So, what is really needed is a one seated car with no gadgets installed and which block cell phone traffic. CityEl, this one has 1 seat and not enough room for you to actually move your hands, let alone use your phone - and certainly no room for kids.
I absolutely agree, but the focus on phones has got to go. We are not trying to ban the use of phones in cars, we are trying to get the driver to pay attention to driving, and phones (right now) seem to be the biggest culprit. Banning phones in cars still leaves a million - 1 ways to distract a driver.
Rather than try to restrict the near endless possibilities for distraction, we need technology to ensure a driver's attention on the road. For instance, my phone (S3G) has a rather cool feature called Smart Stay; it basically uses the front camera to detect if I'm still looking at the screen, to help decide if the screen should lock.
This feature could be made to work for cars as well, detecting where the driver has his/her attention and (akin to seat belts) make an annoying sound, throttle the engine or whatever else seems to be an appropriate for a driver not paying attention. Obviously work needs to be done, but the general idea is there.
That's actually quite valid. It is well established that a larger soda contains more calories than a small soda, and it is well established and agreed on that more calories causes additional body fat, and an excess of additional body fat leads to obesity.
That assumes that everybody who buys the forbidden soda, in the forbidden cup, has too much body fat. For this moronic suggestion to work it needs to be coupled with a BMI number for each costumer - you must be this thin to drink from this fountain.
a corporation that is interested in making a profit is actually practicing mismanagement when it implements a high quality anti-theft system.
Interested in maximizing their profit. There is such a thing as corporate social responsibility, and anti-theft measures do no exclude thinking of the bottom line.
I don't think that is how it works in Saudi Arabia. You might be able to hide what you're doing, but that doesn't stop them from hauling your ass off to prison and beating the what out of you. You can hide behind Tor all you like, if the offense is using Tor in the first place you're screwed.
They will figure out how to use that extra power somewhere, leaving us at around the same runtime as before.
"They"? Either the device is doing work four times more consuming, your device can stand by four times longer, or your device's battery is approximately four times lighter. Sure, retarded marketing drones are going to figure out a way to stuff four times the amount of adware onto a new laptop, but let's face it, they were going to do that regardless.
Assuming a 4 times increase in battery life at all scales and no size decrease, this would quadruple the range of electric cars - all for a simple battery tech switch. And the batteries are made partly from waste in another industry.
Yeah I rechecked my settings after posting and you're right. It's Google APIs that break stuff. However, site owners still have retarded dependencies on those. I frequently run into problems with sites that have a little map in a widget off to the side. If Google APIs are blocked, the whole site stutters and falls on it's face, when it shouldn't.
That is really not how kids work. They want immediate results, they do not want to fiddle with a program for a week to get their design to a stage they are happy with. If that happens they will find other stuff to do. This exercise is about getting kids interested, not weed out the majority because they don't have the patience for 3D modelling. Come time when they do, and stand in front of the choice "do I become an engineer?" you want them to remember their brush with NASA fondly, not as a week of endless torment in front of a program they didn't understand.
The problem with noscript is that once you allow a domain, it's allowed regardless of which site you allowed it on. This is a huge problem, since I might trust domain x to use jQuery's CDN, but not site y. If I allow jQuery CDN it's allowed for both. Try blocking google-analytics for instance, and see how many sites break - for no other reason than that they want analytics to run, and their scripts check for this (or depend on it in some retarded way, I'm not sure). That means in order to use a handful of sites that have retarded dependencies, I have to allow this idiocy for every site i visit.
The other problem with the granularity is that most professional sites pull in javascript from multiple domains, so it turns into a treasure hunt trying to find the handful of domains you need to unblock before the site works. And it's even more fun when the site has hidden dependencies, that only pop up after you allow a domain on the list - making the already long list expand dynamically. And of course there's no way to see the script you're allowing unless you want to sift through the entire source of the page.
This is why noscript remains a nerd tool, the menu has a function that allows all scripts on a given site, a ripe choice of you already have the "click through" mentality. What a user sees is "lots of choices, this one makes the problem go away" and once that is learned the whole point of noscript goes the way of Windows UAC - yes, yes, yes, oh shut up.
TL;DR: noscript is good advice, although it requires far more user maintenance than resonable.
I'd say the opposite. The Android "permissions at install" system is fundamentally broken.
Oh yes, there are a lot of ways to improve the system. I don't agree that it is fundamentally broken though, and the rest of your post says you don't either.
The right way to do it is to ask at the time the app first asks for a resource. That way you have context. You know what you asked the app to do, or the app can explain why it wants the permission.
I don't think putting any faith in what a developer has to say about "why" the app needs the permissions is the way to go, from experience we know that good devs will tell the truth and malicious devs will tell the lie to resemble the truth. So that has no value, unless you add some kind of static analysis to the report prior to presenting the request to the user (a list of imported functions perhaps).
I am all for making the system as transparent as possible, but I don't think "just-in-time" assignment of privilege adds much in terms of fusing usability with security. And it would not scale very well for a device with alot of diverse privileged equipment attached, you'd bombard the user with requests in the middle of a workflow - encouraging the dreaded "click through" mentality.
With Android other than stuff like Cornerstone that Google hates there is no way to run even 2 apps at the same time.
True, but there are technical reasons for this decision. Namely battery life and screen real estate. The meme with Android is to not waste battery life on something the user can't see, and secure a fast start/stop cycle for apps instead. This is of course not very usable on a desktop or laptop (might not even be for a tablet, I don't know since I don't use a tablet), and would be one of the things that needs to be addressed, should Android move towards more general computing. As I said, Android isn't quite suited for general purpose computing yet, but it could be.
Android doesn't have any really high quality apps other than niche stuff. iOS has some.
That might be true, I don't know enough about the iOS ecosystem to be the judge of that. The value of Android is not what the platform supports right now, it is the design philosophy behind it. Finally an OS shop is trying to rethink security without tacking it on after or making it an opt-in that gets ignored.
Directly observed - this planet has been imaged. Most of the confirmed planets from the Kepler mission are inferred from the dip in luminosity the parent star exhibits when the planet transitions across it, as viewed from Earth, or we can infer that there are planets/binary partner if a star "wobbles". Direct images of exo-planets are rare, even this one a mere 300 LY away is still only a tiny blip on the screen.
Usability should come naturally with feedback I would presume, and if we're lucky Android won't blow up into a million different incompatible distros run by enormous egos with no regard for their end users, always chasing the hottest new fad (I know this is not always the case, but standing outside looking in at the community around GNU/Linux, that is what it looks like to an every day user).
I'm really hoping Android can take off as an alternative to Windows, iOS and GNU/Linux. Both Windows and GNU/Linux suffer from the "keys to the kingdom or bust" security model, while Android manages to be the sensible middle ground. Educating everyday users about security is tedious, and much of that comes from the fact that you can't really secure your device without a lot of technical knowledge about it.
The Android way of attaching permissions to parts of the system to an app at install time takes much of the magic hand waving out of it That way it becomes a very clear question of "does this farmville app really need GPS tracking data and access to the phone id?", instead of "for an unknown reason this app needs full admin rights!". To me that is a win for the end user.
Acting like an asshat turns her on at home huh? Good for you.
Having a sense of how it is to walk a mile in somebody's shoes goes a long way towards being happy in a relationship. That goes both ways, and has nothing to do with feminism, it is what smart people do, instead of acting like a retarded caveman.
I guess the key would be familiarity with the platform, like how Windows has managed to stay on top for so long. If you can get people to accept Android on their computer, you might just have a way to break the monopoly. You're right that Android doesn't seem very suited as a general purpose computing platform, but that could change.
I don't want to be embarassed when others see me with her, nor do I want her to be embarassed when others see her with me.
That's not a girlfriend, that's a tattoo.
Online dating--the person representing themselves as a woman could be catfishing and really be a man. Of they could be bisexual. Or they may be a heterosexual woman but they photoshopped their picture. They may want someone's person information and then not give much information themselves.
Online dating is not a substitute for meeting in person, it is a way to extend your reach for a higher chance of meeting someone compatible, and then meeting in person. And so what if the one you've set up a date with turns out to be a lesbian dolphin trainer? Worst case scenario: you wasted an evening and have a new story to tell.
I've known many guys who talked pretty much like that. High standards that don't apply to themselves, and for some odd reason - they're all single. Baffling.
I think that's wrong primarily because of the religious nature of the conflict. It's far more widespread than a tiny group in power on either side. The vast majority of the population DOES care about and support the conflict, if only out of religious and ethnic pride. Pakistan is a country where school textbooks talk about one Muslim soldier equaling 10 Hindu soldiers.
Well yeah, as I said "propaganda machine(s)". The source of the information is quite irrelevant, it only matters that it is wrong. Further, it only matters that the information is obtained with "education", hence the use of propaganda machines. You don't just get born in the wrong place and then you mysteriously hate [insert ethnic group], that crazy shit is learned A group of guys, too small to be called a majority in any sense of the word, has churned out propaganda to such a degree that these people actually believe that the savages in the north is coming to get them, with nukes. How is that not imagined? Yeah, a lot of real casualties has been the result, many, many more than mainstream news bothers to account for, the cause is still a bunch of guys on a power trip.
But I do get your point, as it is now these people hate each other, a common trait in neighboring countries actually. Someone forgotten by history needed a handy excuse to ransack some villages. These days another group of people is using this cultural legacy to further their own cause, because you don't just build nukes for fun. As my original post pointed out, it's a huge fucking waste of money - if those bad boys ever fly you can be damn well sure the guys who pushed the buttons are not going to live it down, and I'm willing to bet the guys making up the Indian government knows this. Hence the use of the phrase "imaginary enemies", those weapons are not going to fly and if they do the guys who built them will not benefit.
The divide between rich and poor is defined by the wealth of the rich compared to the wealth of the poor. If there were no gap between the wealth of the rich and the wealth of the poor, they wouldn't be rich and poor! So I'm having a hard time understanding what you're trying to say. If you're not trying to talk about wealth or the amount of dollars, can you say it a different way than talking about the rich and the poor?
I don't get this obsession with wealth. You can have a perfectly "fine" country and still have a war on your hands, namely because there is a class of people who have no power, and a class that does. The gap between them is in their influence on their daily lives, some of that is money, some is what you are allowed to spend it on, and some are quite unrelated to wealth. The Gini coefficient is quote useless if you want to predict a riot.
A hungry tiger in a confined space is a very real enemy, a pakistani not so much.
Irrelevant.
I beg to differ.
The slights are imagined, the dispute is over some backwater mountain region none of the countries actually want, except because their neighbor does
Some are strategically good mountain regions.
Their value is mostly strategic... and you don't see the point? At all? The two countries are enemies, but it is not from a natural urge to be enemies, which makes the conflict rather artificial.
No indian and no pakistani is born hating their neighbor, that hate is taught.
Right, so dying in Kargil must have been present for the soldiers. Great to know that.
You think slights are behind the conflicts between India and Pakistan?
Yes, I absolutely do. In the sense that it is a tiny group of power whores on one side against a tiny group of power whores on the other, the vast majority of their "subjects" do not give a flying fuck about the "conflict". Now, propaganda machines on both sides may skew the actual answers to the question "do you give a fuck?" to make it seem like there is an actual conflict, that doesn't mean that it wasn't artificial to begin with.
Know who had greater equality than the US (measured by Gini coefficient) in 2006-2007? Tunisia, Egypt, Pakistan among many others... I highlighted those because you would be insane to think that they were more stable than US.
It remains to be seen how stable the US is. The Gini coefficient is used to measure relative wealth, I said nothing of wealth, in fact what I said was that it is not the amount of dollars in a country that makes for a stable country, it is the divide between rich and poor. I should probably have said underclass and ruling class, but the divide is the important part. You can have a Gini coefficient of 0 and still be in civil war (nobody has any income).
Slashdot Mirror
So, what is really needed is a one seated car with no gadgets installed and which block cell phone traffic. CityEl, this one has 1 seat and not enough room for you to actually move your hands, let alone use your phone - and certainly no room for kids.
I absolutely agree, but the focus on phones has got to go. We are not trying to ban the use of phones in cars, we are trying to get the driver to pay attention to driving, and phones (right now) seem to be the biggest culprit. Banning phones in cars still leaves a million - 1 ways to distract a driver.
Rather than try to restrict the near endless possibilities for distraction, we need technology to ensure a driver's attention on the road. For instance, my phone (S3G) has a rather cool feature called Smart Stay; it basically uses the front camera to detect if I'm still looking at the screen, to help decide if the screen should lock.
This feature could be made to work for cars as well, detecting where the driver has his/her attention and (akin to seat belts) make an annoying sound, throttle the engine or whatever else seems to be an appropriate for a driver not paying attention. Obviously work needs to be done, but the general idea is there.
That's actually quite valid. It is well established that a larger soda contains more calories than a small soda, and it is well established and agreed on that more calories causes additional body fat, and an excess of additional body fat leads to obesity.
That assumes that everybody who buys the forbidden soda, in the forbidden cup, has too much body fat. For this moronic suggestion to work it needs to be coupled with a BMI number for each costumer - you must be this thin to drink from this fountain.
a corporation that is interested in making a profit is actually practicing mismanagement when it implements a high quality anti-theft system.
Interested in maximizing their profit. There is such a thing as corporate social responsibility, and anti-theft measures do no exclude thinking of the bottom line.
I don't think that is how it works in Saudi Arabia. You might be able to hide what you're doing, but that doesn't stop them from hauling your ass off to prison and beating the what out of you. You can hide behind Tor all you like, if the offense is using Tor in the first place you're screwed.
Thank you - well said. And to add nothing of value, may I point out that the article is about a team of researchers who literally has done the work.
Just wait, till my pocket-warmer app comes out.
Lemme guess, Bitcoin/SETI@Home full screen client with 3D accelerated visualization?
Says the Anonymous Coward
Not a chemist, but the article specifically points out that the materials are not flammable, so I guess no?
They will figure out how to use that extra power somewhere, leaving us at around the same runtime as before.
"They"? Either the device is doing work four times more consuming, your device can stand by four times longer, or your device's battery is approximately four times lighter. Sure, retarded marketing drones are going to figure out a way to stuff four times the amount of adware onto a new laptop, but let's face it, they were going to do that regardless.
Assuming a 4 times increase in battery life at all scales and no size decrease, this would quadruple the range of electric cars - all for a simple battery tech switch. And the batteries are made partly from waste in another industry.
Yeah I rechecked my settings after posting and you're right. It's Google APIs that break stuff. However, site owners still have retarded dependencies on those. I frequently run into problems with sites that have a little map in a widget off to the side. If Google APIs are blocked, the whole site stutters and falls on it's face, when it shouldn't.
That is really not how kids work. They want immediate results, they do not want to fiddle with a program for a week to get their design to a stage they are happy with. If that happens they will find other stuff to do.
This exercise is about getting kids interested, not weed out the majority because they don't have the patience for 3D modelling. Come time when they do, and stand in front of the choice "do I become an engineer?" you want them to remember their brush with NASA fondly, not as a week of endless torment in front of a program they didn't understand.
The problem with noscript is that once you allow a domain, it's allowed regardless of which site you allowed it on. This is a huge problem, since I might trust domain x to use jQuery's CDN, but not site y. If I allow jQuery CDN it's allowed for both. Try blocking google-analytics for instance, and see how many sites break - for no other reason than that they want analytics to run, and their scripts check for this (or depend on it in some retarded way, I'm not sure). That means in order to use a handful of sites that have retarded dependencies, I have to allow this idiocy for every site i visit.
The other problem with the granularity is that most professional sites pull in javascript from multiple domains, so it turns into a treasure hunt trying to find the handful of domains you need to unblock before the site works. And it's even more fun when the site has hidden dependencies, that only pop up after you allow a domain on the list - making the already long list expand dynamically. And of course there's no way to see the script you're allowing unless you want to sift through the entire source of the page.
This is why noscript remains a nerd tool, the menu has a function that allows all scripts on a given site, a ripe choice of you already have the "click through" mentality. What a user sees is "lots of choices, this one makes the problem go away" and once that is learned the whole point of noscript goes the way of Windows UAC - yes, yes, yes, oh shut up.
TL;DR: noscript is good advice, although it requires far more user maintenance than resonable.
So my answer is it's convenient and life enhancing. :-)
Straight and to the point UI design tends to have that kind of impact on people, I guess I need to look into BlueStacks.
I'd say the opposite. The Android "permissions at install" system is fundamentally broken.
Oh yes, there are a lot of ways to improve the system. I don't agree that it is fundamentally broken though, and the rest of your post says you don't either.
The right way to do it is to ask at the time the app first asks for a resource. That way you have context. You know what you asked the app to do, or the app can explain why it wants the permission.
I don't think putting any faith in what a developer has to say about "why" the app needs the permissions is the way to go, from experience we know that good devs will tell the truth and malicious devs will tell the lie to resemble the truth. So that has no value, unless you add some kind of static analysis to the report prior to presenting the request to the user (a list of imported functions perhaps).
I am all for making the system as transparent as possible, but I don't think "just-in-time" assignment of privilege adds much in terms of fusing usability with security. And it would not scale very well for a device with alot of diverse privileged equipment attached, you'd bombard the user with requests in the middle of a workflow - encouraging the dreaded "click through" mentality.
With Android other than stuff like Cornerstone that Google hates there is no way to run even 2 apps at the same time.
True, but there are technical reasons for this decision. Namely battery life and screen real estate. The meme with Android is to not waste battery life on something the user can't see, and secure a fast start/stop cycle for apps instead. This is of course not very usable on a desktop or laptop (might not even be for a tablet, I don't know since I don't use a tablet), and would be one of the things that needs to be addressed, should Android move towards more general computing. As I said, Android isn't quite suited for general purpose computing yet, but it could be.
Android doesn't have any really high quality apps other than niche stuff. iOS has some.
That might be true, I don't know enough about the iOS ecosystem to be the judge of that. The value of Android is not what the platform supports right now, it is the design philosophy behind it. Finally an OS shop is trying to rethink security without tacking it on after or making it an opt-in that gets ignored.
Directly observed - this planet has been imaged. Most of the confirmed planets from the Kepler mission are inferred from the dip in luminosity the parent star exhibits when the planet transitions across it, as viewed from Earth, or we can infer that there are planets/binary partner if a star "wobbles". Direct images of exo-planets are rare, even this one a mere 300 LY away is still only a tiny blip on the screen.
Usability should come naturally with feedback I would presume, and if we're lucky Android won't blow up into a million different incompatible distros run by enormous egos with no regard for their end users, always chasing the hottest new fad (I know this is not always the case, but standing outside looking in at the community around GNU/Linux, that is what it looks like to an every day user).
I'm really hoping Android can take off as an alternative to Windows, iOS and GNU/Linux. Both Windows and GNU/Linux suffer from the "keys to the kingdom or bust" security model, while Android manages to be the sensible middle ground. Educating everyday users about security is tedious, and much of that comes from the fact that you can't really secure your device without a lot of technical knowledge about it.
The Android way of attaching permissions to parts of the system to an app at install time takes much of the magic hand waving out of it That way it becomes a very clear question of "does this farmville app really need GPS tracking data and access to the phone id?", instead of "for an unknown reason this app needs full admin rights!". To me that is a win for the end user.
Acting like an asshat turns her on at home huh? Good for you.
Having a sense of how it is to walk a mile in somebody's shoes goes a long way towards being happy in a relationship. That goes both ways, and has nothing to do with feminism, it is what smart people do, instead of acting like a retarded caveman.
I guess the key would be familiarity with the platform, like how Windows has managed to stay on top for so long. If you can get people to accept Android on their computer, you might just have a way to break the monopoly. You're right that Android doesn't seem very suited as a general purpose computing platform, but that could change.
I don't want to be embarassed when others see me with her, nor do I want her to be embarassed when others see her with me.
That's not a girlfriend, that's a tattoo.
Online dating--the person representing themselves as a woman could be catfishing and really be a man. Of they could be bisexual. Or they may be a heterosexual woman but they photoshopped their picture. They may want someone's person information and then not give much information themselves.
Online dating is not a substitute for meeting in person, it is a way to extend your reach for a higher chance of meeting someone compatible, and then meeting in person. And so what if the one you've set up a date with turns out to be a lesbian dolphin trainer? Worst case scenario: you wasted an evening and have a new story to tell.
I've known many guys who talked pretty much like that. High standards that don't apply to themselves, and for some odd reason - they're all single. Baffling.
I think that's wrong primarily because of the religious nature of the conflict. It's far more widespread than a tiny group in power on either side. The vast majority of the population DOES care about and support the conflict, if only out of religious and ethnic pride. Pakistan is a country where school textbooks talk about one Muslim soldier equaling 10 Hindu soldiers.
Well yeah, as I said "propaganda machine(s)". The source of the information is quite irrelevant, it only matters that it is wrong. Further, it only matters that the information is obtained with "education", hence the use of propaganda machines. You don't just get born in the wrong place and then you mysteriously hate [insert ethnic group], that crazy shit is learned
A group of guys, too small to be called a majority in any sense of the word, has churned out propaganda to such a degree that these people actually believe that the savages in the north is coming to get them, with nukes. How is that not imagined? Yeah, a lot of real casualties has been the result, many, many more than mainstream news bothers to account for, the cause is still a bunch of guys on a power trip.
But I do get your point, as it is now these people hate each other, a common trait in neighboring countries actually. Someone forgotten by history needed a handy excuse to ransack some villages. These days another group of people is using this cultural legacy to further their own cause, because you don't just build nukes for fun. As my original post pointed out, it's a huge fucking waste of money - if those bad boys ever fly you can be damn well sure the guys who pushed the buttons are not going to live it down, and I'm willing to bet the guys making up the Indian government knows this. Hence the use of the phrase "imaginary enemies", those weapons are not going to fly and if they do the guys who built them will not benefit.
The divide between rich and poor is defined by the wealth of the rich compared to the wealth of the poor. If there were no gap between the wealth of the rich and the wealth of the poor, they wouldn't be rich and poor! So I'm having a hard time understanding what you're trying to say. If you're not trying to talk about wealth or the amount of dollars, can you say it a different way than talking about the rich and the poor?
I don't get this obsession with wealth. You can have a perfectly "fine" country and still have a war on your hands, namely because there is a class of people who have no power, and a class that does. The gap between them is in their influence on their daily lives, some of that is money, some is what you are allowed to spend it on, and some are quite unrelated to wealth. The Gini coefficient is quote useless if you want to predict a riot.
A hungry tiger in a confined space is a very real enemy, a pakistani not so much.
Irrelevant.
I beg to differ.
The slights are imagined, the dispute is over some backwater mountain region none of the countries actually want, except because their neighbor does
Some are strategically good mountain regions.
Their value is mostly strategic... and you don't see the point? At all? The two countries are enemies, but it is not from a natural urge to be enemies, which makes the conflict rather artificial.
No indian and no pakistani is born hating their neighbor, that hate is taught.
Right, so dying in Kargil must have been present for the soldiers. Great to know that.
Wait what?
You think slights are behind the conflicts between India and Pakistan?
Yes, I absolutely do. In the sense that it is a tiny group of power whores on one side against a tiny group of power whores on the other, the vast majority of their "subjects" do not give a flying fuck about the "conflict". Now, propaganda machines on both sides may skew the actual answers to the question "do you give a fuck?" to make it seem like there is an actual conflict, that doesn't mean that it wasn't artificial to begin with.
Know who had greater equality than the US (measured by Gini coefficient) in 2006-2007? Tunisia, Egypt, Pakistan among many others... I highlighted those because you would be insane to think that they were more stable than US.
It remains to be seen how stable the US is. The Gini coefficient is used to measure relative wealth, I said nothing of wealth, in fact what I said was that it is not the amount of dollars in a country that makes for a stable country, it is the divide between rich and poor. I should probably have said underclass and ruling class, but the divide is the important part. You can have a Gini coefficient of 0 and still be in civil war (nobody has any income).