44.1KHz, 16 bit is fine -- that's what my music is, anyway.
Last I looked into Airplay, it was so Apple-centric and weird (needing all Apple hardware and a certain vintage of Apple Airport) that I stopped looking in disgust (my wireless infrastructure works fine without Apple componentry).
But if it now does what you say, then I can use an old Android phone (or maybe a Linux box) as a receiver, which can then be plugged in with HDMI (or Toslink, respectively).
Not all of the innovation in portable markets has already occurred.
I want a phone with a keyboard, a barometer, and a gyroscope. I want a phone that I can leisurely play music on my stereo with, without being tethered with wires or using lossy-codec A2DP Bluetooth. I want a phone which can actually power an external USB device, so I can add other features as-needed, such as RS-232 and/or RS-485 and/or real fucking Ethernet, or at least be able to plug a flash drive into it. And I want it to have a high-resolution IPS display. And an unlocked bootloader. And freedom to build my own kernels. And a clear designation that the warranty of the hardware is unaffected by the state of the software.
This is the part where someone chimes in and says "Yes, and I'd also like a pony." But I'm also willing to pay hundreds of dollars extra for a pocket computer that does this stuff.
But in this context (the Seattle non-fiasco), it doesn't seem to be a big deal. Things were/are fine.
That said: Everyone wants and expects their 911 services to be absolutely bullet-proof, but nobody paying for it gives a fuck about the funding for that. 911 (in these parts) is funded in ways that are more straight-forward than gasoline taxes, and relatively easily understood. And these taxes are currently on the chopping block, for the benefit of no-one and the detriment of all.
But that's a different issue than 911 being generally available in the face of catastrophic failure, which it is. The issues you list are those of training deficiency, and the training is lax perhaps only because the regular system(s) are so reliable that nobody bothers to consider the concept that failure is a very realistic option.
The article mentioned being able to pull it into a tight spot where you normally wouldn't be able to open the doors after you parked. But what about the cars beside you, who also wont be able to open their doors now?!
That's what these are for. Combine one of these with appropriate force, and simple attrition will take care of the problem.
At a paltry 1.2 MPH maximum speed, you can easily pace the car on foot and see exactly what is around it with your own eyes, which may be safer than trusting blind spots. Anyone who had a toy radio controlled car as a kid would find this thing ridiculously easy to move around, especially at such speeds as this.
It is certainly mountains easier than operating a JLG with a knuckle-boom, and everyone I've thrown into one of those gets it figured out fairly quickly.
That said, the only thing that seems useful about it that a rear-view camera doesn't cheaply provide is the ability to park in absurdly improbable spots that may otherwise be useful only for motorcycles. Alternatively, if these were common it'd be simple to improve parking lot densities.
Also, shipping containers: Perhaps the ability to neatly load the car into a standard shipping container is enough of a selling point. It may make exporting the car cheaper and more easily accomplished, which translates to more sales.
Realistically it seems like it's mostly a toy for most drivers. Which, IMHO, is OK too: A buddy of mine had a small Chinese scooter that had a remote starter on it, which was absolutely the most useless feature ever. But it sure was fun to play with for a minute or two and probably only cost the manufacturer a bit of wire and an extra button or two on the keyfob...so why not?
In my experience with 911 and emergency communications (none of which is anywhere near the scale of what Seattle must have), they have power redundancy (consisting of one or more UPS and one or more standby generator), connectivity redundancy (multiple telephone/data circuits going to different places), and physical redundancy.
So if one 911 PSAP goes completely offline for any reason, there is one or more geographically independent backup PSAPs which can take over in quid-pro-quo fashion.
Do things get a little bit harrier when this happens? Absolutely: You've got folks who, no matter how good they are at doing their usual job, are now doing a somewhat different and more complex job. Efficiency goes to shit, but more hands are easily called in/moved around to help with that in short order.
So. The 911 phone will still be answered, and your ambulance/fire brigade/armed posse is still within easy grasp.
They look like regular needle nose pliers, but with much longer handles. The joint is constructed such that force is multiplied, with a clever arrangement of sliding-bits and levers. They work with the speed and ease-of-use of normal pliers, but the force applied is such that you can just grab onto the outside of the fastener's head and turn.
I tried to find another pair on Google for your visual delight, but alas. Mine were purchased at an Autozone in western Ohio, sold under the Ampro name. I found them in the clearance bin for about $6, and they've paid for themselves many, many times over.
If a device is described as a lock and does not in fact perform that function, to the point where intervention is required, then is it unreasonable to assume that the defect is by design? I would say not.
It is common knowledge that locks only keep out honest people.
Corollarily, a lock which allows entry by dishonest people is still a lock.
If it were a mechanical lock with pins and tumblers, it would be defeatable by dishonest people. This lock happens to be electronic, and is also defeatable by dishonest people.
I don't see the difference in the context that you specify.
How well does your Gator Grip work on small socket-cap Torx screws, such as those discussed in TFA?
It looks like a lovely tool for removing things that have external facets (common hexagonal nuts and bolts), but from what I see it is a picture of failure and frustration for anything else -- especially if it is very small (which lockset screws typically are).
I had to defeat some stainless steel T10 Security Torx screws in the process of doing my job, recently, as I was moving old hardware from one place to another.
Normally, I carry a large assortment of cheap "security" driver bits with me, but alas they were not with me at the time (indeed, they were 40 miles away).
Solution: I used a regular-old Klein T10 driver. I smashed it into the head of the screw a few times with the palm of my hand (no hammer needed), and the protruding post neatly bent over and squished itself into the valley of the Torx socket. This left plenty of surface area to neatly grab the fastener in the conventional way (with the same, and now proper driver), and remove it.
I was fairly amused that this worked the first time. And then I repeated it 7 more times for the other screws with similar success. (The Klein screwdriver was unfazed.)
(For the uninitiated: Torx screws intentionally require very little engagement depth to properly mate a driver to the fastener, by design. It is perhaps the singular thing they're very good at, and also the one thing that allowed them to be so easily circumvented in this case of them being modified for "security.")
Forget applying a "short" "directly at the actuator" (whatever that means): If you've already got the lockset disassembled, you just unlock it mechanically; no electronics needed.
That said, presumably (and I did R most of TFA), neat disassembly also requires access to the locked room, as is the case with most locks which are designed to be secure in only one direction.
But without more data, I'm led to wonder if the "free" workaround cap is actually all that physically secure, anyway: Being both a retrofit and (and again I presume) only having been designed within the past month or so, and then built down to a cost that can be distributed for free, it seems entirely likely that the cap itself might still be vulnerable to defeat from outside.
All of the people I've personally known to have made regular use of heroin or cocaine have also had regular jobs, and lived an honest (though often intoxicated) life. The thieves that I've personally known didn't tend to use these drugs, if they used any.
The chips were able to support literal 44.1/16 20-ish years ago, too: In a world before AC97, sound cards tended to do one thing at a time, and do it exactly as they were told to do so, whether the rate was 44100Hz, 22050Hz, 48000Hz, or 11025Hz.
That said: Software layers do suck, and that's the system's problem. I don't normally use a sound card, per se, but a system that contains one which also has at least one layer of software in front of it.
I've done bit-perfect things under Linux and FreeBSD using paid-for drivers from 4front, with good results. But the world today (with layers of ALSA and/or PulseAudio and/or ESD) is dramatically more...vague. Certainly it can be made to work, but you're likely to temporarily break everything else in the process, which in turn results in a very poorly-performing system.
But it doesn't matter if its rational. If labeling is what folks want, then labeling we should have.
To be clear, I'm not anti-GM food. While my own gardening practices are rather organic (especially with regards to pesticides and herbicides, which I find zero use for), I'll gleefully stuff all manner of things into my gullet that I find appetizing with little regard for its source or its treatment.
But with labels, I (the consumer, who will integrate the food product into my own body) can make a more informed decision about the food that I eat (though whether I choose to or not is my own problem).
If I find GM-derived food to be better in some measure that is important to me, I'll buy more of it. If I find that it is substandard according to my own whims, then I'll tend to buy less of it. And if I find that it is exactly the same (as so many claim), then I will tend to select whichever product is a better value.
But as things stand: In the process of consuming possible-GM food, I don't know a damned thing about its origins or treatment, except that it exists, and I may or may not be eating it.
There is no argument which can be made which would persuade me to believe that having less information available is better than having more information available.
Before we start a dick measuring contest based on Slashdot UIDs:
First off, if you've got your users grabbing random (to them) software and slogging through a shell, you're doing it wrong. Whatever it is that you've got them doing is something that you've already failed to automate on their behalf.
Secondly, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. It seems to me that if there were software in existence that worked just like VNC but in reverse, it would fit your important* requirements just fine.
Now, suppose this concept already existed, and had been in use for some years. How would you find such a thing? Nobody would be stupid enough to call it reverse VNC, would they?
But just to make sure, I googled reverse VNC and HOLY FUCK THERE IT IS!
*: Your requirement of running in a web browser is as ridiculous as your unstated requirement that it not be VNC.
I just map the caps-lock key to control, which is where it used to be on PCs anyway. Easy to grab with the left-pinky, and being on the home row it minimizes the length of the finger-grope.
This doesn't affect them I don't think--the SMS based authentication I've seen with my bank and Google all involve them sending me a code which I enter on their site. This issue wouldn't cause any problems with that.
This being Slashdot, you are probably fairly immune to phishing attacks by virtue of approaching every unexpected communique with a measured level of mistrust. However, the rest of the world is not necessarily so-afflicted.
It will affect folks exactly as much as email-based phishing attacks with forged headers have in the past.
I've got an old laptop with a 1920x1200 15.4" screen, and ever since I bought it (7 or 8 years ago) I've been looking for something with similar DPI for my desk. Haven't found it.
I've even looked into adapting such a laptop display for desktop use by grafting on a DVI port, but it turns out that it's a fool's errand of expensive and fickle adapters (or Deep Magic that I am not privy to understanding).
I mostly gave up on this quest some time ago, but with Apple's push toward higher-resolution displays it might actually happen sometime within my lifetime as others compete with their offerings.
Slashdot Mirror
44.1KHz, 16 bit is fine -- that's what my music is, anyway.
Last I looked into Airplay, it was so Apple-centric and weird (needing all Apple hardware and a certain vintage of Apple Airport) that I stopped looking in disgust (my wireless infrastructure works fine without Apple componentry).
But if it now does what you say, then I can use an old Android phone (or maybe a Linux box) as a receiver, which can then be plugged in with HDMI (or Toslink, respectively).
Which solves one issue. Thanks!
Not all of the innovation in portable markets has already occurred.
I want a phone with a keyboard, a barometer, and a gyroscope. I want a phone that I can leisurely play music on my stereo with, without being tethered with wires or using lossy-codec A2DP Bluetooth. I want a phone which can actually power an external USB device, so I can add other features as-needed, such as RS-232 and/or RS-485 and/or real fucking Ethernet, or at least be able to plug a flash drive into it. And I want it to have a high-resolution IPS display. And an unlocked bootloader. And freedom to build my own kernels. And a clear designation that the warranty of the hardware is unaffected by the state of the software.
This is the part where someone chimes in and says "Yes, and I'd also like a pony." But I'm also willing to pay hundreds of dollars extra for a pocket computer that does this stuff.
No system is without faults.
But in this context (the Seattle non-fiasco), it doesn't seem to be a big deal. Things were/are fine.
That said: Everyone wants and expects their 911 services to be absolutely bullet-proof, but nobody paying for it gives a fuck about the funding for that. 911 (in these parts) is funded in ways that are more straight-forward than gasoline taxes, and relatively easily understood. And these taxes are currently on the chopping block, for the benefit of no-one and the detriment of all.
But that's a different issue than 911 being generally available in the face of catastrophic failure, which it is. The issues you list are those of training deficiency, and the training is lax perhaps only because the regular system(s) are so reliable that nobody bothers to consider the concept that failure is a very realistic option.
That's what these are for. Combine one of these with appropriate force, and simple attrition will take care of the problem.
What is this crazy moon-man language with which you speak?
At a paltry 1.2 MPH maximum speed, you can easily pace the car on foot and see exactly what is around it with your own eyes, which may be safer than trusting blind spots. Anyone who had a toy radio controlled car as a kid would find this thing ridiculously easy to move around, especially at such speeds as this.
It is certainly mountains easier than operating a JLG with a knuckle-boom, and everyone I've thrown into one of those gets it figured out fairly quickly.
That said, the only thing that seems useful about it that a rear-view camera doesn't cheaply provide is the ability to park in absurdly improbable spots that may otherwise be useful only for motorcycles. Alternatively, if these were common it'd be simple to improve parking lot densities.
Also, shipping containers: Perhaps the ability to neatly load the car into a standard shipping container is enough of a selling point. It may make exporting the car cheaper and more easily accomplished, which translates to more sales.
Realistically it seems like it's mostly a toy for most drivers. Which, IMHO, is OK too: A buddy of mine had a small Chinese scooter that had a remote starter on it, which was absolutely the most useless feature ever. But it sure was fun to play with for a minute or two and probably only cost the manufacturer a bit of wire and an extra button or two on the keyfob...so why not?
In my experience with 911 and emergency communications (none of which is anywhere near the scale of what Seattle must have), they have power redundancy (consisting of one or more UPS and one or more standby generator), connectivity redundancy (multiple telephone/data circuits going to different places), and physical redundancy.
So if one 911 PSAP goes completely offline for any reason, there is one or more geographically independent backup PSAPs which can take over in quid-pro-quo fashion.
Do things get a little bit harrier when this happens? Absolutely: You've got folks who, no matter how good they are at doing their usual job, are now doing a somewhat different and more complex job. Efficiency goes to shit, but more hands are easily called in/moved around to help with that in short order.
So. The 911 phone will still be answered, and your ambulance/fire brigade/armed posse is still within easy grasp.
They look like regular needle nose pliers, but with much longer handles. The joint is constructed such that force is multiplied, with a clever arrangement of sliding-bits and levers. They work with the speed and ease-of-use of normal pliers, but the force applied is such that you can just grab onto the outside of the fastener's head and turn.
I tried to find another pair on Google for your visual delight, but alas. Mine were purchased at an Autozone in western Ohio, sold under the Ampro name. I found them in the clearance bin for about $6, and they've paid for themselves many, many times over.
*5*
It is common knowledge that locks only keep out honest people.
Corollarily, a lock which allows entry by dishonest people is still a lock.
If it were a mechanical lock with pins and tumblers, it would be defeatable by dishonest people. This lock happens to be electronic, and is also defeatable by dishonest people.
I don't see the difference in the context that you specify.
I've defeated many "one-way" pan-head screws with force-multiplying pliers. Just grab and turn.
How well does your Gator Grip work on small socket-cap Torx screws, such as those discussed in TFA?
It looks like a lovely tool for removing things that have external facets (common hexagonal nuts and bolts), but from what I see it is a picture of failure and frustration for anything else -- especially if it is very small (which lockset screws typically are).
I had to defeat some stainless steel T10 Security Torx screws in the process of doing my job, recently, as I was moving old hardware from one place to another.
Normally, I carry a large assortment of cheap "security" driver bits with me, but alas they were not with me at the time (indeed, they were 40 miles away).
Solution: I used a regular-old Klein T10 driver. I smashed it into the head of the screw a few times with the palm of my hand (no hammer needed), and the protruding post neatly bent over and squished itself into the valley of the Torx socket. This left plenty of surface area to neatly grab the fastener in the conventional way (with the same, and now proper driver), and remove it.
I was fairly amused that this worked the first time. And then I repeated it 7 more times for the other screws with similar success. (The Klein screwdriver was unfazed.)
(For the uninitiated: Torx screws intentionally require very little engagement depth to properly mate a driver to the fastener, by design. It is perhaps the singular thing they're very good at, and also the one thing that allowed them to be so easily circumvented in this case of them being modified for "security.")
Forget applying a "short" "directly at the actuator" (whatever that means): If you've already got the lockset disassembled, you just unlock it mechanically; no electronics needed.
That said, presumably (and I did R most of TFA), neat disassembly also requires access to the locked room, as is the case with most locks which are designed to be secure in only one direction.
But without more data, I'm led to wonder if the "free" workaround cap is actually all that physically secure, anyway: Being both a retrofit and (and again I presume) only having been designed within the past month or so, and then built down to a cost that can be distributed for free, it seems entirely likely that the cap itself might still be vulnerable to defeat from outside.
I am but one data point, but:
All of the people I've personally known to have made regular use of heroin or cocaine have also had regular jobs, and lived an honest (though often intoxicated) life. The thieves that I've personally known didn't tend to use these drugs, if they used any.
Your mileage may vary.
The chips were able to support literal 44.1/16 20-ish years ago, too: In a world before AC97, sound cards tended to do one thing at a time, and do it exactly as they were told to do so, whether the rate was 44100Hz, 22050Hz, 48000Hz, or 11025Hz.
That said: Software layers do suck, and that's the system's problem. I don't normally use a sound card, per se, but a system that contains one which also has at least one layer of software in front of it.
I've done bit-perfect things under Linux and FreeBSD using paid-for drivers from 4front, with good results. But the world today (with layers of ALSA and/or PulseAudio and/or ESD) is dramatically more...vague. Certainly it can be made to work, but you're likely to temporarily break everything else in the process, which in turn results in a very poorly-performing system.
But it doesn't matter if its rational. If labeling is what folks want, then labeling we should have.
To be clear, I'm not anti-GM food. While my own gardening practices are rather organic (especially with regards to pesticides and herbicides, which I find zero use for), I'll gleefully stuff all manner of things into my gullet that I find appetizing with little regard for its source or its treatment.
But with labels, I (the consumer, who will integrate the food product into my own body) can make a more informed decision about the food that I eat (though whether I choose to or not is my own problem).
If I find GM-derived food to be better in some measure that is important to me, I'll buy more of it. If I find that it is substandard according to my own whims, then I'll tend to buy less of it. And if I find that it is exactly the same (as so many claim), then I will tend to select whichever product is a better value.
But as things stand: In the process of consuming possible-GM food, I don't know a damned thing about its origins or treatment, except that it exists, and I may or may not be eating it.
There is no argument which can be made which would persuade me to believe that having less information available is better than having more information available.
Pro-tip: Google often returns more than one result.
Scroll down. Try to solve the problem you have, and stop blaming others for failing to sufficiently spoon-feed it to you.
Why not convert the starving children into food?
If you judge me by my appearance, I will judge you for being judgmental.
Before we start a dick measuring contest based on Slashdot UIDs:
First off, if you've got your users grabbing random (to them) software and slogging through a shell, you're doing it wrong. Whatever it is that you've got them doing is something that you've already failed to automate on their behalf.
Secondly, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. It seems to me that if there were software in existence that worked just like VNC but in reverse, it would fit your important* requirements just fine.
Now, suppose this concept already existed, and had been in use for some years. How would you find such a thing? Nobody would be stupid enough to call it reverse VNC, would they?
But just to make sure, I googled reverse VNC and HOLY FUCK THERE IT IS!
*: Your requirement of running in a web browser is as ridiculous as your unstated requirement that it not be VNC.
I just map the caps-lock key to control, which is where it used to be on PCs anyway. Easy to grab with the left-pinky, and being on the home row it minimizes the length of the finger-grope.
Who needs caps lock, anyway?
Sold!
This being Slashdot, you are probably fairly immune to phishing attacks by virtue of approaching every unexpected communique with a measured level of mistrust. However, the rest of the world is not necessarily so-afflicted.
It will affect folks exactly as much as email-based phishing attacks with forged headers have in the past.
I've got an old laptop with a 1920x1200 15.4" screen, and ever since I bought it (7 or 8 years ago) I've been looking for something with similar DPI for my desk. Haven't found it.
I've even looked into adapting such a laptop display for desktop use by grafting on a DVI port, but it turns out that it's a fool's errand of expensive and fickle adapters (or Deep Magic that I am not privy to understanding).
I mostly gave up on this quest some time ago, but with Apple's push toward higher-resolution displays it might actually happen sometime within my lifetime as others compete with their offerings.