I just realized that I'm not flooded with any Facebook crap. I had better pitch my effective approach to them, though I'd have to visit the Facebook site for the first time in my life to do so.
Isn't this about hardware, not operating systems (other than the OS being able to support the hardware)? And isn't the hardware simply about how much money you have to throw at it?
Assuming one instruction per clock cycle you can do a lot of useful stuff with 128,000 instructions, or put another way probably about one million for every revolution of the wheel
I hereby dub this the new "car analogy" unit. When the speed of a processor is announced, it's now obligatory to ask "How many instructions per revolution (of a car wheel)?"
I'm using a 15-year-old computer to browse Slashdot right now, and it's not because I'm into retro-computing or some kind of self-sacrifice. It meets my needs best of the computers I have or can easily acquire right now, so I use it.
The problem was simply that insurance company B relied on these companies' info. And that's still not violating your rights; what if insurance company rated applicants by rolling dice? Then you probably aren't interested in them. An insurance company using stupid measures of the risk you pose isn't violating your rights.
Sort of, though that article is delivering lots of random facts. The first few sentences show the connection I was talking about:
A man has been killed and his wife critically injured in an attack by a bull in Nottinghamshire. The couple, wearing walking gear, were near the Leicestershire border at about 1630 GMT on Friday when it happened. It is unclear why the bull attacked the pair, who were walking on a public footpath near the village of Stanford on Soar.
The second sentence refers to the man and wife described in the first. The third flows from the first two, exploring the cause of the events described by the first two.
There is some stiltness to the article, for sure. I imagine this is because writers generally work in a multi-pass process. The first pass lays down the facts, and later ones meld them together into something more flowing. With limited time or a low-priority story like this, they skip later passes.
OK, public washroom makes more sense. And I see your point: Google should have been careful not to log so much data, even if they didn't plan on using it. They have lawyers, and even engineers working on systems that collect data throughout cities should know the basics of what is considered private. So I'm not going to assume malice on their part, but have changed my view that they were careless in logging so much data, just as someone would be careless to walk into an airport and claim to be a terrorist, even if just a joke; people will respond badly to such an action.
This story is just more evidence of the sad state of our voting population who just doesn't seem to be aware of the real world and its rules.
Indeed. More and more I see that governments are far more in touch with reality than citizens, who see most things as rich guys with infinite resources who can easily spare however much is needed for others, like free health care, or whatever.
I read over some of the auto-generated content and the main thing I notice is that sentences don't connect to one another. It's like a chatbot where it says one thing, then another, where the two sentences have no connection; you could reverse their order and they're read just the same.
Correction: if the libraries are just about anything besides modified BSD/MIT/zlib-style licensing, you probably need to include the license and author information, at the very least. Not specific to GPL by any means.
Thank you for summarizing things, but not injecting your opinion or cute sarcastic remarks about the companies involved. Slashdot needs more neutral summaries like this.
Your post is fairly convincing, but can you come up with an example that doesn't involve entering private property to install a camera in one of the most private rooms of a house? Google received unencrypted data from radio waves, so your example would better be someone installing a camera in their car and driving down streets taking photos of every house, even though it was just to count the number of houses.
What other recourse do we have? Sure, we could just not log into Facebook, but that would be inconvenient! And we could enable encryption for WiFi, but that too would be inconvenient. It's much easier to force others to do things how we want.
No shit. It's like claiming that my ISP is collecting data about my traffic because as a side-effect of how their routers work, some of the data is left in their memory for a period of time after they've routed the packet.
As I understand it, Google was collecting information about WiFi signals, particularly their names and locations. It chose to do so in a way that just logged everything their antennas picked up, so that they could then sift out the useful information later. Maybe their idea was that doing the sifting later avoided them missing something important, due to a software bug or something. It's like the way you use a digital camera: take lots of pictures, and pick out the good ones later, rather than be picky when taking and possibly miss an important shot.
Hell, when I walk down a street, the WiFi signals hitting my body probably leave some kind of signature in my molecules, perhaps moving them a bit, or changing their temperature slightly. Perhaps there's some way of extracting that information and OMG determining the data that was being transmitted as I walked past. Am I violating their privacy too? The question is whether I actually tried to extract said data. Did Google try to make use of this packet data it collected, or was it merely part of the noise they had to filter out later?
However, if you current go into gdb and set 'watch 0x{address}', you're going to take a breakpoint every single time that pointer is accessed.. Wouldn't it be great to do something like 'watch 0x{address} NULL' and only stop your debugger whenever 0 gets written into that address?
If you can set a hardware breakpoint, then you can do the conditional in software, only slower. So this sounds like hardware acceleration, which is very useful, as it can make something go from way too slow to no speed hit at all.
Great tip; it's weird at first writing "if( NULL != p )", and you get a few funny stares, but after seeing enough "if( i = 10 )"s lying within seemingly-functional code, it's an easy selling point to make.
I'm strongly against this. I use a compiler so I can write clear code, rather than assembly language. A compiler can catch all unintented assignments like this, by giving a warning whenever the result of an assignment is used as the condition, without any further comparison.
I find that it's much clearer to me to put the changing value on the left, and the thing it should equal on the right. So let's say I've got a loop that steps i through various values, and if i matches j, I do something. I'd write that as if(i==j), not if(j==i), even though they are equivalent. Mentally asking if "the value I'm looking for matches the value of i" is just backwards. Again, the compiler's job is to allow me to express things clearly. It can warn of assignments in if conditions, so I enable that and get on with coding for clarity.
Same here. I have a local search page where you type your query, then click on the appropriate button, e.g. "Wikipedia", "IMDB", etc.
A while back Google had put up their old 2000-era index, for fun, and you could do a web search using it. I switched to that immediately, since the results were much higher quality, even if 10 years out of date. Unfortunately they disabled that a few weeks after.
Slashdot Mirror
I just realized that I'm not flooded with any Facebook crap. I had better pitch my effective approach to them, though I'd have to visit the Facebook site for the first time in my life to do so.
I think Shitty Euphemism Causing Unjustified Retarded Expenditures describes DRM pretty well.
Isn't this about hardware, not operating systems (other than the OS being able to support the hardware)? And isn't the hardware simply about how much money you have to throw at it?
I hereby dub this the new "car analogy" unit. When the speed of a processor is announced, it's now obligatory to ask "How many instructions per revolution (of a car wheel)?"
I'm using a 15-year-old computer to browse Slashdot right now, and it's not because I'm into retro-computing or some kind of self-sacrifice. It meets my needs best of the computers I have or can easily acquire right now, so I use it.
The problem was simply that insurance company B relied on these companies' info. And that's still not violating your rights; what if insurance company rated applicants by rolling dice? Then you probably aren't interested in them. An insurance company using stupid measures of the risk you pose isn't violating your rights.
The second sentence refers to the man and wife described in the first. The third flows from the first two, exploring the cause of the events described by the first two.
There is some stiltness to the article, for sure. I imagine this is because writers generally work in a multi-pass process. The first pass lays down the facts, and later ones meld them together into something more flowing. With limited time or a low-priority story like this, they skip later passes.
OK, public washroom makes more sense. And I see your point: Google should have been careful not to log so much data, even if they didn't plan on using it. They have lawyers, and even engineers working on systems that collect data throughout cities should know the basics of what is considered private. So I'm not going to assume malice on their part, but have changed my view that they were careless in logging so much data, just as someone would be careless to walk into an airport and claim to be a terrorist, even if just a joke; people will respond badly to such an action.
Indeed. More and more I see that governments are far more in touch with reality than citizens, who see most things as rich guys with infinite resources who can easily spare however much is needed for others, like free health care, or whatever.
I read over some of the auto-generated content and the main thing I notice is that sentences don't connect to one another. It's like a chatbot where it says one thing, then another, where the two sentences have no connection; you could reverse their order and they're read just the same.
Correction: if the libraries are just about anything besides modified BSD/MIT/zlib-style licensing, you probably need to include the license and author information, at the very least. Not specific to GPL by any means.
How about only allowing a given app to edit files in Documents that have particular file extensions?
Thank you for summarizing things, but not injecting your opinion or cute sarcastic remarks about the companies involved. Slashdot needs more neutral summaries like this.
Your post is fairly convincing, but can you come up with an example that doesn't involve entering private property to install a camera in one of the most private rooms of a house? Google received unencrypted data from radio waves, so your example would better be someone installing a camera in their car and driving down streets taking photos of every house, even though it was just to count the number of houses.
I think this guy would disagree about Tetris reducing PTSD.
I think that resolving the trauma is the best approach, which is different than merely coping. It's also the most difficult.
What other recourse do we have? Sure, we could just not log into Facebook, but that would be inconvenient! And we could enable encryption for WiFi, but that too would be inconvenient. It's much easier to force others to do things how we want.
As I understand it, Google was collecting information about WiFi signals, particularly their names and locations. It chose to do so in a way that just logged everything their antennas picked up, so that they could then sift out the useful information later. Maybe their idea was that doing the sifting later avoided them missing something important, due to a software bug or something. It's like the way you use a digital camera: take lots of pictures, and pick out the good ones later, rather than be picky when taking and possibly miss an important shot.
Hell, when I walk down a street, the WiFi signals hitting my body probably leave some kind of signature in my molecules, perhaps moving them a bit, or changing their temperature slightly. Perhaps there's some way of extracting that information and OMG determining the data that was being transmitted as I walked past. Am I violating their privacy too? The question is whether I actually tried to extract said data. Did Google try to make use of this packet data it collected, or was it merely part of the noise they had to filter out later?
The high price is just because it's already jailbroken, complete with BASIC when you power it on.
If you can set a hardware breakpoint, then you can do the conditional in software, only slower. So this sounds like hardware acceleration, which is very useful, as it can make something go from way too slow to no speed hit at all.
I'm strongly against this. I use a compiler so I can write clear code, rather than assembly language. A compiler can catch all unintented assignments like this, by giving a warning whenever the result of an assignment is used as the condition, without any further comparison.
I find that it's much clearer to me to put the changing value on the left, and the thing it should equal on the right. So let's say I've got a loop that steps i through various values, and if i matches j, I do something. I'd write that as if(i==j), not if(j==i), even though they are equivalent. Mentally asking if "the value I'm looking for matches the value of i" is just backwards. Again, the compiler's job is to allow me to express things clearly. It can warn of assignments in if conditions, so I enable that and get on with coding for clarity.
Hi, this is your younger brother, Green Ring of Death. I was born after you moved out.
That's why I always have meat wallpaper on my computer. Unfortunately I tend to eat often.
I think I've seen something with a foot interface that keeps the hands free before. I guess the "...on a computer" part makes it an original invention that nobody would have thought of.
A while back Google had put up their old 2000-era index, for fun, and you could do a web search using it. I switched to that immediately, since the results were much higher quality, even if 10 years out of date. Unfortunately they disabled that a few weeks after.