Google is not and SHOULD not be the thought police
Well, if they have no hand in what the algorithms produce, they'll be even more gamed than they already are. I'm sure trolls and political operatives would love that.
Be cautious, of course, but if you're afraid all the time then the hackers/terrorists are winning.
They don't want you to be afraid. They want you to take the blue pill with a glass of DHMO and go back to sleep.
"They" as in the manufacturers and advertisers would prefer you use their services without a thought toward privacy. "They" as in the news outlets, security vendors, and nanny state, crusading politicians do want you to be scared.
But then you're just moving the security from one device (the television) to another (the router).
It turns out all TVs have are vulnerable to infrared hacking! If your window is open, hackers can control your TV! This just moves the security from the TV to the blinds.
There is NO GOOD REASON why televisions need to be designed in such a way that they are vulnerable to this kind of hacking, especially if people don't really want or need a lot of "smart TV" features, i.e. just watching over the air broadcasts, or DVD/BluRay discs, or playing video games.
Then don't put it on your network. Problem solved.
The have undertaken a large scale test of diesel fumes on humans. Their "clean diesel" cars were designed to emit large amounts of NOx. Major cities around the world have been subject to these tests and are showing a predictable rise in deaths.
Citation please.
I see a well-publicized paper making long-term projections, but I can't find anything with observed higher death rates.
You just need a list of rectangular hulls for viewer and objects. Some (map) compile time later, you are done. It is similar to the vis programs for walls currently.
Then the server just looks up where you are and where person is and send info on whether, and where, to draw them.
This is neither prohibitive in ram or runtime cpu. Searching for containment of point in a few hundred or thousand solid rectangles (don't need fine granularity) is almost instantaneous nowadays.
I get this is an old topic but I think you're ignoring the size and geometric complexity of PUBG maps and the player counts. It sounds like it would work better on older simpler games.
The solution also ignores games like Fortnite Battle Royale which include player-built structures or deformable terrain and ignores the difficulties with differing client latencies and popping into and out of view, how to handle audio for unseen enemies, etc.
It just sounds like a much bigger hassle than good match making and reporting/analytics (as suggested in the linked stack exchange).
I agree, Bright was a surprisingly enjoyable movie. Certainly not a very intelligent movie or anything, but for a fantasy romp it was plenty good and just the right length.
That was my takeaway. I'm glad I did not pay $15 to see it in a theater, but I would definitely watch it again under the right circumstances. The world they created holds up surprisingly well and even got me to think a little bit about race/class.
So in the end, Intel is going to make a shitton of money on Meltdown and Spectre because everybody is supposed to buy their new, fixed CPUs
That was most of Slashdot's initial reading on the situation:
Their stock is going nowhere but up. The time it takes them to correct their architecture is far lower than the time it will take all their customers to migrate to a different architecture.
I have two young ones and I just figure, my parents did fine on date nights when I was growing up with no cell phones. It's a foreign concept now but the way you used to do it was leave a series of emergency contacts. As for the always on call part, not sure what that's all about.
An iPad is a computer. I am at a loss to understand the outrage. Does it do everything everyone might want? No. Does any other computer do anything anyone might want? No.
Ads are generally dumb. There is no reason to get mad.
Outrage? Not sure I'm detecting that anywhere. It's clear that here people miss the point of the commercial: The question is meant to be more open ended than the way the kid poses it. It's meant to operate on both levels.
Really, the basic, incorrect assumption here is that a 'tablet computer' is some totally different device compared to any other computer; it's not, it's just a different form-factor that doesn't include a keyboard and a pointing device (not counting the touchscreen interface) by default -- and you can add them easily.
The narrative is annoying, but the premise of the commercial is not "computers are archaic" but "The iPad Pro is a good computer." That is, adults are supposed to watch the commercial and think that, yes, a well executed tablet meets the criteria for 'computer' and is sufficient for my needs.
The kid's question is meant to be taken both ways. And I am not trying to make Apple look better as I hate so many of their other ads, I just think it's a well done spot.
with social networking, it isn't possible to ignore what people think of you, and how much better than you their life is, and who they spend their time with.
Well, some would say social networking is a strange game: The only winning move is not to play.
Though I work with computers I don't use them to read books. I have an epaper reader for that. What's your experience for reading for long times on LCDs?
I was under the impression that it wasn't very good for your eyes. I even read some people developed eyesight problems because of that
I don't think they're actually going after the novel reading market. They probably are looking to capitalize on people who buy books and don't read them cover to cover. Like coffee table books, possibly text or reference books, and the like.
E-Ink makes a hug difference, IMO, when you're just plowing through text. I think most people who try both types of screens very quickly see the difference. Plus, and this is not Apple's or Amazon's or anybody's fault by mine, I get more reading done when I'm not reading on a device that has Youtube, Slashdot, etc.
It is notable that their engine uses electrically powered pumps for fuel and oxidizer. Most rocket engines use turbo pumps that burn fuel to spin a turbine that is connected to these pumps, which require a respectable amount of power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Here, they use LiPo batteries to power DC electric pumps (2x 50hp), which reduced complexity and cost. I was quite surprised that this is a feasible approach.
I have a feeling it's only feasible at such a relatively small scale, compared to other orbital rocket engines. It probably saves a lot on cost and complexity.
Are they sure they don't mean "Norway to make all short-haul flights trains by 2040?" And, yes, I am aware of Norway's geography, it just seems like electric passenger flight is... uncertain at best.
Slashdot Mirror
You're the one making the claim that has to be defended. You're saying that this new stream of disinformation has no effect.
How can somebody disprove an effect if nobody is able to describe or quantify it?
Google is not and SHOULD not be the thought police
Well, if they have no hand in what the algorithms produce, they'll be even more gamed than they already are. I'm sure trolls and political operatives would love that.
It's Gizmodo, not Ars, but yes: this was dumb, and rejecting the request is appropriate.
My bad. That's what I get for replying on my phone.
This excuse smells like, "We don't even think enough of your request to give it thoughtful rejection."
To be fair, it's a pretty stupid request designed to make Ars look clever, not serve the national interest.
Be cautious, of course, but if you're afraid all the time then the hackers/terrorists are winning.
They don't want you to be afraid. They want you to take the blue pill with a glass of DHMO and go back to sleep.
"They" as in the manufacturers and advertisers would prefer you use their services without a thought toward privacy. "They" as in the news outlets, security vendors, and nanny state, crusading politicians do want you to be scared.
But then you're just moving the security from one device (the television) to another (the router).
It turns out all TVs have are vulnerable to infrared hacking! If your window is open, hackers can control your TV! This just moves the security from the TV to the blinds.
There is NO GOOD REASON why televisions need to be designed in such a way that they are vulnerable to this kind of hacking, especially if people don't really want or need a lot of "smart TV" features, i.e. just watching over the air broadcasts, or DVD/BluRay discs, or playing video games.
Then don't put it on your network. Problem solved.
There's one more burn, I believe, in several hours.
We've moved to a mostly cashless society and made a handful of banks the arbiters of what we're allowed to buy.
And Bitcoin is designed explicitly to prevent this kind of abuse. Of course they're afraid of it.
Cash is what explicitly prevents that kind of abuse, and it's still around.
Windows 7 reaches of end of life in 2020.
The problem with these kinds of standards is that they usually settle on the cheapest, crappiest thing. MicroUSB is the perfect example
I think by most metrics, micro USB has been a wildly successful standard. What is it the perfect example of?
Since you don't seem to be able to use the Google, I'll get you started,. https://phys.org/news/2015-09-... https://www.epa.gov/no2-pollut... http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/1...
Nice links--none of which show or even claim to show a correlation between Volkswagens specifically and the death rate.
The have undertaken a large scale test of diesel fumes on humans. Their "clean diesel" cars were designed to emit large amounts of NOx. Major cities around the world have been subject to these tests and are showing a predictable rise in deaths.
Citation please.
I see a well-publicized paper making long-term projections, but I can't find anything with observed higher death rates.
You just need a list of rectangular hulls for viewer and objects. Some (map) compile time later, you are done. It is similar to the vis programs for walls currently.
Then the server just looks up where you are and where person is and send info on whether, and where, to draw them.
This is neither prohibitive in ram or runtime cpu. Searching for containment of point in a few hundred or thousand solid rectangles (don't need fine granularity) is almost instantaneous nowadays.
I get this is an old topic but I think you're ignoring the size and geometric complexity of PUBG maps and the player counts. It sounds like it would work better on older simpler games.
The solution also ignores games like Fortnite Battle Royale which include player-built structures or deformable terrain and ignores the difficulties with differing client latencies and popping into and out of view, how to handle audio for unseen enemies, etc.
It just sounds like a much bigger hassle than good match making and reporting/analytics (as suggested in the linked stack exchange).
Hollywood asks everyone to pay $10-$15+ for a theater ticket or DVD to see their movie.
That is completely irrelevant. Many of us have the disposable incomes to not care about spending $15 for entertainment.
Hell, why not just buy all the seats so you don't have to put up with other people?
I've already payed for the service, so when they release anything that looks remotely appealing, I watch it.
There are no refunds for lost time.
Then don't finish what you don't like.
I agree, Bright was a surprisingly enjoyable movie. Certainly not a very intelligent movie or anything, but for a fantasy romp it was plenty good and just the right length.
That was my takeaway. I'm glad I did not pay $15 to see it in a theater, but I would definitely watch it again under the right circumstances. The world they created holds up surprisingly well and even got me to think a little bit about race/class.
So in the end, Intel is going to make a shitton of money on Meltdown and Spectre because everybody is supposed to buy their new, fixed CPUs
That was most of Slashdot's initial reading on the situation:
Their stock is going nowhere but up. The time it takes them to correct their architecture is far lower than the time it will take all their customers to migrate to a different architecture.
I have two young ones and I just figure, my parents did fine on date nights when I was growing up with no cell phones. It's a foreign concept now but the way you used to do it was leave a series of emergency contacts. As for the always on call part, not sure what that's all about.
An iPad is a computer. I am at a loss to understand the outrage. Does it do everything everyone might want? No. Does any other computer do anything anyone might want? No.
Ads are generally dumb. There is no reason to get mad.
Outrage? Not sure I'm detecting that anywhere. It's clear that here people miss the point of the commercial: The question is meant to be more open ended than the way the kid poses it. It's meant to operate on both levels.
What, after all, is a computer?
Really, the basic, incorrect assumption here is that a 'tablet computer' is some totally different device compared to any other computer; it's not, it's just a different form-factor that doesn't include a keyboard and a pointing device (not counting the touchscreen interface) by default -- and you can add them easily.
The narrative is annoying, but the premise of the commercial is not "computers are archaic" but "The iPad Pro is a good computer." That is, adults are supposed to watch the commercial and think that, yes, a well executed tablet meets the criteria for 'computer' and is sufficient for my needs.
The kid's question is meant to be taken both ways. And I am not trying to make Apple look better as I hate so many of their other ads, I just think it's a well done spot.
with social networking, it isn't possible to ignore what people think of you, and how much better than you their life is, and who they spend their time with.
Well, some would say social networking is a strange game: The only winning move is not to play.
Though I work with computers I don't use them to read books. I have an epaper reader for that. What's your experience for reading for long times on LCDs? I was under the impression that it wasn't very good for your eyes. I even read some people developed eyesight problems because of that
I don't think they're actually going after the novel reading market. They probably are looking to capitalize on people who buy books and don't read them cover to cover. Like coffee table books, possibly text or reference books, and the like.
E-Ink makes a hug difference, IMO, when you're just plowing through text. I think most people who try both types of screens very quickly see the difference. Plus, and this is not Apple's or Amazon's or anybody's fault by mine, I get more reading done when I'm not reading on a device that has Youtube, Slashdot, etc.
It is notable that their engine uses electrically powered pumps for fuel and oxidizer. Most rocket engines use turbo pumps that burn fuel to spin a turbine that is connected to these pumps, which require a respectable amount of power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Here, they use LiPo batteries to power DC electric pumps (2x 50hp), which reduced complexity and cost. I was quite surprised that this is a feasible approach.
I have a feeling it's only feasible at such a relatively small scale, compared to other orbital rocket engines. It probably saves a lot on cost and complexity.
Somebody tell me the last time a sitting CEO of a very large profitable company admitted to a recent mistake.
Are they sure they don't mean "Norway to make all short-haul flights trains by 2040?" And, yes, I am aware of Norway's geography, it just seems like electric passenger flight is... uncertain at best.