"It's also been tested in different water environments, like hot tubs, pools, and bubble baths."
I used a similar phrase on my 3rd year college project many years ago: "It was tested on 4 machines". I never actually said it _worked_ on all 4 machines (nor was I asked for clarification, which was lucky 'cos it only worked on 3)...
No, it would be like saying android is insecure because Google regularly send emails asking to reset your gmail password. So when you get an email that looks similar you'll just click the link and enter your password.
On Android, I'm trying to remember any time I'm asked to enter my account password. When I add my account to the phone initially, and when I purchase something from the play store. I don't recall ever seeing a popup asking for my google account password in any other circumstance.
So the issue here is that by being asked for your password a lot (relatively, at least), then a user won't think twice when asked at any random time and will just enter it.
The issue with this is that there is only 1 USB-C connector on the phone. So you can't plug in your headphones and charge your phone at the same time.
Plus, it's more stuff to remember to bring with you (USB-C -> 3.5mm adapter), and more stuff to lose.
Yes, let's let wireless headphones work for those that want to use them. But, no, let's not force everyone to have to buy new headphones and do something that nobody actually asked for.
I'm on the market for a new Android phone and I'm waiting for today's Google Event to get the full facts about the Pixel phones.
I don't use headphones all that often with my phone, but when I do it's typically on a long flight. I have a good set of noise-cancelling headphones, so I'd prefer to not have to replace these. And while there will likely be a USB-C -> 3.5mm jack converter in the box, it means that not only do I have to remember to bring this with me (and if I forget it I can't use my headphones, and thus can't watch a movie on my phone), but I also cannot charge my phone when it will inevitably run out of battery and listen use headphones at the same time. And this is a bad thing. If I want to have a set of wired headphones at all, then I can't listen and charge at the same time. And wireless headphones require charging too...
So, yeah, this could be a deal breaker. I might find myself getting a S8+ or an LG V30 over the Pixel 2 XL, which will end my multiple-years of buying a phone directly from Google and having stock android.
Do I prefer stock android over my current headphones? Probably not. Samsung have some great stuff on the S8+ that may just tempt me in that direction. And they still have a headphone jack!
"The show's second episode is at No. 17, which is a tad surprising as that was the one that wasn't free".
You're forgetting about the "Rest of the world" -- that massive populous outside of the U.S. of A (which is only about 22 times the population of the USA, so probably doesn't register for you) that don't have CBS (and probably many in the US that also don't have access to CBS), and thus have no other way to view the pilot. It makes sense to me that more people will download the pilot to watch before downloading the 2nd episode, which they may download the next day, or not at all if they didn't enjoy the show.
One issue with Occam's razor is that what may be obvious and simple to one person may not be to another. Hence 2 different people will come up with what they think to be a perfectly logical and simple explanation.
That means that some will actually think this is Star Wars.
The most annoying this I find about speed bumps is that you can't drive over them comfortably at the ADVERTISED SPEED LIMIT. These things are supposed to be used to discourage speeding, which means driving ABOVE the advertised limit, but that's never that case.
So can these be adjusted so that driving over them at 50km/h in a 50km/h zone will be a smooth ride, but when driving at 60km/h it'll harden?
Using obscurity in encryption just doesn't work. It has to be assumed that everything about the encryption method is known. Which is typically why everything about encryption methods is known - the algorithms and source code are always available to anyone.
What is secret is the key that is used.
Introducing a backdoor would mean that the method of how this backdoor is implemented would be known to everyone - it has to be, or at least assumed to be. So the only way to implement a backdoor "securely" is by using a key. This means hardcoding a public key into all public/private key encryption schemes and using both it and the users' public keys to encrypt the data, which is typically just encrypting the key for the symmetric encryption method (AES, for example) being used.
I don't believe there would be a way to incorporate an extra key in a symmetric encryption system. Certainly not without seriously harming how the encryption works. And how would you hide the key? If the key is hard coded, everyone knows what it is, and can thus decrypt with it.
Then you run into the problem of what happens once these hard coded keys are known to everyone, 'cos you know it's only a matter of time before they are either leaked or found. A global key to unencrypt all internet traffic - ever hacker and cracker, no matter if they are white, grey, black, or any other colour hat, would be searching for that key. And it wouldn't take all that long to find, given enough computing power (read: botnet).
If a government does force this to happen, you know that they will be the first target for all of these people who find the global key(s).
I suppose adding a watermark containing or based on the hash of the original image would suffice to randomise it. How this is applied is open to any number of ways, such as adding a QR code, or a 2D barcode, or warping the watermark according to an algorithm based on the hash. That should be random enough to mess with the removal algorithm.
But the idea here would be to create new cargo planes that are fully automated. Let Boeing and Airbus lease them or sell them cheap (below cost, if necessary) purely for automated cargo flights. They don't need many of them. And they wouldn't be a new design of plane - just use a cargo-configured A340 with the necessary software. The computer can already fly the plane, so the rest is down to the software.
It's like SpaceX - they built a kick-ass rocket and capsule and have been using it for years but no humans have flown on it yet - all flights have been just cargo. And they use that to prove their solution, to prove that the Falcon 9 is safe, that the automated systems that put everything into low earth or geo-synchronous transfer orbits all work, etc. Similar model.
It's likely what will be needed before we have fully-autonomous passenger planes
The computer could have made the landing, but it's the decision making process - what happened, what does it mean to us, what can we do, where can we go? The computer lacks intuition. It can be programmed for various scenarios, but not all of them. A human doesn't need to be programmed.
Also, in the movie, they showed that in their models of whether or not the plane could have made it back, a large percentage of them said it would have crashed.
When I see stuff like this, I'm reminded of Scully and him landing the aeroplane in the Hudson.
Given a similar situation, what would a self-flying plane do?
For the vast majority of flights, having the plane do everything is fine. And for the most part, they already do. The plane can take off, fly to the destination, and land, and doesn't need the pilot to do anything. In fact, in the majority of cases, the plane will do a better job than the pilot. I know that pilots like to do the take off and landing as it keeps them fresh, but in some cases (like an airport they don't know) they are more than happy to left the plane do the work.
However, what I'm more concerned about is when things don't go to plan. I don't know what a plane would do in the 'Scully' case. And until I'm happy that the plane is actually able to handle such a situation, I think I'd prefer that there be someone actually sitting at the controls.
And that's likely how the majority think too. Yes, it's a lot of money paying for the person sitting at the front of the plane, but that person is a safeguard, and I'd prefer to have them there in case they are needed.
If/when it comes to the time that we know they aren't needed, then one way to wean people off is to have them pay him in cash as they board the plane. Let them pay €20 for their ticket, and then hand over another €20 in cash on boarding the plane to each of the pilot and co-pilot.
They work in the short term. But drivers will learn very quickly that they aren't real and will know which they can ignore. It'll take a few days at most.
New drivers (to that road) will slow for them going forward, but anyone who uses the road in any way frequently won't.
Sorry from images, libraries and Frameworks bloat app size. You want to use this one feature from my libraries, but you need to include the full several-MB jar file with all the stuff you don't use. Multiply by many.
This isn't a US only phenomenon! Remember, guys, there's a "rest of the world" too!
For the rest of us, this could be visible in: - Ireland - Most of the UK (Sorry London!) - Denmark, and the rest of the Scandinavian countries (darkness permitting) - The North of Netherlands, Germany, Poland, and Belarus - Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia - Across most of Russia as low as Moscow - Maybe even Northern Kazakhstan - All of Canada (darkness permitting) - As well as the North-Eastern half of the USA (From Oregon down to Kentucky, and over to Delaware).
I didn't bitch about anything. I did say that "sometimes" the old ways are the best. Sometimes implies a minority of things, thereby I'm saying that the majority of things are enhanced by technology.
You see, back in my day, we were thought how to read properly and completely...
To put the distance over the great red spot in context, it's the equivalent of taking a photograph of Buenos Aires, or Cairo, or Jerusalem, from New York City.
From New York City, all of Canada, North and Central America, most of South America, all of Europe, and the vast majority of Russia are all contained within that distance. (ie, all of those places would be closer to you than the red spot was from Juno as it passed overhead).
In terms of orbital distances: - geostationary orbit around the Earth (where all of our communication satellites are) is 42,164 km (26,199 mi). So Juno was 21% of this distance from the red spot at the time; - the Moon is about 384,399 km from Earth, so Juno was about 2.3% of the distance to the Moon; - the ISS orbits at about 405km above the Earth (NYC to Rochester - about 50km/30mi short of Niagra Falls), so Juno was just over 22 times that distance away.
At its closes point, Juno was 3,400km (2,100mi) above Jupiter, so that's: - 8% the distance to Earth's geostationary orbit; - 0.88% the distance to the Moon; - 8.4 times the distance to the ISS; - NYC to Caracas in Venezuela, or Mexico City, or Phoenix or Tucson AZ, or Barbados. The distance is just over half way across the Atlantic, and not all the way across the 48 States (WA, OR, CA are completely missed. The very North East of NV and half of AZ are within that distance).
I have to guess that since the FCC policy is a US only policy (although it would likely affect those outside of the US also), this would explain why I don't see anything when accessing any of the sites listed.
Slashdot Mirror
The ISS is in freefall around the earth. As such, it has no weight. Similarly, the earth, which is in freefall around the sun, also has no weight.
The ISS does, however, has a _mass_ of around 420 tonnes (462 tones).
"It's also been tested in different water environments, like hot tubs, pools, and bubble baths."
I used a similar phrase on my 3rd year college project many years ago: "It was tested on 4 machines". I never actually said it _worked_ on all 4 machines (nor was I asked for clarification, which was lucky 'cos it only worked on 3)...
No, it would be like saying android is insecure because Google regularly send emails asking to reset your gmail password. So when you get an email that looks similar you'll just click the link and enter your password.
On Android, I'm trying to remember any time I'm asked to enter my account password. When I add my account to the phone initially, and when I purchase something from the play store. I don't recall ever seeing a popup asking for my google account password in any other circumstance.
So the issue here is that by being asked for your password a lot (relatively, at least), then a user won't think twice when asked at any random time and will just enter it.
The issue with this is that there is only 1 USB-C connector on the phone. So you can't plug in your headphones and charge your phone at the same time.
Plus, it's more stuff to remember to bring with you (USB-C -> 3.5mm adapter), and more stuff to lose.
Yes, let's let wireless headphones work for those that want to use them. But, no, let's not force everyone to have to buy new headphones and do something that nobody actually asked for.
I'm on the market for a new Android phone and I'm waiting for today's Google Event to get the full facts about the Pixel phones.
I don't use headphones all that often with my phone, but when I do it's typically on a long flight. I have a good set of noise-cancelling headphones, so I'd prefer to not have to replace these. And while there will likely be a USB-C -> 3.5mm jack converter in the box, it means that not only do I have to remember to bring this with me (and if I forget it I can't use my headphones, and thus can't watch a movie on my phone), but I also cannot charge my phone when it will inevitably run out of battery and listen use headphones at the same time. And this is a bad thing. If I want to have a set of wired headphones at all, then I can't listen and charge at the same time. And wireless headphones require charging too...
So, yeah, this could be a deal breaker. I might find myself getting a S8+ or an LG V30 over the Pixel 2 XL, which will end my multiple-years of buying a phone directly from Google and having stock android.
Do I prefer stock android over my current headphones? Probably not. Samsung have some great stuff on the S8+ that may just tempt me in that direction. And they still have a headphone jack!
"The show's second episode is at No. 17, which is a tad surprising as that was the one that wasn't free".
You're forgetting about the "Rest of the world" -- that massive populous outside of the U.S. of A (which is only about 22 times the population of the USA, so probably doesn't register for you) that don't have CBS (and probably many in the US that also don't have access to CBS), and thus have no other way to view the pilot. It makes sense to me that more people will download the pilot to watch before downloading the 2nd episode, which they may download the next day, or not at all if they didn't enjoy the show.
One issue with Occam's razor is that what may be obvious and simple to one person may not be to another. Hence 2 different people will come up with what they think to be a perfectly logical and simple explanation.
That means that some will actually think this is Star Wars.
I may be that person...
Cave drawings.
'nough said.
Or the explosions from the Death Stars. After all, those things were holding on to a lot of power that had to go somewhere...
If you look through really really really powerful telescopes would we see a planet being altered to consume the full power of a nearby sun?
How adjustable is the fluid/goo inside these?
The most annoying this I find about speed bumps is that you can't drive over them comfortably at the ADVERTISED SPEED LIMIT. These things are supposed to be used to discourage speeding, which means driving ABOVE the advertised limit, but that's never that case.
So can these be adjusted so that driving over them at 50km/h in a 50km/h zone will be a smooth ride, but when driving at 60km/h it'll harden?
Using obscurity in encryption just doesn't work. It has to be assumed that everything about the encryption method is known. Which is typically why everything about encryption methods is known - the algorithms and source code are always available to anyone.
What is secret is the key that is used.
Introducing a backdoor would mean that the method of how this backdoor is implemented would be known to everyone - it has to be, or at least assumed to be. So the only way to implement a backdoor "securely" is by using a key. This means hardcoding a public key into all public/private key encryption schemes and using both it and the users' public keys to encrypt the data, which is typically just encrypting the key for the symmetric encryption method (AES, for example) being used.
I don't believe there would be a way to incorporate an extra key in a symmetric encryption system. Certainly not without seriously harming how the encryption works. And how would you hide the key? If the key is hard coded, everyone knows what it is, and can thus decrypt with it.
Then you run into the problem of what happens once these hard coded keys are known to everyone, 'cos you know it's only a matter of time before they are either leaked or found. A global key to unencrypt all internet traffic - ever hacker and cracker, no matter if they are white, grey, black, or any other colour hat, would be searching for that key. And it wouldn't take all that long to find, given enough computing power (read: botnet).
If a government does force this to happen, you know that they will be the first target for all of these people who find the global key(s).
I suppose adding a watermark containing or based on the hash of the original image would suffice to randomise it. How this is applied is open to any number of ways, such as adding a QR code, or a 2D barcode, or warping the watermark according to an algorithm based on the hash. That should be random enough to mess with the removal algorithm.
But the idea here would be to create new cargo planes that are fully automated. Let Boeing and Airbus lease them or sell them cheap (below cost, if necessary) purely for automated cargo flights. They don't need many of them. And they wouldn't be a new design of plane - just use a cargo-configured A340 with the necessary software. The computer can already fly the plane, so the rest is down to the software.
It's like SpaceX - they built a kick-ass rocket and capsule and have been using it for years but no humans have flown on it yet - all flights have been just cargo. And they use that to prove their solution, to prove that the Falcon 9 is safe, that the automated systems that put everything into low earth or geo-synchronous transfer orbits all work, etc. Similar model.
It's likely what will be needed before we have fully-autonomous passenger planes
The computer could have made the landing, but it's the decision making process - what happened, what does it mean to us, what can we do, where can we go? The computer lacks intuition. It can be programmed for various scenarios, but not all of them. A human doesn't need to be programmed.
Also, in the movie, they showed that in their models of whether or not the plane could have made it back, a large percentage of them said it would have crashed.
All well and good until your first crash...
When I see stuff like this, I'm reminded of Scully and him landing the aeroplane in the Hudson.
Given a similar situation, what would a self-flying plane do?
For the vast majority of flights, having the plane do everything is fine. And for the most part, they already do. The plane can take off, fly to the destination, and land, and doesn't need the pilot to do anything. In fact, in the majority of cases, the plane will do a better job than the pilot. I know that pilots like to do the take off and landing as it keeps them fresh, but in some cases (like an airport they don't know) they are more than happy to left the plane do the work.
However, what I'm more concerned about is when things don't go to plan. I don't know what a plane would do in the 'Scully' case. And until I'm happy that the plane is actually able to handle such a situation, I think I'd prefer that there be someone actually sitting at the controls.
And that's likely how the majority think too. Yes, it's a lot of money paying for the person sitting at the front of the plane, but that person is a safeguard, and I'd prefer to have them there in case they are needed.
If/when it comes to the time that we know they aren't needed, then one way to wean people off is to have them pay him in cash as they board the plane. Let them pay €20 for their ticket, and then hand over another €20 in cash on boarding the plane to each of the pilot and co-pilot.
They work in the short term. But drivers will learn very quickly that they aren't real and will know which they can ignore. It'll take a few days at most.
New drivers (to that road) will slow for them going forward, but anyone who uses the road in any way frequently won't.
Sorry from images, libraries and Frameworks bloat app size. You want to use this one feature from my libraries, but you need to include the full several-MB jar file with all the stuff you don't use. Multiply by many.
Yes, yes I am. I hang my head in shame. I mistakenly mentally included Finland as Scandinavia!! I cannot apologise enough...
This isn't a US only phenomenon! Remember, guys, there's a "rest of the world" too!
For the rest of us, this could be visible in:
- Ireland
- Most of the UK (Sorry London!)
- Denmark, and the rest of the Scandinavian countries (darkness permitting)
- The North of Netherlands, Germany, Poland, and Belarus
- Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia
- Across most of Russia as low as Moscow
- Maybe even Northern Kazakhstan
- All of Canada (darkness permitting)
- As well as the North-Eastern half of the USA (From Oregon down to Kentucky, and over to Delaware).
Star Wars style counting...?
Also, the War Doctor isn't numbered.
I didn't bitch about anything. I did say that "sometimes" the old ways are the best. Sometimes implies a minority of things, thereby I'm saying that the majority of things are enhanced by technology.
You see, back in my day, we were thought how to read properly and completely...
Correct. I put the radius, not the altitude. Oops.
Thanks for the correction.
To put the distance over the great red spot in context, it's the equivalent of taking a photograph of Buenos Aires, or Cairo, or Jerusalem, from New York City.
From New York City, all of Canada, North and Central America, most of South America, all of Europe, and the vast majority of Russia are all contained within that distance. (ie, all of those places would be closer to you than the red spot was from Juno as it passed overhead).
In terms of orbital distances:
- geostationary orbit around the Earth (where all of our communication satellites are) is 42,164 km (26,199 mi). So Juno was 21% of this distance from the red spot at the time;
- the Moon is about 384,399 km from Earth, so Juno was about 2.3% of the distance to the Moon;
- the ISS orbits at about 405km above the Earth (NYC to Rochester - about 50km/30mi short of Niagra Falls), so Juno was just over 22 times that distance away.
At its closes point, Juno was 3,400km (2,100mi) above Jupiter, so that's:
- 8% the distance to Earth's geostationary orbit;
- 0.88% the distance to the Moon;
- 8.4 times the distance to the ISS;
- NYC to Caracas in Venezuela, or Mexico City, or Phoenix or Tucson AZ, or Barbados. The distance is just over half way across the Atlantic, and not all the way across the 48 States (WA, OR, CA are completely missed. The very North East of NV and half of AZ are within that distance).
I have to guess that since the FCC policy is a US only policy (although it would likely affect those outside of the US also), this would explain why I don't see anything when accessing any of the sites listed.
What is being displayed on the various sites?