I could be misinterpreting, but I teach a lot of masters students from India and China. The Indians in particular seem to have a massive entitlement complex. In particular, they feel entitled to cheat with impunity. I'll give an assignment with an old problem I borrowed from a previous year, but with the numbers changed. Six of them will turn in exactly the same assignment, with exactly the same formatting, with all of the wrong answers, because they copied the older question's answer without even bothering to look at it. And then they get angry when they get a zero for the assignment. This semester, I'm going to just fail the cheaters out completely. (With ample and repeated warning about the rules, of course.)
I saw the same thing when I was working on my bachelor's degree. I had one class where over half the students were from India. They would loudly and quite obviously exchange answers in their native language DURING exams. The teacher asked them to be quiet. They persisted. He brought in a proctor to try and help manage them. Didn't even phase them. For the final, the teacher made a special exam just for that section. The exam was so difficult, and such a large portion of the total grade that everyone who took the final in that section failed the class. Fortunately for me, I had two classes at the same time that semester and had some scheduling problems for my final exam. The teacher let me sit with another section and I was the only person from my class who passed.
Now I can have a voice assistant that works even less than Google now does!
Microsoft innovating the future by copying the past. (TM)
Supposedly Cortana is much better at speech recognition than either Siri or Ok Google. It's also supposed to be much more capable. I've never used it myself, but it does seem to allow much more complex commands than Siri does.
The older version of the card is indeed an atom processor: BioDigital PC. I can't find anything indicating what the CPU type is in the latest, but I am guessing the BioDigital 7 also uses an Atom processor.
I will say that I have an Ivy Bridge Xeon processor that has a max TDP of 45W. In a fanless configuration, with an SSD, my average power consumption is 8W. I've never gotten it above 15W. This is with multiple VMs running, though I haven't tried to intentionally push it to its limits using something like Passmark. It's very fast for the power usage. I do not believe they make anything below 60W in the more modern architectures, however.
You do - as always, have the right to your own opinion.
You do not - as always, have the right to your own facts.
Let's just go through his post and I'll help you read between the lines on his post:
How about we create rules that foster responsible procreation?
OP is making this statement in reference to Netflix's new policy. This statement implies that Netflix's policy encourages people to have children irresponsibly.
If someone wants kids they should have the means (money, time) that is required to take care of them before getting pregnant.
Since we are still referring to people who work at Netflix, the OP is implying that Netflix employees do not have the time or money to have children. Now there are several types of employees at Netflix: executives, managers, white collar office workers, and people that run the machines that stuff DVDs into red envelopes. Netflix has approximately 2,000 employees. The median salary at Netflix is $180,000 per year. So the OP is saying that an upper-middle class family does not have the time or money to reproduce.
Netflix did something helpful for new parents, sure, (and people working at netflix are probably people we'd rather be having more kids than Joe Bob and his sister/wife Fanny Mae)
Here the OP is saying that, while he would prefer that Netflix employees have more kids than your average person, he would still like the government to discourage them from reproducing.
but there are people out there who take their "right" to have kids and stomp on my "right" to not pay a dime for their terrible decisions.
Here the OP uses quotes to suggest that having children should not be considered a right. He also states that those people having children is a terrible decision.
We shouldn't be incentivizing having more kids in any settings, we should de-incentivize having kids when you can't afford it (ie. jail time)
This goes right back to his opening statement that this Netflix program creates an incentive for the wrong type of people to be reproducing. He's also trying to control who becomes a parent - the very definition of Eugenics.
And here you demonstrate your misunderstanding of the word Eugenics, which has absolutely nothing to do with genetics in the modern sense:
Well, sorry muchacho, you don''t get to define everything, especially when you make shit up to make your point. The only thing you've been accurate about in your quest for high dudgeon is his jailing comment. The rest is odd crap you made up to support your jeremiad.
If you look at the definition of eugenics you'll see that I am not redefining anything.
Which twisted sort of racism is in your head, that you think the expectation that people be prepared to finance and rear their own offspring should somehow be different depending on skin pigment? As usual, the people who recoil and spit venom at the mere mention of personal accountability... turn out, under the hood, to be the real racists.
Eugenics isn't strictly limited to race. In fact, most proponents of Eugenics want to prevent the poor, handicapped, homosexual, intellectually average, and other "deviants" (regardless of skin color) from reproducing. The OP wants to imprison people for having children that they cannot afford. His definition of being unable to afford children include Netflix employees that have to take a leave of absence to care for their children. Do you consider that to be reasonable? Does it sound like the OP really cares about people being responsible for their reproductive choices, or do you think the just wants to prevent anyone who he considers to be inferior from reproducing? It sounds like the latter to me.
I've never seen an expectation of the parents to be financially responsible anywhere as being remotely called eugenics.
That would be more like family focused economic policy. Which sounds like something we'd see on the 700 Club.
He was implying that a person should have enough liquid assets on hand so that they do not need to be paid to take a leave of absence. He's suggesting that this program at Netflix would encourage riffraff to reproduce. He was indicating that those who are independently wealthy are somehow more worthy of passing on their genetic heritage. He wants to criminalize reproduction amongst the poor. That sounds like a eugenics program to me. He took it to a much greater extreme than "Hey you really should try to avoid having more children than you can afford."
How about we create rules that foster responsible procreation? If someone wants kids they should have the means (money, time) that is required to take care of them before getting pregnant. Netflix did something helpful for new parents, sure, (and people working at netflix are probably people we'd rather be having more kids than Joe Bob and his sister/wife Fanny Mae) but there are people out there who take their "right" to have kids and stomp on my "right" to not pay a dime for their terrible decisions. We shouldn't be incentivizing having more kids in any settings, we should de-incentivize having kids when you can't afford it (ie. jail time).
I fully support your eugenics program. We should only let the purest of race, the smartest, most noble people reproduce. Everyone else should go to jail for even thinking about reproduction. While they're incarcerated, they can work for my corporation's prison work program. It helps provide inmates with real world job skills while giving them the opportunity to work at $0.80 an hour.
It's not really unlimited if it's limited to a year now is it. Bad title. Commendable policy though, much better than what many places offer.
If it's anything like my brother's company's "Unlimited Vacation Time" policy, it's a scam. He used to have 5 weeks of vacation time every year. He could pretty much always get approved for all that time. Now he has "unlimited" time, with managerial approval. His company did a trial of the policy with a limited number of employees and found that people take 30-40% less vacation time, on average, when they do not have a set amount of time off. The point of the change in policy was to make everyone think they were working for a great company while at the same time giving the employees less time off. Sure there are employees that end up coming out ahead, but most employees feel guilty about asking for time off when they aren't pulling from a fixed pool of leave.
Great, awesome, now can we finally get updates for laptop video cards now too? You know, especially the ones marketed as "gaming laptops" that only ever get one driver release and are incompatible with the chipset manufacturer's source drivers?
If you're running Windows and have an Nvidia card then you typically just need to modify an INI file that ships with the drivers from Nvidia. Their drivers are pretty universal and the drivers on their site do not include a hardware identifier that is specific to your laptop manufacturer. Of course, the last time I dealt with this was when Vista shipped with all laptops, so perhaps things have changed.
- git has extremely powerful branching and merging capabilities. Thus, it's very easy to create a fix in one version and get git to apply the resulting patch/delta to other branches of the tree. That is git's forte. For example, do the security fix in the latest under development branch and then propagate it to all older branches [can be automated easily].
What kind of world do you live in where you think its safe and practical to automatically merge fixes into old versions of software automatically? Especially when it comes to kernel level bug fixes! Depending on the area affected by the change, an automatic merge may not even be possible, yet the bug may still exist. If it were just a simple matter of an automatic git merge then RHEL would not need any active developers. That's one of the silliest things I have read all day. Git is great at branching and makes life much easier with a large development team, but branching alone would not solve the problem of maintaining every single Android release from gingerbread all the way to lollipop.
- And the legal liability for Google, vendors, and carriers for the MMS vulnerability is so severe, that any company that does not implement this could be sued into oblivion. For example, in the PC world, would any motherboard vendor decide they would prohibit critical security bug fixes via Windows update?
This is a bad analogy. The Android world is more closely related to the world of Linux distros. If you're running Ubuntu and they fail to pick up a security fix that you need you have two options: wait for them to fix it or patch it yourself. It's the same thing when Samsung fails to release a security update for your phone. You can either wait, or root your phone and get a patch yourself. We're not talking about the phone hardware physically preventing you from installing an update. Instead, it's an issue with the update not being available for your distribution.
Ain't Prop 13 great, if you are a beneficiary of the Kaiser Family Trust, and own enough commercial property?
Except that you're wrong. If you buy/trade a majority share of the company that owns commercial property then the tax basis is reassessed. While it is true Gallo family was able to avoid reassessment on some vineyards by having individual members of the family buy less than a 50% stake in the company that owned the property, this could easily be fixed. Prop 13 allows older people who are on a fixed income to continue to own their property. My parents would have to leave the state of California if prop 13 did not exist.
As if they had enough problems, now Malaysian Airlines will get fined for littering
I flew on Malaysian airlines recently and got two empty seats next to me. That hasn't happened on a US plane in a long time.
Back in 2008, I had an entire 737 all to myself (well there was one other passenger). Flight Attendant told us to sit wherever we wanted and that she wasn't going to do anything but read a book. If we wanted something we were to hit the call button and she would bring us whatever we wanted for free. But just a few weeks ago I had an empty row in economy plus to myself from Houston to San Francisco.
Onstar is basically GM having the balls to charge the customer for the equipment that GM uses to gather personal data and to sell navigation and other services that mostly your phone already does for free.
It boggles my mind how gullible people are. I'm amazed that people don't all just refuse to buy any car with Onstar in.
While I agree with you, the point of OnStar IS to collect personal data about GM drivers, you must concede that OnStar came about long before smart phones and Google Maps on a mobile device. In fact, the service was launched in 1996 for model year 1997 cars. The security holes and issues in OnStar have likely existed from the very beginning. Who knows how long they've been exploited for, but we can assume that the people who designed the hardware and software for OnStar had not yet learned the lessons about security that would be so crucial towards the end of the DotCom bubble.
Surely you jest. The inside of a wing is almost all empty space or fuel storage. The wing is not a solid piece of aluminum. It's full of sealed air pockets. The flaperon (as it was not the entire wing that they found) is just a small portion of the wing. It is very light and far less dense than water as it would not have any fuel storage, wiring, or other materials inside of it. Unless the outer shell was compromised across several of the inner compartments, it would float quite easily.
Except for when they don't - something went wrong in the transaction (and you don't know because you don't have a receipt), the end result will be the manager of the station calling in a drive-off theft and you get to explain why you thought you had paid.
Always get a receipt from Pay-at-the-Pump.
What? Dude pass the crack pipe and take a break before taking another hit. The pumps don't even turn on until the payment card tendered is authorized for a transaction. What that means is that the card processor received a request and passed it along to your bank. You could stop the transaction there and you will still see it as a pending transaction on your credit card for up to 2-3 days. So no. No one is going to call the police on you because the payment wasn't properly captured. That is not your fault, or responsibility. At the absolute worst case, you'll have to authorize them running a new transaction. If they can't find a record of how much you pumped, that is the station's problem, not yours.
Why don't they just install night-time pop up urinals, like other cities have done.
I know them from London, Paris and Amsterdam, but here's a video for one in Watford
Fairly straight forward solution, and no more stinky city.
Have you been to San Francisco? There is a HUGE homeless community there. They used to have public toilets 24/7. Free ones at that. Then the homeless people started living in them. So then they started charging a small fee (I think it was originally around $0.50) to try and keep the homeless people from living inside of them. Eventually, they removed the public toilets because the public was unable to use them anyway. They need to solve the homeless problem until they can solve the public toilet problem.
There's something to this kind of news... Why do they even put an operating system on such a specialized device, that is dedicated to only one task? The point of an operating system is to be able to run different programs on the same machine. It's certainly easier to build over one, but is it worth the trouble?
If this is the product that I think it is, then it is a fireproof safe specifically designed to keep computer data safe through a short but intense (up to 2 hour) fire. Some of the more "sophisticated" models allow you to backup and retrieve data without removing the drives from the safe. I'm not sure what value that provides, to be honest. But the USB port and computer OS are likely to provide access control to the data inside the safe.
The emails were classified retroactively because they should have been classified and would have been classified at the time that they were sent. They bypassed security regulations when they generated the email and, as such, they were not marked classified from the beginning.
... the company servers if you give a shit about security.
The whole BYOD argument has been debated to death. Point is there are two camps here.
Camp 1 says "No, because security" and Camp 2 says "Yes, because I'm lazy and like my toys."
Hmmm no bias detected in that statement... though you did openly admit that you're a camp 1 member later on. I will tell you right now that I've worked for several companies with people like you calling the security shots. I can also tell you right now that I will never carry a company phone, no matter what my boss wants. Most engineers I know have zero interest in a company phone. The only people I know who do want one are managers and sales types. If you want somebody outside of those two groups to be connected, you have to allow BYOD to some extent. You may not like it, and you may think its all about the toys, but that's just because you're way too uptight and don't realize that people want a work life balance. Carrying a corporate phone is like having an electronic leash around your neck.
You can have all the security in the world if you disconnect your network from everyone else. No one will be able to get anything meaningful done. You have to balance the needs of your employees with the needs of the business. I would never work at your business unless I was absolutely desperate. Thankfully, I have never been that desperate.
This might bet the point at which Apple without Jobs falters.
You can't introduce the "revolutionary" new product and not have the killer use-case for it. You can't release "teh smartwatch" and have no idea of WTF people will use it for.
You know that this is exactly what Apple did with the iPhone, right? The original iPhone was just a glorified iPod until Apple allowed 3rd party developers to start writing their own apps. I rarely use any of the software that originally shipped with the iPhone - the only exceptions being the texting app and the calendar app.
See Four for information about how the EMV transition will work. Basically there are two entities involved in determining whether to use chip and pin for each transaction. The card issuer has to issue a PIN for the card. The payment processor has to have hardware and infrastructure to verify the PIN in order for the chip and PIN portion to work. The payment processor works on behalf of the merchant accepting the transaction. Everyone wants to pass the financial responsibility of fraud up the chain from merchant to the card issuer. Eventually the US will transition to chip and PIN just to avoid liablity.
In case you didn't know, the cards that most banks are now issuing in the US are chip and signature, not chip and pin like in Europe, and I understand that there are some spots that DO NOT accept chip and signature
My understanding is that it is a two part process. The US is doing chip and signature for a few years and then will transition to chip and pin once the hardware all transitions. The purpose of the transition is due to a legislative change that puts the liability for transaction fraud on the weakest link in the card processing chain. If the card is EMV capable (chip and pin/signature) and the card reader is magnetic swipe, then the merchant bears the liability on accepting the swipe. If the merchant has EMV terminals and the card is magnetic swipe only, then the card issuer is liable. Most people in the US would not know their credit card PIN unless they routinely make cash advances. In a year or two the banks will start issuing or forcing people to reset their PIN somehow.
Slashdot Mirror
I could be misinterpreting, but I teach a lot of masters students from India and China. The Indians in particular seem to have a massive entitlement complex. In particular, they feel entitled to cheat with impunity. I'll give an assignment with an old problem I borrowed from a previous year, but with the numbers changed. Six of them will turn in exactly the same assignment, with exactly the same formatting, with all of the wrong answers, because they copied the older question's answer without even bothering to look at it. And then they get angry when they get a zero for the assignment. This semester, I'm going to just fail the cheaters out completely. (With ample and repeated warning about the rules, of course.)
I saw the same thing when I was working on my bachelor's degree. I had one class where over half the students were from India. They would loudly and quite obviously exchange answers in their native language DURING exams. The teacher asked them to be quiet. They persisted. He brought in a proctor to try and help manage them. Didn't even phase them. For the final, the teacher made a special exam just for that section. The exam was so difficult, and such a large portion of the total grade that everyone who took the final in that section failed the class. Fortunately for me, I had two classes at the same time that semester and had some scheduling problems for my final exam. The teacher let me sit with another section and I was the only person from my class who passed.
Now I can have a voice assistant that works even less than Google now does!
Microsoft innovating the future by copying the past. (TM)
Supposedly Cortana is much better at speech recognition than either Siri or Ok Google. It's also supposed to be much more capable. I've never used it myself, but it does seem to allow much more complex commands than Siri does.
heh. Guess I need to learn to read. Thanks.
What is a Intel E3845 Xeon processor?
the closest thing I found is Intel® Atom Processor E3845 (Bay Trail) http://ark.intel.com/products/...
The older version of the card is indeed an atom processor: BioDigital PC. I can't find anything indicating what the CPU type is in the latest, but I am guessing the BioDigital 7 also uses an Atom processor.
I will say that I have an Ivy Bridge Xeon processor that has a max TDP of 45W. In a fanless configuration, with an SSD, my average power consumption is 8W. I've never gotten it above 15W. This is with multiple VMs running, though I haven't tried to intentionally push it to its limits using something like Passmark. It's very fast for the power usage. I do not believe they make anything below 60W in the more modern architectures, however.
You do - as always, have the right to your own opinion.
You do not - as always, have the right to your own facts.
Let's just go through his post and I'll help you read between the lines on his post:
How about we create rules that foster responsible procreation?
OP is making this statement in reference to Netflix's new policy. This statement implies that Netflix's policy encourages people to have children irresponsibly.
If someone wants kids they should have the means (money, time) that is required to take care of them before getting pregnant.
Since we are still referring to people who work at Netflix, the OP is implying that Netflix employees do not have the time or money to have children. Now there are several types of employees at Netflix: executives, managers, white collar office workers, and people that run the machines that stuff DVDs into red envelopes. Netflix has approximately 2,000 employees. The median salary at Netflix is $180,000 per year. So the OP is saying that an upper-middle class family does not have the time or money to reproduce.
Netflix did something helpful for new parents, sure, (and people working at netflix are probably people we'd rather be having more kids than Joe Bob and his sister/wife Fanny Mae)
Here the OP is saying that, while he would prefer that Netflix employees have more kids than your average person, he would still like the government to discourage them from reproducing.
but there are people out there who take their "right" to have kids and stomp on my "right" to not pay a dime for their terrible decisions.
Here the OP uses quotes to suggest that having children should not be considered a right. He also states that those people having children is a terrible decision.
We shouldn't be incentivizing having more kids in any settings, we should de-incentivize having kids when you can't afford it (ie. jail time)
This goes right back to his opening statement that this Netflix program creates an incentive for the wrong type of people to be reproducing. He's also trying to control who becomes a parent - the very definition of Eugenics.
And here you demonstrate your misunderstanding of the word Eugenics, which has absolutely nothing to do with genetics in the modern sense:
Well, sorry muchacho, you don''t get to define everything, especially when you make shit up to make your point. The only thing you've been accurate about in your quest for high dudgeon is his jailing comment. The rest is odd crap you made up to support your jeremiad.
If you look at the definition of eugenics you'll see that I am not redefining anything.
I fully support your eugenics program.
Which twisted sort of racism is in your head, that you think the expectation that people be prepared to finance and rear their own offspring should somehow be different depending on skin pigment? As usual, the people who recoil and spit venom at the mere mention of personal accountability ... turn out, under the hood, to be the real racists.
Eugenics isn't strictly limited to race. In fact, most proponents of Eugenics want to prevent the poor, handicapped, homosexual, intellectually average, and other "deviants" (regardless of skin color) from reproducing. The OP wants to imprison people for having children that they cannot afford. His definition of being unable to afford children include Netflix employees that have to take a leave of absence to care for their children. Do you consider that to be reasonable? Does it sound like the OP really cares about people being responsible for their reproductive choices, or do you think the just wants to prevent anyone who he considers to be inferior from reproducing? It sounds like the latter to me.
I fully support your eugenics program.
Ummm, what he was talking about isn't eugenics.
I've never seen an expectation of the parents to be financially responsible anywhere as being remotely called eugenics.
That would be more like family focused economic policy. Which sounds like something we'd see on the 700 Club.
He was implying that a person should have enough liquid assets on hand so that they do not need to be paid to take a leave of absence. He's suggesting that this program at Netflix would encourage riffraff to reproduce. He was indicating that those who are independently wealthy are somehow more worthy of passing on their genetic heritage. He wants to criminalize reproduction amongst the poor. That sounds like a eugenics program to me. He took it to a much greater extreme than "Hey you really should try to avoid having more children than you can afford."
How about we create rules that foster responsible procreation? If someone wants kids they should have the means (money, time) that is required to take care of them before getting pregnant. Netflix did something helpful for new parents, sure, (and people working at netflix are probably people we'd rather be having more kids than Joe Bob and his sister/wife Fanny Mae) but there are people out there who take their "right" to have kids and stomp on my "right" to not pay a dime for their terrible decisions. We shouldn't be incentivizing having more kids in any settings, we should de-incentivize having kids when you can't afford it (ie. jail time).
I fully support your eugenics program. We should only let the purest of race, the smartest, most noble people reproduce. Everyone else should go to jail for even thinking about reproduction. While they're incarcerated, they can work for my corporation's prison work program. It helps provide inmates with real world job skills while giving them the opportunity to work at $0.80 an hour.
It's not really unlimited if it's limited to a year now is it. Bad title. Commendable policy though, much better than what many places offer.
If it's anything like my brother's company's "Unlimited Vacation Time" policy, it's a scam. He used to have 5 weeks of vacation time every year. He could pretty much always get approved for all that time. Now he has "unlimited" time, with managerial approval. His company did a trial of the policy with a limited number of employees and found that people take 30-40% less vacation time, on average, when they do not have a set amount of time off. The point of the change in policy was to make everyone think they were working for a great company while at the same time giving the employees less time off. Sure there are employees that end up coming out ahead, but most employees feel guilty about asking for time off when they aren't pulling from a fixed pool of leave.
Great, awesome, now can we finally get updates for laptop video cards now too? You know, especially the ones marketed as "gaming laptops" that only ever get one driver release and are incompatible with the chipset manufacturer's source drivers?
If you're running Windows and have an Nvidia card then you typically just need to modify an INI file that ships with the drivers from Nvidia. Their drivers are pretty universal and the drivers on their site do not include a hardware identifier that is specific to your laptop manufacturer. Of course, the last time I dealt with this was when Vista shipped with all laptops, so perhaps things have changed.
- git has extremely powerful branching and merging capabilities. Thus, it's very easy to create a fix in one version and get git to apply the resulting patch/delta to other branches of the tree. That is git's forte. For example, do the security fix in the latest under development branch and then propagate it to all older branches [can be automated easily].
What kind of world do you live in where you think its safe and practical to automatically merge fixes into old versions of software automatically? Especially when it comes to kernel level bug fixes! Depending on the area affected by the change, an automatic merge may not even be possible, yet the bug may still exist. If it were just a simple matter of an automatic git merge then RHEL would not need any active developers. That's one of the silliest things I have read all day. Git is great at branching and makes life much easier with a large development team, but branching alone would not solve the problem of maintaining every single Android release from gingerbread all the way to lollipop.
- And the legal liability for Google, vendors, and carriers for the MMS vulnerability is so severe, that any company that does not implement this could be sued into oblivion. For example, in the PC world, would any motherboard vendor decide they would prohibit critical security bug fixes via Windows update?
This is a bad analogy. The Android world is more closely related to the world of Linux distros. If you're running Ubuntu and they fail to pick up a security fix that you need you have two options: wait for them to fix it or patch it yourself. It's the same thing when Samsung fails to release a security update for your phone. You can either wait, or root your phone and get a patch yourself. We're not talking about the phone hardware physically preventing you from installing an update. Instead, it's an issue with the update not being available for your distribution.
Ain't Prop 13 great, if you are a beneficiary of the Kaiser Family Trust, and own enough commercial property?
Except that you're wrong. If you buy/trade a majority share of the company that owns commercial property then the tax basis is reassessed. While it is true Gallo family was able to avoid reassessment on some vineyards by having individual members of the family buy less than a 50% stake in the company that owned the property, this could easily be fixed. Prop 13 allows older people who are on a fixed income to continue to own their property. My parents would have to leave the state of California if prop 13 did not exist.
As if they had enough problems, now Malaysian Airlines will get fined for littering
I flew on Malaysian airlines recently and got two empty seats next to me. That hasn't happened on a US plane in a long time.
Back in 2008, I had an entire 737 all to myself (well there was one other passenger). Flight Attendant told us to sit wherever we wanted and that she wasn't going to do anything but read a book. If we wanted something we were to hit the call button and she would bring us whatever we wanted for free. But just a few weeks ago I had an empty row in economy plus to myself from Houston to San Francisco.
Onstar is basically GM having the balls to charge the customer for the equipment that GM uses to gather personal data and to sell navigation and other services that mostly your phone already does for free.
It boggles my mind how gullible people are. I'm amazed that people don't all just refuse to buy any car with Onstar in.
While I agree with you, the point of OnStar IS to collect personal data about GM drivers, you must concede that OnStar came about long before smart phones and Google Maps on a mobile device. In fact, the service was launched in 1996 for model year 1997 cars. The security holes and issues in OnStar have likely existed from the very beginning. Who knows how long they've been exploited for, but we can assume that the people who designed the hardware and software for OnStar had not yet learned the lessons about security that would be so crucial towards the end of the DotCom bubble.
Right, but the wing itself doesn't...
Surely you jest. The inside of a wing is almost all empty space or fuel storage. The wing is not a solid piece of aluminum. It's full of sealed air pockets. The flaperon (as it was not the entire wing that they found) is just a small portion of the wing. It is very light and far less dense than water as it would not have any fuel storage, wiring, or other materials inside of it. Unless the outer shell was compromised across several of the inner compartments, it would float quite easily.
Except for when they don't - something went wrong in the transaction (and you don't know because you don't have a receipt), the end result will be the manager of the station calling in a drive-off theft and you get to explain why you thought you had paid. Always get a receipt from Pay-at-the-Pump.
What? Dude pass the crack pipe and take a break before taking another hit. The pumps don't even turn on until the payment card tendered is authorized for a transaction. What that means is that the card processor received a request and passed it along to your bank. You could stop the transaction there and you will still see it as a pending transaction on your credit card for up to 2-3 days. So no. No one is going to call the police on you because the payment wasn't properly captured. That is not your fault, or responsibility. At the absolute worst case, you'll have to authorize them running a new transaction. If they can't find a record of how much you pumped, that is the station's problem, not yours.
Well they are taking a bloody long enough to come out with it. It should be called IceOS not SteamOS.
It's called SteamOS because it has already turned into vapor
Why don't they just install night-time pop up urinals, like other cities have done. I know them from London, Paris and Amsterdam, but here's a video for one in Watford Fairly straight forward solution, and no more stinky city.
Have you been to San Francisco? There is a HUGE homeless community there. They used to have public toilets 24/7. Free ones at that. Then the homeless people started living in them. So then they started charging a small fee (I think it was originally around $0.50) to try and keep the homeless people from living inside of them. Eventually, they removed the public toilets because the public was unable to use them anyway. They need to solve the homeless problem until they can solve the public toilet problem.
There's something to this kind of news... Why do they even put an operating system on such a specialized device, that is dedicated to only one task? The point of an operating system is to be able to run different programs on the same machine. It's certainly easier to build over one, but is it worth the trouble?
If this is the product that I think it is, then it is a fireproof safe specifically designed to keep computer data safe through a short but intense (up to 2 hour) fire. Some of the more "sophisticated" models allow you to backup and retrieve data without removing the drives from the safe. I'm not sure what value that provides, to be honest. But the USB port and computer OS are likely to provide access control to the data inside the safe.
The emails were classified retroactively because they should have been classified and would have been classified at the time that they were sent. They bypassed security regulations when they generated the email and, as such, they were not marked classified from the beginning.
... the company servers if you give a shit about security.
The whole BYOD argument has been debated to death. Point is there are two camps here.
Camp 1 says "No, because security" and Camp 2 says "Yes, because I'm lazy and like my toys."
Hmmm no bias detected in that statement... though you did openly admit that you're a camp 1 member later on. I will tell you right now that I've worked for several companies with people like you calling the security shots. I can also tell you right now that I will never carry a company phone, no matter what my boss wants. Most engineers I know have zero interest in a company phone. The only people I know who do want one are managers and sales types. If you want somebody outside of those two groups to be connected, you have to allow BYOD to some extent. You may not like it, and you may think its all about the toys, but that's just because you're way too uptight and don't realize that people want a work life balance. Carrying a corporate phone is like having an electronic leash around your neck.
You can have all the security in the world if you disconnect your network from everyone else. No one will be able to get anything meaningful done. You have to balance the needs of your employees with the needs of the business. I would never work at your business unless I was absolutely desperate. Thankfully, I have never been that desperate.
William the Conqueror didn't cross the Channel in a poly-cotton blend.
You're right. Pure polyester was in vogue back then. It has much better durability, which is very important for a conqueror.
This might bet the point at which Apple without Jobs falters.
You can't introduce the "revolutionary" new product and not have the killer use-case for it. You can't release "teh smartwatch" and have no idea of WTF people will use it for.
You know that this is exactly what Apple did with the iPhone, right? The original iPhone was just a glorified iPod until Apple allowed 3rd party developers to start writing their own apps. I rarely use any of the software that originally shipped with the iPhone - the only exceptions being the texting app and the calendar app.
I would love to get some confirmation otherwise.
See Four for information about how the EMV transition will work. Basically there are two entities involved in determining whether to use chip and pin for each transaction. The card issuer has to issue a PIN for the card. The payment processor has to have hardware and infrastructure to verify the PIN in order for the chip and PIN portion to work. The payment processor works on behalf of the merchant accepting the transaction. Everyone wants to pass the financial responsibility of fraud up the chain from merchant to the card issuer. Eventually the US will transition to chip and PIN just to avoid liablity.
In case you didn't know, the cards that most banks are now issuing in the US are chip and signature, not chip and pin like in Europe, and I understand that there are some spots that DO NOT accept chip and signature
My understanding is that it is a two part process. The US is doing chip and signature for a few years and then will transition to chip and pin once the hardware all transitions. The purpose of the transition is due to a legislative change that puts the liability for transaction fraud on the weakest link in the card processing chain. If the card is EMV capable (chip and pin/signature) and the card reader is magnetic swipe, then the merchant bears the liability on accepting the swipe. If the merchant has EMV terminals and the card is magnetic swipe only, then the card issuer is liable. Most people in the US would not know their credit card PIN unless they routinely make cash advances. In a year or two the banks will start issuing or forcing people to reset their PIN somehow.