Here's a fun aside: Since I write software in machine code, I could release it under the GPL and provide no other "source code" but the binaries:-P Conversely, if you know Machine Code, every (non encrypted) binary executable is Open Source!
And if you can run the binary executable, even encrypted shit is open source!
I saw systems doing separate views using a lenticular lens screen (like you see on 3D advertisements) to show different views to different users back in the mid 90's in a university research lab. They claimed it was new, who knows. I saw it again in the early 2000's, again claimed to be new. I've seen it claimed as new twice in a particular large company's R&D division, and these guys are solving the problem in a clunky way. Maybe their lousy solution is new, but the solution space itself sure isn't.
If it was actually a useful solution, it would've entered production any time in the last 18 years since I first saw it.
Sony's "two people playing on a single monitor" capability in their new monitor for the PS3 is the closest I've seen, but it requires active shutter glasses.
Japan had them in the 90s. They advertised it as being for dads who wanted to watch baseball but couldn't because their shitty families always wanted to watch shitty crap.
So the family is watching the tv from the center of the (tiny) living room, and dad's off in the corner with a beer, watching a baseball game on the same screen.
Do not use your mouth when siphoning fuel from an electric car. The back-wash is much, much nastier than gasoline.
That's not what the word backwash means. And it's not the gasoline that's bad, it's the fumes. You should be able to easily siphon fuel without ever getting liquid gasoline in your mouth. It's no different than avoiding nasty fish water when draining a fish tank with a hose.
I hope this was a joke. All cars have a 2-phase AC charger on board, and the top portion of this connector will always work with a standard AC J1772 plug. Only some cars (and some very special stations) will have the additional circuitry for DC charging, and those will have the additional pins for the DC charging jack. DC charging is much higher power than AC charging (usually supplied by a capacitor bank), and with today's batteries it actually causes significant wear to charge them that fast. So until we get better batteries, DC fast charging is irrelevant to most consumers. It is a shame that policymakers are so obsessed with fast-charging before either the standards or the batteries are actually ready for prime time--that money could be better spent on more useful AC charging stations and public awareness.
Battery health isn't the issue here. It is trivial for a charging station to limit DC output, and with the requirement that the charger listen to the car, it would be trivial for the car to regulate charging speed as well. You can set a default preference in your car (rapid charge or standard charge, just like toner saving modes on printers, or rapid charge options for iPod like devices), or a one time override at the charger or with an app on your phone. You could even specify how long you expect to be gone for and the car can figure out how to balance % charged and battery health based on your ETA.
The problem is as follows:
A car that can charge via AC has more complicated and more expensive internals. A car that can charge via DC has simpler and cheaper internals.
If some cars in the future are sold as DC-only to save on cost, they will still have to support this AC/DC combo plug, which is ugly, heavy, and thicker than my cock during Wheel of Fortune. The end result will be charging stations that support both AC and DC, most homes supporting AC, few homes supporting DC, and cars supporting both even though a lot of money could be saved if we transitioned to DC-only cars and DC-capable stations (including stations in homes).
Wrong. First off investigations would cost millions of dollars to get one arrest. Secondly, no CEO knows 100% of the policies/practices being done within their organization. Some do know if they are doing this practice, and it was approved, but that number is low. All the CEO knows is they do some phone marketing and it is handled by the telecom and marketing folks, and they get XYZ results from it. Third, punishing CEOs would also just raise the cost of being a CEO, making their salaries even higher. The reason CEO salaries are so high now, is because they are taking all the risks by just being there. One asshole in their company fudges a number and they go to jail. You cannot run a business like that.
Joke post? Joke post.
CEOs absolutely should know what's going on in the company, and they absolutely should be punished for illegal shit. The reason CEO salaries are so high right now is because they can get away with it. They assume zero risk and get excessive amounts of money, stock options, hookers, etc. for doing absolutely nothing.
Your link there, and below, aren't studies, they're articles that vaguely reference some study done somewhere that measures the rate of false positives.
Well good job, you've shown that handlers want to find drugs on people and don't train their dogs, and that trained dogs can detect trace amounts of drugs. What you haven't shown is that dogs are not the best choice.
Do you think a machine would be any better in terms of sensitivity? Give me a study showing a machine that can detect an entire smorgasboard of drugs, explosive, and other substances as well as a dog can.
Do you think a machine would be any better in terms of abuse? I clocked you going 85, no you can't have the log from the radar gun. Oh, you've been randomly selected by the computer for an invasive cavity search, Mr. Ali bin Akbar. We received an anonymous tip that you're looking at child porn, so we're going to raid your house and shut down your entire electronic life.
What you've shown is that the police are shitty. You can quote Benjamin Dickhole Franklin all you want, but an indication by a dog doesn't mean you're going to prison unless you've already given the cops reason to hate you and you have the shittiest of lawyers. A false positive (or a positive from trace amounts no one with a brain gives a shit about) does not equate to a prison sentence. And for explosives (what TFA is about), a false positive is an infinitesimal inconvenience compared to a false negative.
Regardless, you still haven't made a case for using anything else over using dogs. Dogs are the best tool we have for the job. The fact that handlers are shitty, or that cops like to bust people for shit they didn't do is an entirely different problem and will not be solved by substituting a different tool for dogs.
You don't like cops, we get it. You probably like and use drugs, and thus fear canine units. You still haven't done anything to prove that dogs aren't the best tool for the job. You've just shown that you don't like how people use the tool.
Hear and preside over cases, judging them objectively and fairly against both the spirit and letter of the law, or instructing a jury to do so and then executing their verdict as a ruling.
When a law is bullshit a judge absolutely can and should piss on it.
The dogs are detecting drugs. The fact that the police jump from "There is some amount of drugs present." to "You're going to jail." does not mean the dogs were wrong.
"We can't use dogs to spy on everybody, everyplace, all the time."
You wouldn't want to anyway. In blind studies, drug- and explosive-sniffing dogs actually have a pretty terrible track record. A literally unacceptable percentage of false positives, for example.
Turned out, the dogs were responding to very subtle cues from their handlers, rather than their own senses. Which renders them completely inappropriate for law-enforcement use.
Please Mod -1000: Utter Bullshit.
Dogs are the absolute best tool we have for the job. There's a reason we use dogs to hunt animals, guard animals, property, and people, track fugitives, search for survivors, bodies, drugs, and explosives, detect cancer or seizures, lead the blind, etc. They have incredible senses and are very intelligent.
Please link to proof of your "literally unacceptable percentage of false positives" for properly trained canines and handlers.
Basically, a bunch of clowns at major corporations want to register their own version of.com,.net, etc.. ICANN said "no that's dumb" for a long time, but someone told them they could make money off of it, so they decided to go for it, but they didn't have any plan on how to handle applications. ICANN as usual fucked it up.
Now there's probably a hundred applications for.abc and ICANN can't figure out which one to evaluate first.
If you don't want to be tracked, you want to be 1 in a million, not one in 100.
I got: Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 2,452,130 tested so far. Meaning if anyone sees my browser fingerprint at one place and then again at another place, they know it was the same browser.
>Secure boot is a good thing. It stops pre-boot malware.
So?
Why is it mandatory on ARM but not x86?
>buy an iPad, Kindle, or Android device. You have choices.
This is disingenuous, at best.
-- BMO
It's mandatory on ARM because Windows has a fresh start with ARM. There are billions of x86 devices out there, some which run BIOS and some which run UEFI, and most of which are long since EoLd by the manufacturer.
It would be impossible to require Secure Boot on x86 because of all the current and legacy shit out there, and it would be confusing to consumers. Right now, a consumer knows that they can do whatever they want with a PC, but not with their phone or tablet.
It's disingenious to say you have a choice between 4 major environments across dozens of OEMs for your toys? Why? Which of the following isn't a choice available to you?
Android Amazon's bastard version of Android iOS Windows 8 RT
And can you not buy from Sony, Samsung, HTC, Asus, MS, Apple, HP (lol), etc.?
Give me one fucking fact that is in your favor, please. (Hint: You can't. You're just a fucking troll bmo. Go ahead and log onto those alts.)
The other person already answered what it's about. I will answer this:
As you can easily turn it off if you will,
Not on ARM you can't.
-- BMO
Secure Boot can be turned off for everything except ARM platforms. Secure Boot must be enabled for ARM platforms. You can use Secure Boot with whatever bootloader/OS you want as long as you sign it and the UEFI keystore has the key for your OS/bootloader.
If you want to put Linux on an ARM device that comes with Windows, you can either:
A) Wait for a hack specific to that device (see the current phone/tablet market, including Android devices with locked bootloaders, recovery images, etc.). B) Buy from an OEM that provides a way for you to insert a key of your choosing into the UEFI keystore.
Secure boot is a good thing. It stops pre-boot malware. If you care about putting a different OS on a Windows device, make sure you buy a device that lets you put in your own key. If you can't find such a device, buy an iPad, Kindle, or Android device. You have choices.
It's not elephantitis, it's exaggerated testicular cancer caused by microwaving the testes.
That may be what the episode claims, but the shock humor of someone wheeling around their testicles in a wheelbarrow does in fact come from identical images of real life cases of elephantitis, which is where South Park writers got their idea.
Jessie: Oh come on, Mr. White! We have $480,000,000! Each! I'm out!
Walt: Really Jessie? This is about money to you?
Jessie: Wasn't that the whole point? To leave your family money, and then to make an empire because you're mad you made a bad decision with Gray Matter? Why do you need a space shuttle? Bitch?!
Walt: Jessie, Hank is on to us. We need to get out of his jurisdiction. Out of everyone's jurisdiction! And that shuttle is our ride.
You know less about linguistics than you think. Words don't have hard and fast definitions, unless they're scientific terms. Even the Academie Francaise has given up flogging that particular dead horse. You can assert that nutritious means "full of nutrients" till you're blue in the face, but others can reasonably disagree. Amusingly, you will find that common dictionary definitions do not mention nutrients, despite your insistence that this is self-evidently the meaning of the word.
Damn you're fucking dumb. Words do indeed have hard and fast definitions. Either way, you said it yourself - "unless they're scientific terms". This was a scientific study that measured levels of various nutrients in foods. Thus even if the word was "fuggelenk" instead of "nutritious" we'd all know the hard and fast definition of the word, since it was defined in the fucking study that you didn't even fucking read.
I don't think searching for Dysan spheres is a bad idea, but if we don't find any, it raises more questions than it answers. Fortunately, they're interesting questions.
The first question raised would be "Why did we listen to the sci-fi ramblings of this coot and spend billions of dollars looking for these ridiculous things?".
Chemistry makes it so bandages love the water, and condoms love the pussy. When we do chemistry, we talk about the "human element" and show children being happy because you morons don't understand chemistry.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a fun aside: Since I write software in machine code, I could release it under the GPL and provide no other "source code" but the binaries :-P
Conversely, if you know Machine Code, every (non encrypted) binary executable is Open Source!
And if you can run the binary executable, even encrypted shit is open source!
I saw systems doing separate views using a lenticular lens screen (like you see on 3D advertisements) to show different views to different users back in the mid 90's in a university research lab. They claimed it was new, who knows. I saw it again in the early 2000's, again claimed to be new. I've seen it claimed as new twice in a particular large company's R&D division, and these guys are solving the problem in a clunky way. Maybe their lousy solution is new, but the solution space itself sure isn't.
If it was actually a useful solution, it would've entered production any time in the last 18 years since I first saw it.
Sony's "two people playing on a single monitor" capability in their new monitor for the PS3 is the closest I've seen, but it requires active shutter glasses.
Japan had them in the 90s.
They advertised it as being for dads who wanted to watch baseball but couldn't because their shitty families always wanted to watch shitty crap.
So the family is watching the tv from the center of the (tiny) living room, and dad's off in the corner with a beer, watching a baseball game on the same screen.
Actually, it's weird because he's Alec Baldwin.
Actually, it's weird because someone actually watches 30 Rock.
Actually, it's weird because someone actually watches NBC.
Do not use your mouth when siphoning fuel from an electric car. The back-wash is much, much nastier than gasoline.
That's not what the word backwash means.
And it's not the gasoline that's bad, it's the fumes. You should be able to easily siphon fuel without ever getting liquid gasoline in your mouth. It's no different than avoiding nasty fish water when draining a fish tank with a hose.
I hope this was a joke. All cars have a 2-phase AC charger on board, and the top portion of this connector will always work with a standard AC J1772 plug. Only some cars (and some very special stations) will have the additional circuitry for DC charging, and those will have the additional pins for the DC charging jack. DC charging is much higher power than AC charging (usually supplied by a capacitor bank), and with today's batteries it actually causes significant wear to charge them that fast. So until we get better batteries, DC fast charging is irrelevant to most consumers. It is a shame that policymakers are so obsessed with fast-charging before either the standards or the batteries are actually ready for prime time--that money could be better spent on more useful AC charging stations and public awareness.
Battery health isn't the issue here.
It is trivial for a charging station to limit DC output, and with the requirement that the charger listen to the car, it would be trivial for the car to regulate charging speed as well. You can set a default preference in your car (rapid charge or standard charge, just like toner saving modes on printers, or rapid charge options for iPod like devices), or a one time override at the charger or with an app on your phone. You could even specify how long you expect to be gone for and the car can figure out how to balance % charged and battery health based on your ETA.
The problem is as follows:
A car that can charge via AC has more complicated and more expensive internals.
A car that can charge via DC has simpler and cheaper internals.
If some cars in the future are sold as DC-only to save on cost, they will still have to support this AC/DC combo plug, which is ugly, heavy, and thicker than my cock during Wheel of Fortune. The end result will be charging stations that support both AC and DC, most homes supporting AC, few homes supporting DC, and cars supporting both even though a lot of money could be saved if we transitioned to DC-only cars and DC-capable stations (including stations in homes).
Wrong. First off investigations would cost millions of dollars to get one arrest. Secondly, no CEO knows 100% of the policies/practices being done within their organization. Some do know if they are doing this practice, and it was approved, but that number is low. All the CEO knows is they do some phone marketing and it is handled by the telecom and marketing folks, and they get XYZ results from it. Third, punishing CEOs would also just raise the cost of being a CEO, making their salaries even higher. The reason CEO salaries are so high now, is because they are taking all the risks by just being there. One asshole in their company fudges a number and they go to jail. You cannot run a business like that.
Joke post? Joke post.
CEOs absolutely should know what's going on in the company, and they absolutely should be punished for illegal shit. The reason CEO salaries are so high right now is because they can get away with it. They assume zero risk and get excessive amounts of money, stock options, hookers, etc. for doing absolutely nothing.
... Microsoft's "embrace, extend, extinguish" in the mobile world?
That's no worse than:
Apple: Shiny, Sheep, Sue.
Google: Ads, Ads, Ads.
RIM: BlackBerry, BlackBerry, Broke.
Nokia: Solid, Solid, Sold.
Your link there, and below, aren't studies, they're articles that vaguely reference some study done somewhere that measures the rate of false positives.
Well good job, you've shown that handlers want to find drugs on people and don't train their dogs, and that trained dogs can detect trace amounts of drugs.
What you haven't shown is that dogs are not the best choice.
Do you think a machine would be any better in terms of sensitivity? Give me a study showing a machine that can detect an entire smorgasboard of drugs, explosive, and other substances as well as a dog can.
Do you think a machine would be any better in terms of abuse? I clocked you going 85, no you can't have the log from the radar gun. Oh, you've been randomly selected by the computer for an invasive cavity search, Mr. Ali bin Akbar. We received an anonymous tip that you're looking at child porn, so we're going to raid your house and shut down your entire electronic life.
What you've shown is that the police are shitty. You can quote Benjamin Dickhole Franklin all you want, but an indication by a dog doesn't mean you're going to prison unless you've already given the cops reason to hate you and you have the shittiest of lawyers. A false positive (or a positive from trace amounts no one with a brain gives a shit about) does not equate to a prison sentence. And for explosives (what TFA is about), a false positive is an infinitesimal inconvenience compared to a false negative.
Regardless, you still haven't made a case for using anything else over using dogs. Dogs are the best tool we have for the job. The fact that handlers are shitty, or that cops like to bust people for shit they didn't do is an entirely different problem and will not be solved by substituting a different tool for dogs.
You don't like cops, we get it. You probably like and use drugs, and thus fear canine units. You still haven't done anything to prove that dogs aren't the best tool for the job. You've just shown that you don't like how people use the tool.
Judges are REQUIRED to do the following:
Hear and preside over cases, judging them objectively and fairly against both the spirit and letter of the law, or instructing a jury to do so and then executing their verdict as a ruling.
When a law is bullshit a judge absolutely can and should piss on it.
The dogs are detecting drugs.
The fact that the police jump from "There is some amount of drugs present." to "You're going to jail." does not mean the dogs were wrong.
Link shows problem with handlers, not dogs.
Try again.
Because the government wants you to get used to being fondled and told what to do by burly, slack-jawed, unibrow growers.
"We can't use dogs to spy on everybody, everyplace, all the time."
You wouldn't want to anyway. In blind studies, drug- and explosive-sniffing dogs actually have a pretty terrible track record. A literally unacceptable percentage of false positives, for example.
Turned out, the dogs were responding to very subtle cues from their handlers, rather than their own senses. Which renders them completely inappropriate for law-enforcement use.
Please Mod -1000: Utter Bullshit.
Dogs are the absolute best tool we have for the job. There's a reason we use dogs to hunt animals, guard animals, property, and people, track fugitives, search for survivors, bodies, drugs, and explosives, detect cancer or seizures, lead the blind, etc.
They have incredible senses and are very intelligent.
Please link to proof of your "literally unacceptable percentage of false positives" for properly trained canines and handlers.
...sometimes. An SSD is at least as dangerous as a RAID0 array, make backups often.
I run 2 SSDs in RAID 0. Come at me. I've got nightly, full-disk back ups.
TFS doesn't say what this shit is for. It's for applications for new gTLDs - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_top-level_domain .
Basically, a bunch of clowns at major corporations want to register their own version of .com, .net, etc.. ICANN said "no that's dumb" for a long time, but someone told them they could make money off of it, so they decided to go for it, but they didn't have any plan on how to handle applications. ICANN as usual fucked it up.
Now there's probably a hundred applications for .abc and ICANN can't figure out which one to evaluate first.
Just taken the EFF test.
With JS enabled: 1 in 2 500 000 browsers have a similar configuration :(
With JS disabled: 1 in 70 000 :)
Thank you, NoScript ;) https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/noscript/
If you don't want to be tracked, you want to be 1 in a million, not one in 100.
I got: Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 2,452,130 tested so far.
Meaning if anyone sees my browser fingerprint at one place and then again at another place, they know it was the same browser.
>Secure boot is a good thing. It stops pre-boot malware.
So?
Why is it mandatory on ARM but not x86?
>buy an iPad, Kindle, or Android device. You have choices.
This is disingenuous, at best.
--
BMO
It's mandatory on ARM because Windows has a fresh start with ARM.
There are billions of x86 devices out there, some which run BIOS and some which run UEFI, and most of which are long since EoLd by the manufacturer.
It would be impossible to require Secure Boot on x86 because of all the current and legacy shit out there, and it would be confusing to consumers.
Right now, a consumer knows that they can do whatever they want with a PC, but not with their phone or tablet.
It's disingenious to say you have a choice between 4 major environments across dozens of OEMs for your toys?
Why? Which of the following isn't a choice available to you?
Android
Amazon's bastard version of Android
iOS
Windows 8 RT
And can you not buy from Sony, Samsung, HTC, Asus, MS, Apple, HP (lol), etc.?
Give me one fucking fact that is in your favor, please. (Hint: You can't. You're just a fucking troll bmo. Go ahead and log onto those alts.)
The other person already answered what it's about. I will answer this:
As you can easily turn it off if you will,
Not on ARM you can't.
--
BMO
Secure Boot can be turned off for everything except ARM platforms.
Secure Boot must be enabled for ARM platforms.
You can use Secure Boot with whatever bootloader/OS you want as long as you sign it and the UEFI keystore has the key for your OS/bootloader.
If you want to put Linux on an ARM device that comes with Windows, you can either:
A) Wait for a hack specific to that device (see the current phone/tablet market, including Android devices with locked bootloaders, recovery images, etc.).
B) Buy from an OEM that provides a way for you to insert a key of your choosing into the UEFI keystore.
Secure boot is a good thing. It stops pre-boot malware. If you care about putting a different OS on a Windows device, make sure you buy a device that lets you put in your own key. If you can't find such a device, buy an iPad, Kindle, or Android device. You have choices.
It's not elephantitis, it's exaggerated testicular cancer caused by microwaving the testes.
That may be what the episode claims, but the shock humor of someone wheeling around their testicles in a wheelbarrow does in fact come from identical images of real life cases of elephantitis, which is where South Park writers got their idea.
60GHz will be essentially unaffected by microwaves.
However, I note that my laptop (with 802.11g) works just fine on top of my operating microwave
I hope for your sake that isn't all sitting on your lap while operating. You might end up like this guy if you keep doing that for too long.
Link contains image of a South Park character with elephantitis of the testicles, wheeling his scrotum around in a wheelbarrow.
Obviously NSFW.
It needs to be regulated like a public utility.
Won't fix shit. Toothless regulation leads to Enron.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis
Next Season, on Breaking Bad
Jessie: Oh come on, Mr. White! We have $480,000,000! Each! I'm out!
Walt: Really Jessie? This is about money to you?
Jessie: Wasn't that the whole point? To leave your family money, and then to make an empire because you're mad you made a bad decision with Gray Matter? Why do you need a space shuttle? Bitch?!
Walt: Jessie, Hank is on to us. We need to get out of his jurisdiction. Out of everyone's jurisdiction! And that shuttle is our ride.
You know less about linguistics than you think. Words don't have hard and fast definitions, unless they're scientific terms. Even the Academie Francaise has given up flogging that particular dead horse. You can assert that nutritious means "full of nutrients" till you're blue in the face, but others can reasonably disagree. Amusingly, you will find that common dictionary definitions do not mention nutrients, despite your insistence that this is self-evidently the meaning of the word.
Damn you're fucking dumb. Words do indeed have hard and fast definitions. Either way, you said it yourself - "unless they're scientific terms". This was a scientific study that measured levels of various nutrients in foods. Thus even if the word was "fuggelenk" instead of "nutritious" we'd all know the hard and fast definition of the word, since it was defined in the fucking study that you didn't even fucking read.
I don't think searching for Dysan spheres is a bad idea, but if we don't find any, it raises more questions than it answers. Fortunately, they're interesting questions.
The first question raised would be "Why did we listen to the sci-fi ramblings of this coot and spend billions of dollars looking for these ridiculous things?".
Science has explained psychics in one word.
False.
or even Repeatedly False.
Also, love = chemistry.
Chemistry makes it so bandages love the water, and condoms love the pussy.
When we do chemistry, we talk about the "human element" and show children being happy because you morons don't understand chemistry.
BASF
The chemical company.