I am having a hard time determining whether the theft is real or not. Given the anonymous nature of bitcoin, who's to say that the theft wasn't done by some associate of those running . Then again, does it even make a difference?
ASUS RT-N66U Firmware version 3.0.0.4.374.4422
Security related issues:
1. Fixed lighthttpd vulnerability.
2. Fixed cross-site scripting vulnerability (CWE-79).
3. Fixed the authentication bypass (CWW-592).
4. Added notification to help avoid security risks.
5. Fixed network place(samba) and FTP vulnerability.
Improvement:
1. Redesigned the parental control time setting UI.
2. Updated multi language strings.
3. Adjusted FW checking algorithm.
4. Adjusted Time zone detecting algorithm.
5. Improved web UI performance.
Full disclosure: I would rather the police not be allowed to ticket you for flashing your lights to warn others.
That said, depending on the time of day, could flashing lights still get you a ticket? If it's during the evening, the law requires that you have your lights in working order, and on at all times. So technically, you'd be breaking the law by flashing your lights, no? Of course this is a very strict reading of the law...
From a pure numbers point of view, I would wage a maximum-wage law would affect fewer people than the minimum-wage law. However, what is completely unaddressed is where the extra money that would have gone to uncapped CEO wages would go.
Because the good PDFs would harm the sales of the printed volumes. The HTML forms are better than bad scans, but not good enough to be printed out (like a high quality PDF) by folks who wish to capitalize in copyright infringement.
Full disclosure: I did not pay to read the article. Based on the summary, there are some pretty outstanding flaws. Also, I have not received tenure yet (but will be up for tenure soon). I do spend quite a lot of time off-the-clock (i.e. anywhere not on campus) focusing on how to improve my teaching. I also feel that I am more enthused than some of my older, tenured counterparts. I teach both lower level courses as well as graduate courses. That said,
1. Non-tenure faculty tend to teach lower level courses. From a career standpoint, they are more likely to care about students' reactions to their courses because it could reflect poorly on their tenure portfolio. Grade inflation would not be out of the ordinary. If anything, the results of this study confirm my suspicion that there tends to be more grade inflation among non-tenured faculty. Not only does it make students a bit happier, it means these faculties are less likely to get bad reviews from students (and hence less likely to be fired).
2. Tenured faculty tend to teach more advanced courses. Not only is the material more difficult to learn, one may argue it is more difficult to teach (especially if the students are actually not well prepared due to weak foundations from lower level courses).
Paypal is really stupid -- I would not be surprised if this actually results in the guy finding more bugs and simply just releasing the information without giving Paypal any heads up about it.
When I was a kid, trading video games was the norm. Sometimes I would just borrow my neighbor's copy of a game. We also skipped the middleman altogether -- there was no used video game stores at the time. If I wanted a game that my friend was willing to sell, any used sales happened between the endusers. I am curious what this would mean for people who still consider swapping games, or borrowing each other's games.
...cell phones have been able to do essentially the same thing as Google Glass, only less conveniently? Seriously, where were all you privacy folks back when the first camera was introduced into the cell phone?
People are going to get pissed off at having their data get used by auto-playing video ads when they use FB for phones. Those using FB on desktops will probably figure out some way of filtering out the ads (maybe disable flash, or whatever they use to serve ads).
It would appear speaking into Siri or other applications that do speech to text hasn't been studied enough to make a final decision, but I think it's going to end up OK. This study is a piece of garbage though and falls into bad research, as the software wasn't used as intended in the car.
The only valid study would evaluate the software being used as it is typically used, regardless of the manufacturers intent.
The research is still valid in the sense that most people probably have no idea about "car mode" and "no-eyes" mode.
Hmmm, seems a little shallow to claim the research is valid when it blames the device for ignorance of the operator.
The real problem is something like 60 or 70% of the people have given up on SIRI all together because it just doesn't work all that well.
Except it doesn't blame the device for the ignorance of the operator. The ignorance of the operator is already a given -- they're texting while driving, or trying to do the equivalent thinking that the way they (mis)use Siri makes it safer to text. That they additionally are ignorant of the different modes only further supports the idea that texting while driving (regardless of how it is done) is generally less safer than not texting. At worst, they would simply need to modify it to say that "the way most people use voice-activated texting is no safer than typing" as opposed to just "voice-activated texting is no safer than typing." I would argue the former is rather redundant.
The research is still valid in the sense that most people probably have no idea about "car mode" and "no-eyes" mode. That said, even if you were to consider only those who are aware of such features as your test subjects, I wonder if the data would be any different (provided the test subjects are not explicitly told they must use no-eyes mode and car-mode). I know that if car-mode and no-eyes mode puts many restrictions on Siri, then (for me), Siri would not be as useful.
What the f*ck has happened to the moderators for post submissions? I could understand if there was something cool going on a quirky.com -- maybe a new product, or whatever. The summary has a single link to the front page -- I guess slashdot has become the new way to get free advertising -- and doesn't even mention what the hell "these two changes" are...
Seriously, if you want to send quirky.com your two grand ideas, use your own personal email. Or use their forums.
...how long it would take before Eric Schmidt said something that made me facepalm. Accidentally referring to TOR as "Thor" in the very first topic he brought up was bad, but not bad enough. Admitting right after that that he doesn't really understand what it is or how it works? In 2011? Just two months after stepping down as the CEO of Google? Facepalm.
The other simple explanation is that Eric, as an investigator, wants Assange to share as much information as possible. The best way to do that is to make your audience feel knowledgeable, as if he was an authority on the topic at hand. People do this all the time--not just investigators, but anyone who wants to have their audience participate in the fullest. Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People is an excellent read and may give you a different perspective as to why Eric behaved the way he did during the interview. It is very possible he does not know much about TOR, etc. Or, it may very well be the case that he is deferring authority to the person he wants to have speak freely in the interview.
Google doesn't want developers to incorporate ads into their apps for glass. Lots of app developers create a "free" version of their app that is supported through advertising. It's this particular aspect of advertising that Google is trying to prevent from happening.
Indeed your mileage may vary. I think that there is a significant number of business folks who would love to travel even lighter. So rather than lugging their laptop (for work) onto the plane as a carry-on in addition to their iPad or Android tablet (for play -- i.e. media consumption and basic gaming), they can opt for just the tablet to do minimal office work on a smaller device.
> Maybe if we can do something about the "WE BUY GOLD" and check cashing places
> we can start to clean up these communities.
Right and maybe if we can get fever under control, we can stop malaria.
We all know, afterall, the primary reason they are poor is that they are out there selling their gold and other hard assetts rather than hording them.
The "Check cashers" are pretty eggerious poverty profiteers, and I know people who have ended up fucked by those deals.
It's not the poor that the parent was necessarily referring to. These places often take in stolen goods, and rip off legitimate customers. Granted, a quick Google search would enable the customer to make a sound decision on whether to sell to such places, it does not change the fact that these places rip off customers. Here's a good read:
Slashdot Mirror
I am having a hard time determining whether the theft is real or not. Given the anonymous nature of bitcoin, who's to say that the theft wasn't done by some associate of those running . Then again, does it even make a difference?
ASUS RT-N66U Firmware version 3.0.0.4.374.4422
Security related issues:
1. Fixed lighthttpd vulnerability.
2. Fixed cross-site scripting vulnerability (CWE-79).
3. Fixed the authentication bypass (CWW-592).
4. Added notification to help avoid security risks.
5. Fixed network place(samba) and FTP vulnerability.
Improvement:
1. Redesigned the parental control time setting UI.
2. Updated multi language strings.
3. Adjusted FW checking algorithm.
4. Adjusted Time zone detecting algorithm.
5. Improved web UI performance.
Full disclosure: I would rather the police not be allowed to ticket you for flashing your lights to warn others. That said, depending on the time of day, could flashing lights still get you a ticket? If it's during the evening, the law requires that you have your lights in working order, and on at all times. So technically, you'd be breaking the law by flashing your lights, no? Of course this is a very strict reading of the law...
From a pure numbers point of view, I would wage a maximum-wage law would affect fewer people than the minimum-wage law. However, what is completely unaddressed is where the extra money that would have gone to uncapped CEO wages would go.
You're right -- but instead of preachers, we have a large number of Americans who proudly wear their mathematical ignorance as a badge of honor.
http://www.newsdaily.com/article/f9886d5ca8858bb2ebb18e47106a62f2/dog-doo-scofflaws-get-bagged-through-dna-testing
Personally, Google glass integration would be an awesome feature in either next gen console. I wonder if this is in the pipeline for either...
that was given to them. I find that any number (of people who enjoy the exploitation of children) higher than 0 to be too high.
Because the good PDFs would harm the sales of the printed volumes. The HTML forms are better than bad scans, but not good enough to be printed out (like a high quality PDF) by folks who wish to capitalize in copyright infringement.
Full disclosure: I did not pay to read the article. Based on the summary, there are some pretty outstanding flaws. Also, I have not received tenure yet (but will be up for tenure soon). I do spend quite a lot of time off-the-clock (i.e. anywhere not on campus) focusing on how to improve my teaching. I also feel that I am more enthused than some of my older, tenured counterparts. I teach both lower level courses as well as graduate courses. That said, 1. Non-tenure faculty tend to teach lower level courses. From a career standpoint, they are more likely to care about students' reactions to their courses because it could reflect poorly on their tenure portfolio. Grade inflation would not be out of the ordinary. If anything, the results of this study confirm my suspicion that there tends to be more grade inflation among non-tenured faculty. Not only does it make students a bit happier, it means these faculties are less likely to get bad reviews from students (and hence less likely to be fired). 2. Tenured faculty tend to teach more advanced courses. Not only is the material more difficult to learn, one may argue it is more difficult to teach (especially if the students are actually not well prepared due to weak foundations from lower level courses).
Paypal is really stupid -- I would not be surprised if this actually results in the guy finding more bugs and simply just releasing the information without giving Paypal any heads up about it.
When I was a kid, trading video games was the norm. Sometimes I would just borrow my neighbor's copy of a game. We also skipped the middleman altogether -- there was no used video game stores at the time. If I wanted a game that my friend was willing to sell, any used sales happened between the endusers. I am curious what this would mean for people who still consider swapping games, or borrowing each other's games.
...cell phones have been able to do essentially the same thing as Google Glass, only less conveniently? Seriously, where were all you privacy folks back when the first camera was introduced into the cell phone?
Nothing in the summary links to the actual article in which the charges are noted as dismissed. Here's the relevant link: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/05/video-poker-hacking-dismissed/
People are going to get pissed off at having their data get used by auto-playing video ads when they use FB for phones. Those using FB on desktops will probably figure out some way of filtering out the ads (maybe disable flash, or whatever they use to serve ads).
It would appear speaking into Siri or other applications that do speech to text hasn't been studied enough to make a final decision, but I think it's going to end up OK. This study is a piece of garbage though and falls into bad research, as the software wasn't used as intended in the car.
The only valid study would evaluate the software being used as it is typically used, regardless of the manufacturers intent.
Well said.
The research is still valid in the sense that most people probably have no idea about "car mode" and "no-eyes" mode.
Hmmm, seems a little shallow to claim the research is valid when it blames the device for ignorance of the operator.
The real problem is something like 60 or 70% of the people have given up on SIRI all together because it just doesn't work all that well.
Except it doesn't blame the device for the ignorance of the operator. The ignorance of the operator is already a given -- they're texting while driving, or trying to do the equivalent thinking that the way they (mis)use Siri makes it safer to text. That they additionally are ignorant of the different modes only further supports the idea that texting while driving (regardless of how it is done) is generally less safer than not texting. At worst, they would simply need to modify it to say that "the way most people use voice-activated texting is no safer than typing" as opposed to just "voice-activated texting is no safer than typing." I would argue the former is rather redundant.
The research is still valid in the sense that most people probably have no idea about "car mode" and "no-eyes" mode. That said, even if you were to consider only those who are aware of such features as your test subjects, I wonder if the data would be any different (provided the test subjects are not explicitly told they must use no-eyes mode and car-mode). I know that if car-mode and no-eyes mode puts many restrictions on Siri, then (for me), Siri would not be as useful.
Yes, there is...
much appreciated; would mod up if i could =)
I need to add timothy to my list if there is one.
What the f*ck has happened to the moderators for post submissions? I could understand if there was something cool going on a quirky.com -- maybe a new product, or whatever. The summary has a single link to the front page -- I guess slashdot has become the new way to get free advertising -- and doesn't even mention what the hell "these two changes" are...
Seriously, if you want to send quirky.com your two grand ideas, use your own personal email. Or use their forums.
...how long it would take before Eric Schmidt said something that made me facepalm. Accidentally referring to TOR as "Thor" in the very first topic he brought up was bad, but not bad enough. Admitting right after that that he doesn't really understand what it is or how it works? In 2011? Just two months after stepping down as the CEO of Google? Facepalm.
The other simple explanation is that Eric, as an investigator, wants Assange to share as much information as possible. The best way to do that is to make your audience feel knowledgeable, as if he was an authority on the topic at hand. People do this all the time--not just investigators, but anyone who wants to have their audience participate in the fullest. Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People is an excellent read and may give you a different perspective as to why Eric behaved the way he did during the interview. It is very possible he does not know much about TOR, etc. Or, it may very well be the case that he is deferring authority to the person he wants to have speak freely in the interview.
Google doesn't want developers to incorporate ads into their apps for glass. Lots of app developers create a "free" version of their app that is supported through advertising. It's this particular aspect of advertising that Google is trying to prevent from happening.
Indeed your mileage may vary. I think that there is a significant number of business folks who would love to travel even lighter. So rather than lugging their laptop (for work) onto the plane as a carry-on in addition to their iPad or Android tablet (for play -- i.e. media consumption and basic gaming), they can opt for just the tablet to do minimal office work on a smaller device.
> Maybe if we can do something about the "WE BUY GOLD" and check cashing places > we can start to clean up these communities.
Right and maybe if we can get fever under control, we can stop malaria.
We all know, afterall, the primary reason they are poor is that they are out there selling their gold and other hard assetts rather than hording them.
The "Check cashers" are pretty eggerious poverty profiteers, and I know people who have ended up fucked by those deals.
It's not the poor that the parent was necessarily referring to. These places often take in stolen goods, and rip off legitimate customers. Granted, a quick Google search would enable the customer to make a sound decision on whether to sell to such places, it does not change the fact that these places rip off customers. Here's a good read:
http://www.businessinsider.com/former-employee-reveals-the-seedy-world-of-we-buy-gold-businesses-2012-8