The whole concept of owning IP shipping manufacturing overseas is flawed. IP is a made up asset that can be removed at any time with no effort the part China. All they have to do is say they won't follow US patent and copyright law an they have all the manufacturing capabilities and all the intellectual property. What exactly can the US do about it?
That is the problem with made up assets they can just as easily be unmade.
is misleading, did you do a survey of all the statements made and or is it just your opinion. I assume the latter. And even if you found out 51% are either true or false making your statement true, that doesn't mean that a significant portion of statements are not misleading.
Even the most basic statement, like "I am sitting right" now is not 100% accurate, I don't have any way of proving that I am actually sitting not just imagining it. Anyway that is just philosophical impractical nonsense and misleading, What we are talking about is statements in the media that are trying to convince you of their opinion, in my opinion a higher proportion of those statements have misleading elements, as opposed to statements like "this is a dog" or 1 + 1 = 2.
Of course they can hit 0, if no one is willing to buy them. You can say your trash is worth 1 million dollars and not give it away for any less but if no one will pay you anything for it, it is worth 0. If all the miners stop mining you won't even be able to sell them.
I see no reason why it wouldn't hit 0, since it is actually useless as a currency, it is just taking up space on your computer.
It is about size, Qualcom dominates the market therefore it is bound not to operate in an anti-competitive way that blocks smaller players from entering the market.
Just like if two small business merge no one cares. However if 2 large companies merge, say google and apple then they would require government approval.
Yes you have to sell people upgrades. That forces the developer to make upgrades the users actually want. Under a subscription model people are just forced to get the upgrades no matter what just to keep old functionality. If adobe cannot produce upgrades that people are willing to buy then the should rightly go bankrupt, that is what a free market is about compete or die.
bmp is not loseless, in the sense that information is lost, not pixels, I maybe wrong, since I don't use these as often, but image editors store information like layers, shapes, text as text, etc. If you ever intend on editing these in the future a bitmap requires a lot more work. Try scaling a bitmap up/or even down it doesn't work well
If this is the case how they providing an option to turn this feature off? Is this switch called please randomly crash my phone? If this truly is an issue just display a warning saying your phone battery is old please replace.
People are actually quite good at making judgements of people based on very little information, https://www.webmd.com/balance/..., it makes sense really, in the real world we have very little actual information about someone.
Some reasons are important. For example if the crime is say drug possession, and black people are searched more, then the black person is more likely to be caught even if both white and black people have exactly the same rate of redoing the crime. We only count residivism if the person is caught.
I assume the goal is to reduce the actual offending not the reduce the caught offenders.
We could reduce residivism to 0 instantly if just got rid of all law enforcement. In case of drug possession maybe not a bad idea, assault not so much.
That is exactly why we shouldn't use credit numbers at all and no one should no it. you should just insert into a reader, or use NFC on your credit card sign the transaction once with your public key. The bank knows your public key but not your private key, so not even staff at the bank with admin access can a transaction.
Not true, if it is a zero sum game it takes a lot of people to go bankrupt/loose money to make 1 person rich. 10 people have to loose $100,000 to make one person $1,000,000
While I agree this is over-hyped and generally represented as worse than it is.
Throttling the frequency of the processor is slowing down the phone. Doing it in a transparent manner would mean that the user would say my phones running slow I should get a new battery. Just doing it and not indicating why would probably result the user investigating why, removing apps, doing a factory reset and then going out and buying a new upgraded phone. This wastes users time and money.
I have read the white paper and now think I understand,
You are not doing an out of bounds memory access at all, what you are doing is making the predictive out of bounds check, that gets loaded into in bounds memory
the only thing that is an issue is getting an accurate enough time, if your machine is fast enough might not work, window.performance.now()
Javascript can't do that is an interpreted language and checks array bounds, if javascript could do this, with or without these bugs it would be a security flaw in itself.
It is perfectly valid to access your own processes memory. If javascript could access any address then you could capture passwords from other tabs.
Note you can actually access other windows memory if you open it in javascript, but not random memory.
press F12 and type this into the console:
w = window.open('about:blank'); w.document.body.appendChild(w.document.createTextNode('hello world'));
You are right that there are issues either way, but my view is that the government can collect more data on us than ever before. From being able to put camera with facial recognition on every street corner to monitoring and storing your conversations phones and social media.
I have heard the FBI chief talk about this and compared it with uncrackable safes and how they never existed, so they are losing the ability to access some evidence. The reality is that this data was never stored 50 years ago, so by definition it was inaccessible.
There is always more information that the authorities will want to keep us safe, I don't think they want it out of malice, but a genuine desire to do a better job. However the fact is we are safer now than we have ever been throughout history, apart from some leader starting a nuclear war and access to private individuals data will not help that. The goal of absolute safety will never, and should never be attained, even if the government new absolutely everything everyone was thinking, because as we head towards that we open up ourselves to people in power taking advantage of that..
That and the fact that it will never work, even if you managed to keep the backdoor keys secret forever. Would the US accept China or any other country for that matter putting back doors in products? So how can the US expect that it is acceptable for them to do so.
There is also nothing stopping criminals from writing/downloading there own open source encryption.
I think the parent was referring to free market from dictionary.com
Free market noun 1. an economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies.
Once you get monopolies competition no longer works to set prices or drive efficiency.
In who's financial interest is that? Generally its the people who have the supply. But I suppose alternative energy supplies may gain from this.
2. High Taxes.
Who have you spoken to that wants higher taxes and to waste that tax money on a made up problem, Yes some people want higher taxes to solve problems that they think are real, but who in there right mind would want higher taxes just to throw that money away.
3. Prohibitions.
Why would you want to ban something that has no actual negative impact.
4. Societal shaming.
Apart from getting joy from other peoples misery what benefit is there?
5. Exceptions for political leaders and the rich.
Who is saying this, what exceptions should political leaders get? Leaders and the rich get exceptions already, they make the laws no they do not need climate change as an excuse
6. Control, control, control
control of what? so people are less wasteful,
You seem to think people who research climate change have nothing better to do than make other peoples lives miserable.
As with anything there will be winners and losers from any change but by far the people with money now are the ones that stand to loose the most, so if the research is going to be biased in one direction based on money it will be against global warming.
If they get access to you private key then they can transfer the money out, just like you can.
They cannot be tracked because they transfer it to their wallet, which is just number, you do not know who that number belongs to and you cannot transfer that money back from that number without their private key.
I don't actually think it is that untraceable as people say though, because if that wallet (or linked wallets) ever makes a transaction that sends goods or services to a person it can then be traced.
I am no expert but that is what I understand from how I believe bit coin works.
The statement is incorrect because we are still placing our trust in institutions (albeit not government) to keep our bit coin safe.
Yes you could keep that bitcoin on your own hardware, but you have to trust the producer of the hardware and software you run are not either stealing or allow bugs that will let other people steal that money.
Slashdot Mirror
The whole concept of owning IP shipping manufacturing overseas is flawed. IP is a made up asset that can be removed at any time with no effort the part China. All they have to do is say they won't follow US patent and copyright law an they have all the manufacturing capabilities and all the intellectual property. What exactly can the US do about it?
That is the problem with made up assets they can just as easily be unmade.
Even the statement:
Most things are simply True or False
is misleading, did you do a survey of all the statements made and or is it just your opinion. I assume the latter. And even if you found out 51% are either true or false making your statement true, that doesn't mean that a significant portion of statements are not misleading.
Even the most basic statement, like "I am sitting right" now is not 100% accurate, I don't have any way of proving that I am actually sitting not just imagining it. Anyway that is just philosophical impractical nonsense and misleading, What we are talking about is statements in the media that are trying to convince you of their opinion, in my opinion a higher proportion of those statements have misleading elements, as opposed to statements like "this is a dog" or 1 + 1 = 2.
And how will most people do that research? I know google it.
Of course they can hit 0, if no one is willing to buy them. You can say your trash is worth 1 million dollars and not give it away for any less but if no one will pay you anything for it, it is worth 0. If all the miners stop mining you won't even be able to sell them.
I see no reason why it wouldn't hit 0, since it is actually useless as a currency, it is just taking up space on your computer.
It is about size, Qualcom dominates the market therefore it is bound not to operate in an anti-competitive way that blocks smaller players from entering the market.
Just like if two small business merge no one cares. However if 2 large companies merge, say google and apple then they would require government approval.
Yes you have to sell people upgrades. That forces the developer to make upgrades the users actually want. Under a subscription model people are just forced to get the upgrades no matter what just to keep old functionality. If adobe cannot produce upgrades that people are willing to buy then the should rightly go bankrupt, that is what a free market is about compete or die.
bmp is not loseless, in the sense that information is lost, not pixels, I maybe wrong, since I don't use these as often, but image editors store information like layers, shapes, text as text, etc. If you ever intend on editing these in the future a bitmap requires a lot more work. Try scaling a bitmap up/or even down it doesn't work well
Neither is PDF for the same reason.
If this is the case how they providing an option to turn this feature off? Is this switch called please randomly crash my phone? If this truly is an issue just display a warning saying your phone battery is old please replace.
Do other phones experience the same thing?
People are actually quite good at making judgements of people based on very little information, https://www.webmd.com/balance/..., it makes sense really, in the real world we have very little actual information about someone.
Some reasons are important. For example if the crime is say drug possession, and black people are searched more, then the black person is more likely to be caught even if both white and black people have exactly the same rate of redoing the crime. We only count residivism if the person is caught.
I assume the goal is to reduce the actual offending not the reduce the caught offenders.
We could reduce residivism to 0 instantly if just got rid of all law enforcement. In case of drug possession maybe not a bad idea, assault not so much.
That is exactly why we shouldn't use credit numbers at all and no one should no it. you should just insert into a reader, or use NFC on your credit card sign the transaction once with your public key. The bank knows your public key but not your private key, so not even staff at the bank with admin access can a transaction.
as many people became rich as went bankrupt
Not true, if it is a zero sum game it takes a lot of people to go bankrupt/loose money to make 1 person rich. 10 people have to loose $100,000 to make one person $1,000,000
That is because pulling the power cord out, and the computer turning off is not UNEXPECTED for the user.
While I agree this is over-hyped and generally represented as worse than it is.
Throttling the frequency of the processor is slowing down the phone. Doing it in a transparent manner would mean that the user would say my phones running slow I should get a new battery. Just doing it and not indicating why would probably result the user investigating why, removing apps, doing a factory reset and then going out and buying a new upgraded phone. This wastes users time and money.
I have read the white paper and now think I understand,
You are not doing an out of bounds memory access at all, what you are doing is making the predictive out of bounds check, that gets loaded into in bounds memory
the only thing that is an issue is getting an accurate enough time, if your machine is fast enough might not work, window.performance.now()
Javascript can't do that is an interpreted language and checks array bounds, if javascript could do this, with or without these bugs it would be a security flaw in itself.
It is perfectly valid to access your own processes memory. If javascript could access any address then you could capture passwords from other tabs.
Note you can actually access other windows memory if you open it in javascript, but not random memory.
press F12 and type this into the console:
w = window.open('about:blank');
w.document.body.appendChild(w.document.createTextNode('hello world'));
it will put hello world in the other tab.
Javascript is not C or machine code.
Funny I thought capitalism was screwing everybody.
Lets concentrate on the fact that men get paid about 10% more than women when a CEO gets paid about 35000% more that the average worker.
Yes, male/female discrimination is the real problem.
You are right that there are issues either way, but my view is that the government can collect more data on us than ever before. From being able to put camera with facial recognition on every street corner to monitoring and storing your conversations phones and social media.
I have heard the FBI chief talk about this and compared it with uncrackable safes and how they never existed, so they are losing the ability to access some evidence. The reality is that this data was never stored 50 years ago, so by definition it was inaccessible.
There is always more information that the authorities will want to keep us safe, I don't think they want it out of malice, but a genuine desire to do a better job. However the fact is we are safer now than we have ever been throughout history, apart from some leader starting a nuclear war and access to private individuals data will not help that. The goal of absolute safety will never, and should never be attained, even if the government new absolutely everything everyone was thinking, because as we head towards that we open up ourselves to people in power taking advantage of that..
That and the fact that it will never work, even if you managed to keep the backdoor keys secret forever. Would the US accept China or any other country for that matter putting back doors in products? So how can the US expect that it is acceptable for them to do so.
There is also nothing stopping criminals from writing/downloading there own open source encryption.
I think the parent was referring to free market from dictionary.com
Free market
noun
1. an economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies.
Once you get monopolies competition no longer works to set prices or drive efficiency.
Why should warranty period apply, this is a manufacturing defect, that causes your machine to be insecure or slower than advertised.
Just like if find out your car air bags won't work, they are replaced free of charge.
What are you talking about?
How are any of these in the advantage of anyone?
1. Artificial restrictions/shortages.
In who's financial interest is that? Generally its the people who have the supply. But I suppose alternative energy supplies may gain from this.
2. High Taxes.
Who have you spoken to that wants higher taxes and to waste that tax money on a made up problem, Yes some people want higher taxes to solve problems that they think are real, but who in there right mind would want higher taxes just to throw that money away.
3. Prohibitions.
Why would you want to ban something that has no actual negative impact.
4. Societal shaming.
Apart from getting joy from other peoples misery what benefit is there?
5. Exceptions for political leaders and the rich.
Who is saying this, what exceptions should political leaders get? Leaders and the rich get exceptions already, they make the laws no they do not need climate change as an excuse
6. Control, control, control
control of what? so people are less wasteful,
You seem to think people who research climate change have nothing better to do than make other peoples lives miserable.
As with anything there will be winners and losers from any change but by far the people with money now are the ones that stand to loose the most, so if the research is going to be biased in one direction based on money it will be against global warming.
If they get access to you private key then they can transfer the money out, just like you can.
They cannot be tracked because they transfer it to their wallet, which is just number, you do not know who that number belongs to and you cannot transfer that money back from that number without their private key.
I don't actually think it is that untraceable as people say though, because if that wallet (or linked wallets) ever makes a transaction that sends goods or services to a person it can then be traced.
I am no expert but that is what I understand from how I believe bit coin works.
backups will not help you if someone can get your private key, you can have a million backups but once the bitcoin is gone it is gone.
The statement is incorrect because we are still placing our trust in institutions (albeit not government) to keep our bit coin safe.
Yes you could keep that bitcoin on your own hardware, but you have to trust the producer of the hardware and software you run are not either stealing or allow bugs that will let other people steal that money.
yes but you can trace that transfer, it is public