The problem with that line of thinking is that the actions aren't inherently neutral; they each carry meaning in our culture. If you want something to be read by others, you send it. If you're unsure you want it to be read, you don't send it. If you're sure you don't want it to be read, you delete it.
As you pointed out, it's possible that he bucked those conventions, but the onus is on the people saying he bucked convention to prove he actually did so. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we should assume he used his e-mail according to convention.
We are talking about Yellowstone, so consideration is needed as to how such preventative actions may affect the features which attract visitors.
I certainly hope you forgot your </sarcasm> tag there, since given the choice between "Yellowstone is an uninhabitable crater" and "Yellowstone is the caldera of the supervolcano that destroyed humanity", I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the former option—the one where humans still exist—would be better for tourism.
Last I had heard, they were estimating that an eruption of the Yellowstone supervolcano could result in 10 feet (i.e. 3 m) of ash being deposited in Houston. Even without considering the life-ending clouds that would cover the earth for decades, that much ash on the ground would be more than enough to end a civilization for the simple reasons that you wouldn't be able to breathe, move about, or work the land.
Now, for folks who aren't intimately familiar with US geography, this may sound like yet another tragedy for the people of Houston after the recent hurricane that ravaged the city, but that's missing the point entirely. The point here is that Houston is nowhere close to Yellowstone. Nowhere close.
To put it in perspective for any Europeans, the distance from Yellowstone to Houston (i.e. ~1300 miles or ~2100 km as the crow flies) is roughly the same as the distance from Amsterdam to Moscow (or London to Bucharest or Paris to Istanbul). Another way of putting it is that if an eruption of this magnitude happened in Munich, you'd have to travel to the Arctic Circle, the middle of the Sahara, or somewhere beyond Moscow before you'd see less ash than what I described. For any Aussies, it'd mean that if an eruption happened in Alice Springs, the entire country would be under that much ash or more. You'd have to get pretty far into Papua New Guinea or Indonesia before you'd see any less than I described.
All of which is to say, we're talking about life-ending amounts of ash being deposited across entire continents, so preventative measures may be necessary if we want there to be tourism, not just in Yellowstone, but anywhere on the planet.
What about the fact that it was unsent? It'd be one thing if it was stuck in his outbox after it failed to send, but the fact that he had not gone through the act of even trying to send it would suggest that he thought better of it and decided against going through with it.
Considering he used bathtubs as an example and asked for human terms, I believe he was looking for something like the list I'm about to provide, each of which is close to 80,000 km^2, rather than having a number that is beyond our ability to grasp easily expressed in terms of equally ungraspable units.
Anywhere, here's a quick list I pulled together of some notable items between about 77K and 83K km^2: - Austria - Czech Republic - Lake Superior - Maine, USA - Scotland - South Carolina, USA - United Arab Emirates
Rather than being a smart ass, why don't you actually listen to what the guy is asking next time and respond with something useful?
I know it sounds like I'm dishing a lot on Google, but that's actually not my point here. Google has every reason to protect that data to the best of its ability, since their business depends on protecting our data so well that we continue giving our data to them voluntarily. The fact that not even Google—a company who lives and breathes in this space—can protect us from hackers, their own greed, and their lack of creativity in imagining how a feature could go wrong should tell us that no company who builds their business on collecting this sort of data can be trusted to keep it safe.
So, a few things: 1) Many video games don't compute paths in realtime. Rather, the set of paths is either precomputed or manually entered by the developers. The game then merely selects between one of the preset paths, without any ability to actually determine its own.
2) Even when they are able to determine their own paths, video game pathing algorithms generally have perfect knowledge. There's no need to do the heavy lifting of recognizing obstacles when you have a perfect awareness of every single one in the entire world.
3) Video games aren't necessarily bound by the rules. Most video games are tuned for fun rather than realism, particularly when it comes to their physics and recognition of the law. For instance, two vastly different cars may brake the same way in a game so that it's easier for the player to get the feel for cars in the game, but in real life, the very same car can brake completely differently based on weather, the condition of the tires, or how loaded with cargo it is, and it's important that an autonomous vehicle understand those differences so that it can drive safely. Likewise, video game cars can ignore traffic signals and the like with little concern for the law, but that's not the case in the real world.
4) Video games cheat. You'll frequently see vehicles in games clip through obstacles that would have caused an accident in the real world, take paths that would have destroyed a real vehicle, or have spontaneous boosts in their speeds as they go through boring parts of the world.
5) Video games are dumb. There are literally tens of thousands of YouTube videos of vehicles doing stupid things in games (e.g. driving themselves off cliffs, driving through the air, driving through walls, rolling over on gentle turns, mowing down pedestrians, etc.), so this is hardly a solved problem even in worlds that we have full control over.
All of which is to say, if video game vehicles are our standard for success, heaven help us all, 'cause we'll all be dead within a week.
your long as paragraphs say absolutely nothing that wasn't completely obvious from reading the summary.
My "long as" paragraphs (the longest of which was only five sentences) discussed, in order: 1) Why the summary was nonsensical in its singling out of Americans 2) How greater pixel density doesn't actually matter to the use case the summary spent its time discussing 3) Current use cases where we actually benefit from higher resolutions 4) An example of a future technology that may benefit from higher resolutions
None of those were covered in the summary, obliquely or otherwise, except inasmuch as it got them wrong. But if they truly are "completely obvious", feel free to point them out.
Fuck off and stop posting, you have nothing to contribute to a discussion of intelligent people.
It's kinda hard to take an insult like that seriously when it's coming from someone who can't even spell "ass".
But they should sit just 3 feet from a UHDTV of the same size, closer than most Americans prefer.
This statement makes no sense. For one thing, what does being an American have to do with anything at all? Why would nationality affect how close people want to sit to their screens? Are the French so busy feigning disinterest that they need to sit that close to see what's on? Do the Brits need to sit that close because they have tiny screens they can quickly hide when the TV tax man comes around to collect? Would all of us Americans sit closer too, if not for the fact that our rampant obesity keeps us from doing so?
Come on.
More importantly, however, pixel density really has very little effect on where you should sit in relation to your TV. For people who have good enough eyes and actually care, it puts a lower bound on how close they can sit (i.e. a point at which they'll start to experience reduced quality due to the resolution of the TV), but it doesn't tell them where they should sit. The major factors in determining where one should sit are the size of the screen and how much of the field of vision one wants it to fill. Dolby, THX, and other industry groups tend to recommend sitting close enough to the screen that it fills more of the field of vision, providing a more "cinematic experience", but even their recommended seating distances (which are closer than most people seem to prefer) still have people far enough away that most people won't see any difference in terms of resolution (HDR and other advances notwithstanding) between a 1080p TV and a 4K TV. When the industry made the move to 4K, they blew past the point where resolution mattered for home theater setups, even for viewers with beyond 20/20 vision, in much the same way that the "DPI wars" in the printer industry eventually came to an end as it simply stopped mattering.
Which isn't to say that these resolutions are pointless. There are still numerous use cases where people sit closer to their displays (e.g. desktop computing) or have the display filling more of their field of vision (e.g. IMAX), so we still need higher resolutions for those sorts of use cases. And because passive 3D typically relies on polarization to direct half the pixels towards each eye, it requires that the screen support double the resolution you actually want to view content at, meaning that higher resolutions are still useful. And there are new possibilities that may be of interest as well as higher resolutions open up.
For instance, I recall seeing a patent that would have allowed up to 16 people to view a movie in 3D at the same time without any of them having to wear 3D glasses. The trick was having a projector screen with microscopic ridges angled such that each eye of each person saw a different set of ridges than any eye of any other person. More or less, there would be 32 copies of the image on the screen at any given time, with each eye only able to see one copy of the image. But to do that, you'd need to have a projector with such a ridiculously high resolution that it could hit each of those microscopic ridges perfectly. That notion seemed practically impossible back when it was proposed in the heyday of 1080p, but it suddenly seems a lot more viable as we start to talk about 8K reaching the market.
Exactly. This is an old problem that was, at least legally, largely solved decades and centuries ago. Slapping “on the Internet” on the description doesn’t change the fundamental issue or make it a new problem.
It’s like when we have to explain that a patent is lousy because all they did was slap “on a computer” onto an idea that’s been around for our entire lives. Fraud is fraud. False advertising is false advertising. Whether it’s on the Internet or not really shouldn’t make a lick of difference.
Not so. For instance, I currently used a password manager to load my passwords and credit card details directly into my browser, without necessarily having to type my master password in each time I need any specific password or credit card.
Why not take that a step further? Have browsers implement an API through which they can request payment details from external apps of our choosing. The browser sends out a request for information that would allow it to engage in a transaction for a certain amount to a certain vendor, and my app of choice can prompt me according to my security settings before it responds back with a token that represents that transaction. It’s basically what Apple Pay is already doing, minus the part where you get to choose your own app, but it keeps the vendors from being able to use your financial details to do anything other than take the agreed upon amount of money. E.g. No tracking by credit card number, capturing your name and ZIP, etc..
You fix it in software, not the standard. Decent devices already implement a delay on the video signal so that it matches up with the audio. I suspect the implementation isn’t much different than what’s necessary with TVs and AVRs that support an Audio Return Channel (a.k.a. ARC, i.e. allowing you to plug a device directly into your TV while having the audio signal get routed to your AVR via the HDMI cable coming from it, and then on to your speakers).
For video games you’re kinda screwed unless the manufacturer implements proprietary extensions to the standard (e.g. Apple’s AirPods do some custom stuff to make pairing and latency less of a problem, which I think they’ve said they plan to share), but this is already a solved problem for watching video footage.
Why can’t it? Other member’s clubs like Costco and Sam’s Club already offer prescriptions. There’s no reason Amazon couldn’t provide special pricing to Prime members.
There were several horror stories in the last year or two from folks in white collar positions.
I remember hearing one in particular about the working conditions surrounding the team that developed the Amazon Fire Phone and how they were grossly mistreated by their management and the executives. And at the end of it all, a lot of them were simply laid off after putting in crazy hours and sacrificing a lot to make that product happen, because the product failed to take off in the market for reasons out of their control and the company didn’t want to have to bother trying to relocate that many devs internally all at once. But even prior to the layoffs, it sounded like a miserable place to be.
I’ve heard similar stories from a number of their other product lines and divisions. More or less, it sounds like unless you’re on one of their core infrastructure teams with AWS, expect to get treated as a second-class citizen, work long hours, get paid about the same as you can get anywhere else, have a manager who doesn’t understand or respect you, and be treated as a disposal cog in a massive machine.
Not sure what they're hoping for. They've become a running gag around my workplace, what with us each getting contacted by Amazon recruiters every few weeks. The requests get trashed without further consideration by the vast majority of us, since none of us have heard good things about working at Amazon. After hearing about an MBA hiring spree, I suspect that even fewer of us would be inclined to join their ranks.
The system still doesn't know what the password is. So far as it knows, the thing it's showing you really is the password hint.
As the GP suggested, the bug isn't technically that the password is being stored in plaintext, though that is a consequence of the bug. Rather, the bug is that the hint's value is being set to the password's value when a user sets up a new encrypted volume in the version of Disk Utility that shipped with High Sierra.
Thankfully, this only affected users on the latest version of the OS who set up new encrypted volumes using Disk Utility in the time since they upgraded. Existing encrypted volumes are fine, as are encrypted volumes created via any other method. Even so, it's a pretty glaring bug, so I'm glad to hear that it was fixed quickly after hitting the news circuits earlier today.
Yup, but it shouldn't come as a surprise, nor is it necessarily something to get worked up over.
Netflix was considered an upstart company for a long time, with most of the studios and networks not recognizing how disruptive it would eventually become. As such, Netflix was viewed as yet another way to profit from back catalogs that otherwise weren't providing much value to their owners, so Netflix was able to secure a number of multiyear licenses from major organizations (e.g. Starz) for little more than a pittance. Fast forward 10 years and everyone has woken up to the fact that Netflix poses a major threat to the very foundations of the traditional television business model. They aren't willing to give away licenses to their old content for cheap, nor are they so willing to license recent stuff without ensuring that they receive hefty compensation.
In response, Netflix only has two options: raise prices or reduce their catalog, and they've done both to varying degrees.
What I've noticed recently is that Netflix seems to be procuring short-term licenses for big-name films, that way people can watch them as they hit the various services, but that these licenses seem to expire after a few months. Doing it that way lets the vast majority of people who were interested in that film watch it, without forcing Netflix to raise prices in order to keep those big-name films in their library in perpetuity. Likewise, they let older items expire, but most of them seem to return again a year or two later, as if at any given time Netflix wants their library to have about X items in it, but they renew licenses in a round robin fashion so that people have an opportunity to actually watch more than X items.
For me, even with the price hike, it's still a great value proposition. With dozens of items currently in my queue and more being added on a regular basis, it may not have any particular thing I want to see at any given time, but it always has enough things I want to see that I'm never lacking for entertainment.
Given that the Model X is the only production car ever made with double-hinged doors that can open both horizontally & vertically at the same time, [...] the doors are more properly referred to as "falconwing"
Ah, fair enough. I forgot that detail and now stand corrected. Thanks for the response!
How many car companies are currently offering gullwing doors? Is it one or can you find another example?
Mercedes and Pagani both had models with gull-wing doors in the last few years. Not sure if they're still current, however, much the same as I'm not sure which, if any, of the other PC manufacturers are currently offering laptops that can flip around like this.
Sorry, are you referring to solar or current power plants? Because everything you said can apply to either.
As a society, we already see drops in performance when parts aren't replaced or maintained. We already deal with sticker shock when we need to repair or replace everything from turbine blades to scrubbers to pistons that can fail for any number of different mechanical or chemical reasons. We already have to dispose of filters and other parts that are contaminated with toxic materials. None of this is new.
What is new, however, are the rapidly falling prices for solar installs, zero emissions during operation, less frequent maintenance, and the fact that it's looking like 15-20 years may have been a conservative estimate, since we're already seeing them lasting far longer than originally expected. Which isn't to say that they solve all of our problems, nor that they come with no new ones, but suggesting that we shouldn't use solar until we deal with the issues you listed—issues which we already face—is like saying that we shouldn't allow a drug that cures 50% of patients suffering from an otherwise terminal disease, because it doesn't save 100% of them.
Isn't saying "The HP Spectre x360 13 is already one of the most popular 360-degree convertible laptops" kinda like saying "The Tesla Model X is already one of the most popular vehicles with gull-wing doors"? I mean, 360-degree convertible laptops aren't exactly sweeping the market, just like I'd guess that the Model X's biggest competition in the gull-wing niche of the market is probably the 35 year-old Delorean DMC-12.
If your device is actually popular, then say so. Don't attach caveats. But if you're saying you have one of the most popular devices among those with an unpopular feature, what you're really telling us is that you're willing to lie with statistics in an effort to make an unpopular device sound popular.
"Assembler language" is fine, since it's being used as an adjective to describe a language. It's like someone saying "he speaks a tonal language".
"Assembler" as a way to refer to a language is not fine, since that noun doesn't refer to a language. It makes no more sense than someone saying "he speaks tonal".
"Assembly" as a way to refer to a language is fine, since that noun refers to a particular language. It's like someone saying "he speaks Cherokee".
You got most of that right, but one important correction: Chrome had a multiprocess model years before they ever forked Blink from WebKit, and WebKit already had a multiprocess model by the time Blink was forked.
Backing up a bit, years and years prior to the split, Google baked a multiprocess model into Chromium, rather than WebKit. This gave Chrome a major competitive advantage over Safari and other browsers that relied on WebKit. Apple, of course, wanted to have a multiprocess model as well, so they later baked it directly into WebKit, but it was a significant enough departure that they forked it as WebKit 2. As you’d expect, Google didn’t contribute much (anything?) towards WebKit 2 since it wasn’t compatible with their existing multiprocess model, and, as you’d expect, Apple’s contributions towards WebKit dried up as they focused on WebKit 2. Making things even more interesting, WebKit 2 was a buggy mess for quite awhile, so Apple itself didn’t even adopt it in Safari for Mac or iOS immediately, and Google would have had even less reason to adopt it.
Google’s eventual forking of Blink from WebKit was really the natural conclusion to the choice Apple had made years earlier when they forked WebKit 2, which was itself the natural next step after Google decided to keep its multiprocess model to itself, which was itself the natural next step after Apple left such a glaring hole in WebKit’s architecture, and so on and so in.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with that line of thinking is that the actions aren't inherently neutral; they each carry meaning in our culture. If you want something to be read by others, you send it. If you're unsure you want it to be read, you don't send it. If you're sure you don't want it to be read, you delete it.
As you pointed out, it's possible that he bucked those conventions, but the onus is on the people saying he bucked convention to prove he actually did so. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we should assume he used his e-mail according to convention.
We are talking about Yellowstone, so consideration is needed as to how such preventative actions may affect the features which attract visitors.
I certainly hope you forgot your </sarcasm> tag there, since given the choice between "Yellowstone is an uninhabitable crater" and "Yellowstone is the caldera of the supervolcano that destroyed humanity", I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the former option—the one where humans still exist—would be better for tourism.
Last I had heard, they were estimating that an eruption of the Yellowstone supervolcano could result in 10 feet (i.e. 3 m) of ash being deposited in Houston. Even without considering the life-ending clouds that would cover the earth for decades, that much ash on the ground would be more than enough to end a civilization for the simple reasons that you wouldn't be able to breathe, move about, or work the land.
Now, for folks who aren't intimately familiar with US geography, this may sound like yet another tragedy for the people of Houston after the recent hurricane that ravaged the city, but that's missing the point entirely. The point here is that Houston is nowhere close to Yellowstone. Nowhere close.
To put it in perspective for any Europeans, the distance from Yellowstone to Houston (i.e. ~1300 miles or ~2100 km as the crow flies) is roughly the same as the distance from Amsterdam to Moscow (or London to Bucharest or Paris to Istanbul). Another way of putting it is that if an eruption of this magnitude happened in Munich, you'd have to travel to the Arctic Circle, the middle of the Sahara, or somewhere beyond Moscow before you'd see less ash than what I described. For any Aussies, it'd mean that if an eruption happened in Alice Springs, the entire country would be under that much ash or more. You'd have to get pretty far into Papua New Guinea or Indonesia before you'd see any less than I described.
All of which is to say, we're talking about life-ending amounts of ash being deposited across entire continents, so preventative measures may be necessary if we want there to be tourism, not just in Yellowstone, but anywhere on the planet.
What about the fact that it was unsent? It'd be one thing if it was stuck in his outbox after it failed to send, but the fact that he had not gone through the act of even trying to send it would suggest that he thought better of it and decided against going through with it.
Considering he used bathtubs as an example and asked for human terms, I believe he was looking for something like the list I'm about to provide, each of which is close to 80,000 km^2, rather than having a number that is beyond our ability to grasp easily expressed in terms of equally ungraspable units.
Anywhere, here's a quick list I pulled together of some notable items between about 77K and 83K km^2:
- Austria
- Czech Republic
- Lake Superior
- Maine, USA
- Scotland
- South Carolina, USA
- United Arab Emirates
Rather than being a smart ass, why don't you actually listen to what the guy is asking next time and respond with something useful?
To be fair, Google has been an excellent custodian of our data, thus far.
To be fair, no, they haven't been. In fact, there have been so many problems with their handling of our data that Wikipedia even has a dedicated page to privacy concerns regarding Google. Which is in addition to the Criticism of Google page that has a section dedicated to criticisms regarding their handling of our privacy.
But in the last 10 years alone, Google has been the subject of several hacks (e.g. a Google Docs vulnerability that allowed anyone access to any document, the Operation Aurora hacks from China, etc.), has given our data away without our permission on more than one occasion (the most egregious of which was their handling of Google Buzz that allowed stalkers and abusive ex-husbands to rediscover their victims), and has eliminated the barrier preventing them from using private information in selling ads.
I know it sounds like I'm dishing a lot on Google, but that's actually not my point here. Google has every reason to protect that data to the best of its ability, since their business depends on protecting our data so well that we continue giving our data to them voluntarily. The fact that not even Google—a company who lives and breathes in this space—can protect us from hackers, their own greed, and their lack of creativity in imagining how a feature could go wrong should tell us that no company who builds their business on collecting this sort of data can be trusted to keep it safe.
That's my point.
So, a few things:
1) Many video games don't compute paths in realtime. Rather, the set of paths is either precomputed or manually entered by the developers. The game then merely selects between one of the preset paths, without any ability to actually determine its own.
2) Even when they are able to determine their own paths, video game pathing algorithms generally have perfect knowledge. There's no need to do the heavy lifting of recognizing obstacles when you have a perfect awareness of every single one in the entire world.
3) Video games aren't necessarily bound by the rules. Most video games are tuned for fun rather than realism, particularly when it comes to their physics and recognition of the law. For instance, two vastly different cars may brake the same way in a game so that it's easier for the player to get the feel for cars in the game, but in real life, the very same car can brake completely differently based on weather, the condition of the tires, or how loaded with cargo it is, and it's important that an autonomous vehicle understand those differences so that it can drive safely. Likewise, video game cars can ignore traffic signals and the like with little concern for the law, but that's not the case in the real world.
4) Video games cheat. You'll frequently see vehicles in games clip through obstacles that would have caused an accident in the real world, take paths that would have destroyed a real vehicle, or have spontaneous boosts in their speeds as they go through boring parts of the world.
5) Video games are dumb. There are literally tens of thousands of YouTube videos of vehicles doing stupid things in games (e.g. driving themselves off cliffs, driving through the air, driving through walls, rolling over on gentle turns, mowing down pedestrians, etc.), so this is hardly a solved problem even in worlds that we have full control over.
All of which is to say, if video game vehicles are our standard for success, heaven help us all, 'cause we'll all be dead within a week.
your long as paragraphs say absolutely nothing that wasn't completely obvious from reading the summary.
My "long as" paragraphs (the longest of which was only five sentences) discussed, in order:
1) Why the summary was nonsensical in its singling out of Americans
2) How greater pixel density doesn't actually matter to the use case the summary spent its time discussing
3) Current use cases where we actually benefit from higher resolutions
4) An example of a future technology that may benefit from higher resolutions
None of those were covered in the summary, obliquely or otherwise, except inasmuch as it got them wrong. But if they truly are "completely obvious", feel free to point them out.
Fuck off and stop posting, you have nothing to contribute to a discussion of intelligent people.
It's kinda hard to take an insult like that seriously when it's coming from someone who can't even spell "ass".
I never said it was a good idea, just that it was a new possibility that may be of interest. I chose my words carefully.
But they should sit just 3 feet from a UHDTV of the same size, closer than most Americans prefer.
This statement makes no sense. For one thing, what does being an American have to do with anything at all? Why would nationality affect how close people want to sit to their screens? Are the French so busy feigning disinterest that they need to sit that close to see what's on? Do the Brits need to sit that close because they have tiny screens they can quickly hide when the TV tax man comes around to collect? Would all of us Americans sit closer too, if not for the fact that our rampant obesity keeps us from doing so?
Come on.
More importantly, however, pixel density really has very little effect on where you should sit in relation to your TV. For people who have good enough eyes and actually care, it puts a lower bound on how close they can sit (i.e. a point at which they'll start to experience reduced quality due to the resolution of the TV), but it doesn't tell them where they should sit. The major factors in determining where one should sit are the size of the screen and how much of the field of vision one wants it to fill. Dolby, THX, and other industry groups tend to recommend sitting close enough to the screen that it fills more of the field of vision, providing a more "cinematic experience", but even their recommended seating distances (which are closer than most people seem to prefer) still have people far enough away that most people won't see any difference in terms of resolution (HDR and other advances notwithstanding) between a 1080p TV and a 4K TV. When the industry made the move to 4K, they blew past the point where resolution mattered for home theater setups, even for viewers with beyond 20/20 vision, in much the same way that the "DPI wars" in the printer industry eventually came to an end as it simply stopped mattering.
Which isn't to say that these resolutions are pointless. There are still numerous use cases where people sit closer to their displays (e.g. desktop computing) or have the display filling more of their field of vision (e.g. IMAX), so we still need higher resolutions for those sorts of use cases. And because passive 3D typically relies on polarization to direct half the pixels towards each eye, it requires that the screen support double the resolution you actually want to view content at, meaning that higher resolutions are still useful. And there are new possibilities that may be of interest as well as higher resolutions open up.
For instance, I recall seeing a patent that would have allowed up to 16 people to view a movie in 3D at the same time without any of them having to wear 3D glasses. The trick was having a projector screen with microscopic ridges angled such that each eye of each person saw a different set of ridges than any eye of any other person. More or less, there would be 32 copies of the image on the screen at any given time, with each eye only able to see one copy of the image. But to do that, you'd need to have a projector with such a ridiculously high resolution that it could hit each of those microscopic ridges perfectly. That notion seemed practically impossible back when it was proposed in the heyday of 1080p, but it suddenly seems a lot more viable as we start to talk about 8K reaching the market.
Exactly. This is an old problem that was, at least legally, largely solved decades and centuries ago. Slapping “on the Internet” on the description doesn’t change the fundamental issue or make it a new problem.
It’s like when we have to explain that a patent is lousy because all they did was slap “on a computer” onto an idea that’s been around for our entire lives. Fraud is fraud. False advertising is false advertising. Whether it’s on the Internet or not really shouldn’t make a lick of difference.
Not so. For instance, I currently used a password manager to load my passwords and credit card details directly into my browser, without necessarily having to type my master password in each time I need any specific password or credit card.
Why not take that a step further? Have browsers implement an API through which they can request payment details from external apps of our choosing. The browser sends out a request for information that would allow it to engage in a transaction for a certain amount to a certain vendor, and my app of choice can prompt me according to my security settings before it responds back with a token that represents that transaction. It’s basically what Apple Pay is already doing, minus the part where you get to choose your own app, but it keeps the vendors from being able to use your financial details to do anything other than take the agreed upon amount of money. E.g. No tracking by credit card number, capturing your name and ZIP, etc..
You fix it in software, not the standard. Decent devices already implement a delay on the video signal so that it matches up with the audio. I suspect the implementation isn’t much different than what’s necessary with TVs and AVRs that support an Audio Return Channel (a.k.a. ARC, i.e. allowing you to plug a device directly into your TV while having the audio signal get routed to your AVR via the HDMI cable coming from it, and then on to your speakers).
For video games you’re kinda screwed unless the manufacturer implements proprietary extensions to the standard (e.g. Apple’s AirPods do some custom stuff to make pairing and latency less of a problem, which I think they’ve said they plan to share), but this is already a solved problem for watching video footage.
Why can’t it? Other member’s clubs like Costco and Sam’s Club already offer prescriptions. There’s no reason Amazon couldn’t provide special pricing to Prime members.
There were several horror stories in the last year or two from folks in white collar positions.
I remember hearing one in particular about the working conditions surrounding the team that developed the Amazon Fire Phone and how they were grossly mistreated by their management and the executives. And at the end of it all, a lot of them were simply laid off after putting in crazy hours and sacrificing a lot to make that product happen, because the product failed to take off in the market for reasons out of their control and the company didn’t want to have to bother trying to relocate that many devs internally all at once. But even prior to the layoffs, it sounded like a miserable place to be.
I’ve heard similar stories from a number of their other product lines and divisions. More or less, it sounds like unless you’re on one of their core infrastructure teams with AWS, expect to get treated as a second-class citizen, work long hours, get paid about the same as you can get anywhere else, have a manager who doesn’t understand or respect you, and be treated as a disposal cog in a massive machine.
Not sure what they're hoping for. They've become a running gag around my workplace, what with us each getting contacted by Amazon recruiters every few weeks. The requests get trashed without further consideration by the vast majority of us, since none of us have heard good things about working at Amazon. After hearing about an MBA hiring spree, I suspect that even fewer of us would be inclined to join their ranks.
The system still doesn't know what the password is. So far as it knows, the thing it's showing you really is the password hint.
As the GP suggested, the bug isn't technically that the password is being stored in plaintext, though that is a consequence of the bug. Rather, the bug is that the hint's value is being set to the password's value when a user sets up a new encrypted volume in the version of Disk Utility that shipped with High Sierra.
Thankfully, this only affected users on the latest version of the OS who set up new encrypted volumes using Disk Utility in the time since they upgraded. Existing encrypted volumes are fine, as are encrypted volumes created via any other method. Even so, it's a pretty glaring bug, so I'm glad to hear that it was fixed quickly after hitting the news circuits earlier today.
Yup, but it shouldn't come as a surprise, nor is it necessarily something to get worked up over.
Netflix was considered an upstart company for a long time, with most of the studios and networks not recognizing how disruptive it would eventually become. As such, Netflix was viewed as yet another way to profit from back catalogs that otherwise weren't providing much value to their owners, so Netflix was able to secure a number of multiyear licenses from major organizations (e.g. Starz) for little more than a pittance. Fast forward 10 years and everyone has woken up to the fact that Netflix poses a major threat to the very foundations of the traditional television business model. They aren't willing to give away licenses to their old content for cheap, nor are they so willing to license recent stuff without ensuring that they receive hefty compensation.
In response, Netflix only has two options: raise prices or reduce their catalog, and they've done both to varying degrees.
What I've noticed recently is that Netflix seems to be procuring short-term licenses for big-name films, that way people can watch them as they hit the various services, but that these licenses seem to expire after a few months. Doing it that way lets the vast majority of people who were interested in that film watch it, without forcing Netflix to raise prices in order to keep those big-name films in their library in perpetuity. Likewise, they let older items expire, but most of them seem to return again a year or two later, as if at any given time Netflix wants their library to have about X items in it, but they renew licenses in a round robin fashion so that people have an opportunity to actually watch more than X items.
For me, even with the price hike, it's still a great value proposition. With dozens of items currently in my queue and more being added on a regular basis, it may not have any particular thing I want to see at any given time, but it always has enough things I want to see that I'm never lacking for entertainment.
I'd mod you up if I had points. Not sure how they missed the link in the summary that leads to something Trump related.
Given that the Model X is the only production car ever made with double-hinged doors that can open both horizontally & vertically at the same time, [...] the doors are more properly referred to as "falconwing"
Ah, fair enough. I forgot that detail and now stand corrected. Thanks for the response!
How many car companies are currently offering gullwing doors? Is it one or can you find another example?
Mercedes and Pagani both had models with gull-wing doors in the last few years. Not sure if they're still current, however, much the same as I'm not sure which, if any, of the other PC manufacturers are currently offering laptops that can flip around like this.
Sorry, are you referring to solar or current power plants? Because everything you said can apply to either.
As a society, we already see drops in performance when parts aren't replaced or maintained. We already deal with sticker shock when we need to repair or replace everything from turbine blades to scrubbers to pistons that can fail for any number of different mechanical or chemical reasons. We already have to dispose of filters and other parts that are contaminated with toxic materials. None of this is new.
What is new, however, are the rapidly falling prices for solar installs, zero emissions during operation, less frequent maintenance, and the fact that it's looking like 15-20 years may have been a conservative estimate, since we're already seeing them lasting far longer than originally expected. Which isn't to say that they solve all of our problems, nor that they come with no new ones, but suggesting that we shouldn't use solar until we deal with the issues you listed—issues which we already face—is like saying that we shouldn't allow a drug that cures 50% of patients suffering from an otherwise terminal disease, because it doesn't save 100% of them.
Isn't saying "The HP Spectre x360 13 is already one of the most popular 360-degree convertible laptops" kinda like saying "The Tesla Model X is already one of the most popular vehicles with gull-wing doors"? I mean, 360-degree convertible laptops aren't exactly sweeping the market, just like I'd guess that the Model X's biggest competition in the gull-wing niche of the market is probably the 35 year-old Delorean DMC-12.
If your device is actually popular, then say so. Don't attach caveats. But if you're saying you have one of the most popular devices among those with an unpopular feature, what you're really telling us is that you're willing to lie with statistics in an effort to make an unpopular device sound popular.
Apparently you forgot what site you were on? Insisting on accuracy is what we do.
"Assembler language" is fine, since it's being used as an adjective to describe a language. It's like someone saying "he speaks a tonal language".
"Assembler" as a way to refer to a language is not fine, since that noun doesn't refer to a language. It makes no more sense than someone saying "he speaks tonal".
"Assembly" as a way to refer to a language is fine, since that noun refers to a particular language. It's like someone saying "he speaks Cherokee".
You got most of that right, but one important correction: Chrome had a multiprocess model years before they ever forked Blink from WebKit, and WebKit already had a multiprocess model by the time Blink was forked.
Backing up a bit, years and years prior to the split, Google baked a multiprocess model into Chromium, rather than WebKit. This gave Chrome a major competitive advantage over Safari and other browsers that relied on WebKit. Apple, of course, wanted to have a multiprocess model as well, so they later baked it directly into WebKit, but it was a significant enough departure that they forked it as WebKit 2. As you’d expect, Google didn’t contribute much (anything?) towards WebKit 2 since it wasn’t compatible with their existing multiprocess model, and, as you’d expect, Apple’s contributions towards WebKit dried up as they focused on WebKit 2. Making things even more interesting, WebKit 2 was a buggy mess for quite awhile, so Apple itself didn’t even adopt it in Safari for Mac or iOS immediately, and Google would have had even less reason to adopt it.
Google’s eventual forking of Blink from WebKit was really the natural conclusion to the choice Apple had made years earlier when they forked WebKit 2, which was itself the natural next step after Google decided to keep its multiprocess model to itself, which was itself the natural next step after Apple left such a glaring hole in WebKit’s architecture, and so on and so in.