Also, does every network need to add call verification between each network separately?
Of course not. Networks can choose to send verification certificates or not. Your phone, eventually, will gain the ability to see if the originating network sent a certificate or not. Your phone - ok, hopefully - should eventually gain the ability to act on that information.
This will take forever. The spammers will just use a network that doesn't have call verification setup.
Apple and Google both have stated they will be implementing the shaken/stirprotocols in their OSes. For Apple and Google made or stock Android using phones, which they claimed last month would be within a year.
After that you can choose what to do with unverified calls, very likely with the same options as for the caller ID "private" bit, or when no caller ID is sent usually called "unknown"
If it takes any longer, that would likely be the fault of your carrier not pushing an android update, or having an old un-updatable phone.
Just keep in mind this particular verification only works with IP based calls, such as cell phones, voip, and carriers utilizing fiber/docsis cable. TDM carried calls can't even support this verification protocol, so if you block instead of flag, that will be all of the worlds landlines in one swath.
Go to task scheduler, identify the various jobs that deal with user data telemetry, and set them to "disabled". The OS will continue to collect data, but it will never be sent.
Sadly they have the telemetry tendrils very deep and plentiful into the system. Scheduled tasks are not the only processes that submit the stored data. There are even functions in "service host" to both send data and undo tampering with other telemetry processes. Simply disabling svchost would rightly fuck most everything on the system.
There are lists of hosts you can block in an external firewall, but naturally Microsoft doubled up duty for those hosts, so that may break other things. Also don't forget that Win 10 now can fall back to peer-to-peer as well, so it can get updates and relay diagnostic info through other Win 10 systems on the LAN that do have access to those MS hosts.
One thing I've never explored, though - where does the OS store that data pending its journey to Microsoft? You could have another scheduled job clearing (or better, poisoning) that data every few minutes.
It's littered around in many places. Event logs, system folders, the windows data store, applications individual logs, etc.
At the very least go check out that first screen shot. See the list of telemetry sources on the left? See the size of that scroll bar? It's fucking disgusting.
Some of the domains in there that it blocks are commented with other functions that break by blocking it.
From personal experience:
You'll need to setup an NTP and SNTP server and manually point windows to it. Clock drift can break various forms of encryption.
Windows will be convinced you have no internet connection anymore, and I've had a few programs check that status and refuse to even try (spotify, nvidia experience, and a couple games)
Make sure you don't have any programs installed from the MS store you want to keep, they won't be able to validate their licenses. Even free ones. Hope you didn't upgrade from home to pro or from pre-10 to 10 using an online license:P
All Microsoft AV software will stop updating, so you'll want to be sure to have something from a 3rd party. 10 gets annoying with the notifications with nothing installed/active.
Some things that break but are likely considered a good thing: Windows updates, bing and all integrated searches (start menu search included), contra, skype, itunes, and newer versions of office (2016 and 365 have issues, but 2010 continues to work fine, haven't tried others)
Apple refuses to unlock them even though they belong to the company. I'm surprised they are allowed to get away with this in a corporate environment
Er, if they are company owned, why are they not linked to the company Apple ID?
What you describe isn't company owned phones, but the company handing out money for employees to purchase employee owned phones.
For our company all iOS and Android devices the company purchases are delivered directly to IT (me) and the first things I do to iPhones/iPads are link it to our company apple ID followed by enrolling it to the corporate MDM. Only after that are they issued to employees.
Apple even has an "enterprise" setup where phones come pre-linked to an MDM/AppleID from the factory. Then they can ship them straight to the end user, and the new device shows up in the MDM inventory for provisioning before it is delivered.
Unfortunately the "enterprise" setup has a per-device / per-month fee to use it. But the normal way of provisioning doesn't have any such fee, the only real costs are related to the devices coming through IT first.
Most of us would want to make sure it disables all the user-tracking stuff. Of course, a lot of the settings I saw can only be set if you have the Enterprise version of Windows, so home and pro users are stuck...
Only Enterprise, IoT, and Education editions (also Server 2016) can have their telemetry setting set to zero, the lowest amount of data to send back.
Despite being given the ID 0, even this is not fully disabled as one might assume.
but note my user-name, I'm from the other side of the state
You know, I've seen you post plenty of times before. I think we've even bounced random replies off each other over the last decades. Yet I'm only just now noticing that is an "e" and not "i" in your name.
All this time I thought you were just a really teeny tiny sized Dave:P
G+ never had many users, so this will not cause a lot of harm.
The only reason I even have a G+ account at all was due to the time they were forcing accounts on youtube.
At the time they initially claimed it was just for the comment sections, so I ignored it since I don't comment. But for a short time they had some aggressive popup notices and wording that implied you would lose your subscriptions and custom saved playlists if you didn't upgrade.
So yes G+ didn't have a lot of users, but it certainly had a whole lot of accounts made on threat of losing access to other services. I would only describe this as mildly annoying, but it seemed at the time that quite a number of people resented the forced signups. Even at only "mildly annoying", with not a single good thought about G+, that still ultimately sums up to a negative.
Does anyone regard Huawei's engineers as a bunch of fools who would try to ride a dead horse?
Well, yes:P But seriously though, I agree this is almost certainly just a mistake/flaw.
One thing I have noticed time and time again, people/teams that are strong at designing hardware are generally utter garbage at designing software, and people/ teams that are strong at designing software are generally utter garbage at anything hardware.
Each of those is a vast superset of knowledge, skills, and many subsets that are highly specialized in their own right. It is the exception instead of the rule to find a well suited team of teams with excellent hardware designers, excellent programmers, and excellent translation between them.
Fortunately for many cases we have enough standardized abstraction these days to keep our complex and integrated systems from toppling over more often than not. But there are plenty of situations that isn't as true.
I don't have any Huawei made computers, so can't say if this "PCManager" named driver would be one of these or not, but if it really is at the level akin to a set of chipset/motherboard/bios drivers then odds are very high that this wasn't malice, but a result of either their hardware people attempting to write code with expected results, or programmers that are incompetent in their own right.
If on the other hand this software is more akin to typical bloatware crap OEMs seem to love pre-installing, odds are still high it was the result of incompetence, but arguably for a task that wasn't required in the first place, let alone that ended up happening. This is a completely different complaint of course than accusing them of maliciousness but a valid complaint still (IMHO)
Lastly, I can't tell if Tabilizer meant Microsoft either, but I don't think this result is wrong on their end in any way, especially as some other people here have claimed.
Kernel drivers having access to the kernel isn't a flaw. Kernel drivers being limited or restricted is also not a flaw, but a design choice. A choice I don't even fault them for making, even if such segmentation was my own preference, which for the record I'm not sure would be.
For me I think I'd prefer to choose what drivers to trust based on me using them or not, rather than live with the consequences of that level of segmentation in the kernel and all of the slowdowns and limitations that would come with it.
A very important detail was left out of the slashdot summary:
When IFTTT launched, it developed many of the service integration in-house. In more recent years, most integrations are maintained by the companies that run the services. In the case of Gmail, IFTTT looked at how it might be able to retain the email scanning functionality itself, but it would have required major changes to the IFTTT platform. Maintaining full integration would have been unsustainable for IFTTT, so itâ(TM)s disabling most of the Gmail features.
So raise your hand if you ever setup a procmail filter on your email that, based on some rules, pipes the email into a program.
That end-result type function is the only thing being broken here, and being broken by IFTTT not Google. IFTTT claims if they can't root through your Gmail account unfettered, it's too difficult for them to act based on your rules.
What's ironic is if I wanted this ability, my first thought would be adding a Gmail filter with those rules to forward the email elsewhere. That elsewhere would then trigger simply by the fact it is getting an email sent to it with a google signature.
There's no reason IFTTT can't do the exact same setup and let the end-user forward the emails to trigger on without having the ability to do anything and everything with your Gmail account.
I refuse to believe adding a forward in Gmail would be beyond anyone that is using IFTTT already, so "it isn't easy enough" is an awful excuse when you take the full picture in mind: "It's not easy enough to forward an email, so if we can't root through everything in your account, then we refuse to play"
There's been an MLG arena in Columbus Ohio for years.
As someone from Columbus, even our MLG arena wasn't the first. The Nexon Arena in South Korea is also dedicated to gaming and beat us by almost 2 years, opening the end of 2013. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexon_Arena
Even at the time the Nexon Arena made a big deal branding themselves as the first stadium dedicated to esports built by a game developer
I never bothered to look into it but that makes it sound like they weren't the first either if you drop the "by a game developer" qualifier.
At what point, if any, do we start holding PDP responsible for the actions of his fans?
So if I state that I am your biggest fan, you'll take the fall with the authorities for anything bad I do? Sweet! I've always wanted a willing scapegoat. I should go make a naughty todo list...
Perhaps, but working with infinities really sucks, and the math to do so is a big poopy head. I'm personally not on speaking terms with infinity, and will loudly disdain its existence.
Besides, what is infinity going to do about it? If information can't reach us from beyond our observable universe, it's not going to be able to yell at me or smack me about the head for insulting it!
Who the fuck would actually spend their time watching this shit? Apparently there are more idiots than we thought.
Yes, you make an excellent point: All of your interests and past times are wrong, and you should feel bad for partaking in them. They reflect poorly on you.
I also highly agree with your posts moderation. It is very insightful about you to admit these negative character traits of yourself.
Perhaps you should list out your hobbies and interests? That way we will all know what opinions are the correct and proper ones to hold, and that all others are incorrect and shameful.
TL;DR You're eventually just going to have to accept that fact that not everyone else is exactly like you.
It is only really close for two months every 2 years. It spends most of its time on the far side of its orbit until the Earth can chase it down again, and then quickly races away.
It's because of this that make some interesting "artifacts" show up when plotting the path of Mars from the point of view on Earth when doing so on a 2d "map" of the night sky.
On such a map, one sees Mars following a line as one would expect, then that path curves back around and it looks as if Mars is orbiting in the opposite direction for a time (roughly those two months), before it loops back around to continue in the original direction but along a path slightly offset from the original "tail" for the rest of those two years.
If instead your 2d map is from the point of view of a hypothetical camera view above the plane of the solar system but with Earth at the center of that map, the orbit of Mars would plot out with these loops such that it looks like the line was drawn with a Spirograph.
Every two years you get one of these misaligned circles containing a two month backwards loop in it. Just like with Spirograph if you keep going around, that is multiple orbits around Earth, you get the famous Spirograph "flower", or loopy loop (technical term) pattern.
Amatuer astronomers love to observe Mars.
The above does cause unfortunate timing issues for amateur astronomy too. Not only do you want to catch it during those two months while it is closest to Earth, but each two year period brings Mars close to a different vantage point on the Earth.
Presuming as an armature you are not going around Earth to chase this ideal view and instead are waiting for it to happen overhead where you are at, you have to not only wait for the right two month period it is close, but also the right two year period it is closest to where you are looking from.
Fortunately this pattern repeats on a scale that is just under 20 years or so, but assuming you live most of your life in the same place on Earth, this does limit the number of opportunities is a single lifetime to catch the ideal position of Mars to observe.
Unfortunately for my experience the "ideal" view was different only in that I could see there were different shades of color compared with the usual smudged spec of blur. That was back in the late 80s and I haven't personally had another opportunity since, so I'm very thankful for all the amazing professional imagery from far superior sources that are so easily available to see today.
Having studied this issue for a very long time I'm perpetually frustrated with the Computer scientists constantly injecting overly clever desiderata that can only be implemented at the sacrifice of core requirements of voting systems.
*snip*
Thus I worry that people doing this are trying to "improve" something with "more features" that already has a good solution. namely hand marked paper ballots and optical scan.
That right there is the key that we've all been saying for years now.
There can only be sacrifices if "expanding features" is interpreted as "replace the whole thing", and there is absolutely no reason for this.
The clear solution is to do both.
When you vote on paper and that paper is optically digitized, you gain all of the advantages of fast computer tallying and statistics, as well as quickly and cheaply gathering the results centrally for preliminary announcement.
Then at the same time when you vote on paper and that paper is optically digitized, you retain all of the advantages of an easily verifiable set of original data that can be counted and recounted by as many people as desired, with no expanded requirements on those peoples intelligence or computing/information knowledge.
If you want to maintain trust, make the paper count be authoritative. Let the news outlets base their "the infallible and final results are in!" lies on the digitized numbers. It would be a welcome addition to the lies they typically only pull from their ass. But it will be the hand count of the papers that actually decides the outcome, even if that is a couple weeks later.
If the current administration has done anything useful here, it is to show clearly the country can function just fine without a government for far longer than multiple paper counts would take.
After 10+ elections showing both methods agreeing within a small threshold, gaining trust in the digitized results, perhaps after then it can be reconsidered what to do with the manual paper counting process. But there is no reason to change that before.
This has been reflected in nearly every other possible important process that has gone digital, and seems to work quite well for them. These days I can take a picture of a check with my phone and submit it to my bank for deposit, with the same results as telling an ATM I just left a check in its lock box. Yet it isn't until a person verifies the real physical thing that it is recorded as a deposit. This leaves plenty of time and methods to deal with any dependencies yet still lets us take advantage of adding the new computerized features to the process.
<sarcasm> If that is good enough to deal with the #1 most important thing in this country - money - then it is certainly good enough for things further down on the list such as maintaining a transparent democracy. </sarcasm>
Bob's predictions haven't been right all the time. But never at 50-50. More something like 75-25 or even 80-20.
I mention this purely as friendly banter.
Robert was actually an employee for Steve Jobs back when Apple was in his home garage, I think he was the 11th or 12th employee back in the mid/late 70's. In the beginning Jobs had some difficulties getting funding to get Apple off the ground so offered stock options in place of pay. Robert was one of the few that turned down that offer wanting cash instead.
Not an unreasonable choice over all, but I would guess he's still kicking himself today over that prediction!
I certainly wouldn't "as-is" either, but I can't help but wonder the extent this could be a component in a more complex and useful system.
The bulk atom construction of these particular particles likely makes them somewhat fixed in their light converting range, which is fine for in the lab and all, but I wonder what types of ranges are possible. Just how far can particles of this size stretch or squish a light wave? What wavelengths can be brought up or down into the visible range?
After perfecting the effect I'd wonder what sorts of materials could be constructed that are adjustable, perhaps with a specific RF or electric field or something like that. Especially if they only respond and change to *very* near by fields, say within or just outside of the eye.
Imagine a "sliding window" of frequencies that can be brought into the visible range under the control of an implant installed near to the eyes you can control.
Predator vision without the helmet!
If that was perfected I wouldn't at all mind such a treatment. Of course that wouldn't be within my life time, so may as well be 'never'. Perhaps Ray Kurzweil turns out to be correct against all odds:P (aww, now I made myself sad)
"Featuring minors" also is incredibly vague, would this include anything with child actors? What about reviews of something that featured child actors?
Youtube has a now-standard policy to over react and sort it out if anyone of importance complains.
To answer your question, yes it includes all of that and more. Car videos, cats and dogs, the 24 hour count down timer, the seven minutes of silence song, all of that qualifies as "featuring minors" A mod can go down a whole page of videos flagging all of them without a glance and this is acceptable.
If you think "featuring minors" is any sort of definition or defining term to youtube, it might help in making sense of it to just mentally replace all nouns with a wildcard character when reading any statement they put out. For example: YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki linked to the update and explained the change: "Recently, there have been some * incidents regarding * on YouTube. * is more important to us than * on the platform."
How about you design your FIDO2 thing to automatically type passwords into regular password fields instead of asking the whole web to change for your new special feature?
Uhh, you mean to say you are currently *TYPING* your 8k binary private keys into password boxes on websites?!?
Dude, you are doing this horrendously wrong! Your private keys should NEVER leave your possession! Stop sending them in web form fields, and you should have all of them revoked and make new ones to use properly.
You never send your private key, you receive a random challenge that you decrypt with your private key and send THAT back.
I strongly advise against typing all of that binary data as well, but I guess that's up to you.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, does every network need to add call verification between each network separately?
Of course not.
Networks can choose to send verification certificates or not.
Your phone, eventually, will gain the ability to see if the originating network sent a certificate or not.
Your phone - ok, hopefully - should eventually gain the ability to act on that information.
This will take forever. The spammers will just use a network that doesn't have call verification setup.
Apple and Google both have stated they will be implementing the shaken/stirprotocols in their OSes.
For Apple and Google made or stock Android using phones, which they claimed last month would be within a year.
After that you can choose what to do with unverified calls, very likely with the same options as for the caller ID "private" bit, or when no caller ID is sent usually called "unknown"
If it takes any longer, that would likely be the fault of your carrier not pushing an android update, or having an old un-updatable phone.
Just keep in mind this particular verification only works with IP based calls, such as cell phones, voip, and carriers utilizing fiber/docsis cable.
TDM carried calls can't even support this verification protocol, so if you block instead of flag, that will be all of the worlds landlines in one swath.
Go to task scheduler, identify the various jobs that deal with user data telemetry, and set them to "disabled". The OS will continue to collect data, but it will never be sent.
Sadly they have the telemetry tendrils very deep and plentiful into the system.
Scheduled tasks are not the only processes that submit the stored data.
There are even functions in "service host" to both send data and undo tampering with other telemetry processes. Simply disabling svchost would rightly fuck most everything on the system.
There are lists of hosts you can block in an external firewall, but naturally Microsoft doubled up duty for those hosts, so that may break other things.
Also don't forget that Win 10 now can fall back to peer-to-peer as well, so it can get updates and relay diagnostic info through other Win 10 systems on the LAN that do have access to those MS hosts.
One thing I've never explored, though - where does the OS store that data pending its journey to Microsoft? You could have another scheduled job clearing (or better, poisoning) that data every few minutes.
It's littered around in many places. Event logs, system folders, the windows data store, applications individual logs, etc.
Here's a tool from MS that will gather all those locations up in one view, similar to how event viewer does for the normal logs:
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/privacy/diagnostic-data-viewer-overview
At the very least go check out that first screen shot. See the list of telemetry sources on the left? See the size of that scroll bar? It's fucking disgusting.
I've been using a modified version of this for a few years:
https://github.com/W4RH4WK/Debloat-Windows-10/blob/master/scripts/block-telemetry.ps1
Some of the domains in there that it blocks are commented with other functions that break by blocking it.
From personal experience:
You'll need to setup an NTP and SNTP server and manually point windows to it. Clock drift can break various forms of encryption.
Windows will be convinced you have no internet connection anymore, and I've had a few programs check that status and refuse to even try (spotify, nvidia experience, and a couple games)
Make sure you don't have any programs installed from the MS store you want to keep, they won't be able to validate their licenses. Even free ones. :P
Hope you didn't upgrade from home to pro or from pre-10 to 10 using an online license
All Microsoft AV software will stop updating, so you'll want to be sure to have something from a 3rd party. 10 gets annoying with the notifications with nothing installed/active.
Some things that break but are likely considered a good thing:
Windows updates, bing and all integrated searches (start menu search included), contra, skype, itunes, and newer versions of office (2016 and 365 have issues, but 2010 continues to work fine, haven't tried others)
Good luck
Apple refuses to unlock them even though they belong to the company. I'm surprised they are allowed to get away with this in a corporate environment
Er, if they are company owned, why are they not linked to the company Apple ID?
What you describe isn't company owned phones, but the company handing out money for employees to purchase employee owned phones.
For our company all iOS and Android devices the company purchases are delivered directly to IT (me) and the first things I do to iPhones/iPads are link it to our company apple ID followed by enrolling it to the corporate MDM. Only after that are they issued to employees.
Apple even has an "enterprise" setup where phones come pre-linked to an MDM/AppleID from the factory. Then they can ship them straight to the end user, and the new device shows up in the MDM inventory for provisioning before it is delivered.
Unfortunately the "enterprise" setup has a per-device / per-month fee to use it.
But the normal way of provisioning doesn't have any such fee, the only real costs are related to the devices coming through IT first.
Most of us would want to make sure it disables all the user-tracking stuff.
Of course, a lot of the settings I saw can only be set if you have the Enterprise version of Windows, so home and pro users are stuck...
Only Enterprise, IoT, and Education editions (also Server 2016) can have their telemetry setting set to zero, the lowest amount of data to send back.
Despite being given the ID 0, even this is not fully disabled as one might assume.
(totally off topic reply)
but note my user-name, I'm from the other side of the state
You know, I've seen you post plenty of times before. I think we've even bounced random replies off each other over the last decades. Yet I'm only just now noticing that is an "e" and not "i" in your name.
All this time I thought you were just a really teeny tiny sized Dave :P
G+ never had many users, so this will not cause a lot of harm.
The only reason I even have a G+ account at all was due to the time they were forcing accounts on youtube.
At the time they initially claimed it was just for the comment sections, so I ignored it since I don't comment.
But for a short time they had some aggressive popup notices and wording that implied you would lose your subscriptions and custom saved playlists if you didn't upgrade.
So yes G+ didn't have a lot of users, but it certainly had a whole lot of accounts made on threat of losing access to other services.
I would only describe this as mildly annoying, but it seemed at the time that quite a number of people resented the forced signups.
Even at only "mildly annoying", with not a single good thought about G+, that still ultimately sums up to a negative.
"Everyone hates April Fools' Day"
Nice projection there.
If you don't hate April fools, you are probably part of why everyone hates April fools :P
Does anyone regard Huawei's engineers as a bunch of fools who would try to ride a dead horse?
Well, yes :P
But seriously though, I agree this is almost certainly just a mistake/flaw.
One thing I have noticed time and time again, people/teams that are strong at designing hardware are generally utter garbage at designing software, and people/ teams that are strong at designing software are generally utter garbage at anything hardware.
Each of those is a vast superset of knowledge, skills, and many subsets that are highly specialized in their own right.
It is the exception instead of the rule to find a well suited team of teams with excellent hardware designers, excellent programmers, and excellent translation between them.
Fortunately for many cases we have enough standardized abstraction these days to keep our complex and integrated systems from toppling over more often than not. But there are plenty of situations that isn't as true.
I don't have any Huawei made computers, so can't say if this "PCManager" named driver would be one of these or not, but if it really is at the level akin to a set of chipset/motherboard/bios drivers then odds are very high that this wasn't malice, but a result of either their hardware people attempting to write code with expected results, or programmers that are incompetent in their own right.
If on the other hand this software is more akin to typical bloatware crap OEMs seem to love pre-installing, odds are still high it was the result of incompetence, but arguably for a task that wasn't required in the first place, let alone that ended up happening.
This is a completely different complaint of course than accusing them of maliciousness but a valid complaint still (IMHO)
Lastly, I can't tell if Tabilizer meant Microsoft either, but I don't think this result is wrong on their end in any way, especially as some other people here have claimed.
Kernel drivers having access to the kernel isn't a flaw.
Kernel drivers being limited or restricted is also not a flaw, but a design choice.
A choice I don't even fault them for making, even if such segmentation was my own preference, which for the record I'm not sure would be.
For me I think I'd prefer to choose what drivers to trust based on me using them or not, rather than live with the consequences of that level of segmentation in the kernel and all of the slowdowns and limitations that would come with it.
A very important detail was left out of the slashdot summary:
When IFTTT launched, it developed many of the service integration in-house. In more recent years, most integrations are maintained by the companies that run the services. In the case of Gmail, IFTTT looked at how it might be able to retain the email scanning functionality itself, but it would have required major changes to the IFTTT platform. Maintaining full integration would have been unsustainable for IFTTT, so itâ(TM)s disabling most of the Gmail features.
So raise your hand if you ever setup a procmail filter on your email that, based on some rules, pipes the email into a program.
That end-result type function is the only thing being broken here, and being broken by IFTTT not Google.
IFTTT claims if they can't root through your Gmail account unfettered, it's too difficult for them to act based on your rules.
What's ironic is if I wanted this ability, my first thought would be adding a Gmail filter with those rules to forward the email elsewhere.
That elsewhere would then trigger simply by the fact it is getting an email sent to it with a google signature.
There's no reason IFTTT can't do the exact same setup and let the end-user forward the emails to trigger on without having the ability to do anything and everything with your Gmail account.
I refuse to believe adding a forward in Gmail would be beyond anyone that is using IFTTT already, so "it isn't easy enough" is an awful excuse when you take the full picture in mind:
"It's not easy enough to forward an email, so if we can't root through everything in your account, then we refuse to play"
There's been an MLG arena in Columbus Ohio for years.
As someone from Columbus, even our MLG arena wasn't the first.
The Nexon Arena in South Korea is also dedicated to gaming and beat us by almost 2 years, opening the end of 2013.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexon_Arena
Even at the time the Nexon Arena made a big deal branding themselves as the first stadium dedicated to esports built by a game developer
I never bothered to look into it but that makes it sound like they weren't the first either if you drop the "by a game developer" qualifier.
At what point, if any, do we start holding PDP responsible for the actions of his fans?
So if I state that I am your biggest fan, you'll take the fall with the authorities for anything bad I do?
Sweet! I've always wanted a willing scapegoat. I should go make a naughty todo list...
.... multi-core organisms? Why don't we just drink coffee and overclock the ones we have?
Aww, but I wanna be both!
The size of the universe may in fact be infinite.
Perhaps, but working with infinities really sucks, and the math to do so is a big poopy head.
I'm personally not on speaking terms with infinity, and will loudly disdain its existence.
Besides, what is infinity going to do about it? If information can't reach us from beyond our observable universe, it's not going to be able to yell at me or smack me about the head for insulting it!
Who the fuck would actually spend their time watching this shit? Apparently there are more idiots than we thought.
Yes, you make an excellent point:
All of your interests and past times are wrong, and you should feel bad for partaking in them. They reflect poorly on you.
I also highly agree with your posts moderation.
It is very insightful about you to admit these negative character traits of yourself.
Perhaps you should list out your hobbies and interests? That way we will all know what opinions are the correct and proper ones to hold, and that all others are incorrect and shameful.
TL;DR You're eventually just going to have to accept that fact that not everyone else is exactly like you.
Why does it matter if it's revenge porn, when they don't allow any porn? Are they going to start allowing non-revenge porn?
That was my second thought, just after my brain woke up wasting seconds wondering how the hell an AI or even another human can determine permission.
If one party to the porn only gave permission to the other party who is doing the posting, how could anyone determine that without asking?
But yea, then the realization of "wait, when did it become ok to put porn on facebook even *with* permission?"
This is either some idiot reporter spin, or even facebook spin, trying to attribute far more to a basic porn banning filter than really exists.
It is only really close for two months every 2 years. It spends most of its time on the far side of its orbit until the Earth can chase it down again, and then quickly races away.
It's because of this that make some interesting "artifacts" show up when plotting the path of Mars from the point of view on Earth when doing so on a 2d "map" of the night sky.
On such a map, one sees Mars following a line as one would expect, then that path curves back around and it looks as if Mars is orbiting in the opposite direction for a time (roughly those two months), before it loops back around to continue in the original direction but along a path slightly offset from the original "tail" for the rest of those two years.
If instead your 2d map is from the point of view of a hypothetical camera view above the plane of the solar system but with Earth at the center of that map, the orbit of Mars would plot out with these loops such that it looks like the line was drawn with a Spirograph.
Every two years you get one of these misaligned circles containing a two month backwards loop in it.
Just like with Spirograph if you keep going around, that is multiple orbits around Earth, you get the famous Spirograph "flower", or loopy loop (technical term) pattern.
Amatuer astronomers love to observe Mars.
The above does cause unfortunate timing issues for amateur astronomy too.
Not only do you want to catch it during those two months while it is closest to Earth, but each two year period brings Mars close to a different vantage point on the Earth.
Presuming as an armature you are not going around Earth to chase this ideal view and instead are waiting for it to happen overhead where you are at, you have to not only wait for the right two month period it is close, but also the right two year period it is closest to where you are looking from.
Fortunately this pattern repeats on a scale that is just under 20 years or so, but assuming you live most of your life in the same place on Earth, this does limit the number of opportunities is a single lifetime to catch the ideal position of Mars to observe.
Unfortunately for my experience the "ideal" view was different only in that I could see there were different shades of color compared with the usual smudged spec of blur.
That was back in the late 80s and I haven't personally had another opportunity since, so I'm very thankful for all the amazing professional imagery from far superior sources that are so easily available to see today.
Having studied this issue for a very long time I'm perpetually frustrated with the Computer scientists constantly injecting overly clever desiderata that can only be implemented at the sacrifice of core requirements of voting systems.
*snip*
Thus I worry that people doing this are trying to "improve" something with "more features" that already has a good solution. namely hand marked paper ballots and optical scan.
That right there is the key that we've all been saying for years now.
There can only be sacrifices if "expanding features" is interpreted as "replace the whole thing", and there is absolutely no reason for this.
The clear solution is to do both.
When you vote on paper and that paper is optically digitized, you gain all of the advantages of fast computer tallying and statistics, as well as quickly and cheaply gathering the results centrally for preliminary announcement.
Then at the same time when you vote on paper and that paper is optically digitized, you retain all of the advantages of an easily verifiable set of original data that can be counted and recounted by as many people as desired, with no expanded requirements on those peoples intelligence or computing/information knowledge.
If you want to maintain trust, make the paper count be authoritative.
Let the news outlets base their "the infallible and final results are in!" lies on the digitized numbers. It would be a welcome addition to the lies they typically only pull from their ass.
But it will be the hand count of the papers that actually decides the outcome, even if that is a couple weeks later.
If the current administration has done anything useful here, it is to show clearly the country can function just fine without a government for far longer than multiple paper counts would take.
After 10+ elections showing both methods agreeing within a small threshold, gaining trust in the digitized results, perhaps after then it can be reconsidered what to do with the manual paper counting process. But there is no reason to change that before.
This has been reflected in nearly every other possible important process that has gone digital, and seems to work quite well for them.
These days I can take a picture of a check with my phone and submit it to my bank for deposit, with the same results as telling an ATM I just left a check in its lock box.
Yet it isn't until a person verifies the real physical thing that it is recorded as a deposit.
This leaves plenty of time and methods to deal with any dependencies yet still lets us take advantage of adding the new computerized features to the process.
<sarcasm>
If that is good enough to deal with the #1 most important thing in this country - money - then it is certainly good enough for things further down on the list such as maintaining a transparent democracy.
</sarcasm>
Your loved one is going to die.
Finger pointing at you - ghost - poop
When I was a kid I had javascript on my homepage that would open your CD drive. I'd probably be looking at 10-20 these days, eh?
When I was a kid it was:
20 GOTO 10
Can you imagine the conversation in the prison cell?
"What are you in for?"
"Javascript popup, you?"
"A goto command in basic"
"Goto?! you monster!"
Bob's predictions haven't been right all the time. But never at 50-50. More something like 75-25 or even 80-20.
I mention this purely as friendly banter.
Robert was actually an employee for Steve Jobs back when Apple was in his home garage, I think he was the 11th or 12th employee back in the mid/late 70's.
In the beginning Jobs had some difficulties getting funding to get Apple off the ground so offered stock options in place of pay. Robert was one of the few that turned down that offer wanting cash instead.
Not an unreasonable choice over all, but I would guess he's still kicking himself today over that prediction!
I would never get this nanotech treatment.
I certainly wouldn't "as-is" either, but I can't help but wonder the extent this could be a component in a more complex and useful system.
The bulk atom construction of these particular particles likely makes them somewhat fixed in their light converting range, which is fine for in the lab and all, but I wonder what types of ranges are possible.
Just how far can particles of this size stretch or squish a light wave? What wavelengths can be brought up or down into the visible range?
After perfecting the effect I'd wonder what sorts of materials could be constructed that are adjustable, perhaps with a specific RF or electric field or something like that.
Especially if they only respond and change to *very* near by fields, say within or just outside of the eye.
Imagine a "sliding window" of frequencies that can be brought into the visible range under the control of an implant installed near to the eyes you can control.
Predator vision without the helmet!
If that was perfected I wouldn't at all mind such a treatment. Of course that wouldn't be within my life time, so may as well be 'never'. :P (aww, now I made myself sad)
Perhaps Ray Kurzweil turns out to be correct against all odds
"Featuring minors" also is incredibly vague, would this include anything with child actors? What about reviews of something that featured child actors?
Youtube has a now-standard policy to over react and sort it out if anyone of importance complains.
To answer your question, yes it includes all of that and more. Car videos, cats and dogs, the 24 hour count down timer, the seven minutes of silence song, all of that qualifies as "featuring minors"
A mod can go down a whole page of videos flagging all of them without a glance and this is acceptable.
If you think "featuring minors" is any sort of definition or defining term to youtube, it might help in making sense of it to just mentally replace all nouns with a wildcard character when reading any statement they put out.
For example:
YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki linked to the update and explained the change: "Recently, there have been some * incidents regarding * on YouTube. * is more important to us than * on the platform."
Fortran eh? That's a good nugget to tuck away.
My own entry into the computer world was the Apple 2 line.
Assembly had "LDA X" in its many addressing modes, and basic had "LET X = Y"
But basic was a relative latecomer even at the end of the 70s so always assumed it wasn't the first language to do that.
I dunno. The equal sign ("=") was invented by the Welsh mathematician,
But the equal sign has always been quite uppity, always butting in on both assignment and comparison.. Far too well to do.
How about you design your FIDO2 thing to automatically type passwords into regular password fields instead of asking the whole web to change for your new special feature?
Uhh, you mean to say you are currently *TYPING* your 8k binary private keys into password boxes on websites?!?
Dude, you are doing this horrendously wrong! Your private keys should NEVER leave your possession!
Stop sending them in web form fields, and you should have all of them revoked and make new ones to use properly.
You never send your private key, you receive a random challenge that you decrypt with your private key and send THAT back.
I strongly advise against typing all of that binary data as well, but I guess that's up to you.