Silencers were invented so that farmers can shoot rats in the barn while not scaring the livestock.
Then the inventors failed, because unless you're shooting a silenced.22 rifle (long barrel) with.22 shorts or a very low-energy.22LR round, the livestock are going to get scared. Cartridge with a more power? Gonna be noisy. Shorter barrel (e.g. handgun)? Gonna be noisy. Suppressors lower the volume to a point where it won't damage your hearing, but it's still loud.
If you can't afford a more expensive phone, I think you're better off getting a 2-3 year old high end phone. They can usually be purchased at or slightly above the upper end of the range you quote. Those cheap phones are typically running ancient software, completely unsupported, as well as the other limitations you mention.
The only problem with hardware 2-factor is how to incorporate it into mobile.
NFC-enabled tokens. This is what Google uses internally (which I suspect is the same thing they're marketing to celebs and execs): Device has an authentication key, plus password, plus USB/NFC token. Three-factor auth.
Stop the Nuclear Weapons scare! We have been using firearms for centuries now. Earlier with black powder, now with more powerful explosives. The difference between them and nukes is negligible. And when it comes to the "Nukes are more dangerous and radiation will kill you" argument, look at a firecracker.
You've got it backwards.
Selective breeding, especially with the assistance of radiation and mutagenic chemicals to increase the mutation rate, is more analogous to a nuclear weapon, with it's massive and hard-to-predict effects. Genetic engineering is like a sniper rifle, making just the required change and nothing more.
Many of these problems are ones that the device manufacturers introduced because most buyers value form over function.
FTFY.
There are devices on the market that have the properties you describe. Very few of them sell. For that matter, you haven't bought one of them. Why not?
> With so few aircraft in production/operation, there was no economy of
> scale in production or maintenance, making the planes incredibly
> expensive to operate.
That is probably not true. As soon as you need 1 full-time engineer to maintain a plane, you'll need two for two planes. It's like the one woman one baby in 9 months trick. You can't hire nine women to make a baby in one month. But "maintaining planes" operates at a scale where this does work.
It's not about mechanics/engineers as much as it is about parts, though there are economies of scale to be had in manpower as well. This is why all of the low-cost airlines are careful to keep the number of models of aircraft they fly very small... most often a single model. Southwest Airlines, for example, flies nothing but Boeing 737s. Ryanair goes a step further and flies nothing but a single variant of a single model, the Boeing 737-800.
In the case of the Concorde, everything was unique. No other aircraft in the world used its engines, any airframe parts, not even interior components like seats. Nothing was available off the shelf, everything had to be custom fabricated. There was no pool of trained Concorde engineers or mechanics to draw on; every one of them had to be trained. The small fleet size meant small staff size, sure, but that just increases the level of redundancy required, to deal with situations when staff are unavailable -- or more than the normal number of breakdowns occur, and the Concorde was a notoriously unreliable aircraft, because of its novelty and small production runs. Craft produced in larger numbers are refined over time and become better and more reliable. Not so for the Concorde.
I wonder for how many users just asding cygwin would be enough.
I have all UNIX capabilities I need in cygwin: languages, LaTex, various handy command line tools. It is much less convenient but I do not need it frequently.
I wonder how much of potential Linux user base is eaten by this category?
For me, Windows + cygwin lacks one really important feature: ~Windows.
This article was about long-term Linux kernel support which Android happens to benefit from. Just because Google asked for it and may be helping it to occur doesn't mean that they are the only ones needing it or who will benefit from it. Any device manufacturer using a Linux kernel to create a smart connected device should be interested in this.
Only if they need to stick with a kernel for a long period of time. Android Things doesn't need to do that.
Standard Android is not a good fit for long-lived appliances. They need an entirely different approach. Google has a team working on that, the Android Things project. But that's not what this article is about, and the dynamics of that ecosystem are entirely different. That's not to say no one will put standard Android in such devices, but they shouldn't... and you shouldn't buy one.
Sounds like Google is using this as an excuse to limit support on otherwise perfectly good hardware to an arbitrary six-year limit as defined by a vendor.
Well, given that no vendor out there provides six years now, that's an improvement.
Never mind that fact that devices can very easily be upgraded to newer linux versions.
"easily". Heh. You don't know what you're talking about.
They've already ended product support for their "Do no evil" mantra.
It was "Don't be evil", and it's still used as a guiding principle.
Now I'm interpreting this as an indication that devices with Android are targeting a six-year lifecycle!!
Well, currently, few devices have support for more than a year or two, so six years is a big improvement. Even Google -- one of very, very few device makers who actually provides a committed support lifetime -- only promises three years. For that matter, although Apple tends in practice to update devices for 4-5 years, AFAICT they make no commitment to support devices beyond the one-year warranty period.
Android needs to be thinking in terms of how to at least maintain security updates for 30 years.
That's ridiculous. There is NO consumer electronic device that is expected to continue functioning correctly for that long. Just think about what sort of PC you'd have bought 30 years ago -- 1987 is when IBM introduced the PS/2, running PC DOS 3.3 -- and phones age faster than PCs.
Huge waste of resources backporting when it would be easier to just upgrade to the latest kernels. Either way you have to test them, so why bother backporting?
Because it's not easier to upgrade, obviously. You don't think this was done lightly, without serious analysis of the options, do you?
It's possible that it's easier to upgrade than backport in terms of total effort... but it's equally possible that it's not, because of the large number of non-mainlined patches applied to Android kernels. There's a tradeoff between porting the patches to every new kernel version or backporting security fixes. There are more fixes, but they tend to be small, so the tradeoff favors backporting up to some point, and it may well be that that point truly is closer to six years than two.
But even if total effort calculation would favor upgrading, there's a structural issue to consider. SoC vendors are the ones who define the supported kernel for each SoC iteration -- it's largely their patches that are applied. They don't want to do the work of customizing and validating every new kernel version on every SoC still in support. Worse, trying to make them do it will encourage them to further reduce the duration of their support for an SoC because it's a lot easier to validate 4.14 on the latest and greatest chip than do to it on the last three generations.
See, no one other than the SoC vendor is really in a position to get a new kernel version running on a given chip, but almost anyone can backport a security patch. In particular, Google can -- and does -- do that work. Google can fix problems and deliver security patches directly to OEMs, who can then apply and test (and then carriers will also test). Assuming all goes well, the SoC vendors don't have to get involved. In contrast, kernel version upgrades pretty much have to be done by the SoC vendor.
In addition to that, rightly or wrongly (and probably rightly), OEMs and carriers are more afraid of kernel upgrades than backported security fixes. They much prefer that it be possible to launch a device with a specific kernel image and vendor partition image (device-specific software) and then leave it all completely untouched for the life of the device, except for security fixes. Project Treble is about enabling the system image to be updated and it's tough enough to convince them to allow that. Being able to keep the bottom layers constant makes them much more comfortable -- and therefore much more likely to continue supporting devices with both system upgrades and security fixes, for a longer period of time.
There is no way that this craft could be made safe enough for people to trust it. First accident, and no one wants to use it anymore.
The same was said of commercial air travel.
There is also no way the launch cost and infrastructure required could be made affordable for city to city travel.
Assuming the equipment and infrastructure can be built to support extreme re-usability (which is a tall order, but there's no reason in principle that it should be impossible), the real question is fuel costs. In another post on this thread JoshuaZ estimated that each sub-orbital launch would require about 900 tons of methane propellant. At current industrial prices of about $4 per 1000 cubic feet, that's about $140K. Assuming 200 passengers, that's $700 per passenger just for fuel -- one way. The same again for the return journey, so a round trip would cost $1400 in fuel, plus all of amortized equipment and infrastructure costs, plus operational costs. With those numbers it's hard to see how a round trip spaceplane ticket to Shanghai could be less than about $2500, so "price of a current economy ticket" is pretty optimistic.
Still, if you could offer 30 minute trips NYC to Shanghai, you could easily fill a few such per day. Probably even at twice that price. $5K is in the neighborhood of a business-class ticket on that route.
Even a Concorde turned out to be unaffordable over the long term, and that was quite a bit simpler than this scheme.
The Concorde's problems were that it didn't carry enough people, wasn't allowed to fly over land and didn't have the legs for long over-water routes. Musk's scheme would have roughly twice the passenger capacity and fewer route limitations since much of its flight would be above most of the atmosphere where there's no problem with disturbing people on the ground, and it would clearly be able to reach the other side of the globe. Concorde's route limitations were really what killed it; it could fly so few routes that only seven aircraft were operated. With so few aircraft in production/operation, there was no economy of scale in production or maintenance, making the planes incredibly expensive to operate.
I'm not splitting hairs, I'm pointing out that you are using a specific, legally-defined term (naturalized citizen) and claiming that it has a meaning different than it does. Naturalized citizens are people who went through a specific process of naturalization, including a civics exam and a loyalty oath. You claimed that the term described children who are born on US soil to non-US parents. It does not. Those children are either natural-born citizens or they're not citizens at all (and the general consensus is that they're natural-born citizens).
There is some controversy over the citizenship status of children born on US soil of non-US parents. The undisputed approach since the 14th amendment up until very recently has been that they are "jus soli" citizens, that they have "birthright citizenship". The Wong Kim Ark ruling in 1898 affirmed this. There have been recent attempts to pass a law clarifying that undocumented immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" and therefore their children don't have birthright citizenship, but no legislation has been passed, and indeed part of the reason it hasn't been passed is because it would probably be unconstitutional. It's likely that we would need an amendment to the constitution to end birthright citizenship for anyone born on US soil.
Yes, Native Americans used to be a special case, since their reservations were considered to be out of US jurisdiction and under the jurisdiction of their tribal nations even though they are within the borders of US states. Not only does that special case not apply in the situation of someone not born on a reservation, it hasn't applied to native Americans since 1924, when Congress granted US citizenship to all Native Americans.
Does your employer have a lot of employees who would be reluctant to use direct deposit?
I already had direct deposit with my primary bank.
Okay, but you didn't answer my question. If the job was one where lots of employees didn't/wouldn't do direct deposit, they might have had account creation as a normal part of the onboarding process.
You're cured! Seriously, you are arguing that doctors decided to reclassify your condition going from the DSM-IV to DSM-V. You still have whatever it is you have. Do you prefer the label Autism? You have a condition, it is unique to you, do labels really matter?
Sure they do. Labels (symbols) are how we communicate. In most cases, these labels are collaboratively constructed by the whole society, and evolve over time. If you want to communicate, you need to keep up. For example, while I don't use "sick" to describe something appealing or good, I understand it when my kids do. In cases of technical jargon, there is sometimes a professional body that defines the meaning of terms, which is definitely the case with autism and Asperger's Syndrome. If you want to communicate clearly and accurately about issues within a certain space, you should use the terms as defined by the relevant body.
That said, Billly Gates is wrong about what DSM-V says. It does not eliminate Asperger's Syndrome as a diagnosis, nor does it call Asperger's "autism". Instead, it defines a set of pervasive developmental disorders which include autism and Asperger's, as well as several others, as the "autism spectrum". Asperger's and autism are separate diagnoses, but they both fall within a category of diagnoses called "autism spectrum disorders". So to be very precise, Billly Gates should not say that he is autistic, but that he has an autism spectrum disorder.
Personal data has value as a path to acquire that person's wealth.
... with that person's permission and active cooperation. Even those who view advertising as manipulation have to grant that the target ultimately has a choice about whether or not to buy -- or even to look at the ad.
My last employer, for example, sold my information to a bank and automatically opened an account for me, later crooning the benefits of having my checks tied to a special debit card. All I had to do was place a phone call to activate my account, which was all set up and ready to go.
Does your employer have a lot of employees who would be reluctant to use direct deposit? I've seen the sort of thing you're talking about, but in every case the employer wasn't "selling" data, they were just trying to avoid having to cut and mail checks. In fact, in most cases I think the employer actually pays a fee to the bank for the service.
Now everytime I turn on my phone, it contacts Google and does an install of whatever Google Play tells it to
If you don't want automatic updates, turn off automatic updates. You have control over that.
YouTube on Android needs approval to upgrade.... it's needs new permissions. What permissions does a video player need now? Access to your contacts, your GPS position, your SMSs, your Microphone, your device ID and call information. i.e. who you talked to, when, where you are, who you are, who you associate with, what you said to your friends.
Here is an explanation of exactly what YouTube uses each of those permissions for. Note, also, that since Nougat (7.0, if you prefer numbers), you can disable any of those permissions individually. Further, they're disabled by default until you try to use a feature that requires them, and then you're asked specifically about each. I just looked on my phone, and the only permission category that's enabled on my phone is "storage", probably because the only feature I've used that required any extra permissions is to download videos.
None of this is NEEDED by Google, it's WANTED by Google.
It's needed to implement features in the app that are used by some users. And if you're on a newish Android version, you can keep all of those permissions off simply by not using the associated feature, so you'll never be prompted to enable them.
Try uninstalling Google Play and it will uninstall every app you bought
That's obvious if you think about it. Uninstalling any app removes all of that app's data. An app store's data includes all of the APK files it downloaded for installation on your device. But why would you want to uninstall it? If you don't want it updating apps, disable app updates. Done.
The situation is a joke, suppose Putin doesn't put in Trump, suppose he got a proper dictator into power and not a wannaby self-deluded one. A few laws later and all that data would be there to do a stasi wet dream of a surveillance.
Well, assuming the "proper dictator" could find a way to eliminate the rule of law.
What is even the point of releasing this kind of news if no one can even tell if it is an improvement on what we already do?
The difference is now you know we're doing it. Did you know before this story came out how much we were spending on STEM? No? Well you do now.
No, I still don't. I know that the Department of Education has been asked to spend at least $200M of existing funds on CS. But I don't know how much we were spending before, and I don't even if we're increasing the funding level.
Winning bigly!
So much winning. Trump did say that we'd get tired of it. I certainly am.
It's flipping bits by gaining root access, profiling the system, crashing it many times in the process, then mess with something nearby.
True, but that doesn't mean it's not bad.
The whole point of TrustZone and similar technologies is to provide a place for computations that you wish to remain secure even in the event of complete compromise of the main operating system. Note that I'm not claiming that the attack is practical, it may or may not be sufficiently automatable to carry out remotely, on a large number of devices. That's for future research to determine. But it does make me nervous (my main project for the last four years is an Android subsystem that runs in TrustZone, SGX, etc.).
Well, I should say it would make me nervous if there weren't much easier ways to attack TrustZone already, due not to weaknesses in TrustZone but to the operating systems that run there.
Slashdot Mirror
Silencers were invented so that farmers can shoot rats in the barn while not scaring the livestock.
Then the inventors failed, because unless you're shooting a silenced .22 rifle (long barrel) with .22 shorts or a very low-energy .22LR round, the livestock are going to get scared. Cartridge with a more power? Gonna be noisy. Shorter barrel (e.g. handgun)? Gonna be noisy. Suppressors lower the volume to a point where it won't damage your hearing, but it's still loud.
If you can't afford a more expensive phone, I think you're better off getting a 2-3 year old high end phone. They can usually be purchased at or slightly above the upper end of the range you quote. Those cheap phones are typically running ancient software, completely unsupported, as well as the other limitations you mention.
The only problem with hardware 2-factor is how to incorporate it into mobile.
NFC-enabled tokens. This is what Google uses internally (which I suspect is the same thing they're marketing to celebs and execs): Device has an authentication key, plus password, plus USB/NFC token. Three-factor auth.
Stop the Nuclear Weapons scare! We have been using firearms for centuries now. Earlier with black powder, now with more powerful explosives. The difference between them and nukes is negligible. And when it comes to the "Nukes are more dangerous and radiation will kill you" argument, look at a firecracker.
You've got it backwards.
Selective breeding, especially with the assistance of radiation and mutagenic chemicals to increase the mutation rate, is more analogous to a nuclear weapon, with it's massive and hard-to-predict effects. Genetic engineering is like a sniper rifle, making just the required change and nothing more.
Many of these problems are ones that the device manufacturers introduced because most buyers value form over function.
FTFY.
There are devices on the market that have the properties you describe. Very few of them sell. For that matter, you haven't bought one of them. Why not?
> With so few aircraft in production/operation, there was no economy of > scale in production or maintenance, making the planes incredibly > expensive to operate. That is probably not true. As soon as you need 1 full-time engineer to maintain a plane, you'll need two for two planes. It's like the one woman one baby in 9 months trick. You can't hire nine women to make a baby in one month. But "maintaining planes" operates at a scale where this does work.
It's not about mechanics/engineers as much as it is about parts, though there are economies of scale to be had in manpower as well. This is why all of the low-cost airlines are careful to keep the number of models of aircraft they fly very small... most often a single model. Southwest Airlines, for example, flies nothing but Boeing 737s. Ryanair goes a step further and flies nothing but a single variant of a single model, the Boeing 737-800.
In the case of the Concorde, everything was unique. No other aircraft in the world used its engines, any airframe parts, not even interior components like seats. Nothing was available off the shelf, everything had to be custom fabricated. There was no pool of trained Concorde engineers or mechanics to draw on; every one of them had to be trained. The small fleet size meant small staff size, sure, but that just increases the level of redundancy required, to deal with situations when staff are unavailable -- or more than the normal number of breakdowns occur, and the Concorde was a notoriously unreliable aircraft, because of its novelty and small production runs. Craft produced in larger numbers are refined over time and become better and more reliable. Not so for the Concorde.
I wonder for how many users just asding cygwin would be enough.
I have all UNIX capabilities I need in cygwin: languages, LaTex, various handy command line tools. It is much less convenient but I do not need it frequently.
I wonder how much of potential Linux user base is eaten by this category?
For me, Windows + cygwin lacks one really important feature: ~Windows.
This article was about long-term Linux kernel support which Android happens to benefit from. Just because Google asked for it and may be helping it to occur doesn't mean that they are the only ones needing it or who will benefit from it. Any device manufacturer using a Linux kernel to create a smart connected device should be interested in this.
Only if they need to stick with a kernel for a long period of time. Android Things doesn't need to do that.
Standard Android is not a good fit for long-lived appliances. They need an entirely different approach. Google has a team working on that, the Android Things project. But that's not what this article is about, and the dynamics of that ecosystem are entirely different. That's not to say no one will put standard Android in such devices, but they shouldn't... and you shouldn't buy one.
Meh. Very few airline crashes from altitude have any survivors either.
Sounds like Google is using this as an excuse to limit support on otherwise perfectly good hardware to an arbitrary six-year limit as defined by a vendor.
Well, given that no vendor out there provides six years now, that's an improvement.
Never mind that fact that devices can very easily be upgraded to newer linux versions.
"easily". Heh. You don't know what you're talking about.
They've already ended product support for their "Do no evil" mantra.
It was "Don't be evil", and it's still used as a guiding principle.
Now I'm interpreting this as an indication that devices with Android are targeting a six-year lifecycle!!
Well, currently, few devices have support for more than a year or two, so six years is a big improvement. Even Google -- one of very, very few device makers who actually provides a committed support lifetime -- only promises three years. For that matter, although Apple tends in practice to update devices for 4-5 years, AFAICT they make no commitment to support devices beyond the one-year warranty period.
Android needs to be thinking in terms of how to at least maintain security updates for 30 years.
That's ridiculous. There is NO consumer electronic device that is expected to continue functioning correctly for that long. Just think about what sort of PC you'd have bought 30 years ago -- 1987 is when IBM introduced the PS/2, running PC DOS 3.3 -- and phones age faster than PCs.
Huge waste of resources backporting when it would be easier to just upgrade to the latest kernels. Either way you have to test them, so why bother backporting?
Because it's not easier to upgrade, obviously. You don't think this was done lightly, without serious analysis of the options, do you?
It's possible that it's easier to upgrade than backport in terms of total effort... but it's equally possible that it's not, because of the large number of non-mainlined patches applied to Android kernels. There's a tradeoff between porting the patches to every new kernel version or backporting security fixes. There are more fixes, but they tend to be small, so the tradeoff favors backporting up to some point, and it may well be that that point truly is closer to six years than two.
But even if total effort calculation would favor upgrading, there's a structural issue to consider. SoC vendors are the ones who define the supported kernel for each SoC iteration -- it's largely their patches that are applied. They don't want to do the work of customizing and validating every new kernel version on every SoC still in support. Worse, trying to make them do it will encourage them to further reduce the duration of their support for an SoC because it's a lot easier to validate 4.14 on the latest and greatest chip than do to it on the last three generations.
See, no one other than the SoC vendor is really in a position to get a new kernel version running on a given chip, but almost anyone can backport a security patch. In particular, Google can -- and does -- do that work. Google can fix problems and deliver security patches directly to OEMs, who can then apply and test (and then carriers will also test). Assuming all goes well, the SoC vendors don't have to get involved. In contrast, kernel version upgrades pretty much have to be done by the SoC vendor.
In addition to that, rightly or wrongly (and probably rightly), OEMs and carriers are more afraid of kernel upgrades than backported security fixes. They much prefer that it be possible to launch a device with a specific kernel image and vendor partition image (device-specific software) and then leave it all completely untouched for the life of the device, except for security fixes. Project Treble is about enabling the system image to be updated and it's tough enough to convince them to allow that. Being able to keep the bottom layers constant makes them much more comfortable -- and therefore much more likely to continue supporting devices with both system upgrades and security fixes, for a longer period of time.
There is no way that this craft could be made safe enough for people to trust it. First accident, and no one wants to use it anymore.
The same was said of commercial air travel.
There is also no way the launch cost and infrastructure required could be made affordable for city to city travel.
Assuming the equipment and infrastructure can be built to support extreme re-usability (which is a tall order, but there's no reason in principle that it should be impossible), the real question is fuel costs. In another post on this thread JoshuaZ estimated that each sub-orbital launch would require about 900 tons of methane propellant. At current industrial prices of about $4 per 1000 cubic feet, that's about $140K. Assuming 200 passengers, that's $700 per passenger just for fuel -- one way. The same again for the return journey, so a round trip would cost $1400 in fuel, plus all of amortized equipment and infrastructure costs, plus operational costs. With those numbers it's hard to see how a round trip spaceplane ticket to Shanghai could be less than about $2500, so "price of a current economy ticket" is pretty optimistic.
Still, if you could offer 30 minute trips NYC to Shanghai, you could easily fill a few such per day. Probably even at twice that price. $5K is in the neighborhood of a business-class ticket on that route.
Even a Concorde turned out to be unaffordable over the long term, and that was quite a bit simpler than this scheme.
The Concorde's problems were that it didn't carry enough people, wasn't allowed to fly over land and didn't have the legs for long over-water routes. Musk's scheme would have roughly twice the passenger capacity and fewer route limitations since much of its flight would be above most of the atmosphere where there's no problem with disturbing people on the ground, and it would clearly be able to reach the other side of the globe. Concorde's route limitations were really what killed it; it could fly so few routes that only seven aircraft were operated. With so few aircraft in production/operation, there was no economy of scale in production or maintenance, making the planes incredibly expensive to operate.
a distinction is made between those who are born to US citizens and those who aren't (naturalized citizens)
You have no idea what "naturalized citizen" means. https://www.uscis.gov/us-citiz...
You are splitting hairs.
I'm not splitting hairs, I'm pointing out that you are using a specific, legally-defined term (naturalized citizen) and claiming that it has a meaning different than it does. Naturalized citizens are people who went through a specific process of naturalization, including a civics exam and a loyalty oath. You claimed that the term described children who are born on US soil to non-US parents. It does not. Those children are either natural-born citizens or they're not citizens at all (and the general consensus is that they're natural-born citizens).
There is some controversy over the citizenship status of children born on US soil of non-US parents. The undisputed approach since the 14th amendment up until very recently has been that they are "jus soli" citizens, that they have "birthright citizenship". The Wong Kim Ark ruling in 1898 affirmed this. There have been recent attempts to pass a law clarifying that undocumented immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" and therefore their children don't have birthright citizenship, but no legislation has been passed, and indeed part of the reason it hasn't been passed is because it would probably be unconstitutional. It's likely that we would need an amendment to the constitution to end birthright citizenship for anyone born on US soil.
Yes, Native Americans used to be a special case, since their reservations were considered to be out of US jurisdiction and under the jurisdiction of their tribal nations even though they are within the borders of US states. Not only does that special case not apply in the situation of someone not born on a reservation, it hasn't applied to native Americans since 1924, when Congress granted US citizenship to all Native Americans.
a distinction is made between those who are born to US citizens and those who aren't (naturalized citizens)
You have no idea what "naturalized citizen" means. https://www.uscis.gov/us-citiz...
Does your employer have a lot of employees who would be reluctant to use direct deposit?
I already had direct deposit with my primary bank.
Okay, but you didn't answer my question. If the job was one where lots of employees didn't/wouldn't do direct deposit, they might have had account creation as a normal part of the onboarding process.
Aspergers no longer exists
You're cured! Seriously, you are arguing that doctors decided to reclassify your condition going from the DSM-IV to DSM-V. You still have whatever it is you have. Do you prefer the label Autism? You have a condition, it is unique to you, do labels really matter?
Sure they do. Labels (symbols) are how we communicate. In most cases, these labels are collaboratively constructed by the whole society, and evolve over time. If you want to communicate, you need to keep up. For example, while I don't use "sick" to describe something appealing or good, I understand it when my kids do. In cases of technical jargon, there is sometimes a professional body that defines the meaning of terms, which is definitely the case with autism and Asperger's Syndrome. If you want to communicate clearly and accurately about issues within a certain space, you should use the terms as defined by the relevant body.
That said, Billly Gates is wrong about what DSM-V says. It does not eliminate Asperger's Syndrome as a diagnosis, nor does it call Asperger's "autism". Instead, it defines a set of pervasive developmental disorders which include autism and Asperger's, as well as several others, as the "autism spectrum". Asperger's and autism are separate diagnoses, but they both fall within a category of diagnoses called "autism spectrum disorders". So to be very precise, Billly Gates should not say that he is autistic, but that he has an autism spectrum disorder.
Personal data has value as a path to acquire that person's wealth.
... with that person's permission and active cooperation. Even those who view advertising as manipulation have to grant that the target ultimately has a choice about whether or not to buy -- or even to look at the ad.
My last employer, for example, sold my information to a bank and automatically opened an account for me, later crooning the benefits of having my checks tied to a special debit card. All I had to do was place a phone call to activate my account, which was all set up and ready to go.
Does your employer have a lot of employees who would be reluctant to use direct deposit? I've seen the sort of thing you're talking about, but in every case the employer wasn't "selling" data, they were just trying to avoid having to cut and mail checks. In fact, in most cases I think the employer actually pays a fee to the bank for the service.
Now everytime I turn on my phone, it contacts Google and does an install of whatever Google Play tells it to
If you don't want automatic updates, turn off automatic updates. You have control over that.
YouTube on Android needs approval to upgrade.... it's needs new permissions. What permissions does a video player need now? Access to your contacts, your GPS position, your SMSs, your Microphone, your device ID and call information. i.e. who you talked to, when, where you are, who you are, who you associate with, what you said to your friends.
Here is an explanation of exactly what YouTube uses each of those permissions for. Note, also, that since Nougat (7.0, if you prefer numbers), you can disable any of those permissions individually. Further, they're disabled by default until you try to use a feature that requires them, and then you're asked specifically about each. I just looked on my phone, and the only permission category that's enabled on my phone is "storage", probably because the only feature I've used that required any extra permissions is to download videos.
None of this is NEEDED by Google, it's WANTED by Google.
It's needed to implement features in the app that are used by some users. And if you're on a newish Android version, you can keep all of those permissions off simply by not using the associated feature, so you'll never be prompted to enable them.
Try uninstalling Google Play and it will uninstall every app you bought
That's obvious if you think about it. Uninstalling any app removes all of that app's data. An app store's data includes all of the APK files it downloaded for installation on your device. But why would you want to uninstall it? If you don't want it updating apps, disable app updates. Done.
The situation is a joke, suppose Putin doesn't put in Trump, suppose he got a proper dictator into power and not a wannaby self-deluded one. A few laws later and all that data would be there to do a stasi wet dream of a surveillance.
Well, assuming the "proper dictator" could find a way to eliminate the rule of law.
Don't confuse living with enduring.
I don't. I like my life. And I hate spending so much of it unconscious.
If you are ever unconscious for any amount of time, you need to see a doctor. That is NOT normal and is a sign of serious illness.
Are you conscious while you're sleeping? Really?
Don't confuse living with enduring.
I don't. I like my life. And I hate spending so much of it unconscious.
What is even the point of releasing this kind of news if no one can even tell if it is an improvement on what we already do?
The difference is now you know we're doing it. Did you know before this story came out how much we were spending on STEM? No? Well you do now.
No, I still don't. I know that the Department of Education has been asked to spend at least $200M of existing funds on CS. But I don't know how much we were spending before, and I don't even if we're increasing the funding level.
Winning bigly!
So much winning. Trump did say that we'd get tired of it. I certainly am.
It's flipping bits by gaining root access, profiling the system, crashing it many times in the process, then mess with something nearby.
True, but that doesn't mean it's not bad.
The whole point of TrustZone and similar technologies is to provide a place for computations that you wish to remain secure even in the event of complete compromise of the main operating system. Note that I'm not claiming that the attack is practical, it may or may not be sufficiently automatable to carry out remotely, on a large number of devices. That's for future research to determine. But it does make me nervous (my main project for the last four years is an Android subsystem that runs in TrustZone, SGX, etc.).
Well, I should say it would make me nervous if there weren't much easier ways to attack TrustZone already, due not to weaknesses in TrustZone but to the operating systems that run there.