a fun thing to do that happens to involve physical activity but don't call it exercise as that's a chore. Walking to catch a Pokemon is not a chore, it's fun - and that you have to walk and walk and walk to get from one to the other, well, that's just part of the game.
Just, wow.
OP is actually one of the very very few posts that deserves to end up with a "Score:5, Troll" distinction.
Actually the number comes from TFS, which mentions communities of 1 million.
Populations tend to expand over time, and can do this really quickly. Just look at earth's population over the past 100 years or so.
No word in the article about return trips to Earth. For a small pioneer colony that makes total sense to me, but when you talk about setting up a 1-million strong kind of colony, or even just the minimum of 4,000 (40 flights with 100 folk on board) you'll have to consider return trips as well. Cannibalizing your own space ships doesn't sound like too good an idea for that (though staying in orbit at both Earth and Mars, does).
A more correct headline would be "Apple patents design of paper bag". Sounds a lot more sensible, doesn't it? I'm sure they've patented plenty of boxes and plastic bags and computer casings and mobile phone casings and headphones and whatnot. Pretty much anything they designed can be patented and be protected with a design patent.
This what happens when 1) someone who knows nothing about patents creates submission and 2) editors who know nothing about patents approve it. Add to that 3) a crowd of commentators who know nothing about patents and well, welcome to Slashdot.
It's just yet another a design patent, nothing to see here, please move along. Just one of many designs Apple has patented, and not just Apple but many many companies do this as a matter of course.
This ruling basically says that any for profit entity would have to not only get permission from owner of the linked site, but also validate that that entity has the rights to publish the content you are linking to them for. It's insane.
That "validation" part could be as simple as "may we link to this content on your web site, and has it been posted there legally?". Then the site linked to could answer "yes" and "yes" and you can at the very least argue that you made the link in good faith, believing the linked-to content was legally posted there.
Disagree. There should be no law that dictates what you can do with something, as such a law is often impossible to comply with.
What should go is that horrible US law DMCA, which makes reverse engineering illegal and which in turn encourages making root access hard - results of which are felt all over the world.
What are you trying to compare here? One moment it's OSes, the next it's hardware manufacturers.
There's iOS vs Android, and then there's Apple vs Samsung vs Huawei vs LG vs Moto. It's that iOS is limited to a single manufacturer, that's why it's all the same.
So no difference to Uber (when it was a new start-up).
There have been several articles on /. about high-profile people taping off their laptop cameras as they're afraid of it being switched on without them knowing, recording whatever they're doing.
Laptop cameras have an LED to indicate they're active - some may be circumvented and switched on without triggering that indicator, sure, but not all and it's not that easy. Mobile phone cameras don't even have such an LED, there is no way to see when I look at my phone whether a camera is active or not. A camera, as there are two on my phone, as are on most smart phones.
Maybe we should start putting tape over our phone's cameras, just like we do with our laptops? Starting with the front-facing one? I'm sure phones are easier to hack, considering phone's OSes not being updated as much as they should be there will be lots of vulnerable phones out there open to attack.
WhatsApp messages are end-to-end encrypted - or so they say, at least. I'm by no means an expert so I take their word for it, including it being unbreakable and WhatsApp not being able to read my messages while in transit and so.
This means the only data WhatsApp could possibly have from me, other than my phone number and my contact list, is encrypted messages (something they can't search for clues about my interests - yes I'm conveniently ignoring the time before they encrypted it all), and how many messages I exchange with whom, and the size of those messages and maybe info about attachments (type and size).
Where is the value in such data when it comes to targeting ads?
Particularly the "human signalling something" part is not as much a LIDAR issue as it is an image/video interpretation issue. Computerised image interpretation is hard; video is even harder.
Also you'll have to teach the system to distinguish the various hand signals a police office can give (stop, go, go left, whatever), and distinguish a police officer's hand signals from a mom waving her kid goodbye as he cycles to school. Not an easy feat, and for sure a lot harder than avoiding static obstacles or predicting the path of other vehicles.
That with the temporary traffic lights, they should be able to get that under control much sooner. After all those are static objects with a rather well defined shape.
As someone with a 30+ year experience in the legal profession I'm sure there are plenty of free-lance jobs available. Make your network known that while you're not working for that company any more, you are available for hire on a contract/project basis to provide paralegal research or advice. That's the sensible thing to do, and with modern forms of communication and a more and more flexible workforce you'd fit right in.
That, assuming you'd still want to be in the paralegal field of course. If not, indeed maybe driving for Uber and Lyft is a good alternative. At least it's something totally different, and that's what is sometimes needed.
I know, I know, that'd be 0.621371 miles for you :-)
From the summary:
Apparently, the green water irritates eyes and smells like farts.
Both are indications the water is not suitable to swim in. It should not smell bad (bad smells are generally caused by something that's bad for us, we've evolved to find such compounds repulsive), and certainly not be irritating to the eyes. So, no, it was not safe.
Let the accident statistics speak for themselves, and see what happens. I for one would be happy to see all those incompetent human drivers off the road, would make traffic a lot safer and predictable.
People will likely use it a lot less than they use their own cars now. Instead of taking a car for that 1 km ride to the supermarket, they'd walk or take a bike. Many short trips would simply not be done by car, but by other means.
In 5 years we still won't have 'fully autonomous, self-driving' cars, they'll still be full of bugs and flaws,
Well, gotta agree in part but in part only.
I'm quite confident that by the time fully autonomous cars are released for sale to the general public (or for use as automated taxi service carrying passengers) they'll be a lot safer already than the average human driven car.
Why? Because it's in the companies' interest. They have to prove their worth, everybody is very skeptical about cars being able to drive themselves safely, so every single accident will be all over the news (just look at Tesla's autopilot crash coverage). They must gain the trust of the general public and the only way to do this is by putting a very well developed computerised car on the road.
This won't be ready for mass production in five years from now. It eventually will be, but not then. At this moment there is no working prototype that can reach such levels of confidence. Google at least is getting very far, but not sure if they're there already. Ford I never heard of any experiments, so no idea how far they really are, but I doubt they're far enough or we'd have heard about it.
This prototype is what I'm waiting for. The first fleet of maybe a dozen taxis operating in a big city, maybe with a human driver to operate an emergency stop button just in case but otherwise operating autonomously. When that is there, it's indeed just a few years for mass production.
Sounds like: weather so bad that it's not a good idea to go out on the road in the first place.
If Ford are smart, they'll have bought insurance for that.
While the amount of insight a piece of metadata provides maybe hasn't changed, the sheer amount of available metadata (and the capacity of analysing it) has increased drastically.
Why rate increases for the cloud service? The data ought to be encrypted before it even leaves the trusted host and is uploaded onto the cloud.
The problem with having your encryption done by the cloud service, is that the cloud service must have full access to your keys (not just store them with password protection). That in itself negates a large part of the reason you want to encrypt in the first place.
Encrypting everything before it leaves your own network may however cause a big headache when sharing the data with other people, which together with off-line backups is the only reason I can think of one would want to use a cloud service to store data. So anyway it's not all that easy.