Half of teens think being "triggered" is feeling mildly uncomfortable after reading something they don't like and "depression" is not enjoying getting up early in the morning to go to school. Some definitions and a little bit of perspective might be in order.
Having a mental illness is the new black, don'tcha know. Who needs health professionals when you can self diagnose based on what you read on Tumblr?
You're aware that there are trucks that bring the gas to the gas station in the first place and dump it into holes in the ground via hoses?
Granted, I can see startups trying to put a plastic water tank on the back of a pickup and call it the same thing, so that's a consideration. If the delivery trucks and tanks are at least as reinforced as the huge tankers that deliver to stations, I can't see this as a problem. Worst case, the small delivery truck is a smaller bomb on wheels than the big tanker is.
You have a fundamental (though common) misunderstanding of the relationship between “laws” and “judges.” A single judge is for all intents & purposes above the law. A judge may order anything they see fit, and command the police or other arms of government at or below their level of jurisdiction to do anything the judge sees fit to enforce their orders. There is no (effective) law that constrains the orders of a single judge.
When you include other judges in the mix, a judge at a higher jurisdiction may reverse the order of a lower judge if that order was in fact not authorized by any law (or specifically forbidden by one). Until such time as an appeal is filed and won, the original judge’s word is for all intents the word of god in that jurisdiction. If higher judges rule the same way as the lower judge, it still doesn’t matter if any law authorizes the action ordered by the original judge. The law plays no role until such a time as a judge in higher authority leverages the law as a reason to reverse a ruling or vacate an order.
In certain high profile cases, it’s possible that either the executive or legislature might take an interest in a judge’s actions. In such situations, political pressure, fear of humiliation by the press, etc. may force the hand of some judge along the chain. Even in those cases, it’s up to the original or higher judge to “voluntarily” reverse the ruling, even if there’s some element of duress to it.
Short of that, the executive might send in the armed forces or other policing forces that are directly under the executive’s control, but then you have something very close to civil war and a break down of any semblance of rule of law. Nobody’s eager to push things that far. More likely in that case some dirt may be “found” on the uncooperative judge, impeachment proceedings started, etc. Most judges are fairly politically minded however and will tend to back down when they see the writing is on the wall for a particularly unpopular ruling. Better to save face, live to fight another day, etc.
That of course is the situation in the US. I can’t imagine it’s anything but worse in Brazil. At least in the US, open bribery of judges and other politicians is generally frowned upon.
”High” is a relative thing for torrent ratios. 0.5 (download twice as much as you upload) is pretty common for a minimum ratio before sanctions (no more downloads) kick in. Plenty of room in that for leaching, but you can’t cut off uploads as soon as you’re done downloading and get away with it for long.
How much energy has been wasted (and human life lost) mining a certain yellow metal out of the Earth? Granted gold has some practical use in manufacturing & electronics, but not so much that it justifies the inflation of its value caused by using it as money. Both gold and Bitcoin are valuable (or not) primarily because people believe in their value and because their supply is limited.
As far as I know, nobody ever died mining Bitcoin.
I need somebody to give me a sanity check on this snappy thing. Sounds like you're packaging your app and all it's dependencies in one archive, and installing that in a sandbox/chroot or just funky LD_CONFIG so that the binaries in the snap access their own private libraries. Is that about right?
So now with system-installed libraries like OpenSSL, if there's a vulnerability in OpenSSL, you patch OpenSSL, maybe kill/restart everything linked to it on the system, and life goes on.
If I'm groking snaps properly, the next OpenSSL vuln means we need to update EVERY SINGLE APP that uses OpenSSL since they all have their own private copy of it. And we have to depend on each of the developers of those apps to ship updates w/ new OpenSSL instead of depending on the distro maintainer to ship one copy of it.
Am I missing something? And sorry (not sorry...) to pick on OpenSSL, but in terms of libraries that practically everything links to & has had multiple serious issues in recent memory, it was either that or glibc...
Video decode uses a specialized, highly optimized decoder chip, most likely part of the GPU. The silicon is designed to decode H.264 and probably the various MPEG codecs using as little power as possible. CPU usage is very low while playing video.
Web browsing does JIT compilation of text-based script languages, initiates dozens of network connections per page load to pull in resources, and has to parse & render all of that using the general purpose CPU. That requires much higher CPU usage, and much greater power demands.
The difference is obvious on smaller (IE less compute) devices like phones. Smart phones have been able to play video flawlessly for years, but they still generally feel slower, more jumpy than most full computers for web browsing. Video decode has a very well defined, relatively small set of operations that can be optimized in silicon. Web browsing is wide open, anything goes in terms of computation. The additional flexibility required makes silicon-based optimization much more difficult, and power demands increase.
If you *modify* a signed file, thus invalidating the signature, neither Windows nor OS X will run it, SIP or not. When you turn off SIP, replace a signed file with an unsigned one OR a file validly signed with another key, then you can turn SIP back on, and the file you modified stays as you left it.
To my knowledge, there is no way to get OS X to run an invalid signed file (IE signed, but modified since it was signed). There’s not even an override for that (nor should there be, IMHO). OS X tells you the file is damaged and moves it to the trash. You could strip the signature and run it that way if you wanted, but as long as there’s an invalid signature attached, it won’t execute, regardless of SIP settings.
1) forking github repos has long stopped being something that requires deep technical skills, it’s basically the modern Download.com
What universe are you living in? I’m pretty confident saying that zero of the humans I know who don’t work directly in programming-related IT fields don’t even know what ‘git’ is. The British non-coder folks I know might think I’ve just insulted them, but other than that, blank faces all around.
That kind of thinking from a rarified environment is why simple things that “we all know” we shouldn’t do turn into huge security issues. We all know, but they don’t. They outnumber we by a huge margin. And FSM willing, they always will. That’s called “job security.” You can’t create interfaces built on the assumption that users have the same background knowledge that we’ve acquired through years or decades of daily immersion. When security fails in those situations, it’s the programmer, not the user who did something stupid.
Umm. . . USBOverdrive? Works nicely on El Capitan. All 8 buttons on my Logitech are mapped to useful functions.
Even the stock MS & Logitech drivers let you remap the extra buttons if you don’t want to shell out the $20 for USBOverdrive. USBOverdrive lets you setup keyboard & mouse macros per-application which can come in handy.
The meaning of lifetime is settled law. Without an explicit statement of what it means, it means nothing. The user agreement has been satisfied legally. Customers don't have to like it, but they're unlikely to prevail in court.
Those are merely the most convenient method to keep the car you own running.
You're free to build a wood gassification rig and modify the engine to run on that. You're free to modify it to run on high-proof alcohol and refine your own. In theory, you could strike oil on your own property and refine it in small scale to make your own gasoline. All options inconvenient and expensive, but possibly legal with certain safety and environmental restrictions to contend with.
You're probably not free (due to DMCA reverse engineering restrictions) to modify your Revolv to build your own version of their server architecture.
Gross over simplification. The device will cease to work because Google will no longer pay for hardware, power, bandwidth, staff, etc. necessary to maintain a server farm to provide online services which the device uses. They're not obligated to continue to spend that money forever any more than they're obligated to continue providing Gmail free of charge forever.
TFA & other stuff I’ve read on this accuse them of taking an affirmative action to destroy the hardware, IE “intentionally bricked.” Reality is that they’re turning off servers that the hardware needs to function. Net effect to the consumer is the same, but the inflammatory language is inaccurate.
If Google sent down a kill packet or firmware update that was intended to ruin a piece of hardware that would otherwise continue to function as-is if they hadn’t done so, that’s “intentionally bricked.” If they shutdown a server farm that consumers aren’t paying any on-going fees to make use of, that’s a different thing. Google has an obligation to not destroy something you bought, but they’re not obligated to keep providing you free server time.
”Google bricked my RSS reader when they shutdown Google Reader.” ”Google bricked my email client when they stopped giving email on Google Domains away for free.” ”Google bricked my IDE when they turned off Google Code.” ”Google LITERALLY killed me when they discontinued Google Health.”
Basically what I’m trying to say is read the fine print and check your entitlement. You chose to pay money for a product that was dependent on someone else’s charity to keep working. You backed the wrong horse.
If you can’t smash everything it needs to work with a hammer, you don’t own it.
Can I at least write it as a LLVM backend, or are you the kind of sadist who’s going to make me implement my own C preprocessor first and work from there?
Consider the average smartphone user doesn't know the difference between hard drive "memory" and RAM "memory" on a computer.
Clearing caches causes apps to discard downloaded and pre-calculated resources to free local storage space. These resources can be recovered when needed later by either redownloading them (probably costing $ for data usage) or recalculating them, probably using battery. I'm sure we all know iPhone users who obsessively "quit" their apps by double-tap-home & swiping them, under the mistaken belief that it somehow saves resources or makes the phone run faster (Facebook app notwithstanding...). Given a shiny "Clear caches" button, many users would obsessively hit it without understanding what it does or needing to use the function. The end result would be a significant amount of wasted data and battery usage for these users and a general slow down in their apps (waiting while things download or rebuild). Instead, the operating system automatically invokes the feature only when space is running out & more is needed.
More buttons isn't always the best approach. An operating system is supposed to manage and abstract low-level details for things that can be automated in a reasonable fashion. Cleaning up temp files is certainly something that a human shouldn't have to do regularly.
The question I have is whether these users are freeing up space because they genuinely need it, or just because seeing "X GB free" on the screen makes them feel better. The phone should already invoke cache cleanup when installing apps and generally any time it runs out of storage. IE doing it automatically when it's necessary to do it. An iPhone with very little "free" storage space isn't a problem. There's no benefit (and in fact there's cost) to obsessively forcing the OS to cleanup when it's not necessary.
If there are cases where an operation will fail due to low free space and not invoke the cleanup process that this rental trick fixes, then that's a bug in the OS that should be fixed.
I had a 3G-class MiFi card from VZW. They were rolling their network from 3G->LTE in the area where I work, and the card went from “perfect coverage” to “maybe" to "don’t even bother" in the space of about a month. I’d bought the card less than two years ago at this point.
About this time, I got a, “You’re eligible for an upgrade,” email from Verizon, so figured I’d go to the store near by one lunch break. Picked out a new LTE card, which would have cost me $99 to get a working device again. During check-out, sales drone told me my existing 3GB/month plan (more than enough for my needs at the time) was discontinued, and I’d have to pay an extra $20/month for a 5GB plan I didn’t need or want. No way to grandfather existing plan. They justified the mandatory increase because, “it was faster.” Accurate, but considering I was satisfied with 3G speeds and wouldn’t have upgraded absent them forcing the issue, not a reasonable excuse to increase my rate by 40%. Still, I needed tetherable data, so I grudgingly continued with the process only to then be told the upgrade email was “sent in error” and I would actually have to pay full price for the card.
So $99 + $20/month increase turned into $300 + $20/month increase just to continue using a service that Verizon unilaterally broke by changing their network within the reasonable lifetime of a device they sold me. Amortizing the full price card over two years, that was a $32/month increase which basically doubled what I was paying before taxes. That’s not considering that I was essentially double-paying for the card considering they were still charging me the same monthly price as if I’d taken a new device under contract while still charging me full non-contract price for the device itself.
At that point, I told them to cancel the sale. I took my existing card, snapped it in half, and dropped it on the counter saying I’d like to cancel my service now, please. Oddly enough, they didn’t try to run retention games on me after that, and just canceled no questions... Sometimes being considered the crazy customer gets stuff done.
I walked next door to AT&T to enable tethering on my iPhone instead. I lost my grandfathered AT&T unlimited data in the process alas, but saved about $20/month all told versus what I’d originally been paying Verizon, nevermind their double cost forced upgrade price.
It *was* nice having devices from two carriers in case of coverage issues with one, but haven’t missed Verizon’s BS over the last four years without them.
Slashdot Mirror
Half of teens think being "triggered" is feeling mildly uncomfortable after reading something they don't like and "depression" is not enjoying getting up early in the morning to go to school. Some definitions and a little bit of perspective might be in order.
Having a mental illness is the new black, don'tcha know. Who needs health professionals when you can self diagnose based on what you read on Tumblr?
You're aware that there are trucks that bring the gas to the gas station in the first place and dump it into holes in the ground via hoses?
Granted, I can see startups trying to put a plastic water tank on the back of a pickup and call it the same thing, so that's a consideration. If the delivery trucks and tanks are at least as reinforced as the huge tankers that deliver to stations, I can't see this as a problem. Worst case, the small delivery truck is a smaller bomb on wheels than the big tanker is.
You have a fundamental (though common) misunderstanding of the relationship between “laws” and “judges.” A single judge is for all intents & purposes above the law. A judge may order anything they see fit, and command the police or other arms of government at or below their level of jurisdiction to do anything the judge sees fit to enforce their orders. There is no (effective) law that constrains the orders of a single judge.
When you include other judges in the mix, a judge at a higher jurisdiction may reverse the order of a lower judge if that order was in fact not authorized by any law (or specifically forbidden by one). Until such time as an appeal is filed and won, the original judge’s word is for all intents the word of god in that jurisdiction. If higher judges rule the same way as the lower judge, it still doesn’t matter if any law authorizes the action ordered by the original judge. The law plays no role until such a time as a judge in higher authority leverages the law as a reason to reverse a ruling or vacate an order.
In certain high profile cases, it’s possible that either the executive or legislature might take an interest in a judge’s actions. In such situations, political pressure, fear of humiliation by the press, etc. may force the hand of some judge along the chain. Even in those cases, it’s up to the original or higher judge to “voluntarily” reverse the ruling, even if there’s some element of duress to it.
Short of that, the executive might send in the armed forces or other policing forces that are directly under the executive’s control, but then you have something very close to civil war and a break down of any semblance of rule of law. Nobody’s eager to push things that far. More likely in that case some dirt may be “found” on the uncooperative judge, impeachment proceedings started, etc. Most judges are fairly politically minded however and will tend to back down when they see the writing is on the wall for a particularly unpopular ruling. Better to save face, live to fight another day, etc.
That of course is the situation in the US. I can’t imagine it’s anything but worse in Brazil. At least in the US, open bribery of judges and other politicians is generally frowned upon.
Marginally more than I trust the telco’s & government of Brazil, yeah.
I know, high bar I’m setting there.
”High” is a relative thing for torrent ratios. 0.5 (download twice as much as you upload) is pretty common for a minimum ratio before sanctions (no more downloads) kick in. Plenty of room in that for leaching, but you can’t cut off uploads as soon as you’re done downloading and get away with it for long.
How much energy has been wasted (and human life lost) mining a certain yellow metal out of the Earth? Granted gold has some practical use in manufacturing & electronics, but not so much that it justifies the inflation of its value caused by using it as money. Both gold and Bitcoin are valuable (or not) primarily because people believe in their value and because their supply is limited.
As far as I know, nobody ever died mining Bitcoin.
I need somebody to give me a sanity check on this snappy thing. Sounds like you're packaging your app and all it's dependencies in one archive, and installing that in a sandbox/chroot or just funky LD_CONFIG so that the binaries in the snap access their own private libraries. Is that about right?
So now with system-installed libraries like OpenSSL, if there's a vulnerability in OpenSSL, you patch OpenSSL, maybe kill/restart everything linked to it on the system, and life goes on.
If I'm groking snaps properly, the next OpenSSL vuln means we need to update EVERY SINGLE APP that uses OpenSSL since they all have their own private copy of it. And we have to depend on each of the developers of those apps to ship updates w/ new OpenSSL instead of depending on the distro maintainer to ship one copy of it.
Am I missing something? And sorry (not sorry...) to pick on OpenSSL, but in terms of libraries that practically everything links to & has had multiple serious issues in recent memory, it was either that or glibc...
Video decode uses a specialized, highly optimized decoder chip, most likely part of the GPU. The silicon is designed to decode H.264 and probably the various MPEG codecs using as little power as possible. CPU usage is very low while playing video.
Web browsing does JIT compilation of text-based script languages, initiates dozens of network connections per page load to pull in resources, and has to parse & render all of that using the general purpose CPU. That requires much higher CPU usage, and much greater power demands.
The difference is obvious on smaller (IE less compute) devices like phones. Smart phones have been able to play video flawlessly for years, but they still generally feel slower, more jumpy than most full computers for web browsing. Video decode has a very well defined, relatively small set of operations that can be optimized in silicon. Web browsing is wide open, anything goes in terms of computation. The additional flexibility required makes silicon-based optimization much more difficult, and power demands increase.
If you *modify* a signed file, thus invalidating the signature, neither Windows nor OS X will run it, SIP or not. When you turn off SIP, replace a signed file with an unsigned one OR a file validly signed with another key, then you can turn SIP back on, and the file you modified stays as you left it.
To my knowledge, there is no way to get OS X to run an invalid signed file (IE signed, but modified since it was signed). There’s not even an override for that (nor should there be, IMHO). OS X tells you the file is damaged and moves it to the trash. You could strip the signature and run it that way if you wanted, but as long as there’s an invalid signature attached, it won’t execute, regardless of SIP settings.
What universe are you living in? I’m pretty confident saying that zero of the humans I know who don’t work directly in programming-related IT fields don’t even know what ‘git’ is. The British non-coder folks I know might think I’ve just insulted them, but other than that, blank faces all around.
That kind of thinking from a rarified environment is why simple things that “we all know” we shouldn’t do turn into huge security issues. We all know, but they don’t. They outnumber we by a huge margin. And FSM willing, they always will. That’s called “job security.” You can’t create interfaces built on the assumption that users have the same background knowledge that we’ve acquired through years or decades of daily immersion. When security fails in those situations, it’s the programmer, not the user who did something stupid.
Umm. . . USBOverdrive? Works nicely on El Capitan. All 8 buttons on my Logitech are mapped to useful functions.
Even the stock MS & Logitech drivers let you remap the extra buttons if you don’t want to shell out the $20 for USBOverdrive. USBOverdrive lets you setup keyboard & mouse macros per-application which can come in handy.
Also, do we all know about @SwearengenCD? He goes a long time between tweets sometimes, but his backlog is hilarious. And close to home some days.
All of my code is shiny & chrome.
My brain read the headline as something something Swedish House Mafia attacks US banks. I guess maybe that's not too far off in this case.
The retained the legal right to determine what "ongoing" means. They own the horse. They chose to shoot it and turn it into glue.
The meaning of lifetime is settled law. Without an explicit statement of what it means, it means nothing. The user agreement has been satisfied legally. Customers don't have to like it, but they're unlikely to prevail in court.
They did indeed receive "lifetime" support. The product's lifetime has come to an end.
Those are merely the most convenient method to keep the car you own running.
You're free to build a wood gassification rig and modify the engine to run on that. You're free to modify it to run on high-proof alcohol and refine your own. In theory, you could strike oil on your own property and refine it in small scale to make your own gasoline. All options inconvenient and expensive, but possibly legal with certain safety and environmental restrictions to contend with.
You're probably not free (due to DMCA reverse engineering restrictions) to modify your Revolv to build your own version of their server architecture.
Gross over simplification. The device will cease to work because Google will no longer pay for hardware, power, bandwidth, staff, etc. necessary to maintain a server farm to provide online services which the device uses. They're not obligated to continue to spend that money forever any more than they're obligated to continue providing Gmail free of charge forever.
You might want to look up the legal definition of "lifetime" with respect to warranties, promises of future service, etc.
Hint: There isn't a legal definition of that word in those contexts.
TFA & other stuff I’ve read on this accuse them of taking an affirmative action to destroy the hardware, IE “intentionally bricked.” Reality is that they’re turning off servers that the hardware needs to function. Net effect to the consumer is the same, but the inflammatory language is inaccurate.
If Google sent down a kill packet or firmware update that was intended to ruin a piece of hardware that would otherwise continue to function as-is if they hadn’t done so, that’s “intentionally bricked.” If they shutdown a server farm that consumers aren’t paying any on-going fees to make use of, that’s a different thing. Google has an obligation to not destroy something you bought, but they’re not obligated to keep providing you free server time.
Basically what I’m trying to say is read the fine print and check your entitlement. You chose to pay money for a product that was dependent on someone else’s charity to keep working. You backed the wrong horse.
If you can’t smash everything it needs to work with a hammer, you don’t own it.
There’s no uniform meaning to “lifetime.” If the warranty doesn’t specifically state the lifetime to which it refers, it might as well not exist.
Says Consumer Reports
Can I at least write it as a LLVM backend, or are you the kind of sadist who’s going to make me implement my own C preprocessor first and work from there?
Consider the average smartphone user doesn't know the difference between hard drive "memory" and RAM "memory" on a computer.
Clearing caches causes apps to discard downloaded and pre-calculated resources to free local storage space. These resources can be recovered when needed later by either redownloading them (probably costing $ for data usage) or recalculating them, probably using battery. I'm sure we all know iPhone users who obsessively "quit" their apps by double-tap-home & swiping them, under the mistaken belief that it somehow saves resources or makes the phone run faster (Facebook app notwithstanding...). Given a shiny "Clear caches" button, many users would obsessively hit it without understanding what it does or needing to use the function. The end result would be a significant amount of wasted data and battery usage for these users and a general slow down in their apps (waiting while things download or rebuild). Instead, the operating system automatically invokes the feature only when space is running out & more is needed.
More buttons isn't always the best approach. An operating system is supposed to manage and abstract low-level details for things that can be automated in a reasonable fashion. Cleaning up temp files is certainly something that a human shouldn't have to do regularly.
The question I have is whether these users are freeing up space because they genuinely need it, or just because seeing "X GB free" on the screen makes them feel better. The phone should already invoke cache cleanup when installing apps and generally any time it runs out of storage. IE doing it automatically when it's necessary to do it. An iPhone with very little "free" storage space isn't a problem. There's no benefit (and in fact there's cost) to obsessively forcing the OS to cleanup when it's not necessary.
If there are cases where an operation will fail due to low free space and not invoke the cleanup process that this rental trick fixes, then that's a bug in the OS that should be fixed.
Everyone else is telling their stories, so.
I had a 3G-class MiFi card from VZW. They were rolling their network from 3G->LTE in the area where I work, and the card went from “perfect coverage” to “maybe" to "don’t even bother" in the space of about a month. I’d bought the card less than two years ago at this point.
About this time, I got a, “You’re eligible for an upgrade,” email from Verizon, so figured I’d go to the store near by one lunch break. Picked out a new LTE card, which would have cost me $99 to get a working device again. During check-out, sales drone told me my existing 3GB/month plan (more than enough for my needs at the time) was discontinued, and I’d have to pay an extra $20/month for a 5GB plan I didn’t need or want. No way to grandfather existing plan. They justified the mandatory increase because, “it was faster.” Accurate, but considering I was satisfied with 3G speeds and wouldn’t have upgraded absent them forcing the issue, not a reasonable excuse to increase my rate by 40%. Still, I needed tetherable data, so I grudgingly continued with the process only to then be told the upgrade email was “sent in error” and I would actually have to pay full price for the card.
So $99 + $20/month increase turned into $300 + $20/month increase just to continue using a service that Verizon unilaterally broke by changing their network within the reasonable lifetime of a device they sold me. Amortizing the full price card over two years, that was a $32/month increase which basically doubled what I was paying before taxes. That’s not considering that I was essentially double-paying for the card considering they were still charging me the same monthly price as if I’d taken a new device under contract while still charging me full non-contract price for the device itself.
At that point, I told them to cancel the sale. I took my existing card, snapped it in half, and dropped it on the counter saying I’d like to cancel my service now, please. Oddly enough, they didn’t try to run retention games on me after that, and just canceled no questions... Sometimes being considered the crazy customer gets stuff done.
I walked next door to AT&T to enable tethering on my iPhone instead. I lost my grandfathered AT&T unlimited data in the process alas, but saved about $20/month all told versus what I’d originally been paying Verizon, nevermind their double cost forced upgrade price.
It *was* nice having devices from two carriers in case of coverage issues with one, but haven’t missed Verizon’s BS over the last four years without them.