"And we're going to not make Google better," he added when unchecking the box to send usage statistics and crash reports to Google
I'll bet he unchecked that box in Edge, too. No wonder it crashed! ALWAYS tick the box that says "help make this product better." It makes the product better!:D
And the first time anyone noticed that in testing and figured out what the problem was, they should have reprogrammed the calculator to use a lookup table for all perfects squares between zero and <however many digits the calculator can display> instead of using the algorithm for those numbers. Brute-force and low-tech and "wrong" to a programmer but IT WILL ALWAYS WORK PERFECTLY. If complex FPU math loops cause your calculator app to get wrong answers for problems a grade-school kid can do, DON'T USE IT. What's better -- an elegant wrong answer or an inelegant correct answer? When it comes to math, "correct" should always win.
Fry: So let me get this straight. This planet is completely uninhabited? Bender: No, it's inhabited by robots. Fry: Oh, kinda like how a warehouse is inhabited by boxes?
Cemeteries: there's another idea whose time has passed! Saving all the dead people in one part of town? What the hell kind of a superstitious religious medieval bullshit idea is that? Plow these motherfuckers up, plow them into the streams and rivers of America, we need that phosphorus for farming! If we're gonna recycle, let's get serious!
"Professors said the incident would not have been noticed if the student didn't get greedy about modifications... Various KU professors said they hope not to see any copycats in the near future."
Pro tio: If that's what you want, don't tell them how to avoid getting caught. The public statement should have been, "Our rigorous monitoring processes instantly detected the abnormal activity which was confirmed to be fraudulent after a thorough investigation."
You're close. Ferris Bueller was a 1980s movie with Matthew Broderick. Another 1980s movie with Matthew Broderick was WarGames (1983) which contains the scene you describe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I heard this on the Internet so I can't say for sure if it's true, but on the other hand, the logic is sound. Can anyone verify one way or another?
What I heard is that this is partly for use in cases of fraud. It's not so much about proving a positive as it is disproving a negative. (Or something like that.) If some random guy steals my credit card and tries to use it and gets challenged, he can always say "whoops, I found it in the parking lot, put it in my pocket, and accidentally used it instead of mine." However, no way in the world would he also accidentally sign my name instead of his own. If you're caught with someone else's card and you signed their name that is 100% proof of fraudulent intent.
Anyway, that's what I've heard. Does anyone know for sure?
That said, I can see why they'd dump the signing requirement. I'm sure the above would only be a factor in a tiny number of fraud cases, and even in those, the signature is probably an illegible scrawl 98% of the time. (And probably 99.5% with electronic signing devices.)
My site turned 20 earlier this year, and when I saw the earlier anniversary story it took me a moment to realize hey, my site is older! Slashdot is a little better known than mine, though.:-) (And this is just the domain names -- "chips & dips" was a thing before I had my site, so they win there.)
The first Apple laptop I bought was a white 800 MHz G3 iBook. Before WiFi was widespread, I used to open it up at work, load up a bunch of Slashdot tabs, and take it to a pizza place for lunch. You want to talk about crumbs? I had lunch with that thing literally hundreds of times. NO KEYBOARD FAILURES.
If you tighten a bolt too much and it strips, you did it wrong. If you make a laptop so thin that it quits working reliably, you did it wrong.
> The thing is? The "Genius" used the wrong terminology, in my opinion, which made things sound > worse than they really are. A speck of dust is most assuredly NOT enough to jam up one of the > new Apple keyboards. CRUMBS, however, from people eating by the machine? Absolutely possible.
Dust, crumbs, pollen, dandruff, boogers... whatever. I've been using computers in the same environments for 20+ years and laptops for 15+. If Apple's newly-designed keyboard cannot deal with the same things that EVERY SINGLE OTHER KEYBOARD has successfully handled in that time, APPLE FUCKED UP. Period, full stop, <local terminology of your choice>.
I've been using Macs for 20+ years. I'm using one right now. This is what my ~ten- or fifteen-year-old keyboard looks right now. (Apple fans will know that they shipped these clear & graphite ones with early G4s. Later G4s came with white-and-clear keyboards, or maybe that started with G5s or white iMacs. Whatever. It's still pretty damn old. PowerMac G4s were discontinued in 2004.) You can see all the crumbs and stuff that have worked their way all the way underneath it. You can only imagine what's actually among all the keys right now.
That picture is from today. You can see this post in the background. And I shot that pic with my iPhone. I like Apple stuff just fine. Like I said, I'm using a Mac right now, and I've used this keyboard since it was new. I've never had this or any other keyboard fail for such a trivial reason as DUST. Or even (God forbid) CRUMBS. Jony Ive needs to step out of his glorious white room and spend some time in the real world.
Who knows, maybe he'll have a epiphany and make phones 2mm thicker and fill that space with battery. Hey, a boy can dream...
> Plus a failure of their regular security auditing process to detect that a machine > was running a version of software below the minimum allowed version.
A thousand times this. How is there not a dashboard that the whole team can see with a big red box around that hostname?
"I simply don't understand why anyone would want to spend such amount on a phone... the difference, I feel [emphasis added], doesn't warrant an additional $800."
Well there you go. Some people REALLY REALLY want their phones to work REALLY fast, or have REALLY NICE screens, or take fucking AMAZING pictures, and for THEM, it's worth it. It's not rocket science.
I'm sure you own at least ONE thing that I don't give a shit about that I would not have spent as much money on as you did. Want me to write an article on how I don't understand that different people like different things?
The iPhone 8+ is $799. So the *real* question is "Why would anyone spend $200 more for their smartphone?" Framing the question is less dramatic (but more realistic) terms makes the answer much more obvious: because it's not a lot of money for most people, so if they like it, it's not a big deal. $200 more on a phone spread over 2 years is about $8 per month. So for the price of one Starbucks coffee every other week, you can have a fancier phone. Big fucking deal.
Coming up next on Dumb Ass Questions from the Internet, "Why would anyone spend $X on a car when other cars exist for $Y?" -- because no one has given that question a moment's thought in the past 100 years and it needs to be discussed NOW.:-/
Slashdot Mirror
Did you read my steps? How do you get a rounding number when you multiply A by B and then divide by B? You should get A, period.
"And we're going to not make Google better," he added when unchecking the box to send usage statistics and crash reports to Google
I'll bet he unchecked that box in Edge, too. No wonder it crashed! ALWAYS tick the box that says "help make this product better." It makes the product better! :D
lol. I went there and on the second or third poll it said "about:performance may currently be slowing down Firefox." :-/
Do you want your kids walking to school in the dark at 8am all winter long?
And the first time anyone noticed that in testing and figured out what the problem was, they should have reprogrammed the calculator to use a lookup table for all perfects squares between zero and <however many digits the calculator can display> instead of using the algorithm for those numbers. Brute-force and low-tech and "wrong" to a programmer but IT WILL ALWAYS WORK PERFECTLY. If complex FPU math loops cause your calculator app to get wrong answers for problems a grade-school kid can do, DON'T USE IT. What's better -- an elegant wrong answer or an inelegant correct answer? When it comes to math, "correct" should always win.
This bug happens 100% of the time on my family's two iPhone 5Ss on iOS 11.0.3:
Steps to reproduce:
1. Go to Calculator.
2. Turn it sideways.
3. Type in 3,003,003,003,003,003
4. Press "times", "3", "equals".
Expected result:
9,009,009,009,009,009
Actual result:
9,009,009,009,009,008
Divide by 3 and multiply by 3 and you'll get
9,009,009,009,009,006
Divide that by 3 and you'll get
3,003,003,003,003,002
My kid discovered this while playing with the app.
Fry: So let me get this straight. This planet is completely uninhabited?
Bender: No, it's inhabited by robots.
Fry: Oh, kinda like how a warehouse is inhabited by boxes?
> You might want to hold off on buying a Pixel 2 XL
> until Google addresses its screen issues.
"You might want to hold off on buying rev 1 hardware, ever, unless you have a really serious need."
FTFY.
Seriously. Give it a fucking month or two. You won't die.
Cemeteries: there's another idea whose time has passed! Saving all the dead people in one part of town? What the hell kind of a superstitious religious medieval bullshit idea is that? Plow these motherfuckers up, plow them into the streams and rivers of America, we need that phosphorus for farming! If we're gonna recycle, let's get serious!
—George Carlin, Jammin' In New York (1992)
"Professors said the incident would not have been noticed if the student didn't get greedy about modifications... Various KU professors said they hope not to see any copycats in the near future."
Pro tio: If that's what you want, don't tell them how to avoid getting caught. The public statement should have been, "Our rigorous monitoring processes instantly detected the abnormal activity which was confirmed to be fraudulent after a thorough investigation."
You're close. Ferris Bueller was a 1980s movie with Matthew Broderick. Another 1980s movie with Matthew Broderick was WarGames (1983) which contains the scene you describe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I heard this on the Internet so I can't say for sure if it's true, but on the other hand, the logic is sound. Can anyone verify one way or another?
What I heard is that this is partly for use in cases of fraud. It's not so much about proving a positive as it is disproving a negative. (Or something like that.) If some random guy steals my credit card and tries to use it and gets challenged, he can always say "whoops, I found it in the parking lot, put it in my pocket, and accidentally used it instead of mine." However, no way in the world would he also accidentally sign my name instead of his own. If you're caught with someone else's card and you signed their name that is 100% proof of fraudulent intent.
Anyway, that's what I've heard. Does anyone know for sure?
That said, I can see why they'd dump the signing requirement. I'm sure the above would only be a factor in a tiny number of fraud cases, and even in those, the signature is probably an illegible scrawl 98% of the time. (And probably 99.5% with electronic signing devices.)
My site turned 20 earlier this year, and when I saw the earlier anniversary story it took me a moment to realize hey, my site is older! Slashdot is a little better known than mine, though. :-) (And this is just the domain names -- "chips & dips" was a thing before I had my site, so they win there.)
$ whois pixelcity.com | grep Creation
Creation Date: 1997-07-27T04:00:00Z
So anyway, Slashdot -- rich-text editor coming any time soon? Support for curly quotes in pasted text? No rush, just curious. :-)
The first Apple laptop I bought was a white 800 MHz G3 iBook. Before WiFi was widespread, I used to open it up at work, load up a bunch of Slashdot tabs, and take it to a pizza place for lunch. You want to talk about crumbs? I had lunch with that thing literally hundreds of times. NO KEYBOARD FAILURES.
If you tighten a bolt too much and it strips, you did it wrong. If you make a laptop so thin that it quits working reliably, you did it wrong.
> The thing is? The "Genius" used the wrong terminology, in my opinion, which made things sound
> worse than they really are. A speck of dust is most assuredly NOT enough to jam up one of the
> new Apple keyboards. CRUMBS, however, from people eating by the machine? Absolutely possible.
Dust, crumbs, pollen, dandruff, boogers... whatever. I've been using computers in the same environments for 20+ years and laptops for 15+. If Apple's newly-designed keyboard cannot deal with the same things that EVERY SINGLE OTHER KEYBOARD has successfully handled in that time, APPLE FUCKED UP. Period, full stop, <local terminology of your choice>.
I've been using Macs for 20+ years. I'm using one right now. This is what my ~ten- or fifteen-year-old keyboard looks right now. (Apple fans will know that they shipped these clear & graphite ones with early G4s. Later G4s came with white-and-clear keyboards, or maybe that started with G5s or white iMacs. Whatever. It's still pretty damn old. PowerMac G4s were discontinued in 2004.) You can see all the crumbs and stuff that have worked their way all the way underneath it. You can only imagine what's actually among all the keys right now.
That picture is from today. You can see this post in the background. And I shot that pic with my iPhone. I like Apple stuff just fine. Like I said, I'm using a Mac right now, and I've used this keyboard since it was new. I've never had this or any other keyboard fail for such a trivial reason as DUST. Or even (God forbid) CRUMBS. Jony Ive needs to step out of his glorious white room and spend some time in the real world.
Who knows, maybe he'll have a epiphany and make phones 2mm thicker and fill that space with battery. Hey, a boy can dream...
1. This is old, and therefore good.
2. This is new, and therefore better.
"While Windows machines are generally considered safe..."
I've never read those words in almost 20 years of coming here.
Let's put on my robe and wizard hat.
Oops, sorry, wrong window.
Very well said. Agree a thousand percent.
> It was MILES behing the user friendly-ness of Amiga and Mac. KILOMETERS!
You should've stuck with miles. They're bigger.
"... the system can identify individual performers... and it can also identify sex acts."
So it can do facial detection and, um, facial detection?
Ahead of its time. June 16, 1999, re: the Sony Aibo:
"Crude, mechanical simulations of love and affection prepare children for adult world."
http://www.theonion.com/graphi...
> Plus a failure of their regular security auditing process to detect that a machine
> was running a version of software below the minimum allowed version.
A thousand times this. How is there not a dashboard that the whole team can see with a big red box around that hostname?
"I simply don't understand why anyone would want to spend such amount on a phone... the difference, I feel [emphasis added], doesn't warrant an additional $800."
Well there you go. Some people REALLY REALLY want their phones to work REALLY fast, or have REALLY NICE screens, or take fucking AMAZING pictures, and for THEM, it's worth it. It's not rocket science.
I'm sure you own at least ONE thing that I don't give a shit about that I would not have spent as much money on as you did. Want me to write an article on how I don't understand that different people like different things?
The iPhone 8+ is $799. So the *real* question is "Why would anyone spend $200 more for their smartphone?" Framing the question is less dramatic (but more realistic) terms makes the answer much more obvious: because it's not a lot of money for most people, so if they like it, it's not a big deal. $200 more on a phone spread over 2 years is about $8 per month. So for the price of one Starbucks coffee every other week, you can have a fancier phone. Big fucking deal.
Coming up next on Dumb Ass Questions from the Internet, "Why would anyone spend $X on a car when other cars exist for $Y?" -- because no one has given that question a moment's thought in the past 100 years and it needs to be discussed NOW. :-/