If we ignore for the moment the issue of Apple trying to get too big a piece of the revenue pie, the Netflix-for-news idea itself is actually rather good.
I read a lot of news, and I'd prefer to pay a reasonable amount of money and get quality content, over paying no money and getting ad-plastered click-bait.
The problem is that there are hundreds of newspapers out there, and my news feeds (Google News and Apple News) include articles from all of them, and most of them want me to sign up to pay them a small amount of money a week -- but I really don't want to set up a paying relationship with dozens or hundreds of different newspapers whose future articles I may or may not actually read. Therefore (with a few exceptions) I generally just ignore their pleas, and they are left to survive on advertising income alone, while I am often barraged by annoying advertisements that I'd prefer not to see.
So having a single place to send money, in return for quality content from a variety of sources, seems like a good idea. I'm not sure I'd trust Apple to be that single place, given their proto-monopolistic mindset, although their Apple News app is quite good IMO.
Let's just say that China takes a very narrow view of property rights. Obtaining the necessary land is much quicker and cheaper when you can just order anybody off of their property at gunpoint with no due process.
They might have, but doing so wouldn't have avoided the problem -- even with a ptr+length scheme, you're still dealing with pointer artihmentic, and so it's still quite easy to mess up and read/write outside of your buffer's bounds, if you aren't careful.
An effective fix requires language support, with the holy grail being a language where a buggy or insecure program simply won't compile, and therefore any program that does compile is much more likely to be secure/bug-free. Languages like C# and Rust are headed in that direction, although I think there is still a long way to go before we have a language that is both "safe" and efficient.
You can build one for about half the price that's smaller and faster:
The middle third of that video is the presenter going over all the different components that don't quite work right, due to the fact that MacOS/X doesn't support that hardware.
People who buy Macs are willing to spend extra money in exchange for having a computer that "just works". For them, buying a computer that you have to futz with is like buying a pair of jeans that doesn't fit right and has to be hand-altered -- you could do that and save some money, but it's easier to just spend the extra money to get something that fits properly from the get-go. If you're only buying a computer every 3-5 years, and you're going to be spending 20+ hours a week using it, the higher Apple price only amounts to about 10 extra cents a day.
In what way does killing him help reveal his exploit? That makes zero sense in this case.
You're right, it doesn't, but I've watched enough TV shows to imagine someone deciding to provide him with a little "wrench therapy" until he agrees to cough up the exploit to them.
Not that I think that's really likely either -- life isn't like a TV plot. But it's conceivable.
An Apple Watch may not be cheap, but having one hardly makes anyone rich.
Not being rich generally makes a person not have an Apple Watch, though -- because an Apple Watch is the kind of frivolous purchase people make only when they have extra money to burn.
Where exactly does one draw the line about what constitutes "cheating", versus exploiting a natural advantage?
Is it cheating if the AI gets to use API calls to control its forces, rather than physically pushing keys on a keyboard and moving a mouse, the way a human player does? Arguably so, if keyboard-and-mouse-dexterity are considered part of the skill set for the game. Perhaps a fair contest should require the AI to use robotic arms and video cameras on a gaming PC.
On the other hand, if it's only the strategy portion of the game that is seen as relevant, then the ability to interface electronically to the game's engine (rather than through slow fingers and nerves) is simply an advantage the AI has over clumsy humans (at least until someone perfects a neural brain-stem link, I suppose).
Was the steam-powered rock-drill cheating when it competed against John Henry in a hole-drilling contest? Yes, no, maybe, depends on how you define cheating?
When Bitcoin was introduced, I would've bet a fair amount of money that it would be hacked into inoperability within months if not weeks -- if only because there was so much monetary incentive for doing so, and any new, non-trivial software always contains bugs if you look hard enough. Non-trivial massively-multiuser software running on untrusted hardware should've been easy pickings... and yet, it soldiers on -- not taking over the world, exactly, but without any cataclysmic failure yet, either.
I searched my feelings, and they are decidedly mixed:
"Great, finally the Grand Verbose Mediocrity that is Java is getting pushed aside by something more modern and eleg---wait, no, ah crap, it's JavaScript"
Because Facebook is the poster-child for economies of scale -- people find it useful precisely because all their friends and relatives are on it.
So imagine that a court orders Facebook to split into two separate companies, we'll call them BabyBookA and BabyBookB. Each of these BabyBooks inherits half of Facebook's customer base.
No matter how the customer base gets split up, that is going to leave a lot of people cut off from some of their Facebook friends. So if they want to keep in touch with those friends, they are either going to have to create a redundant account on "the other" BabyBook service, and then check both accounts every hour, for the rest of their lives... or they are going to encourage their friends to move over to "their" service instead, so they can all be together again.
This might work for a short while, but eventually one of the two BabyBooks will become sufficiently larger than the other, at which the smaller one might as well call itself MySpace -- it will wither away and die from lack of users, because with fewer users it's less useful than the larger one, causing a downward spiral.
And then we're back to square one, with a single giant monopoly monopolizing the Facebook-style social-media market.
"Everybody's gotta be covered... I am going to take care of everybody... everybody's going to be taken care of much better than they're taken care of now... [The uninsured person is] gonna be taken care of... The government's gonna pay for it". -- Donald Trump
What sort of evidence are you expecting to see? System logs? Mail dumps from peoples' inboxes? Testimony from sysadmins?
And if someone was to take you aside and show you this evidence, would your viewpoint change, or would you dismiss it as 'easily faked'?
Perhaps it is just the nature of the Internet, and hacking, that evidence cannot be conveyed across it in a way that would meet your demands. If so, then it's hardly surprising that you have "only heard claims", since that is all you are able to hear from your position.
They spend huge brainpower on things that are obviously useless.
99.99% of the work done by students in schools is also "useless" by your definition, since it only replicates efforts that had already been done previously. 99.99% of the world's art is also "obviously useless" in that it doesn't do anything.
However, students still benefit from doing the "useless" work, because in the process of completing their projects and assignments, they (hopefully) learn more about the subject at hand, and get better at doing that sort of work.
In the same way, designing and building this project helps the creator get hands-on experience designing and building this sort of device, and helps him (and others) explore the possibilities related to it. All the mistakes he made while completing this project are mistakes he'll know not to make in future projects.
Perhaps he puts this on his resume, and as a result gets a better job offer than he would have otherwise. Perhaps someone else watches the video and says "well that's not useful, but now that I've seen what is possible using today's technology, I have an idea -- what if I did something similar except apply it to this other use-case; now that would be useful!" -- and thus a new technology is born, which may or may not be The Next Big Thing. If nobody scratched their itch, but rather limited themselves only to "products that fill an obvious need", then a lot of people simply wouldn't do any extracurricular projects at all, and we'd never see many of the new ideas that nobody had yet realized would be useful. As Henry Ford allegedly once said, "if I'd asked people what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse".
That will happen when the agribusinesses that gobble billions of taxpayer dollars every year in subsidies decide they don't want all that lovely free money. So, never then.
Millions of people drink "Coca Cola" every day, but what they are drinking is only a vague analogue of what that beverage originally was.
Something similar could happen to meat, if the simulated-meat ingredients ever become "close enough" and also are significantly cheaper/more-profitable to manufacture than the current animal-based versions.
You'll tell your grandkids that hamburgers were once made out of pureed cow, and they'll be just as surprised as you were when your grandparents told you that Coca-Cola used to contain cocaine.
If you are true to veganism, then why would you want to duplicate the taste of meat?
Depends on why you are vegan. If you're vegan because you don't like the taste of meat, then sure, you're probably not going to like the taste of simulated meat either.
OTOH there are lots of vegans out there who did like the taste of meat (before they became vegan), and this gives them an opportunity to (sort of) enjoy that again, without having to renounce their veganity(?)
Silicon Valley and some other parts of California tend to have a lot of software people. They also tend to have high prices and salaries - a devalued dollar.
.. which is why I always wonder why more programmers don't get a job in Silicon Valley and then telecommute from Nebraska (or wherever) and pocket the difference.
It's not like software companies are against telecommuting -- hell, half of them allow their developers to telecommute from Bangalore.
Yeah, those pickup truck drivers are the REAL victims here! They should be allowed to molest Tesla drivers in peace! How dare someone harshly criticize them -- on the Internet, no less! -- simply for exercising their right to be assholes? It's a horrible injustice, I say!
Youâ(TM)re not missing anything except the fact that students didnâ(TM)t ask for this service. Itâ(TM)s being pushed by Pepsi (as an experiment and/or publicity stunt), not demanded by anyone. Most likely it will go away after the experiment yields the likely results (ie that itâ(TM)s easier to just bring snacks with you than summon a robot)
Since we're no longer subsidizing electric cars, how about we stop subsidizing oil for ICE cars too?
Except, we are still subsidizing electric cars. Tesla reached its first cap when it sold its 200,000th vehicle, just like every manufacturer will at some point. Even so, they are still getting a (smaller) federal subsidy, plus various state and local subsidies.
Slashdot Mirror
Presumably Apple will be blacklisting the compromised developer IDs in the very near future, if they haven't done so already.
If we ignore for the moment the issue of Apple trying to get too big a piece of the revenue pie, the Netflix-for-news idea itself is actually rather good.
I read a lot of news, and I'd prefer to pay a reasonable amount of money and get quality content, over paying no money and getting ad-plastered click-bait.
The problem is that there are hundreds of newspapers out there, and my news feeds (Google News and Apple News) include articles from all of them, and most of them want me to sign up to pay them a small amount of money a week -- but I really don't want to set up a paying relationship with dozens or hundreds of different newspapers whose future articles I may or may not actually read. Therefore (with a few exceptions) I generally just ignore their pleas, and they are left to survive on advertising income alone, while I am often barraged by annoying advertisements that I'd prefer not to see.
So having a single place to send money, in return for quality content from a variety of sources, seems like a good idea. I'm not sure I'd trust Apple to be that single place, given their proto-monopolistic mindset, although their Apple News app is quite good IMO.
Let's just say that China takes a very narrow view of property rights. Obtaining the necessary land is much quicker and cheaper when you can just order anybody off of their property at gunpoint with no due process.
They might have, but doing so wouldn't have avoided the problem -- even with a ptr+length scheme, you're still dealing with pointer artihmentic, and so it's still quite easy to mess up and read/write outside of your buffer's bounds, if you aren't careful.
An effective fix requires language support, with the holy grail being a language where a buggy or insecure program simply won't compile, and therefore any program that does compile is much more likely to be secure/bug-free. Languages like C# and Rust are headed in that direction, although I think there is still a long way to go before we have a language that is both "safe" and efficient.
You can build one for about half the price that's smaller and faster:
The middle third of that video is the presenter going over all the different components that don't quite work right, due to the fact that MacOS/X doesn't support that hardware.
People who buy Macs are willing to spend extra money in exchange for having a computer that "just works". For them, buying a computer that you have to futz with is like buying a pair of jeans that doesn't fit right and has to be hand-altered -- you could do that and save some money, but it's easier to just spend the extra money to get something that fits properly from the get-go. If you're only buying a computer every 3-5 years, and you're going to be spending 20+ hours a week using it, the higher Apple price only amounts to about 10 extra cents a day.
In what way does killing him help reveal his exploit? That makes zero sense in this case.
You're right, it doesn't, but I've watched enough TV shows to imagine someone deciding to provide him with a little "wrench therapy" until he agrees to cough up the exploit to them.
Not that I think that's really likely either -- life isn't like a TV plot. But it's conceivable.
An Apple Watch may not be cheap, but having one hardly makes anyone rich.
Not being rich generally makes a person not have an Apple Watch, though -- because an Apple Watch is the kind of frivolous purchase people make only when they have extra money to burn.
Where exactly does one draw the line about what constitutes "cheating", versus exploiting a natural advantage?
Is it cheating if the AI gets to use API calls to control its forces, rather than physically pushing keys on a keyboard and moving a mouse, the way a human player does? Arguably so, if keyboard-and-mouse-dexterity are considered part of the skill set for the game. Perhaps a fair contest should require the AI to use robotic arms and video cameras on a gaming PC.
On the other hand, if it's only the strategy portion of the game that is seen as relevant, then the ability to interface electronically to the game's engine (rather than through slow fingers and nerves) is simply an advantage the AI has over clumsy humans (at least until someone perfects a neural brain-stem link, I suppose).
Was the steam-powered rock-drill cheating when it competed against John Henry in a hole-drilling contest? Yes, no, maybe, depends on how you define cheating?
"Stuff that impresses you isn't groundbreaking. You know what is groundbreaking? Stuff that impresses ME!"
When Bitcoin was introduced, I would've bet a fair amount of money that it would be hacked into inoperability within months if not weeks -- if only because there was so much monetary incentive for doing so, and any new, non-trivial software always contains bugs if you look hard enough. Non-trivial massively-multiuser software running on untrusted hardware should've been easy pickings... and yet, it soldiers on -- not taking over the world, exactly, but without any cataclysmic failure yet, either.
I searched my feelings, and they are decidedly mixed:
"Great, finally the Grand Verbose Mediocrity that is Java is getting pushed aside by something more modern and eleg---wait, no, ah crap, it's JavaScript"
Because Facebook is the poster-child for economies of scale -- people find it useful precisely because all their friends and relatives are on it.
So imagine that a court orders Facebook to split into two separate companies, we'll call them BabyBookA and BabyBookB. Each of these BabyBooks inherits half of Facebook's customer base.
No matter how the customer base gets split up, that is going to leave a lot of people cut off from some of their Facebook friends. So if they want to keep in touch with those friends, they are either going to have to create a redundant account on "the other" BabyBook service, and then check both accounts every hour, for the rest of their lives... or they are going to encourage their friends to move over to "their" service instead, so they can all be together again.
This might work for a short while, but eventually one of the two BabyBooks will become sufficiently larger than the other, at which the smaller one might as well call itself MySpace -- it will wither away and die from lack of users, because with fewer users it's less useful than the larger one, causing a downward spiral.
And then we're back to square one, with a single giant monopoly monopolizing the Facebook-style social-media market.
"Everybody's gotta be covered... I am going to take care of everybody... everybody's going to be taken care of much better than they're taken care of now... [The uninsured person is] gonna be taken care of... The government's gonna pay for it". -- Donald Trump
Holy Mandela effect Batman, he never made that promise.
Here is the video of Trump making that promise.
What sort of evidence are you expecting to see? System logs? Mail dumps from peoples' inboxes? Testimony from sysadmins?
And if someone was to take you aside and show you this evidence, would your viewpoint change, or would you dismiss it as 'easily faked'?
Perhaps it is just the nature of the Internet, and hacking, that evidence cannot be conveyed across it in a way that would meet your demands. If so, then it's hardly surprising that you have "only heard claims", since that is all you are able to hear from your position.
They spend huge brainpower on things that are obviously useless.
99.99% of the work done by students in schools is also "useless" by your definition, since it only replicates efforts that had already been done previously. 99.99% of the world's art is also "obviously useless" in that it doesn't do anything.
However, students still benefit from doing the "useless" work, because in the process of completing their projects and assignments, they (hopefully) learn more about the subject at hand, and get better at doing that sort of work.
In the same way, designing and building this project helps the creator get hands-on experience designing and building this sort of device, and helps him (and others) explore the possibilities related to it. All the mistakes he made while completing this project are mistakes he'll know not to make in future projects.
Perhaps he puts this on his resume, and as a result gets a better job offer than he would have otherwise. Perhaps someone else watches the video and says "well that's not useful, but now that I've seen what is possible using today's technology, I have an idea -- what if I did something similar except apply it to this other use-case; now that would be useful!" -- and thus a new technology is born, which may or may not be The Next Big Thing. If nobody scratched their itch, but rather limited themselves only to "products that fill an obvious need", then a lot of people simply wouldn't do any extracurricular projects at all, and we'd never see many of the new ideas that nobody had yet realized would be useful. As Henry Ford allegedly once said, "if I'd asked people what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse".
That will happen when the agribusinesses that gobble billions of taxpayer dollars every year in subsidies decide they don't want all that lovely free money. So, never then.
Millions of people drink "Coca Cola" every day, but what they are drinking is only a vague analogue of what that beverage originally was.
Something similar could happen to meat, if the simulated-meat ingredients ever become "close enough" and also are significantly cheaper/more-profitable to manufacture than the current animal-based versions.
You'll tell your grandkids that hamburgers were once made out of pureed cow, and they'll be just as surprised as you were when your grandparents told you that Coca-Cola used to contain cocaine.
If you are true to veganism, then why would you want to duplicate the taste of meat?
Depends on why you are vegan. If you're vegan because you don't like the taste of meat, then sure, you're probably not going to like the taste of simulated meat either.
OTOH there are lots of vegans out there who did like the taste of meat (before they became vegan), and this gives them an opportunity to (sort of) enjoy that again, without having to renounce their veganity(?)
Silicon Valley and some other parts of California tend to have a lot of software people. They also tend to have high prices and salaries - a devalued dollar.
.. which is why I always wonder why more programmers don't get a job in Silicon Valley and then telecommute from Nebraska (or wherever) and pocket the difference.
It's not like software companies are against telecommuting -- hell, half of them allow their developers to telecommute from Bangalore.
Yeah, those pickup truck drivers are the REAL victims here! They should be allowed to molest Tesla drivers in peace! How dare someone harshly criticize them -- on the Internet, no less! -- simply for exercising their right to be assholes? It's a horrible injustice, I say!
How will blocking a charging station lead to death?
"Irate Tesla owner inserts Supercharger cord into pickup truck's gas tank, details at 11"
(yes, I know, it wouldn't work in practice due to safety interlocks, etc)
In short, what this article is trying to make a news item out of, mostly is not happening anywhere, to anyone.
As is every article. If it was a commonplace, everyday occurrence, it wouldn't be news.
Youâ(TM)re not missing anything except the fact that students didnâ(TM)t ask for this service. Itâ(TM)s being pushed by Pepsi (as an experiment and/or publicity stunt), not demanded by anyone. Most likely it will go away after the experiment yields the likely results (ie that itâ(TM)s easier to just bring snacks with you than summon a robot)
Since we're no longer subsidizing electric cars, how about we stop subsidizing oil for ICE cars too?
Except, we are still subsidizing electric cars. Tesla reached its first cap when it sold its 200,000th vehicle, just like every manufacturer will at some point. Even so, they are still getting a (smaller) federal subsidy, plus various state and local subsidies.
Are you certain thatâ(TM)s legal? In many countries it is illegal to record a phone conversation without obtaining the other partyâ(TM)s permission.