Makes me wonder how a polar bear would end up in the Himalayas, though indeed it's what I was thinking first, a polar bear that wandered a bit far away. Save the difference in air pressure the climate is probably quite similar. Food may be an issue, no seals in the Himalayas.
Maybe even more realistic than a hybrid brown/polar bear.
Such call services are usually buses that run a fixed route on a fixed schedule, and htat will not run if there are no passengers (that is, if no-one called in to say they want to take that bus). This Kutsuplus runs on demand, on the time you ask, the route you ask. It's more like a shared taxi service.
Most of the e-mail traffic, even the not-spam type, is utterly useless for them. Like a discussion with the missus on which movie to go watch. Or that I'll be home late tonight. Where to meet up for the next birthday party (or is that just a code word for suicide attack?).
So they just catch all, then later figure out which accounts may be of interest, and start looking at those. All the rest is just taking up space and probably never looked at, and kept just in case, and because they don't know which accounts are really of interest. Collecting all the spam in the process is just a minor inconvenience.
I doubt a remote operator of a drone is better than software - if so, it's not for long, as development of these things is going faster and faster with the availability of more and more cheap, ready to go starter packages. Software can make faster decisions, and has basically the same info a human operator has on where to go: a map and a video feed, plus the various sensors that tell whether something is wrong. As such drones are mostly flying out of sight of the operator, this human operator can not look out of the window to verify whether a sensor is broken, or whether the rotor has really fallen off.
It'd be great to be able to sit in the park and order a drink or a slice of pizza from a nearby shop, to have it deliverd to where-ever you happen to sit in a matter of minutes.
Books are just one of the many things that can be delivered by these things, and are basically just being used as a proof of concept.
A human to deal with emergencies is possibly less reliable than a computer to deal with emergencies.
Of course the computer should be pretty reliable - yet humans also occasionally suffer from catastrophic failure, such as a heart attack or stroke.
A computer can reliably perform emergency routines, and won't panic like a human might do. Particularly when dealing with an inherently hard to control vehicle like an aircraft.
A computer needs to be properly programmed (that is at the moment still an issue: particularly sensing the environment is not exactly solved yet), a human needs to be properly trained.
A computer may not be able to deal with some very extreme and unexpected situations (a software issue that is certainly being worked on), a human may make basic mistakes when such a situation occurs.
Safety is an issue for these things - no idea how this can be solved reliably. Probably one will have to set up air-roads for a start, to prevent collisions. These routes can also run along areas where if the drone would fall out of the sky, not much can happen.
Most of the branded versions of android (and other similar systems) that i've seen have been considerably worse than the stock version, especially the carrier branded versions.
Samsung must be up to something good consider the popularity of their devices, combined with their more and more customised software. At least they're way more popular than Apple now. And besides, the stock version is not necessarily the best possible.
And "carrier branded" versions? Sorry, never encountered that, must be something unique to your country (USA probably, can't think of anywhere else that'd happen).
My router is about 10 years old now, still working. Supports WPA-PSK, so it has all the features I need it to have.
However afaik no way to update the firmware. Which of course is >10 years old now. And even if I could... well it's hanging on a wall, and it's doing its job - it's a device, and not something that's high on my priority list to check for vulnerabilities.
I guess my best chance to keep safe is the fact that's so old and some obscure brand it's not a known target for would-be attackers.
It seems like they have about as many remote vulnerabilities as your run-of-the-mill Windows installation.
Maybe we should follow the same advice as is given to protect Windows from remote attackers: don't connect it directly to the Internet; put it behind a hardware firewall, opening only the ports you need. Like http port 80.
Interestingly, my return flight hit 3.0uSv/h, higher than the first flight (I just dumped the last chunk of the log which I hadn't done yet).
Maybe it's time to start warning people about the massive radiation hazards flying has, it's really terrible compared to the already disastrous quantities we get from this Fukushima thing.
Oh wait a moment, we'd probably be aiding Them Terrorists if we'd start doing that. And that'd of course be far worse than being fried by radiation.
All sarcasm aside, that higher reading on your return flight may have plenty of explanations. Space weather, time of day (more solar radiation), maybe different route of the plane - I expect more radiation when flying over the pole than near the equator thanks to the Earth's magnetic field. Just like background radiation at the ground varies over time.
So I ignored yesterday's story, and listen to it now.
The two parts are poorly cut - second part is hard to follow without the first part. Music background is annoying. Interviewer doesn't ask good questions. Interviewee doesn't argue convincingly, making the whole thing boring to listen to. The video part of it is useless; the only important part is the audio, a podcast format would've been more appropriate.
And indeed it simply should've been posted in one go. Optionally with transcript (can't take that long to write a transcript of a 20-minute interview where both parties talk slowly).
I have no problem holding a flat phone, but that doesn't mean it may not be easier if it's curved. And indeed the phone-on-the-table scenario may be a serious issue.
Those cuts are a drop in the bucket compared to what's not being cut, specifically "national security" (which includes spying on the world's population, and fighting distant wars).
Oh and I've also not heard of salaries of politicians, specifically congressmen, being cut. That'd be a very good spending cut, not only because it makes the people that are directly responsible for this stupid shutdown feel it directly in their own pockets.
Afaik (part of) the display is made out of silicon, which means it can't be bent without breaking the circuit etched into it. These polymer screens are much more flexible, and folding/rolling up the screen is certainly within reach of such materials.
> For a 55" screen - the reason is clear - if you're sitting fairly close > to it - the edges are noticably further away from you.
Yeah, but we're used to seeing flat rectangles from far away. Does it EVER bother you that the edges of the screen appear to be a slightly different height than the height at the center?
Maybe you remember the time that CRT screens were not flat, but bulging out: this to keep the distance between the cathode ray source (at the back) the same whether the beam went to a far edge or the mid front. It was basically part of a sphere. Even when sitting rather close, you wouldn't see the image bulging towards you: your brain corrects for that just fine.
Then the flat-square CRT appeared, and things got interesting. Those used to an old, bulging one would suddenly see a flat one as bulging in. I experienced that myself, too. The effect doesn't last long, within minutes your brain adapts, yet it happens every time again.
Also intersting to note that as you're getting so used to correcting the image, your brain will automatically add this correction the moment you look at a TV screen - I don't mean watching them next to one another, rather you have the old one at home, then next day walk in a TV shop where they have the flat ones.
To come back at Samsung's TV, from the images I have seen the curvature is only in the horizontal direction, not in the vertical direction. So if it were really to keep the distance to your eyes equal, the curvature should be in vertical direction too, again making it part of a sphere. This also means you should watch them sitting right in the focal point, the centre of that sphere - a very narrowly defined point, and it makes watching TV with more than one person awkward unless you like them very much.
I for one would have to use it to really know whether it's good or not.
Maybe easier to use when holding it in your hand, it will be harder to use when you put it on a table. Hard to say which one is the more important. The design of the rear can of course easily prevent tumbling.
Also I wonder how your eyes deal with looking at a curved screen, and wether they do anything about distortion due to pixels appearing to be narrower towards the edges where it curves up (is this even noticable?).
Currently around 10 million shipping containers arrive in the USA every year. So how many of these devices do you think you need in order to make an impact? Not only do you have that volume to deal with, but given the throughput at a multi-modal shipping port, you'll need to be scanning a container pretty damn quick in order not to impeded operations.
In addition the gubmint is already behind in scanning all shipping containers for radio-active materials. They are supposed to be checking 100% of inbound containers, but that has been costed in the order of $16 billion (with a pinkie finger, and a B), and there doesn't seem to be money for it.
Which is a good reason to call it "anti-terrorism". Because if there is anything that's getting assigned extra budget these days without considering actual effectiveness, it's that.
Slashdot Mirror
Makes me wonder how a polar bear would end up in the Himalayas, though indeed it's what I was thinking first, a polar bear that wandered a bit far away. Save the difference in air pressure the climate is probably quite similar. Food may be an issue, no seals in the Himalayas.
Maybe even more realistic than a hybrid brown/polar bear.
If you have the source, you can always compile your own binary.
Using the same compiler and related software as the official distributor did, that should give an identical binary as result, no?
Such call services are usually buses that run a fixed route on a fixed schedule, and htat will not run if there are no passengers (that is, if no-one called in to say they want to take that bus). This Kutsuplus runs on demand, on the time you ask, the route you ask. It's more like a shared taxi service.
TFA mentions that they expect the service to pay for itself.
Not sure if they really have a "mail washer".
Most of the e-mail traffic, even the not-spam type, is utterly useless for them. Like a discussion with the missus on which movie to go watch. Or that I'll be home late tonight. Where to meet up for the next birthday party (or is that just a code word for suicide attack?).
So they just catch all, then later figure out which accounts may be of interest, and start looking at those. All the rest is just taking up space and probably never looked at, and kept just in case, and because they don't know which accounts are really of interest. Collecting all the spam in the process is just a minor inconvenience.
I doubt a remote operator of a drone is better than software - if so, it's not for long, as development of these things is going faster and faster with the availability of more and more cheap, ready to go starter packages. Software can make faster decisions, and has basically the same info a human operator has on where to go: a map and a video feed, plus the various sensors that tell whether something is wrong. As such drones are mostly flying out of sight of the operator, this human operator can not look out of the window to verify whether a sensor is broken, or whether the rotor has really fallen off.
It'd be great to be able to sit in the park and order a drink or a slice of pizza from a nearby shop, to have it deliverd to where-ever you happen to sit in a matter of minutes.
Books are just one of the many things that can be delivered by these things, and are basically just being used as a proof of concept.
A human to deal with emergencies is possibly less reliable than a computer to deal with emergencies.
Of course the computer should be pretty reliable - yet humans also occasionally suffer from catastrophic failure, such as a heart attack or stroke.
A computer can reliably perform emergency routines, and won't panic like a human might do. Particularly when dealing with an inherently hard to control vehicle like an aircraft.
A computer needs to be properly programmed (that is at the moment still an issue: particularly sensing the environment is not exactly solved yet), a human needs to be properly trained.
A computer may not be able to deal with some very extreme and unexpected situations (a software issue that is certainly being worked on), a human may make basic mistakes when such a situation occurs.
Safety is an issue for these things - no idea how this can be solved reliably. Probably one will have to set up air-roads for a start, to prevent collisions. These routes can also run along areas where if the drone would fall out of the sky, not much can happen.
easy enough to put "sensitive" destination on a blacklist (or greylist: requires human to call destination to confirm order).
Most of the branded versions of android (and other similar systems) that i've seen have been considerably worse than the stock version, especially the carrier branded versions.
Samsung must be up to something good consider the popularity of their devices, combined with their more and more customised software. At least they're way more popular than Apple now. And besides, the stock version is not necessarily the best possible.
And "carrier branded" versions? Sorry, never encountered that, must be something unique to your country (USA probably, can't think of anywhere else that'd happen).
Branding. Same reason Samsung has all but forked Android. If they don't, there is no difference any more between various devices.
My router is about 10 years old now, still working. Supports WPA-PSK, so it has all the features I need it to have.
However afaik no way to update the firmware. Which of course is >10 years old now. And even if I could... well it's hanging on a wall, and it's doing its job - it's a device, and not something that's high on my priority list to check for vulnerabilities.
I guess my best chance to keep safe is the fact that's so old and some obscure brand it's not a known target for would-be attackers.
It seems like they have about as many remote vulnerabilities as your run-of-the-mill Windows installation.
Maybe we should follow the same advice as is given to protect Windows from remote attackers: don't connect it directly to the Internet; put it behind a hardware firewall, opening only the ports you need. Like http port 80.
Oh, wait...
Driving a car is also dangerous, yet humanity seems to prosper, in part thanks to these very cars.
Interestingly, my return flight hit 3.0uSv/h, higher than the first flight (I just dumped the last chunk of the log which I hadn't done yet).
Maybe it's time to start warning people about the massive radiation hazards flying has, it's really terrible compared to the already disastrous quantities we get from this Fukushima thing.
Oh wait a moment, we'd probably be aiding Them Terrorists if we'd start doing that. And that'd of course be far worse than being fried by radiation.
All sarcasm aside, that higher reading on your return flight may have plenty of explanations. Space weather, time of day (more solar radiation), maybe different route of the plane - I expect more radiation when flying over the pole than near the equator thanks to the Earth's magnetic field. Just like background radiation at the ground varies over time.
So I ignored yesterday's story, and listen to it now.
The two parts are poorly cut - second part is hard to follow without the first part. Music background is annoying. Interviewer doesn't ask good questions. Interviewee doesn't argue convincingly, making the whole thing boring to listen to. The video part of it is useless; the only important part is the audio, a podcast format would've been more appropriate.
And indeed it simply should've been posted in one go. Optionally with transcript (can't take that long to write a transcript of a 20-minute interview where both parties talk slowly).
I have no problem holding a flat phone, but that doesn't mean it may not be easier if it's curved. And indeed the phone-on-the-table scenario may be a serious issue.
Those cuts are a drop in the bucket compared to what's not being cut, specifically "national security" (which includes spying on the world's population, and fighting distant wars).
Oh and I've also not heard of salaries of politicians, specifically congressmen, being cut. That'd be a very good spending cut, not only because it makes the people that are directly responsible for this stupid shutdown feel it directly in their own pockets.
Why Google it when you can Slashdot it?
Have other people do the work for you, and get lots of comments on it that are even worse thought out than your original query sorry submission.
Afaik (part of) the display is made out of silicon, which means it can't be bent without breaking the circuit etched into it. These polymer screens are much more flexible, and folding/rolling up the screen is certainly within reach of such materials.
> For a 55" screen - the reason is clear - if you're sitting fairly close
> to it - the edges are noticably further away from you.
Yeah, but we're used to seeing flat rectangles from far away. Does it EVER bother you that the edges of the screen appear to be a slightly different height than the height at the center?
Maybe you remember the time that CRT screens were not flat, but bulging out: this to keep the distance between the cathode ray source (at the back) the same whether the beam went to a far edge or the mid front. It was basically part of a sphere. Even when sitting rather close, you wouldn't see the image bulging towards you: your brain corrects for that just fine.
Then the flat-square CRT appeared, and things got interesting. Those used to an old, bulging one would suddenly see a flat one as bulging in. I experienced that myself, too. The effect doesn't last long, within minutes your brain adapts, yet it happens every time again.
Also intersting to note that as you're getting so used to correcting the image, your brain will automatically add this correction the moment you look at a TV screen - I don't mean watching them next to one another, rather you have the old one at home, then next day walk in a TV shop where they have the flat ones.
To come back at Samsung's TV, from the images I have seen the curvature is only in the horizontal direction, not in the vertical direction. So if it were really to keep the distance to your eyes equal, the curvature should be in vertical direction too, again making it part of a sphere. This also means you should watch them sitting right in the focal point, the centre of that sphere - a very narrowly defined point, and it makes watching TV with more than one person awkward unless you like them very much.
I for one would have to use it to really know whether it's good or not.
Maybe easier to use when holding it in your hand, it will be harder to use when you put it on a table. Hard to say which one is the more important. The design of the rear can of course easily prevent tumbling.
Also I wonder how your eyes deal with looking at a curved screen, and wether they do anything about distortion due to pixels appearing to be narrower towards the edges where it curves up (is this even noticable?).
Currently around 10 million shipping containers arrive in the USA every year. So how many of these devices do you think you need in order to make an impact? Not only do you have that volume to deal with, but given the throughput at a multi-modal shipping port, you'll need to be scanning a container pretty damn quick in order not to impeded operations.
In addition the gubmint is already behind in scanning all shipping containers for radio-active materials. They are supposed to be checking 100% of inbound containers, but that has been costed in the order of $16 billion (with a pinkie finger, and a B), and there doesn't seem to be money for it.
Port security: U.S. fails to meet deadline for scanning of cargo containers
Which is a good reason to call it "anti-terrorism". Because if there is anything that's getting assigned extra budget these days without considering actual effectiveness, it's that.
I was thinking in similar lines.
But for me, "anti-terrorism" is more like "we want government subsidies for our project!".
Except there the decimal divider moves in the opposite direction...