Nice fiction. Under Obama, the economy added 11.6 million jobs, and brought employment down to below-average levels. In fact, by every metric I'm aware of, the economy did well under Obama.
Trump, apart from a lot of bluster and some ill-conceived tariffs, has done remarkably little to affect the economy, so it makes sense that it s continuing to improve as it did under Obama. Sometimes, the right thing to do is nothing.
I tried that previously, and it didn't work, but now that you mentioned it, I tried again. It turns out that I was just not being pedantic enough.
Muting cnn.com mutes only URLs that start with exactly http[s]://cnn.com/ and not www.cnn.com, money.cnn.com, etc. So you have to explicitly individually blacklist every subdomain that they serve content from. [The more you know....]
The notion that tablets are only for consumption and not content creation is a ridiculous artificial constraint invented for marketing the early versions of these devices which were more limited in capabilities.
No, the tablets are used only for consumption for three big reasons:
The lack of a physical keyboard makes many types of content creation much less efficient (typing, video editing, etc.). The first issue can be fixed by throwing an external keyboard at the problem, but Apple won't let you write software that requires a keyboard (unless that has changed recently), so you have to find some sort of fallback, which can be challenging to come up with. This is one factor that has held back development on serious content creation apps.
I/O is limited (a single Lightning port for charging and USB-2.0-speed I/O). This will go away when Apple adopts USB-C ports on their iDevices.
Tablets have insufficient RAM to work with large projects without constant paging (which would significantly reduce hardware life expectancy unless very carefully managed). This will continue to be a problem for the foreseeable future. Tablets have limited RAM resources primarily because they have limited battery capacity, and they have limited battery capacity because they are of a limited size. To make a tablet work well for content creation, you would need to give it a laptop-sized battery, which means a laptop-sized tablet. Unless and until Apple is willing to do that, content creation on a tablet will continue to be more of a gimmick than a serious solution for most purposes.
For basic photo editing, Photoshop would work fine on a tablet. I can't even begin to imagine trying to manage a hundred-layer book cover on one. Being able to view those sorts of files on a tablet and make trivial tweaks (e.g. text editing) might make sense for some users, but... I just don't see this as being a killer feature for them, and I really don't see anyone in his or her right mind choosing a tablet as a primary editing platform.
That makes it easier to pause it, but it does nothing for the fundamental problem, which is that every time a website auto-plays a video on my laptop while I'm tethered to my cell phone, it costs me actual money for content that I usually don't care about.
Autoplay — even when it isn't used in ads — is evil incarnate. There is no redeeming value to forcing every user's browser to start loading tens or hundreds of megabytes of video data without user interaction. There is no valid reason for doing it, even if it is muted. The lack of muting just makes the difference between "I will never visit your site while tethered" and "I will never visit your site unless I am at home or on a computer with an audio disabling plug installed."
They were struck by someone painting all the grey walls with white paint. It reflected more light, so the building got too cold. This cause the air handlers to freeze up, at which point the equipment all melted down. It makes perfect sense to me.
The sample are people who cared enough about net neutrality to submit comments to the FCC. Of THOSE, 99% favored it.
... who cared about it enough and who knew enough about it to actually write something themselves, rather than regurgitating a prewritten statement.
The surprise is not that 99% were in favor of it. The surprise is that there are 800,000 Americans who actually understand net neutrality enough to write something meaningful. I would have expected one fewer digits than that, and maybe two.
I wouldn't be so quick to jump to that conclusion. Wouldn't getting more useful results for the 99.99% of non-censored web searches provide broad benefits to the Chinese people even if that.01% remains censored?
For that matter, given that every company is likely to implement censorship differently, wouldn't having more search engines (even censored ones) slowly erode the effectiveness of censorship by letting different things leak through?
Food for thought. This isn't an easy issue, and it isn't black-and-white. Anybody who tries to paint it that way is likely trying to gather votes.
interstate commerce clause does have authority to regulate however
The FCC has no general right to regulate interstate commerce, which makes that largely irrelevant. The federal government has the right to regulate it, but not the imperative, nor the sole right. States are not prohibited from regulating interstate commerce that terminates within their state.
I would expect the best ones to involve people who were involved in every aspect of production (e.g. directors), rather than people who have a more limited view into only part of the production process (e.g. actors, writers). Of course, it helps if the people are good at storytelling, so writer-director commentaries ought to be some of the best. Your list reinforces that suspicion.
Let's analyze your bias. You think the media is right... this means you are likely "extreme left" because to a person at the fringe sees even light handed leftist as being right.
You're off by a mile. I'm socially liberal, fiscally conservative. But by conservative, I mean actual conservative, not the spend-lavishly-and-raise-the-deficit faux conservatism that most Republicans espouse these days.
I see see the media as majority Left for most of world TV, I view Fox and very few others as being Right, and most of Radio in the US seems Right to me as well. This means I am likely more right than left since I do see more left bias out there but since I see some balance between them I have a chance of being centrist also.
Fox and talk radio are not right-biased. They are Republican-biased. There's actually a big difference. Many positions held by much of the Republican party are arguably farther left than the Democrats. The so-called right-wing media doesn't seem to notice.
Your claims about which side is lying more... well do you have the numbers? I have seen so many lies on both sides that the only thing I can tell you is this.
There have been a number of folks who have done the analyses. A quick Google search will turn them up. And the degree to which the right wing's lies are flagrant is also much higher. The Democrats tend to make stupid, minor mistakes that don't really significantly change the validity their main point, while the Republicans tend to build their entire case for certain issues upon lies, to the point that if you could somehow manage to convince the public that the lies are, in fact lies, their entire position on those issues would completely fall apart. They quite literally depend upon their lies getting repeated over and over until people believe them. Without that, they would have to correct some of their more egregiously flawed positions just to get elected, and might even get back to being an actual conservative party.
Don't get me wrong, the faux outrage that the Democrats trump up is approximately as annoying as the outright lies from the right. They're all a bunch of sociopathic crooks who would do anything to retain and increase their power, and I pretty much wouldn't hire anyone in Congress to mow my lawn. But that doesn't change my opinion of the flaccid news media, who wouldn't know how to properly report if Edward R. Murrow bit them in the a**.
This. The problem with the media is that they have no teeth, mainly because they don't pay well enough to hire the best and brightest, so most people who would be really good at journalism don't go into that field, and a lot of people who aren't very good do.
It used to be the case that when a politician told something that was factually a lie, the journalists knew that it was a lie, and called them on it. These days, they just let them spew lies, in the name of "balance". That's not journalism at that point. That isn't being unbiased.
The truth is that the U.S. media has a strong right-wing bias on the whole, despite the individuals tending to be left-wing biased. Why? Because statistically, the right lies a *lot* more often than the left, which means on the whole, the media is being a mouthpiece for the right wing's untruths far more often than the left wing. Hence, the U.S. media is strongly right-biased, on average.
Want to have an unbiased media? Insist that every journalist do fact checking on every story, and when politicians lie, call them on it immediately. Insist on live fact checking during every talking head session, and come back and interrupt the talking heads when they are determined to have lied. Do this every single time. The only way we can have unbiased reporting is by teaching the politicians that lies have no place in political discourse. As long as there is no penalty for lying, they'll keep doing it (and more frequently on the right), so the media will continue to be right-biased.
I'd like to see Facebook wall off their API. From my perspective, I'm okay with sharing information with my friends, but I'm not okay with sharing that information with whatever random app those friends might decide to run within the context of their Facebook account. And right now, FB doesn't provide any real protection against that, as far as I can tell. I'm not even sure how feasible it would be for them to add that sort of protection. And that concerns me somewhat. I find myself sharing less as a result.
It's the same thing that happened with Facebook. It's almost like building these massive siphons of personal data inherently leads to massive personal data leaks...
No, but building APIs that allow third parties to gain access to data inherently leads to massive personal data leaks, because A. the most tech-savvy users have no good way to know whether those third party apps are using their data appropriately or not, and B. your average user will click "Install" for any app that their friends recommend, as long as it promises cute pictures of kittens and puppies or whatever.
The apathy clearly cannot be solved, and detection probably cannot be solved, either, so I'm not sure how to prevent abuse, or even *if* abuse can be prevented. I think the only approach that even has a prayer of working would be to require third-party apps to run in a pure web-based sandbox that prevents sharing data outside the sandbox, and even then, it's probably only a matter of time before someone finds a way to make such a sandbox leak.
Furthermore, "only" 1 mg/ml is a lot. These sweeteners are much stronger than sugar and these concentrations would not exist in actual applications.
At the input, maybe, but remember that your intestines are designed to pull water out, which means unless your body is also pulling those artificial sweeteners out and doing something with them, the concentration is likely to increase the farther it gets through your digestive system. So I wouldn't necessarily assume that 1 mg/mL is unlikely by the time it gets farther down in your digestive tract, particularly given that some existing artificially sweetened drinks starts out at more than half that concentration straight out of the bottle.
Heck, a compromised keyboard or a thumb drive could cause all sorts of problems (e.g. imagine if your keyboard logged all your keystrokes, then once in a while brought up a browser, sent the log, and closed the browser window... all too quickly for you to even notice). No security software would ever detect it... and I doubt it's even that hard to do at the keyboard level.
USB does not work that way. USB is a host-device-style bus. The computer is the host. It sends queries to the device, and the device responds. All the device can do is send interrupts that tells the host that something happened, and it needs to be polled. Sure, when you get into mass-storage devices, there's some additional DMA capabilities, but even that is limited by design to the range of memory that the host has authorized the device to see.
Thus, a USB device cannot possibly launch an app unless you have some special "smart keyboard" that provides custom software to allow it to do so (e.g. press a key, and the *software* detects the keystroke and launches the app). And in that case, the custom software could do the same thing without needing to launch a browser at all.
Further, even if a keyboard could somehow magically launch the app, USB does not have any visibility into the video frame buffer to know where to point the cursor to click on the box to type the data in.
What you're describing simply isn't possible with a keyboard. The closest thing that is possible would be a thumb drive (which I suppose could be hidden inside a keyboard) that exploits some kernel-level vulnerability to run custom code that installs a software-based keylogger. And even then, that is only possible if there is a kernel-level vulnerability in that code. Short of that, you would have to trick the user into running the app and typing their admin password.
If you are compromised years down the line, you have recourse.
That makes a lot more sense for an infra company like Cisco. I mean, I know I own a Cisco managed switch for my house, but I'm very much an outlier. Nearly everybody who buys that stuff is a big corporation with a lot to lose.
Your average person who saves a couple of hundred bucks on repairs by buying used parts and installing them on their own or through a low-end repair shop in the mall is not likely to be an interesting target for anyone.
It will make stealing a new Apple notebook awkward and repairs impossible and even stripping it and selling the parts, also difficult.
A publicly accessible, stolen parts serial number database would also do that, but without making it impossible for users to perform their own repairs.
Even as someone who has had a laptop stolen, I still don't think that's sufficient reason to prevent users from repairing their own hardware.
Sounds like a feature, anyone messes with my new laptop, I'll know about it.
Detecting a component swap is a feature. Requiring an authorized service center to run specialized software before the rightful owner can restore functionality is not. From a security perspective, there is no meaningful difference between "You seem to have a new keyboard. If you did not replace your keyboard, please contact an authorized service center immediately. Otherwise, please run System Preferences to re-add your fingerprints," and "You seem to have a new keyboard. Please take it to a service center so that they can replace your new keyboard with another new keyboard that was bought through the proper repair channels".
Now I'll grant you that if Macs started also coming with cellular networks so they can be reliably remote-locked, this "feature" would completely dry up the market for stealing laptops and selling them as repair parts, but that could also be done by letting users report machines as stolen, and flagging those parts as illicit if they ever turn up in anybody else's machine, and the latter approach might actually stand a chance of getting the bad guys caught, whereas the former will not, so it's arguably still a net loss for security *and* usability.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice fiction. Under Obama, the economy added 11.6 million jobs, and brought employment down to below-average levels. In fact, by every metric I'm aware of, the economy did well under Obama.
Trump, apart from a lot of bluster and some ill-conceived tariffs, has done remarkably little to affect the economy, so it makes sense that it s continuing to improve as it did under Obama. Sometimes, the right thing to do is nothing.
I tried that previously, and it didn't work, but now that you mentioned it, I tried again. It turns out that I was just not being pedantic enough.
Muting cnn.com mutes only URLs that start with exactly http[s]://cnn.com/ and not www.cnn.com, money.cnn.com, etc. So you have to explicitly individually blacklist every subdomain that they serve content from. [The more you know....]
No, the tablets are used only for consumption for three big reasons:
For basic photo editing, Photoshop would work fine on a tablet. I can't even begin to imagine trying to manage a hundred-layer book cover on one. Being able to view those sorts of files on a tablet and make trivial tweaks (e.g. text editing) might make sense for some users, but... I just don't see this as being a killer feature for them, and I really don't see anyone in his or her right mind choosing a tablet as a primary editing platform.
That makes it easier to pause it, but it does nothing for the fundamental problem, which is that every time a website auto-plays a video on my laptop while I'm tethered to my cell phone, it costs me actual money for content that I usually don't care about.
Autoplay — even when it isn't used in ads — is evil incarnate. There is no redeeming value to forcing every user's browser to start loading tens or hundreds of megabytes of video data without user interaction. There is no valid reason for doing it, even if it is muted. The lack of muting just makes the difference between "I will never visit your site while tethered" and "I will never visit your site unless I am at home or on a computer with an audio disabling plug installed."
What I really want is the ability to blacklist sites from which I never want to hear audio. CNN, I'm looking at you.
They were struck by someone painting all the grey walls with white paint. It reflected more light, so the building got too cold. This cause the air handlers to freeze up, at which point the equipment all melted down. It makes perfect sense to me.
... who cared about it enough and who knew enough about it to actually write something themselves, rather than regurgitating a prewritten statement.
The surprise is not that 99% were in favor of it. The surprise is that there are 800,000 Americans who actually understand net neutrality enough to write something meaningful. I would have expected one fewer digits than that, and maybe two.
I wouldn't be so quick to jump to that conclusion. Wouldn't getting more useful results for the 99.99% of non-censored web searches provide broad benefits to the Chinese people even if that .01% remains censored?
For that matter, given that every company is likely to implement censorship differently, wouldn't having more search engines (even censored ones) slowly erode the effectiveness of censorship by letting different things leak through?
Food for thought. This isn't an easy issue, and it isn't black-and-white. Anybody who tries to paint it that way is likely trying to gather votes.
interstate commerce clause does have authority to regulate however
The FCC has no general right to regulate interstate commerce, which makes that largely irrelevant. The federal government has the right to regulate it, but not the imperative, nor the sole right. States are not prohibited from regulating interstate commerce that terminates within their state.
I would expect the best ones to involve people who were involved in every aspect of production (e.g. directors), rather than people who have a more limited view into only part of the production process (e.g. actors, writers). Of course, it helps if the people are good at storytelling, so writer-director commentaries ought to be some of the best. Your list reinforces that suspicion.
You're off by a mile. I'm socially liberal, fiscally conservative. But by conservative, I mean actual conservative, not the spend-lavishly-and-raise-the-deficit faux conservatism that most Republicans espouse these days.
Fox and talk radio are not right-biased. They are Republican-biased. There's actually a big difference. Many positions held by much of the Republican party are arguably farther left than the Democrats. The so-called right-wing media doesn't seem to notice.
There have been a number of folks who have done the analyses. A quick Google search will turn them up. And the degree to which the right wing's lies are flagrant is also much higher. The Democrats tend to make stupid, minor mistakes that don't really significantly change the validity their main point, while the Republicans tend to build their entire case for certain issues upon lies, to the point that if you could somehow manage to convince the public that the lies are, in fact lies, their entire position on those issues would completely fall apart. They quite literally depend upon their lies getting repeated over and over until people believe them. Without that, they would have to correct some of their more egregiously flawed positions just to get elected, and might even get back to being an actual conservative party.
Don't get me wrong, the faux outrage that the Democrats trump up is approximately as annoying as the outright lies from the right. They're all a bunch of sociopathic crooks who would do anything to retain and increase their power, and I pretty much wouldn't hire anyone in Congress to mow my lawn. But that doesn't change my opinion of the flaccid news media, who wouldn't know how to properly report if Edward R. Murrow bit them in the a**.
This. The problem with the media is that they have no teeth, mainly because they don't pay well enough to hire the best and brightest, so most people who would be really good at journalism don't go into that field, and a lot of people who aren't very good do.
It used to be the case that when a politician told something that was factually a lie, the journalists knew that it was a lie, and called them on it. These days, they just let them spew lies, in the name of "balance". That's not journalism at that point. That isn't being unbiased.
The truth is that the U.S. media has a strong right-wing bias on the whole, despite the individuals tending to be left-wing biased. Why? Because statistically, the right lies a *lot* more often than the left, which means on the whole, the media is being a mouthpiece for the right wing's untruths far more often than the left wing. Hence, the U.S. media is strongly right-biased, on average.
Want to have an unbiased media? Insist that every journalist do fact checking on every story, and when politicians lie, call them on it immediately. Insist on live fact checking during every talking head session, and come back and interrupt the talking heads when they are determined to have lied. Do this every single time. The only way we can have unbiased reporting is by teaching the politicians that lies have no place in political discourse. As long as there is no penalty for lying, they'll keep doing it (and more frequently on the right), so the media will continue to be right-biased.
Needs to start with the same letter. So either Blitzed Baby or Drunken... ehh.. Daughter? Dumpling? Darling? *shrugs*
Speaking of funny, CVS bought out Long's Drugs. Coincidence? I think not.
Obligatory xkcd.
Because without a trebuchet, how else would you make them hit the roads?
I'd like to see Facebook wall off their API. From my perspective, I'm okay with sharing information with my friends, but I'm not okay with sharing that information with whatever random app those friends might decide to run within the context of their Facebook account. And right now, FB doesn't provide any real protection against that, as far as I can tell. I'm not even sure how feasible it would be for them to add that sort of protection. And that concerns me somewhat. I find myself sharing less as a result.
No, but building APIs that allow third parties to gain access to data inherently leads to massive personal data leaks, because A. the most tech-savvy users have no good way to know whether those third party apps are using their data appropriately or not, and B. your average user will click "Install" for any app that their friends recommend, as long as it promises cute pictures of kittens and puppies or whatever.
The apathy clearly cannot be solved, and detection probably cannot be solved, either, so I'm not sure how to prevent abuse, or even *if* abuse can be prevented. I think the only approach that even has a prayer of working would be to require third-party apps to run in a pure web-based sandbox that prevents sharing data outside the sandbox, and even then, it's probably only a matter of time before someone finds a way to make such a sandbox leak.
At the input, maybe, but remember that your intestines are designed to pull water out, which means unless your body is also pulling those artificial sweeteners out and doing something with them, the concentration is likely to increase the farther it gets through your digestive system. So I wouldn't necessarily assume that 1 mg/mL is unlikely by the time it gets farther down in your digestive tract, particularly given that some existing artificially sweetened drinks starts out at more than half that concentration straight out of the bottle.
USB does not work that way. USB is a host-device-style bus. The computer is the host. It sends queries to the device, and the device responds. All the device can do is send interrupts that tells the host that something happened, and it needs to be polled. Sure, when you get into mass-storage devices, there's some additional DMA capabilities, but even that is limited by design to the range of memory that the host has authorized the device to see.
Thus, a USB device cannot possibly launch an app unless you have some special "smart keyboard" that provides custom software to allow it to do so (e.g. press a key, and the *software* detects the keystroke and launches the app). And in that case, the custom software could do the same thing without needing to launch a browser at all.
Further, even if a keyboard could somehow magically launch the app, USB does not have any visibility into the video frame buffer to know where to point the cursor to click on the box to type the data in.
What you're describing simply isn't possible with a keyboard. The closest thing that is possible would be a thumb drive (which I suppose could be hidden inside a keyboard) that exploits some kernel-level vulnerability to run custom code that installs a software-based keylogger. And even then, that is only possible if there is a kernel-level vulnerability in that code. Short of that, you would have to trick the user into running the app and typing their admin password.
That makes a lot more sense for an infra company like Cisco. I mean, I know I own a Cisco managed switch for my house, but I'm very much an outlier. Nearly everybody who buys that stuff is a big corporation with a lot to lose.
Your average person who saves a couple of hundred bucks on repairs by buying used parts and installing them on their own or through a low-end repair shop in the mall is not likely to be an interesting target for anyone.
True.
A publicly accessible, stolen parts serial number database would also do that, but without making it impossible for users to perform their own repairs.
Even as someone who has had a laptop stolen, I still don't think that's sufficient reason to prevent users from repairing their own hardware.
Detecting a component swap is a feature. Requiring an authorized service center to run specialized software before the rightful owner can restore functionality is not. From a security perspective, there is no meaningful difference between "You seem to have a new keyboard. If you did not replace your keyboard, please contact an authorized service center immediately. Otherwise, please run System Preferences to re-add your fingerprints," and "You seem to have a new keyboard. Please take it to a service center so that they can replace your new keyboard with another new keyboard that was bought through the proper repair channels".
Now I'll grant you that if Macs started also coming with cellular networks so they can be reliably remote-locked, this "feature" would completely dry up the market for stealing laptops and selling them as repair parts, but that could also be done by letting users report machines as stolen, and flagging those parts as illicit if they ever turn up in anybody else's machine, and the latter approach might actually stand a chance of getting the bad guys caught, whereas the former will not, so it's arguably still a net loss for security *and* usability.
Actually, the location probably IS the problem. There are a LOT of Teslas running around the Bay Area, and not that many service centers.