Seeing these two computers, the Pi Zero has the advantage that is already shipping. The real extra cost is everything you need to be able to use them, such as USB adapter and HDMI adapter, since otherwise the onboard sockets are two small for most standard cables.
At the same time I look at these two computers and wonder how long before they simply simply print out credit-card computers? The main challenge would likely be the things like the video connectors and usb connectors, that would require something to physically soldered on. If they did get this problem sorted, then this could reduce the manufacturing cost dramatically.
They did not even have a working prototype just a bunch of guys with an idea they had on a napkin. Only fools invest in these things.
I think this is the really important part. You should be thinking as an investor, even if all you get out of the affair is a product.
Even big time investors lose their money in a business, but they reduce their risk by first making sure that the company already has an element of something tangible and they also do due diligence. It is probably harder to do due diligence on sites such as Kickstarter or Indiegogo, but you do what you can and then decide whether you can afford to write-off your investment if something goes wrong. Most business don't make it through the first year, even without the owner stealing the money, so take that to heart when you set down your cash.
I was tempted to cite something interesting, but I realised I didn't have enough money to pay a lawyer to see whether it was legal to do so or whether I could get a license to do so.
In reality I would appreciate a list of the bill's sponsors and then just blacklist them, so we don't accidentally make their content linkable.
Making it mandatory or else face criminal charges, is simply ridiculous.
It may be extreme, but how else do you encourage people to fill it in. Heck, this only happens every five years?
It is a pain to fill in, but if it means understanding the needs of the general population better, then I am for it. Sure they will be bad data, such as when people just make things up, but every statistical process has some error margin.
It will be interesting if Google, Apple et al suddenly suspend service and sales in the UK. I wonder what the electorate would say.
Or maybe the British government will mandate that they can't cut them off? This would be reminiscent of when the Spanish government tried forcing Google to keep indexing the newspapers, when they had decided that Google was to compensate the papers for indexing them!? Maybe we need to have a hall of shame for "stupid tech laws passed by governments"?
"Is this the sort of thing that the EU could override?"
Yes, that's why the morons want out.
Also, by definition, no encryption is unbreakable, you just need a few thousand years to crack it.
Or the right algorithms, the right computing power and encryption that is regulated to be limited to a certain level? I am sure Interpol or various intelligence agencies could push to have the right tools?
The problem with what the British government is asking is that it just takes one slip for the backdoor to be left wide open (see TSA security keys) and anyone who really cares about protecting their stuff and understands what they are doing probably will just encrypt their stuff with other encryption tools, that don't follow the rules. In the end what they are asking for only burns the general public.
The other thing is to compare decryption time to Moore's Law and thus estimating what sort of encryption level is needed for a given point in time (see here)
This is probably why Apple requires the passcode after a hard reboot, power on, after being flat or not bent used for more than 24-hours. Nothing is ever totally secure, but balancing convenience and security hardness is always an art and will depend on the usage context and what is being protected.
Doesn't matter if it's encrypted. There are only 10,000 four-digit PIN combinations, and iPhones don't self-destruct after a certain number of tries. Pretty easy to brute force it.
Encryption is a necessary but not sufficient condition for security.
Apple recently moved to six-digit codes minimum for all phones, by default. With the presence of finger reader this is not much of an issue.
You can reduce or increase the security requirements of the passcode, but that is a personal choice.
It belongs back in 1995 and has no place being used for anything anymore. Use a real fucking format. I mean it's no wonder it's 12 GB, If this had been a Webm it would've compressed into a couple MB easily.
Actually, any dedicated video format would do better than this. I have seen some sites that accept uploading of GIFs only to convert them and serve them as MPEG4. The additional advantage is supporting a larger colour range.
GIFs seemed cool until I discovered how big they were, compared to the equivalent video. Can anyone explain why they still seem attractive? If it is because they are treated as images, maybe the browser image tag could silently accept MPEG4 or WebM and treat them as equivalent somehow?
Could they not simply charge the auto manufacturers for the testing? Also, are there any ways to automate the testing process,to increase throughput, or is there a market for consumer operated testing equipment?
Of particular concern to safety groups is the finding that passengers in a typical EU model are 33 per cent safer in front-side collisions, an accident that often results in serious injury, than those in a typical US model.
I suspect there is a bias towards driver safety in the US standards, since cars tend to have a single occupant.
This is part of the problem with the TTIP and other 'negotiated in secret' trade agreements. Populations in different cultures and populations have different priories for them, so a government is penalised for trying to be stricter on companies, than in another geography, there is a problem. The TTIP just encourages the lowest common dimonator to rule the board, since that is going to make it easier on corporations, rather than protecting the interests of citizens in a given location.
The only winners for TTIP and the sister trade agreements are US centric multinationals, at least from what I have read.
The primary role of the police is to protect the rich from the poor. Any protections granted TO the poor are secondary and generally accidental.
Makes me wonder how much this aligns with people who vote vs people who don't vote. If the poor are less likely to vote, then is that because they don't understand the importance or they get convinced it is not worth it? The other question, is if a person from this community stood up and got voted in, would that person remain loyal to those people, following the change in wealth status?
Some of the options DNS, mDNS and I am sure Windows has its own native approach.
The truth is, IPv4 addresses are probably too many numbers for the average person anyhow. For a tech, they are probably remembered in a limited context/time period anyhow. Names are what is easiest to most people. The whole 'IPv6 addresses are too long' argument, is only valid when you don't have the right services on your network and even then is not a good argument for not moving to IPv6, instead it is just a hard reality of dealing with more resources. The argument is almost like not to growing a company, because you won't be able to remember everyone's name - accept change that progress requires or risk becoming irrelevant.
No thanks. IPv6 addresses are a mouthful, typically 3x as long when printed. We should move to a version that makes them 1 byte longer.
You know that's not much longer and it will not break anything, well at least that's what marketing told me. The engineers keep on telling me that even 1 extra bit will break everything, but what dot they know? Something about assumptions of 32-bit fixed size. Whatever that means? Aren't they paid enough to do their magic and satisfy the business requirements set out by marketing, instead of pushing back?
I also don't buy that argument -- otherwise how the hell did Tesla jump start into an already saturated market? If Apple was smart they would just buy Tesla to save them years of experience.:-)
Just because a company is_currently_ not in an existing market doesn't imply that they won't be hiring people who can lay the foundation.
Impossible? No. Hard? Yes.
Agreed. The past has shown that being late to market is not necessarily a problem, if you have done your homework. Also, this being Apple, they would rather not go to market than offer a lame horse - think of the AppleTV TV (or whatever it was meant to be called).
Its nice to see these companies uncomfortable, because it would hopefully make them rethink of the market. If they don't, well then that is plenty of opportunity for the newcomers who can play their cards right.
Nintendo is very aggressive at eliminating anything it doesn't like. It really doesn't seem to get the notion of community or of just letting it slide. They also haven't quite got the hang of the Streisand Effect.
I can understand to a certain extent why they do this, but like the unofficial Pokemon party, they need to know when to turn a blind eye, or play community building tactics behind the scenes. BTW I am curious to know whether this action was by Nintendo Japan or Nintendo USA and how they vary in their legal aggression?
I wish Nintendo would just chill sometimes and just focus on getting the 21st century.
I say all this as someone who ends up buying the consoles from each generation, but still feeling they could do more to foster the love of the community and third-party developers.
Correct me if I'm wrong but myriad commercial GPS navigation systems will alert a pilot when going into a no-fly area. Since all the increased regulation since 9/11 I'd expect that to be a major selling point.
I suspect so, though even if they don't Google has demonstrated a solution which detects no-fly zones: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
Self-awareness is the last thing we need from a drone. How hard is it to write an algorithm that simply checks current location and current trajectory, against inter-sections of no-fly zones? Sure you need a map database, but even self-aware systems need to check against some data source. Not even self-aware humans can't guess right as to whether they are in a place that should be a no fly zone and why flying in certain locations are bad, based on recent news reports.
I am guessing Chris is making the problem to be more complicated than it is, in order to get funding for his project?
The methods we have been using so far have always been based on our own technology level and therefore an assumption that other civilisations will be using the same methods.
One such assumption was sensing infra-red emissions, though the problem there is that a civilisation sufficiently advance may be using technology that has low emissions, due to optimisations. Though, at the same time we need to take note of different technology levels that different civilisations may be using for themselves and those they may be employing for their mutual search of 'extra terrestial' life. What I mean by this, is that they may be employing optimised radio technology, such as lasers and high encryption methods (which may be hard to distinguish from background noise, for us) for communication, but still using wide beam/wide spectrum, unencrypted radio in their search?
From my recollection it was because it did away the mess of the portal concept, did away with intrusive ads and focused on search. It was simple and effective. Everything else was a marketer's wet dream, but a mess for anyone else.
I am sure people who used the net back then can confirm that it was the simplicity and elegance of Google that gave it the advantage. I certainly switched because of that.
Just add to this, it is not just the TTP, but also the TTIP and other similar trade agreements of which private American corporations are central and the only ones that apparently get free reign to the agreement.
From what I understand, in the case of the TTIP, European representatives have to go to the U.S. Embassy to view and are not allowed to make any copies of the document, which makes it hard to have unhindered negotiations.
We all stand to lose out democratic leverage with these and give more control to corporations and lobbyists. It is not just people outside of the US who stand to lose out.
Slashdot Mirror
Seeing these two computers, the Pi Zero has the advantage that is already shipping. The real extra cost is everything you need to be able to use them, such as USB adapter and HDMI adapter, since otherwise the onboard sockets are two small for most standard cables.
At the same time I look at these two computers and wonder how long before they simply simply print out credit-card computers? The main challenge would likely be the things like the video connectors and usb connectors, that would require something to physically soldered on. If they did get this problem sorted, then this could reduce the manufacturing cost dramatically.
They did not even have a working prototype just a bunch of guys with an idea they had on a napkin. Only fools invest in these things.
I think this is the really important part. You should be thinking as an investor, even if all you get out of the affair is a product.
Even big time investors lose their money in a business, but they reduce their risk by first making sure that the company already has an element of something tangible and they also do due diligence. It is probably harder to do due diligence on sites such as Kickstarter or Indiegogo, but you do what you can and then decide whether you can afford to write-off your investment if something goes wrong. Most business don't make it through the first year, even without the owner stealing the money, so take that to heart when you set down your cash.
I was tempted to cite something interesting, but I realised I didn't have enough money to pay a lawyer to see whether it was legal to do so or whether I could get a license to do so.
In reality I would appreciate a list of the bill's sponsors and then just blacklist them, so we don't accidentally make their content linkable.
Making it mandatory or else face criminal charges, is simply ridiculous.
It may be extreme, but how else do you encourage people to fill it in. Heck, this only happens every five years?
It is a pain to fill in, but if it means understanding the needs of the general population better, then I am for it. Sure they will be bad data, such as when people just make things up, but every statistical process has some error margin.
It will be interesting if Google, Apple et al suddenly suspend service and sales in the UK. I wonder what the electorate would say.
Or maybe the British government will mandate that they can't cut them off? This would be reminiscent of when the Spanish government tried forcing Google to keep indexing the newspapers, when they had decided that Google was to compensate the papers for indexing them!? Maybe we need to have a hall of shame for "stupid tech laws passed by governments"?
"Is this the sort of thing that the EU could override?"
Yes, that's why the morons want out.
Also, by definition, no encryption is unbreakable, you just need a few thousand years to crack it.
Or the right algorithms, the right computing power and encryption that is regulated to be limited to a certain level? I am sure Interpol or various intelligence agencies could push to have the right tools?
The problem with what the British government is asking is that it just takes one slip for the backdoor to be left wide open (see TSA security keys) and anyone who really cares about protecting their stuff and understands what they are doing probably will just encrypt their stuff with other encryption tools, that don't follow the rules. In the end what they are asking for only burns the general public.
The other thing is to compare decryption time to Moore's Law and thus estimating what sort of encryption level is needed for a given point in time (see here)
Alternatively improve compilers to warn against these specific symbols or treat them as equivalent?
This is probably why Apple requires the passcode after a hard reboot, power on, after being flat or not bent used for more than 24-hours. Nothing is ever totally secure, but balancing convenience and security hardness is always an art and will depend on the usage context and what is being protected.
Doesn't matter if it's encrypted. There are only 10,000 four-digit PIN combinations, and iPhones don't self-destruct after a certain number of tries. Pretty easy to brute force it.
Encryption is a necessary but not sufficient condition for security.
Apple recently moved to six-digit codes minimum for all phones, by default. With the presence of finger reader this is not much of an issue.
You can reduce or increase the security requirements of the passcode, but that is a personal choice.
Ref: https://support.apple.com/en-g...
First, they spied on the peons
Then, they spy on the MPs
Dear Queen Elizabeth, they will spy on you, next !
Don't worry, the tabloids already take care of the royal family. ;)
It belongs back in 1995 and has no place being used for anything anymore. Use a real fucking format. I mean it's no wonder it's 12 GB, If this had been a Webm it would've compressed into a couple MB easily.
Actually, any dedicated video format would do better than this. I have seen some sites that accept uploading of GIFs only to convert them and serve them as MPEG4. The additional advantage is supporting a larger colour range.
GIFs seemed cool until I discovered how big they were, compared to the equivalent video. Can anyone explain why they still seem attractive?
If it is because they are treated as images, maybe the browser image tag could silently accept MPEG4 or WebM and treat them as equivalent somehow?
Could they not simply charge the auto manufacturers for the testing? Also, are there any ways to automate the testing process,to increase throughput, or is there a market for consumer operated testing equipment?
I thought the same thing, but in TFA:
I suspect there is a bias towards driver safety in the US standards, since cars tend to have a single occupant.
This is part of the problem with the TTIP and other 'negotiated in secret' trade agreements. Populations in different cultures and populations have different priories for them, so a government is penalised for trying to be stricter on companies, than in another geography, there is a problem. The TTIP just encourages the lowest common dimonator to rule the board, since that is going to make it easier on corporations, rather than protecting the interests of citizens in a given location.
The only winners for TTIP and the sister trade agreements are US centric multinationals, at least from what I have read.
The primary role of the police is to protect the rich from the poor. Any protections granted TO the poor are secondary and generally accidental.
Makes me wonder how much this aligns with people who vote vs people who don't vote. If the poor are less likely to vote, then is that because they don't understand the importance or they get convinced it is not worth it? The other question, is if a person from this community stood up and got voted in, would that person remain loyal to those people, following the change in wealth status?
Do electoral candidates risk getting covered or does that automatically get you a free pass?
Some of the options DNS, mDNS and I am sure Windows has its own native approach.
The truth is, IPv4 addresses are probably too many numbers for the average person anyhow. For a tech, they are probably remembered in a limited context/time period anyhow. Names are what is easiest to most people. The whole 'IPv6 addresses are too long' argument, is only valid when you don't have the right services on your network and even then is not a good argument for not moving to IPv6, instead it is just a hard reality of dealing with more resources. The argument is almost like not to growing a company, because you won't be able to remember everyone's name - accept change that progress requires or risk becoming irrelevant.
No thanks. IPv6 addresses are a mouthful, typically 3x as long when printed. We should move to a version that makes them 1 byte longer.
You know that's not much longer and it will not break anything, well at least that's what marketing told me. The engineers keep on telling me that even 1 extra bit will break everything, but what dot they know? Something about assumptions of 32-bit fixed size. Whatever that means? Aren't they paid enough to do their magic and satisfy the business requirements set out by marketing, instead of pushing back?
Can I use a computer analogy? This is like graphics card companies tweak the cards to work better for certain performance tests.
Agreed!
I also don't buy that argument -- otherwise how the hell did Tesla jump start into an already saturated market? If Apple was smart they would just buy Tesla to save them years of experience. :-)
Just because a company is_currently_ not in an existing market doesn't imply that they won't be hiring people who can lay the foundation.
Impossible? No. Hard? Yes.
Agreed. The past has shown that being late to market is not necessarily a problem, if you have done your homework. Also, this being Apple, they would rather not go to market than offer a lame horse - think of the AppleTV TV (or whatever it was meant to be called).
Its nice to see these companies uncomfortable, because it would hopefully make them rethink of the market. If they don't, well then that is plenty of opportunity for the newcomers who can play their cards right.
Nintendo is very aggressive at eliminating anything it doesn't like. It really doesn't seem to get the notion of community or of just letting it slide. They also haven't quite got the hang of the Streisand Effect.
I can understand to a certain extent why they do this, but like the unofficial Pokemon party, they need to know when to turn a blind eye, or play community building tactics behind the scenes. BTW I am curious to know whether this action was by Nintendo Japan or Nintendo USA and how they vary in their legal aggression?
I wish Nintendo would just chill sometimes and just focus on getting the 21st century.
I say all this as someone who ends up buying the consoles from each generation, but still feeling they could do more to foster the love of the community and third-party developers.
Maybe I am just a regular loopy fanboy?
Correct me if I'm wrong but myriad commercial GPS navigation systems will alert a pilot when going into a no-fly area. Since all the increased regulation since 9/11 I'd expect that to be a major selling point.
I suspect so, though even if they don't Google has demonstrated a solution which detects no-fly zones: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
Self-awareness is the last thing we need from a drone. How hard is it to write an algorithm that simply checks current location and current trajectory, against inter-sections of no-fly zones? Sure you need a map database, but even self-aware systems need to check against some data source. Not even self-aware humans can't guess right as to whether they are in a place that should be a no fly zone and why flying in certain locations are bad, based on recent news reports.
I am guessing Chris is making the problem to be more complicated than it is, in order to get funding for his project?
The methods we have been using so far have always been based on our own technology level and therefore an assumption that other civilisations will be using the same methods.
One such assumption was sensing infra-red emissions, though the problem there is that a civilisation sufficiently advance may be using technology that has low emissions, due to optimisations. Though, at the same time we need to take note of different technology levels that different civilisations may be using for themselves and those they may be employing for their mutual search of 'extra terrestial' life. What I mean by this, is that they may be employing optimised radio technology, such as lasers and high encryption methods (which may be hard to distinguish from background noise, for us) for communication, but still using wide beam/wide spectrum, unencrypted radio in their search?
From my recollection it was because it did away the mess of the portal concept, did away with intrusive ads and focused on search. It was simple and effective. Everything else was a marketer's wet dream, but a mess for anyone else.
I am sure people who used the net back then can confirm that it was the simplicity and elegance of Google that gave it the advantage. I certainly switched because of that.
Just add to this, it is not just the TTP, but also the TTIP and other similar trade agreements of which private American corporations are central and the only ones that apparently get free reign to the agreement.
From what I understand, in the case of the TTIP, European representatives have to go to the U.S. Embassy to view and are not allowed to make any copies of the document, which makes it hard to have unhindered negotiations.
We all stand to lose out democratic leverage with these and give more control to corporations and lobbyists. It is not just people outside of the US who stand to lose out.
This may also be worth supporting, if you believe in your democratic rights:
https://wikileaks.org/WikiLeak...