I can use a license grant you give without agreeing to a contract with you. In that context, it is only a license - I am merely using what you have already given free license to do. Until I affirmatively state in some form that I am agreeing to the terms, all you have to stop my use would be the copyright that I am infringing, because no contract was formed.
No. A license is basically a permanent contract offer, rights are granted if and only if someone forms a contract by agreeing to it. There is nothing you get "for free" by the mere existence of a license that exists independent of and outside a contract. Even the BSD license has terms you must agree to, if you don't agree to the terms you're in violation of copyright law. If you claim to have rights under that license then that means you claim to have entered into a contract by agreeing to it, in which case you can be sued for breaching that contract. Of course you could try to claim that your use is legal because it isn't actually violating copyright law or is protected by fair use etc. but in that case you can't invoke the license at all.
That is not to say that he became a Protestant Christian; he believed in the old Fairy Tales and the way that they were told. In other words, Tolkien was a nutter. (...) As a devout Atheist, I quite like the old fossil.
If it's a compliment or an insult is in the eye of the beholder: Non-mainstream or deeply religious people that don't simply follow doctrine are excellent fantasy writers, not just Tolkien but for example look at Lewis Carroll and the Chronicles of Narnia, J.K. Rowling and Harry Potter, all these fantastical, magical stories about a world that's more than flesh and blood come from some form of imagination very few are able to genuinely tap into. At least past the age they figure out Santa Clause is not real and their imaginary friend doesn't really exist. I can read/watch it, I can enjoy it.. but if I try to write fantasy I can never embrace that alternate reality the way good writers do, I'm way too grounded in the real world.
5. they would buy it, but since they can get it for free they do.
I mean seriously, how many of us have too much money? If I can spend less on something, I can spend more on something else. If I'm not particularly bothered with it being wrong because I don't believe so or I don't care and/or I'm not particularly bothered with it being illegal because the risk so so low, then of course I won't spend money on it. Well okay maybe exceptionally, for a small sum because that's what most people who put up tip jars discover. You don't really get much money freely, not even when you're doing them a service. Particularly not large corporations, you're more likely to get $10 from a hundred people for a $1000 project than $10 from 100.000 people for a million dollar project because the smaller your contribution is of the total the easier it is to let "everybody else" pay for it.
Penalizing workers for staying home when they're sick is a really bad idea. Because, naturally, people will come to work sick rather than risk a penalty, potentially spreading the illness to other workers and to customers. This seldom ends well, either for the parties involved or for the company.
Assuming people are actually sick. Here in Norway I've had several not-that-close acquaintances admit/reveal that they use sick leave kinda like a quota, they keep enough for actually being sick but if the rolling window is about to expire they get "sick" and use it more or less as an extra day off. Or at least their threshold for being sick becomes very, very low. And it annoys some other friends of mine that either have too much of a moral spine or are in management positions because they know some people are sick and some are "sick" but it's next to impossible to get sufficient proof and they're likely to catch a shit storm if they're actually wrong or the evidence doesn't stick. That said, they also put the suspects on a short list for when they have legitimate reasons to downsize. Or maybe the people who genuinely are sick a lot, because they're unreliable weaklings and the manager wants to get rid of them. The truth is probably that there's some that play dirty on both sides of the fence, it's not black and white.
For 150% the price of a Tesla, I'd just drive it without registration and just pay fines for an unlicensed car. That is, if they could catch me to give me a ticket...:-) For everyday use without getting stopped, just print up a registration place yourself using a 3D print of a plate, paint it, and drive carefully.
Don't think that would work here in Norway. Maybe as long as you don't pass through any automatic license plate scanners as I do twice every workday, and no there's no manual lane. An invalid number would get you flagged pretty quick. And you'd better hope the number you copy pay his road taxes and doesn't check his toll road bill or history and that there's no red flags when you pass through two different places in an unreasonably short time. If you're caught, the car would probably be impounded. They'll demand the full tax bill + penalty tax + charge you with document fraud for the license plate + driving without valid insurance which you obviously can't get + not approved mandatory safety inspection that you need every two years after first five + you'll probably be caught for obstruction of justice by lying to the police in the process + maybe a few other things. Maybe if you do it completely off the radar to and from your local grocery store but... no. Don't think I've ever heard of it happening.
Every country that remains a signatory under the Paris Accord, and upholds its respective commitments, has the right to impose unilateral tariffs on the USA to cover the economic and social impacts resulting from the USA's impacts on the climate.
Every country can impose tariffs for any reason they like, I really doubt any treaty they've withdrawn from prevents the US from returning the favor. If there are, Trump can always withdraw from those too. And if he really wants to mess with the international community he can declare them null and void on the spot. The US is a sovereign nation, the worst anyone can do is pass a UN resolution but they can't even rattle a two bit dictator in North Korea. If the US really wants out, it's out. And as I understand the US system, unless he's impeached for some reason there's nobody who has the authority to say otherwise.
Reusable rockets could see far-reaching uses. Imagine if the technology scaled to allow for suborbital point-to-point flights for passenger livery, where the rockets could return to their air/spaceports for refuel/reuse, while the spaceliner glides to its destination port in a fraction of the time it takes to make such long commercial flights.
From what I understand the atmospheric shell where you get any significant updraft as a plane is pretty thin compared to a rocket trajectory and if you try to skim the surface you'd get massive atmospheric resistance during launch and still not all that far gliding. So you'd end up more like a sub-orbital rocket and suffer all the problems of re-entry with a heat shield.
on the bright side, he's already serving life, so whatever.
Yeah, and that leads to some perverted incentives sometimes. Like you will be going away for life for one murder or you got a 5% chance of killing all the witnesses and 95% chance of doing five life sentences but whatever. Once the expected punishment is so high your life is practically over if you get caught, only the chance to get away with it matters.
Okay, I'm sort of playing devil's advocate here, but why should they need a warrant even if they were effectively working for the FBI? The customer voluntarily brought his computer to Best Buy and the computer was in their custody at the time of the search. There was no entry into the customer's home: Best Buy was in possession of the computer at the time of the search.
Because otherwise a sysadmin at AT&T could wiretap any calls the FBI asks them to without violating the 4th amendment? Just because you have legitimate access to something in your job doesn't mean it's free for the police to grab.
For one thing, does "liking" using the button imply endorsement? Does "like" mean what they think it means? Or was the person's intention? And what if it was inadvertent clicking?
Well if the post was an explicit accusation, opinion or call to action like "Spread the word, he's a child molester", "Hitler should have finished the job" or "Rape that slut" then it's pretty hard to not interpret a "Like" as an endorsement. Yes, in many cases it can be rather ambiguous what a like means but not every case.
Other than asking if this hardware will run Linux (I know the basic answer is "yes", but I would like to see the network driver release plan for Linux)
WinRT didn't allow dual boot, I'd say probably not these devices either.
I guess web apps that run decently on Edge will not be affected, but what about the rest of the Windows x86 (and 64bit) catalog?
UWP -> yes, obviously Win32 ARM -> yes, no longer restricted to Microsoft's own applications Win32 x86 -> yes, software emulation (but probably slooow) Win32 x64 -> no
Would Microsoft subsidize development houses to get their apps on this platform?
I would think not, people can run "legacy" software in emulation and pester developers for an ARM-compiled version. It's not RT where if it doesn't exist as UWP/ARM you were screwed.
So if my ISP doesn't want to pay the "Netflix carriage charge" to the backbone provider that they use, Netflix is thrown back to the "buffering 90s", and I drop Netflix -- not my ISP -- because I have NO CHOICE.
He's not talking about you on the individual level. He's talking about a corporate stare-down between Netflix and your ISP. That some people will pick a lesser plan or no plan because Netflix isn't working well. That Netflix can do naming and shaming, making that ISP deal with customer service complains and lose customers who do have a choice. That Netflix is big enough to say it works for hundred million other subscribers, your ISP is the problem and the financial backbone to not blink first. A lot of this maneuvering is basically corporate bullying, who's right or not doesn't matter it's who got weight to throw around.
And while the CEO is being quite honest, he's also trying to talk up the value of his company. If he came in saying oh, ah, without network neutrality we're screwed the stock price will tank. He's instead saying no problem, that'll cement our position as the leading streaming provider and lock out many copycat upstarts. He might be lying that it's actually overall good for business, but since it's pretty much clear that it's happening he's obviously going to try to put a positive spin on it. For Netflix that is, not necessary for the rest of the world.
Those ideologues want to set strict goals in the US (and the EU), affecting Western economies, while countries like India, China, and Russia set goals that do little to curb their emissions (and, of course, don't hurt their own economy)
As far as I know, the per-capita emissions are by far highest in the US too followed by the EU, China and India in that order. Basically there's two paths a binding treaty could take, one is to freeze the status quo which would hurt developing economics and the other to curb the worst offenders which would hurt the rich economies. But they don't really have the balls or political backing to do either so it becomes a "pretty please, try to pollute as little as possible" wishy-washy feelgood agreement.
There's no legitimate reason why any man from any nation should have the right to pollute more than the rest, but a hard limit per person would require that limit to be set so low it would hurt like hell. This was the weakest agreement they could agree on and still the US is saying fuck that, I think all environmentalists around the world are squirming right now. It's not going to be easy to ask anyone else for moderation now, it's like a food buffet where the 400 lb American has just declared he's eating until he's stuffed.
The cost of the unit itself is pointless to discuss when it is the cost of the consumables that actually make the difference. I've yet to find an inkjet cartridge last anywhere near as long as laser toner.
If you want a color laser that can print proper photos and not just colored pie charts it's not the consumables that make up the bulk of the cost anymore, not unless you're an avid photographer that wants everything in print.
AMD's Threadripper is likely to be much more attractive I think. Ryzen seems to have the edge at the moment, especially in efficiency terms. How hot are these Intel chips going to run? Plus AMD's parts will be much, much cheaper.
I doubt it, Intel saw where Ryzen was going after the first launch and extrapolated, they went from 10 to 18 cores on the high end. It's $500 for the 1800x with 8 cores, bigger chips = lower yields so double+ for 16 cores that'll still have two less cores, probably slightly lower max clock and IPC than Intel too. I'm guessing threadripper will be a $1200 chip that'll compete with Intel's $1400/1700 chips. They won't let AMD get another PR win like the first Ryzen launch.
Surely the point of an UBI is that the UBI is "enough" and that anything beyond that point should be taxed? Say 40% flat.
Earn $0, get $10k/year (UBI). Earn $10k, get $16k/year ($4k taxes, $10k UBI = $6k net) = -60% Earn $20k, get $22k/year ($8k taxes, $10k UBI = $2k net) = -10% Earn $30k, get $28k/year ($12k taxes, $10k UBI = $2k tax) = 6 2/3% Earn $50k, get $40k/year ($20k taxes, $10k UBI = $10k tax) = 20% Earn $100k, get $70k/year ($40k taxes, $10k UBI = $30k tax) = 30% Earn $200k, get $130k/year ($80k taxes, $10k UBI = $70k tax) = 35%
So the break-even in this example would be $25k. But it's not like most under $25k will burden the full amount, if you're working minimum wage you'll be paying over half of it yourself. Those who really cost money are those with no income, but they're probably on some program today, where you could for starters say that the first $10k of any program today is 100% taxed towards your UBI. That is if you get $30k disability pension today, tomorrow you get $20k disability pension, $10k UBI and keep adjusting the system from there. Every dollar you make, you keep 60 cents no funny limits or drops or brackets etc.
The real problem is jobs being replaced by machines, A.I., etc. This should decrease the costs of those goods and services. But instead, it's making the rich richer and the poor unable to afford those goods and services because they're out of work.
If you look at the BLS employment-population ratio they have data back to 1948 and it swings between 55% and 65%, currently at 60.2%. That is to say, there's not an exceptional number of people out of work even though it's considerably lower than the 90s and early 00s even though wages are depressed. They've mainly been depressed the last ~50 years first because of a Europe recovering from WW2 and then a huge influx of cheap labor, particularly Indian and Chinese on the world market affecting supply and demand. But wage costs particularly in China have increased rapidly, in manufacturing it's now $3.60/hour or 1/6th of the US. When you factor in productivity, language issues, cultural issues, time zone differences, transport costs etc. it's not that absurdly cheap anymore. It's hard to have a crystal ball but unless China's wages stop going up they'll pretty soon stop dragging US wages down. India is a bit further behind, but they too are not so cheap as they were.
It's just a calculating machine. It is weak AI. I used to tell people that it was not AI at all, but they got upset and argued, so now I just say it's not strong AI. No one can argue with that. It's not general intelligence.
That depends on how broad you define general intelligence, you can certainly generalize "weak AI" without giving it any "strong AI" properties of consciousness, self-awareness, introspection or defining its own goals, ethics and morality to MacGyver-like levels of intelligence where it understands the physical and chemical properties of objects and can combine them into Rube Goldberg-like contraptions to achieve some goal even with multiple layers of gathering the resources, creating the components, tools and equipment themselves. Basically a "game" where the rules are the laws of nature as we know them, with no other restraints on the "moves".
For example say the goal is to start a fire. You don't have to teach the weak AI any methods, just basic chemistry of combustion, friction, optics and so on, the nature of the environment and available resources (earth atmosphere, sunlight, tinder, wood, glass, flint etc.) and it could work out that a bow drill, flint and steel or a lens to concentrate sunlight all may be possible ways to start a fire. With volume maybe it'll want to build a match factory or maybe it'll find some entirely novel way. And you can keep going from there until it can build every modern commodity, basically everything humans have produced is within the realm of weak AI. It just won't understand what anything is or why it's doing it, only that it satisfies some goal parameter(s) someone has set for it.
But that's okay, I think we're generally better at describing the result we want than the process anyway. If I want (fried) bacon and eggs it doesn't mean I know anything about owning a pig farm or raising chickens. I describe what I want to a chef AI that decides he needs raw bacon and eggs to a shopping AI, who purchases it. A stocking AI decides they need more bacon and eggs, which sets off a purchase/transport AI to resupply the store, that sets off a slaughterhouse AI to demand more pigs, that demand triggers the pig production AI to build more pig houses, buy more pig feed and raise more piglets and so on. It's weak AI all the way down. None of these AIs need to really understand "bacon and eggs" to do anything useful.
No, the meme is just fine. Ad-supported companies sell eyeballs, that is the product weather you like it or not. If the grain level is coarse that's no problem, like if you're a radio channel and play country music you know you have a certain audience and your advertisers know that too. The problem is that via electronic registration the grain level is extremely fine, via tracking cookies, accounts and loyalty cards they build up massive individual profiles. You can of course hand-wave and say the data will never be used in a way that's problematic: "But they don't allow individual users to be targeted or for advertisers to access user data directly, only in aggregate via the tools that Google provides."
Until it's leaked, hacked, sabotaged, there's an inside man, the police/courts/three letter agencies demands to see it, they hand out too much information, they give an unreliable subcontractor access today or at any point in the future. I work with a similar but different set of data, where we produce aggregate or de-identified data for external use but the grain data can be quite easily tied to an individual. First and foremost we're constrained by law, if someone passed the "Stop terrorism, fuck privacy act" it wouldn't be all that anonymous anymore. Secondly, we're guarding it like gold because there's really no un-sharing the information should it ever get out, but who knows when a hacker could find an Achilles heel. Third, it's hard to avoid every corner case where your profile stands out in a way that could be tied to an individual.
I'm not going to be completely paranoid about it but the safest kind of data is the type you never generate. Everything else can be collected, cross-linked, use and abused. Certainly for good, that's often why we're doing it in the first place but the road to hell is also paved with good intentions. If you live in an authoritarian regime the future is pretty grim because they're constantly improving their surveillance, often going hand in hand with convenience which is why Facebook etc. is so popular. As long as you're not doing anything they don't like...
If the ReactOS project got even 10% of the commits and money that Linux receives, it might soon become the Open Source alternative to even Windows 10, allowing everyone to ditch Windows without having to change the software they use.
Said no person with experience reverse engineering ever, at no point has trying to chase your proprietary competitor's blobs ever worked. WINE does an okay job running some Windows software, LibreOffice does an okay job opening some MS Office documents but you'll never repeat every quirk, bug and obscure functionality. You'll never get a fully working replacement for DirectX that isn't DirectX, not without 10x the resources Microsoft used to write it to reverse engineer it. That's not 10% of the Linux resources, probably more like 1000%. The only workable solution long term is to get people over to new, open standards like web apps written for W3C compliant browsers instead of IE6, games using Vulkan instead of DirectX, cross platform tools like qBitTorrent instead of uTorrent and so on.
Look at git, the version control software to develop Windows is now created by Linus Torvalds, what better endorsement can you get than the competition eating your dogfood? Look at all the cloud solutions booming because you can just spin up another Linux instance on demand without licensing worries. You don't win by mimicking the old, you win by delivering something new and better. And even if someone builds proprietary stuff on top of it (OS X, Android, Tivo etc.) you keep gaining ground. Even if the pace is somewhat glacial I never had the feeling open source went backwards, even if you look at stuff like Firefox then Chrome is mostly open source through Chromium. It would be a helluva lot less work to fork that than to start over. Tools like ASP.NET Core is being open sourced, Apple has open sourced Swift, for more and more of low-level infrastructure closed source just isn't kosher anymore.
...I don't think it has much real-world worry. If you're running an intentionally malicious program on your computer, you've got far worse problems. A SSD is one device. A single credit card number is worth thousands of dollars to you and possibly dozens of hours of your valuable time to fix.
Assuming you got access to anything valuable with the process you're running as. The point of rowhammer was that you could flip bits in other processes, Imagine for example if you have found an exploit in the web server but all it has access to is public files but you could flip the permission bits on/etc/passwd to be world readable that would be a pretty big exploit. If you can use a "harmless" service running as a non-privileged user to create a denial-of-service attack, that surely has some value too.
Unless your company is willing to put a massive amount of effort into that stuff for some reason, it's dumb to even try.
IAG (the holding group of British Airways) have a market cap of 13 billion GBP or about 17 billion USD, guesstimating by fleet size BA is almost half of that. I'd understand if you were talking about a fly speck of a company but an 8 billion dollar company can damn well run their own infrastructure without a cloud provider with geographical distribution, 24/7 available teams and all that.
FOSS isn't a magic bullet, it's a development model. The advantages play out in statistical trends, and the differences in those trends can depend on many factors, including how 'open' development is. For example, WannaCry is somewhat comparable, and since it affected XP, the issue likely existed for at least 9 years, if not longer.
Open as in a good way, or open in a bad way? I can see the whole "develop in secret, dump on community" model can have its faults. So can the "we're so short on developers anyone who takes any real interest will get commit privileges" model. I mean, it's one thing to believe that eventually someone will spot an existing bug, but the vast majority of bugs are caught in development as the code is written and - hopefully - reviewed. Security bugs often come from unclear or sloppy code, standards differ wildly between projects.
And also how much is on by default, there's a huge difference in scope between what's in the default configuration and not, even if the severity for those infected is the same. Not that it's a useful benchmark if you have to enable things to make it work normally the way most users would expect, in that case you can pull the plug and the machine will be very safe. The real advantage though is that eventually you start getting reusable components that have stood the test of time. I've "reinvented the wheel" at different companies, simply because you can't just take code with you when you go. There is of course NIH problems and rotten projects in open source too, but it's less of a problem.
They'll be cheaper than a larger rocket ($5M), much more expensive per-pound ($25K/kg vs $6K/kg for F9, $12K for Atlas) but they hope the advantage of picking your own orbit instead of having to share a launcher and resulting trajectory with [others?]
I would think that's a viable market, if you want to observe one spot because you're an Aussie satellite watching Australia you can launch in a polar orbit to make it loop the same place over and over again 14-15 times a day, which few other satellites would have a need for. If you're doing sun-sync polar or GTO or some other "standard" orbit, not so much.
I'm kinda surprised that nobody has tried building a quantum dot display with more than three primaries yet, at least not that I've heard of. Like if you went hex with six primaries I think you should come very, very close to any point on the response curve. Maybe combine it with a hex grid instead of square pixels with every other triangle being the "new" primaries and the other three the old, something like this. That kind of Red-Orange-Yellow-Green-Turquoise-Blue display should kick ass. Now the obvious downside is that you'll only get half the intensity per channel, but then you can balance accuracy for intensity by either giving your intense pure red an extra boost in intensity with the orange channel or keep the red as it is. For blinding white or something like that you can still fire on 6/6 channels instead of 3/3.
Slashdot Mirror
I can use a license grant you give without agreeing to a contract with you. In that context, it is only a license - I am merely using what you have already given free license to do. Until I affirmatively state in some form that I am agreeing to the terms, all you have to stop my use would be the copyright that I am infringing, because no contract was formed.
No. A license is basically a permanent contract offer, rights are granted if and only if someone forms a contract by agreeing to it. There is nothing you get "for free" by the mere existence of a license that exists independent of and outside a contract. Even the BSD license has terms you must agree to, if you don't agree to the terms you're in violation of copyright law. If you claim to have rights under that license then that means you claim to have entered into a contract by agreeing to it, in which case you can be sued for breaching that contract. Of course you could try to claim that your use is legal because it isn't actually violating copyright law or is protected by fair use etc. but in that case you can't invoke the license at all.
That is not to say that he became a Protestant Christian; he believed in the old Fairy Tales and the way that they were told. In other words, Tolkien was a nutter. (...) As a devout Atheist, I quite like the old fossil.
If it's a compliment or an insult is in the eye of the beholder: Non-mainstream or deeply religious people that don't simply follow doctrine are excellent fantasy writers, not just Tolkien but for example look at Lewis Carroll and the Chronicles of Narnia, J.K. Rowling and Harry Potter, all these fantastical, magical stories about a world that's more than flesh and blood come from some form of imagination very few are able to genuinely tap into. At least past the age they figure out Santa Clause is not real and their imaginary friend doesn't really exist. I can read/watch it, I can enjoy it.. but if I try to write fantasy I can never embrace that alternate reality the way good writers do, I'm way too grounded in the real world.
5. they would buy it, but since they can get it for free they do.
I mean seriously, how many of us have too much money? If I can spend less on something, I can spend more on something else. If I'm not particularly bothered with it being wrong because I don't believe so or I don't care and/or I'm not particularly bothered with it being illegal because the risk so so low, then of course I won't spend money on it. Well okay maybe exceptionally, for a small sum because that's what most people who put up tip jars discover. You don't really get much money freely, not even when you're doing them a service. Particularly not large corporations, you're more likely to get $10 from a hundred people for a $1000 project than $10 from 100.000 people for a million dollar project because the smaller your contribution is of the total the easier it is to let "everybody else" pay for it.
Penalizing workers for staying home when they're sick is a really bad idea. Because, naturally, people will come to work sick rather than risk a penalty, potentially spreading the illness to other workers and to customers. This seldom ends well, either for the parties involved or for the company.
Assuming people are actually sick. Here in Norway I've had several not-that-close acquaintances admit/reveal that they use sick leave kinda like a quota, they keep enough for actually being sick but if the rolling window is about to expire they get "sick" and use it more or less as an extra day off. Or at least their threshold for being sick becomes very, very low. And it annoys some other friends of mine that either have too much of a moral spine or are in management positions because they know some people are sick and some are "sick" but it's next to impossible to get sufficient proof and they're likely to catch a shit storm if they're actually wrong or the evidence doesn't stick. That said, they also put the suspects on a short list for when they have legitimate reasons to downsize. Or maybe the people who genuinely are sick a lot, because they're unreliable weaklings and the manager wants to get rid of them. The truth is probably that there's some that play dirty on both sides of the fence, it's not black and white.
For 150% the price of a Tesla, I'd just drive it without registration and just pay fines for an unlicensed car. That is, if they could catch me to give me a ticket... :-) For everyday use without getting stopped, just print up a registration place yourself using a 3D print of a plate, paint it, and drive carefully.
Don't think that would work here in Norway. Maybe as long as you don't pass through any automatic license plate scanners as I do twice every workday, and no there's no manual lane. An invalid number would get you flagged pretty quick. And you'd better hope the number you copy pay his road taxes and doesn't check his toll road bill or history and that there's no red flags when you pass through two different places in an unreasonably short time. If you're caught, the car would probably be impounded. They'll demand the full tax bill + penalty tax + charge you with document fraud for the license plate + driving without valid insurance which you obviously can't get + not approved mandatory safety inspection that you need every two years after first five + you'll probably be caught for obstruction of justice by lying to the police in the process + maybe a few other things. Maybe if you do it completely off the radar to and from your local grocery store but... no. Don't think I've ever heard of it happening.
Every country that remains a signatory under the Paris Accord, and upholds its respective commitments, has the right to impose unilateral tariffs on the USA to cover the economic and social impacts resulting from the USA's impacts on the climate.
Every country can impose tariffs for any reason they like, I really doubt any treaty they've withdrawn from prevents the US from returning the favor. If there are, Trump can always withdraw from those too. And if he really wants to mess with the international community he can declare them null and void on the spot. The US is a sovereign nation, the worst anyone can do is pass a UN resolution but they can't even rattle a two bit dictator in North Korea. If the US really wants out, it's out. And as I understand the US system, unless he's impeached for some reason there's nobody who has the authority to say otherwise.
Reusable rockets could see far-reaching uses. Imagine if the technology scaled to allow for suborbital point-to-point flights for passenger livery, where the rockets could return to their air/spaceports for refuel/reuse, while the spaceliner glides to its destination port in a fraction of the time it takes to make such long commercial flights.
From what I understand the atmospheric shell where you get any significant updraft as a plane is pretty thin compared to a rocket trajectory and if you try to skim the surface you'd get massive atmospheric resistance during launch and still not all that far gliding. So you'd end up more like a sub-orbital rocket and suffer all the problems of re-entry with a heat shield.
on the bright side, he's already serving life, so whatever.
Yeah, and that leads to some perverted incentives sometimes. Like you will be going away for life for one murder or you got a 5% chance of killing all the witnesses and 95% chance of doing five life sentences but whatever. Once the expected punishment is so high your life is practically over if you get caught, only the chance to get away with it matters.
Okay, I'm sort of playing devil's advocate here, but why should they need a warrant even if they were effectively working for the FBI? The customer voluntarily brought his computer to Best Buy and the computer was in their custody at the time of the search. There was no entry into the customer's home: Best Buy was in possession of the computer at the time of the search.
Because otherwise a sysadmin at AT&T could wiretap any calls the FBI asks them to without violating the 4th amendment? Just because you have legitimate access to something in your job doesn't mean it's free for the police to grab.
For one thing, does "liking" using the button imply endorsement? Does "like" mean what they think it means? Or was the person's intention? And what if it was inadvertent clicking?
Well if the post was an explicit accusation, opinion or call to action like "Spread the word, he's a child molester", "Hitler should have finished the job" or "Rape that slut" then it's pretty hard to not interpret a "Like" as an endorsement. Yes, in many cases it can be rather ambiguous what a like means but not every case.
Other than asking if this hardware will run Linux (I know the basic answer is "yes", but I would like to see the network driver release plan for Linux)
WinRT didn't allow dual boot, I'd say probably not these devices either.
I guess web apps that run decently on Edge will not be affected, but what about the rest of the Windows x86 (and 64bit) catalog?
UWP -> yes, obviously
Win32 ARM -> yes, no longer restricted to Microsoft's own applications
Win32 x86 -> yes, software emulation (but probably slooow)
Win32 x64 -> no
Would Microsoft subsidize development houses to get their apps on this platform?
I would think not, people can run "legacy" software in emulation and pester developers for an ARM-compiled version. It's not RT where if it doesn't exist as UWP/ARM you were screwed.
So if my ISP doesn't want to pay the "Netflix carriage charge" to the backbone provider that they use, Netflix is thrown back to the "buffering 90s", and I drop Netflix -- not my ISP -- because I have NO CHOICE.
He's not talking about you on the individual level. He's talking about a corporate stare-down between Netflix and your ISP. That some people will pick a lesser plan or no plan because Netflix isn't working well. That Netflix can do naming and shaming, making that ISP deal with customer service complains and lose customers who do have a choice. That Netflix is big enough to say it works for hundred million other subscribers, your ISP is the problem and the financial backbone to not blink first. A lot of this maneuvering is basically corporate bullying, who's right or not doesn't matter it's who got weight to throw around.
And while the CEO is being quite honest, he's also trying to talk up the value of his company. If he came in saying oh, ah, without network neutrality we're screwed the stock price will tank. He's instead saying no problem, that'll cement our position as the leading streaming provider and lock out many copycat upstarts. He might be lying that it's actually overall good for business, but since it's pretty much clear that it's happening he's obviously going to try to put a positive spin on it. For Netflix that is, not necessary for the rest of the world.
Those ideologues want to set strict goals in the US (and the EU), affecting Western economies, while countries like India, China, and Russia set goals that do little to curb their emissions (and, of course, don't hurt their own economy)
As far as I know, the per-capita emissions are by far highest in the US too followed by the EU, China and India in that order. Basically there's two paths a binding treaty could take, one is to freeze the status quo which would hurt developing economics and the other to curb the worst offenders which would hurt the rich economies. But they don't really have the balls or political backing to do either so it becomes a "pretty please, try to pollute as little as possible" wishy-washy feelgood agreement.
There's no legitimate reason why any man from any nation should have the right to pollute more than the rest, but a hard limit per person would require that limit to be set so low it would hurt like hell. This was the weakest agreement they could agree on and still the US is saying fuck that, I think all environmentalists around the world are squirming right now. It's not going to be easy to ask anyone else for moderation now, it's like a food buffet where the 400 lb American has just declared he's eating until he's stuffed.
The cost of the unit itself is pointless to discuss when it is the cost of the consumables that actually make the difference. I've yet to find an inkjet cartridge last anywhere near as long as laser toner.
If you want a color laser that can print proper photos and not just colored pie charts it's not the consumables that make up the bulk of the cost anymore, not unless you're an avid photographer that wants everything in print.
AMD's Threadripper is likely to be much more attractive I think. Ryzen seems to have the edge at the moment, especially in efficiency terms. How hot are these Intel chips going to run? Plus AMD's parts will be much, much cheaper.
I doubt it, Intel saw where Ryzen was going after the first launch and extrapolated, they went from 10 to 18 cores on the high end. It's $500 for the 1800x with 8 cores, bigger chips = lower yields so double+ for 16 cores that'll still have two less cores, probably slightly lower max clock and IPC than Intel too. I'm guessing threadripper will be a $1200 chip that'll compete with Intel's $1400/1700 chips. They won't let AMD get another PR win like the first Ryzen launch.
Surely the point of an UBI is that the UBI is "enough" and that anything beyond that point should be taxed? Say 40% flat.
Earn $0, get $10k/year (UBI).
Earn $10k, get $16k/year ($4k taxes, $10k UBI = $6k net) = -60%
Earn $20k, get $22k/year ($8k taxes, $10k UBI = $2k net) = -10%
Earn $30k, get $28k/year ($12k taxes, $10k UBI = $2k tax) = 6 2/3%
Earn $50k, get $40k/year ($20k taxes, $10k UBI = $10k tax) = 20%
Earn $100k, get $70k/year ($40k taxes, $10k UBI = $30k tax) = 30%
Earn $200k, get $130k/year ($80k taxes, $10k UBI = $70k tax) = 35%
So the break-even in this example would be $25k. But it's not like most under $25k will burden the full amount, if you're working minimum wage you'll be paying over half of it yourself. Those who really cost money are those with no income, but they're probably on some program today, where you could for starters say that the first $10k of any program today is 100% taxed towards your UBI. That is if you get $30k disability pension today, tomorrow you get $20k disability pension, $10k UBI and keep adjusting the system from there. Every dollar you make, you keep 60 cents no funny limits or drops or brackets etc.
The real problem is jobs being replaced by machines, A.I., etc. This should decrease the costs of those goods and services. But instead, it's making the rich richer and the poor unable to afford those goods and services because they're out of work.
If you look at the BLS employment-population ratio they have data back to 1948 and it swings between 55% and 65%, currently at 60.2%. That is to say, there's not an exceptional number of people out of work even though it's considerably lower than the 90s and early 00s even though wages are depressed. They've mainly been depressed the last ~50 years first because of a Europe recovering from WW2 and then a huge influx of cheap labor, particularly Indian and Chinese on the world market affecting supply and demand. But wage costs particularly in China have increased rapidly, in manufacturing it's now $3.60/hour or 1/6th of the US. When you factor in productivity, language issues, cultural issues, time zone differences, transport costs etc. it's not that absurdly cheap anymore. It's hard to have a crystal ball but unless China's wages stop going up they'll pretty soon stop dragging US wages down. India is a bit further behind, but they too are not so cheap as they were.
It's just a calculating machine. It is weak AI. I used to tell people that it was not AI at all, but they got upset and argued, so now I just say it's not strong AI. No one can argue with that. It's not general intelligence.
That depends on how broad you define general intelligence, you can certainly generalize "weak AI" without giving it any "strong AI" properties of consciousness, self-awareness, introspection or defining its own goals, ethics and morality to MacGyver-like levels of intelligence where it understands the physical and chemical properties of objects and can combine them into Rube Goldberg-like contraptions to achieve some goal even with multiple layers of gathering the resources, creating the components, tools and equipment themselves. Basically a "game" where the rules are the laws of nature as we know them, with no other restraints on the "moves".
For example say the goal is to start a fire. You don't have to teach the weak AI any methods, just basic chemistry of combustion, friction, optics and so on, the nature of the environment and available resources (earth atmosphere, sunlight, tinder, wood, glass, flint etc.) and it could work out that a bow drill, flint and steel or a lens to concentrate sunlight all may be possible ways to start a fire. With volume maybe it'll want to build a match factory or maybe it'll find some entirely novel way. And you can keep going from there until it can build every modern commodity, basically everything humans have produced is within the realm of weak AI. It just won't understand what anything is or why it's doing it, only that it satisfies some goal parameter(s) someone has set for it.
But that's okay, I think we're generally better at describing the result we want than the process anyway. If I want (fried) bacon and eggs it doesn't mean I know anything about owning a pig farm or raising chickens. I describe what I want to a chef AI that decides he needs raw bacon and eggs to a shopping AI, who purchases it. A stocking AI decides they need more bacon and eggs, which sets off a purchase/transport AI to resupply the store, that sets off a slaughterhouse AI to demand more pigs, that demand triggers the pig production AI to build more pig houses, buy more pig feed and raise more piglets and so on. It's weak AI all the way down. None of these AIs need to really understand "bacon and eggs" to do anything useful.
No, the meme is just fine. Ad-supported companies sell eyeballs, that is the product weather you like it or not. If the grain level is coarse that's no problem, like if you're a radio channel and play country music you know you have a certain audience and your advertisers know that too. The problem is that via electronic registration the grain level is extremely fine, via tracking cookies, accounts and loyalty cards they build up massive individual profiles. You can of course hand-wave and say the data will never be used in a way that's problematic: "But they don't allow individual users to be targeted or for advertisers to access user data directly, only in aggregate via the tools that Google provides."
Until it's leaked, hacked, sabotaged, there's an inside man, the police/courts/three letter agencies demands to see it, they hand out too much information, they give an unreliable subcontractor access today or at any point in the future. I work with a similar but different set of data, where we produce aggregate or de-identified data for external use but the grain data can be quite easily tied to an individual. First and foremost we're constrained by law, if someone passed the "Stop terrorism, fuck privacy act" it wouldn't be all that anonymous anymore. Secondly, we're guarding it like gold because there's really no un-sharing the information should it ever get out, but who knows when a hacker could find an Achilles heel. Third, it's hard to avoid every corner case where your profile stands out in a way that could be tied to an individual.
I'm not going to be completely paranoid about it but the safest kind of data is the type you never generate. Everything else can be collected, cross-linked, use and abused. Certainly for good, that's often why we're doing it in the first place but the road to hell is also paved with good intentions. If you live in an authoritarian regime the future is pretty grim because they're constantly improving their surveillance, often going hand in hand with convenience which is why Facebook etc. is so popular. As long as you're not doing anything they don't like...
If the ReactOS project got even 10% of the commits and money that Linux receives, it might soon become the Open Source alternative to even Windows 10, allowing everyone to ditch Windows without having to change the software they use.
Said no person with experience reverse engineering ever, at no point has trying to chase your proprietary competitor's blobs ever worked. WINE does an okay job running some Windows software, LibreOffice does an okay job opening some MS Office documents but you'll never repeat every quirk, bug and obscure functionality. You'll never get a fully working replacement for DirectX that isn't DirectX, not without 10x the resources Microsoft used to write it to reverse engineer it. That's not 10% of the Linux resources, probably more like 1000%. The only workable solution long term is to get people over to new, open standards like web apps written for W3C compliant browsers instead of IE6, games using Vulkan instead of DirectX, cross platform tools like qBitTorrent instead of uTorrent and so on.
Look at git, the version control software to develop Windows is now created by Linus Torvalds, what better endorsement can you get than the competition eating your dogfood? Look at all the cloud solutions booming because you can just spin up another Linux instance on demand without licensing worries. You don't win by mimicking the old, you win by delivering something new and better. And even if someone builds proprietary stuff on top of it (OS X, Android, Tivo etc.) you keep gaining ground. Even if the pace is somewhat glacial I never had the feeling open source went backwards, even if you look at stuff like Firefox then Chrome is mostly open source through Chromium. It would be a helluva lot less work to fork that than to start over. Tools like ASP.NET Core is being open sourced, Apple has open sourced Swift, for more and more of low-level infrastructure closed source just isn't kosher anymore.
...I don't think it has much real-world worry. If you're running an intentionally malicious program on your computer, you've got far worse problems. A SSD is one device. A single credit card number is worth thousands of dollars to you and possibly dozens of hours of your valuable time to fix.
Assuming you got access to anything valuable with the process you're running as. The point of rowhammer was that you could flip bits in other processes, Imagine for example if you have found an exploit in the web server but all it has access to is public files but you could flip the permission bits on /etc/passwd to be world readable that would be a pretty big exploit. If you can use a "harmless" service running as a non-privileged user to create a denial-of-service attack, that surely has some value too.
Unless your company is willing to put a massive amount of effort into that stuff for some reason, it's dumb to even try.
IAG (the holding group of British Airways) have a market cap of 13 billion GBP or about 17 billion USD, guesstimating by fleet size BA is almost half of that. I'd understand if you were talking about a fly speck of a company but an 8 billion dollar company can damn well run their own infrastructure without a cloud provider with geographical distribution, 24/7 available teams and all that.
FOSS isn't a magic bullet, it's a development model. The advantages play out in statistical trends, and the differences in those trends can depend on many factors, including how 'open' development is. For example, WannaCry is somewhat comparable, and since it affected XP, the issue likely existed for at least 9 years, if not longer.
Open as in a good way, or open in a bad way? I can see the whole "develop in secret, dump on community" model can have its faults. So can the "we're so short on developers anyone who takes any real interest will get commit privileges" model. I mean, it's one thing to believe that eventually someone will spot an existing bug, but the vast majority of bugs are caught in development as the code is written and - hopefully - reviewed. Security bugs often come from unclear or sloppy code, standards differ wildly between projects.
And also how much is on by default, there's a huge difference in scope between what's in the default configuration and not, even if the severity for those infected is the same. Not that it's a useful benchmark if you have to enable things to make it work normally the way most users would expect, in that case you can pull the plug and the machine will be very safe. The real advantage though is that eventually you start getting reusable components that have stood the test of time. I've "reinvented the wheel" at different companies, simply because you can't just take code with you when you go. There is of course NIH problems and rotten projects in open source too, but it's less of a problem.
They'll be cheaper than a larger rocket ($5M), much more expensive per-pound ($25K/kg vs $6K/kg for F9, $12K for Atlas) but they hope the advantage of picking your own orbit instead of having to share a launcher and resulting trajectory with [others?]
I would think that's a viable market, if you want to observe one spot because you're an Aussie satellite watching Australia you can launch in a polar orbit to make it loop the same place over and over again 14-15 times a day, which few other satellites would have a need for. If you're doing sun-sync polar or GTO or some other "standard" orbit, not so much.
I'm kinda surprised that nobody has tried building a quantum dot display with more than three primaries yet, at least not that I've heard of. Like if you went hex with six primaries I think you should come very, very close to any point on the response curve. Maybe combine it with a hex grid instead of square pixels with every other triangle being the "new" primaries and the other three the old, something like this. That kind of Red-Orange-Yellow-Green-Turquoise-Blue display should kick ass. Now the obvious downside is that you'll only get half the intensity per channel, but then you can balance accuracy for intensity by either giving your intense pure red an extra boost in intensity with the orange channel or keep the red as it is. For blinding white or something like that you can still fire on 6/6 channels instead of 3/3.