I have installed NVidia binary drivers in quite a few different Linux systems, for the most part without any problems. I have been to install AMD binary drivers successfully in a Linux system exactly once, out of many attempts. I have no allegiance whatsoever to either company, but that is my experience.
The cryptography rarely is the weak link in the security chain. The Snowden papers revealed that the NSA carries out its chores most by social engineering and eavesdropping, not by scientifically breaking cryptosystems, and I think it is a safe bet that the same is true in the FBI.
It would be interesting if somebody active in the fields that research social issues - like e.g. gender or race - were to spoof a paper on high-energy physics, genetics or number theory, and got it published in some periodical specialized in the target subject. Not necessarily a top one, but at least a peer-reviewed one. I would be impressed if they pull it off. Bear in mind that, doing it in the other direction (a hard-science expert spoofing a social issues research paper) has been done so many times in the last 20 years that seems to be almost trivial. Draw your own conclusions.
They remain what they have been from day one: good for grins and giggles, party games - and very little more. The example given in the summary is a good one: I can do those tasks myself to my satisfaction with very little effort. For the most part, Alexa, Google Assistant, etc. solve problems that don't really exist, or that are so easy to solve with very little effort. They are utterly useless when it comes to trying to get them to do things where even a minimum of ambiguity is involved. Or even when no ambiguity is present: it seems to be beyond Google Assistant's capabilities to make phone calls using the mechanism I specify - e.g. Hangouts (or something else) as opposed to my voice plan. Plus it is pathetic (and comical) how little understanding is involved: ask them NOT to give you the weather forecast under any circumstances, and they will all immediately proceed to give you the weather forecast.
In summary, they are cute gimmicks, but, as of today, far, far less useful than we have been told.
The problem with DuckDuckGo is that, when it comes to searching, it simply sucks. I used it as my default search engine for a week, and I had to return to Google - the results from DuckDuckGo were very mediocre. Which is a shame, for I am really sick and tired of the Google bastards (Don't Be Evil? Assholes!) but DuckDuckGo will have to improve a heck of a lot before that quality of its search results is comparable to Google's.
That's kind of trivial. Tedious and laborious, but trivial - you do not need the NSA to tell you how to do that. If the tool were able to spit out code in some high-level language (even something as low-level as C) that is not unintelligible spaghetti code, that would be something.
We keep hearing about similar breaches, over and over again, and nothing much ever happens. It seems to be the case that it is actually cheaper for companies to do damage control than to take the necessary security measures to prevent such breaches in the first place. I am sure that a few heads rolled in Equifax after their breach a few years ago - but Equifax is still there, doing what it has always done. They sure took a hit - but they probably calculated that dealing with such hits is cheaper and simpler than implement an effective security policy. No wonder most companies pay lip service to security: they all claim it is very important, but they do less than as little as possible. Until such breaches have a significant impact on their bottom line, things will not change.
Apple misses expectations slightly, and investors go into a selling frenzy. Apple does a bit better than expected, and investors go into a buying spree. No wonder we are doomed to having market crises every so often, with such hysterical, unbalanced people. Nothing more stupid and irrational that this market.
Especially a Salon. That is insane... they live off of cash tips. Read: avoid taxes.
One is explicitly supposed to report tips in tax returns. What you are suggesting is that such businesses engage in systematic and wilful tax fraud - a very serious charge, which you are putting forth without any supporting evidence.
Can it recognize my bag in a conveyor belt at an airport, when it is upside down, somewhat dirty, and under somewhat unusual lightign conditions? I didn't think so.
So, only female historians are allowed to do so? Or is this another case of ridiculous political correctness? What about "with their own annotations", if you want to avoid "his/her" or "her/his"?
Slashdot Mirror
Really? Why bother, TMo?
I have installed NVidia binary drivers in quite a few different Linux systems, for the most part without any problems. I have been to install AMD binary drivers successfully in a Linux system exactly once, out of many attempts. I have no allegiance whatsoever to either company, but that is my experience.
The cryptography rarely is the weak link in the security chain. The Snowden papers revealed that the NSA carries out its chores most by social engineering and eavesdropping, not by scientifically breaking cryptosystems, and I think it is a safe bet that the same is true in the FBI.
We all know what Samsung is like. If you are stupid enough to give them your money, you deserve what you get.
It would be interesting if somebody active in the fields that research social issues - like e.g. gender or race - were to spoof a paper on high-energy physics, genetics or number theory, and got it published in some periodical specialized in the target subject. Not necessarily a top one, but at least a peer-reviewed one. I would be impressed if they pull it off. Bear in mind that, doing it in the other direction (a hard-science expert spoofing a social issues research paper) has been done so many times in the last 20 years that seems to be almost trivial. Draw your own conclusions.
If flying a drone is all that it takes to bring Heathrow down to its knees, the Brits are even in more trouble than we thought.
This sounds like a gimmick, like 3D TV, that very, very few will want.
They remain what they have been from day one: good for grins and giggles, party games - and very little more. The example given in the summary is a good one: I can do those tasks myself to my satisfaction with very little effort. For the most part, Alexa, Google Assistant, etc. solve problems that don't really exist, or that are so easy to solve with very little effort. They are utterly useless when it comes to trying to get them to do things where even a minimum of ambiguity is involved. Or even when no ambiguity is present: it seems to be beyond Google Assistant's capabilities to make phone calls using the mechanism I specify - e.g. Hangouts (or something else) as opposed to my voice plan. Plus it is pathetic (and comical) how little understanding is involved: ask them NOT to give you the weather forecast under any circumstances, and they will all immediately proceed to give you the weather forecast.
In summary, they are cute gimmicks, but, as of today, far, far less useful than we have been told.
Because of the aforementioned not-tracking stuff? And the results are as good as Google.
In my experience they are not. Not even close. I wish I could ditch Google, but DuckDuckGo cannot (yet) fill Google's search shoes.
The problem with DuckDuckGo is that, when it comes to searching, it simply sucks. I used it as my default search engine for a week, and I had to return to Google - the results from DuckDuckGo were very mediocre. Which is a shame, for I am really sick and tired of the Google bastards (Don't Be Evil? Assholes!) but DuckDuckGo will have to improve a heck of a lot before that quality of its search results is comparable to Google's.
That's kind of trivial. Tedious and laborious, but trivial - you do not need the NSA to tell you how to do that. If the tool were able to spit out code in some high-level language (even something as low-level as C) that is not unintelligible spaghetti code, that would be something.
Hillbillies and yahoos know no better. This just reveals that they have seen the writing in the wall, and that they are shitting in their pants.
As a source of grins and giggles. My spoofed profile is a constant source of enjoyment to those who visit it.
For you are not a real man if you don't burn fossil fuel.
We keep hearing about similar breaches, over and over again, and nothing much ever happens. It seems to be the case that it is actually cheaper for companies to do damage control than to take the necessary security measures to prevent such breaches in the first place. I am sure that a few heads rolled in Equifax after their breach a few years ago - but Equifax is still there, doing what it has always done. They sure took a hit - but they probably calculated that dealing with such hits is cheaper and simpler than implement an effective security policy. No wonder most companies pay lip service to security: they all claim it is very important, but they do less than as little as possible. Until such breaches have a significant impact on their bottom line, things will not change.
Apple misses expectations slightly, and investors go into a selling frenzy. Apple does a bit better than expected, and investors go into a buying spree. No wonder we are doomed to having market crises every so often, with such hysterical, unbalanced people. Nothing more stupid and irrational that this market.
What can your explosive phone do that one that costs less than one third as much can't do just as well, or nearby?
When you call a product excess, many customers are going to get a message that you did not intend to send.
Especially a Salon. That is insane... they live off of cash tips. Read: avoid taxes.
One is explicitly supposed to report tips in tax returns. What you are suggesting is that such businesses engage in systematic and wilful tax fraud - a very serious charge, which you are putting forth without any supporting evidence.
A good laugh in the morning always helps.
Lots of wishful thinking, and nothing in the way of supporting evidence.
It is nice to get yet further proof that you guys remain as reliable in your behavior as ever.
Can it recognize my bag in a conveyor belt at an airport, when it is upside down, somewhat dirty, and under somewhat unusual lightign conditions? I didn't think so.
So, only female historians are allowed to do so? Or is this another case of ridiculous political correctness? What about "with their own annotations", if you want to avoid "his/her" or "her/his"?
You, sir, are full of ignorant prejudices.