I think somebody when somebody googles something along the lines of what is a good way to kill myself, or something similar, there's a pretty good chance that said person is depressed.
So.... if you really *DID* forget the password, you could be looking at spending the rest of your life in prison, even if you never did anything wrong... simply because somebody thought you were guilty, and you had a faulty memory?
No... Apple's definition is not accurate. And neither is yours (with respect to the three inches away comment).
Apple's "Retina" display might be better than anyone else's displays at the moment, but healthy human eyes have a angular resolution of roughly 0.5 arc minutes. At 12 inches away, which is not an unreasonable reading distance, this is a spacing of roughly 44 microns.
Taking the nyquist limit into consideration, that means that when viewed from 12 inches away, it is still possible to distinguish optical differences whenever they are any larger than about 22 microns (although admittedly individual features of that size pixels will not be directly seen, they will still have an effect on what your eyes perceive). To be truly "Retina" worthy, therefore... at least at a distance of 12", the pixels must be no larger than about 22 microns or so.
Apple's display, however, is roughly 300 dpi, which means each pixel is actually 84 microns in diameter, and which means that so-called "Retina" displays still need to improve by about a factor of 4 so that what you are seeing will not ever be impacted by the physical resolution of the device.
An iPhone is even worse, since the smaller display leaves less screen real-estate to show information, so things must be shown in a smaller point size to convey as much data without panning, requiring the screen to be held closer to the eyes than an iPad to clearly make out as just as much content, and the individual pixels are that much easier to distinguish as a result.
... mention a single specific use case of a copyrighted work that had a torrent file on Demonoid that met the following three criteria?
Legally redistributable;
Not readily available as a torrent at another, arguably more relevant location (eg, a link to a Linux distro torrent that could also be found on the distro's web site);or
Was not an artificially contrived example to simply show a possible legitimate use.
Self driving cars don't have to follow the normal distancing rules, since they do not have to factor in human reaction time to control the vehicle. An automated car can safely drive *FAR* closer to a vehicle in front of it than would be safe for any human.
It's not supposed to be a fair comparison. That's the point. The idea is that cars that are driven by computer can be vastly safer than those driven by people, which will have the desired upshot of reducing accidents.
No shame, perhaps... but also no less pain, unfortunately.
Sure, they can offer some monetary compensation, but having been in such an accident and received adequate monetary compensation for all my medical expenses, I can sure as heck tell you that I would have rather not have had the money, and had those two years of my life *without* the back pain.
indeed.... so one cannot help but find it interesting that familiarity with font produced a very common affinity rather than a general notion of contempt.
I recall reading somewhere that Knuth considered his computer modern typeface to be "ugly", but yet I find that cmr is quite consistently a favorite among people who work with scientific or technical documents.
Was Knuth being needlessly modest, or did the industry that was most likely to be using software like TeX simply get so accustomed to seeing it that it started to look attractive to them?
As far as I can tell, this was nothing less than wanton collateral damage for its own sake. Regaining control of accounts would be unlikely to have been easier with access to those devices than it would have been with them. In fact, by doing such things, they alerted the owner to a problem even sooner than would have otherwise likely to have been noticed, and the effort could have easily backfired upon them.
Which tells me something else about them. Not only are they cowardly and immature, they are also highly inept... since a more competent hacker would have realized the potential problems that could come with wiping those devices.
Fair enough.... are there *ANY* other remotely legitimate reasons for that?
Because if not, then *any* attempt to remote wipe a device should have an accompanying police report that can be correlated with the police report filed by the victim, and which would supplement it with all the evidence relevant to the wiping that can be obtained, including the reported IP address of the wiper, and the reported geographical location of the device at the time it was wiped.
He says, when talking about the hackers, that "...their ultimate goal was always to take over [his] Twitter account". Why, then, did they delete his Google Account, and then remotely erase his iPhone, iPad, and MacBook? I might get that they want to erase evidence that could be used to track them down, and to that extent, wiping the Google account, which they had apparently gotten access to, makes a modicum of sense. But unless they were using his iPhone, iPad, and MacBook as well, I'm not sure how erasing all of them was in any way helpful to them in any regard whatsoever. No... the bastards that did this to him definitely had some malicious intent involved.
I'm not saying that he wasn't hacked... nor am I saying that he wasn't hacked in this way, I'm suggesting that the allegation that the hackers were only after his twitter account seems extremely dubious... at least to me.
For crying out loud... what is this? The 1970's? Heck, these days doesn't black-and-white actually cost *MORE* than color? And wouldn't color be capable of giving more information than what they get from black-and-white anyways?
That wasn't anywhere even close my point. Perhaps I should have described it more completely.
The light we are seeing from distant stars *WAS* emitted by them many years ago . I have absolutely no idea what you're on about saying that "was" doesn't make any sense. It does.
It doesn't violate causality to know that the lander would have reached the surface of mars nearly 15 minutes before we could possibly receive confirmation of the event, because no real knowledge or information would ever moving any faster than the speed of light. Stuff that we see "happening" in space isn't happening right now... it happened long ago. A lot of them happened before this rock we live on even existed... which is plenty relative to our own local time reference frame.
And it has only been my contention that "real-time" in data communications has a particular meaning, which demands sufficiently low latency that any signals can always be responded to in sufficient time such that no other events can have occurred in the interim which might (significantly) affect the system in the interim. In most cases, this is going to be on the order of milli or microseconds. Not 14 and a half minutes. There are almost certainly some types of systems where a period that long can qualify as real time data communication, but not for something like getting data from a vehicle landing on mars, which can complete its entire landing sequence from the time it first touches the atmosphere in less than half the time it takes to get any confirmation of any of the events that occurred during it.
I might almost think you're trying to use some sort of physics variant of the Chewabacca Defense to cloud ths issue, but I have absolutely no idea why.
Suggesting that something hasn't happened yet until the information reaches us is like suggesting that the light we see from distant stars right now was only just emitted by that star. It wasn't.
Of course.... but 15 minutes is certainly far too long.
The decent itself will last only 7 minutes. By the time we get a signal that it has just entered the atmosphere, the unit itself may very well have crashed.
I wasn't disputing the term "live"... I was disputing the term "real time", which in data communications has a sort of specific meaning related to the ability to respond to signals within a finite (and very small) time.
You draw the line at any signal latency that is too slow to meaningfully respond to in the context that the signal was originally sent from. There's a reason why interrupt handlers in real-time OS's need to finish their job in as few computing cycles as possible.
Owing to the fact that we will know the lander has already reached the surface (in unknown condition) by the time we get the first signal it has entered the atmosphere, the delay cannot *POSSIBLY* be considered real time because too many events that can or will affect the system will have occurred by then.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh.... if I only had mod points. The AC parent to this one would so be getting a mod up. Brilliant.
I think somebody when somebody googles something along the lines of what is a good way to kill myself, or something similar, there's a pretty good chance that said person is depressed.
So.... if you really *DID* forget the password, you could be looking at spending the rest of your life in prison, even if you never did anything wrong... simply because somebody thought you were guilty, and you had a faulty memory?
"....most criminals aren't smart enough to do that"
I can't seem to help but read that as ".... criminals who are smart enough to do that will probably get away."
Apple's "Retina" display might be better than anyone else's displays at the moment, but healthy human eyes have a angular resolution of roughly 0.5 arc minutes. At 12 inches away, which is not an unreasonable reading distance, this is a spacing of roughly 44 microns.
Taking the nyquist limit into consideration, that means that when viewed from 12 inches away, it is still possible to distinguish optical differences whenever they are any larger than about 22 microns (although admittedly individual features of that size pixels will not be directly seen, they will still have an effect on what your eyes perceive). To be truly "Retina" worthy, therefore... at least at a distance of 12", the pixels must be no larger than about 22 microns or so.
Apple's display, however, is roughly 300 dpi, which means each pixel is actually 84 microns in diameter, and which means that so-called "Retina" displays still need to improve by about a factor of 4 so that what you are seeing will not ever be impacted by the physical resolution of the device.
An iPhone is even worse, since the smaller display leaves less screen real-estate to show information, so things must be shown in a smaller point size to convey as much data without panning, requiring the screen to be held closer to the eyes than an iPad to clearly make out as just as much content, and the individual pixels are that much easier to distinguish as a result.
I'm just curious.
Self driving cars don't have to follow the normal distancing rules, since they do not have to factor in human reaction time to control the vehicle. An automated car can safely drive *FAR* closer to a vehicle in front of it than would be safe for any human.
It's not supposed to be a fair comparison. That's the point. The idea is that cars that are driven by computer can be vastly safer than those driven by people, which will have the desired upshot of reducing accidents.
No shame, perhaps... but also no less pain, unfortunately.
Sure, they can offer some monetary compensation, but having been in such an accident and received adequate monetary compensation for all my medical expenses, I can sure as heck tell you that I would have rather not have had the money, and had those two years of my life *without* the back pain.
indeed.... so one cannot help but find it interesting that familiarity with font produced a very common affinity rather than a general notion of contempt.
If you have any major distribution of TeX, then you have the font already.
I recall reading somewhere that Knuth considered his computer modern typeface to be "ugly", but yet I find that cmr is quite consistently a favorite among people who work with scientific or technical documents.
Was Knuth being needlessly modest, or did the industry that was most likely to be using software like TeX simply get so accustomed to seeing it that it started to look attractive to them?
Yes... "according to them".
As far as I can tell, this was nothing less than wanton collateral damage for its own sake. Regaining control of accounts would be unlikely to have been easier with access to those devices than it would have been with them. In fact, by doing such things, they alerted the owner to a problem even sooner than would have otherwise likely to have been noticed, and the effort could have easily backfired upon them.
Which tells me something else about them. Not only are they cowardly and immature, they are also highly inept... since a more competent hacker would have realized the potential problems that could come with wiping those devices.
Cash can be physically taken, and is useful to the thief. Try again.
Fair enough.... are there *ANY* other remotely legitimate reasons for that?
Because if not, then *any* attempt to remote wipe a device should have an accompanying police report that can be correlated with the police report filed by the victim, and which would supplement it with all the evidence relevant to the wiping that can be obtained, including the reported IP address of the wiper, and the reported geographical location of the device at the time it was wiped.
He says, when talking about the hackers, that "...their ultimate goal was always to take over [his] Twitter account". Why, then, did they delete his Google Account, and then remotely erase his iPhone, iPad, and MacBook? I might get that they want to erase evidence that could be used to track them down, and to that extent, wiping the Google account, which they had apparently gotten access to, makes a modicum of sense. But unless they were using his iPhone, iPad, and MacBook as well, I'm not sure how erasing all of them was in any way helpful to them in any regard whatsoever. No... the bastards that did this to him definitely had some malicious intent involved.
I'm not saying that he wasn't hacked... nor am I saying that he wasn't hacked in this way, I'm suggesting that the allegation that the hackers were only after his twitter account seems extremely dubious... at least to me.
The *EXACT* same thing could be said about cigarettes.
For crying out loud... what is this? The 1970's? Heck, these days doesn't black-and-white actually cost *MORE* than color? And wouldn't color be capable of giving more information than what they get from black-and-white anyways?
That wasn't anywhere even close my point. Perhaps I should have described it more completely.
The light we are seeing from distant stars *WAS* emitted by them many years ago . I have absolutely no idea what you're on about saying that "was" doesn't make any sense. It does.
It doesn't violate causality to know that the lander would have reached the surface of mars nearly 15 minutes before we could possibly receive confirmation of the event, because no real knowledge or information would ever moving any faster than the speed of light. Stuff that we see "happening" in space isn't happening right now... it happened long ago. A lot of them happened before this rock we live on even existed... which is plenty relative to our own local time reference frame.
And it has only been my contention that "real-time" in data communications has a particular meaning, which demands sufficiently low latency that any signals can always be responded to in sufficient time such that no other events can have occurred in the interim which might (significantly) affect the system in the interim. In most cases, this is going to be on the order of milli or microseconds. Not 14 and a half minutes. There are almost certainly some types of systems where a period that long can qualify as real time data communication, but not for something like getting data from a vehicle landing on mars, which can complete its entire landing sequence from the time it first touches the atmosphere in less than half the time it takes to get any confirmation of any of the events that occurred during it.
I might almost think you're trying to use some sort of physics variant of the Chewabacca Defense to cloud ths issue, but I have absolutely no idea why.
Suggesting that something hasn't happened yet until the information reaches us is like suggesting that the light we see from distant stars right now was only just emitted by that star. It wasn't.
Of course.... but 15 minutes is certainly far too long.
The decent itself will last only 7 minutes. By the time we get a signal that it has just entered the atmosphere, the unit itself may very well have crashed.
I wasn't disputing the term "live"... I was disputing the term "real time", which in data communications has a sort of specific meaning related to the ability to respond to signals within a finite (and very small) time.
You draw the line at any signal latency that is too slow to meaningfully respond to in the context that the signal was originally sent from. There's a reason why interrupt handlers in real-time OS's need to finish their job in as few computing cycles as possible.
Try making an os that is defined to take 14 minutes to respond to interrupts and see if you can pass it off as "real time"
Owing to the fact that we will know the lander has already reached the surface (in unknown condition) by the time we get the first signal it has entered the atmosphere, the delay cannot *POSSIBLY* be considered real time because too many events that can or will affect the system will have occurred by then.