This is only a small part of the issues I have about the report. What is the chip monitoring or able to monitor? How is it programmed?
It's not impossible to envisage something that, say, could monitor Ethernet for a string and use that to program itself, but something that can both see an incoming Ethernet packet and see what the CPU is doing is harder to conceptualize.
What happened to the freedom to choose who you listen to?
I think you're talking to the wrong crowd there, the right wing was pretty pissed when, for example, Randi Harper created the anti-gamergate block list.
That said, almost every freedom has a limit. Choosing not to accept emergency alerts places not just you but others around you that may not have the same technologies in danger.
And on that note, that's probably ultimately why the "Trump will abuse this" thing is silly. If Trump starts using it to slime survivors of attempted rape or promote smears against hispanics, the probability is that people will start blocking the alerts regardless, and phone companies themselves may pull out of the program.
Why? Because it's of benefit to your son both directly and indirectly. Directly, HPV causes cancer in men too. Indirectly it would suck if he transmitted HPV to a future partner and she got cancer.
If I'm reading SB correctly, he's not saying "Why should I pay for this in any way", he's saying "Why shouldn't this be subsidized, so it's free for all, which I'll pay for through my taxes. Why should people have to pay for it directly when they may feel that it's no benefit to themselves to do so?" The first line of the post you're responding to says "This is the solution. That vaccine should be free. Herd immunity benefits everyone."
That doesn't require the substantial changes, or even merit an announcement, that the article implies - "Motherboard revision B" type stuff has been typical since the microcomputer industry was created (and presumably predates that.)
It does all suggest that the Switch just isn't selling well, which is a shame. Nintendo definitely got it right with the Wii, but they seem to have been having problems since. Everyone has their own opinions, but my gut tells me that the Wii succeeded because it had special features that whose utility was obvious to the market, and it was cheap. Both the Wii U and Switch also have special features with obvious utility, but neither were/are inexpensive, and you get the impression watching the ads that the Switch is the ultimate successor to the DS, not a "proper" TV console.
I love what Nintendo does, and hope they can ultimately find a way to make this work. It'd be depressing for the market to contract to two phenomenally expensive consoles that are pretty much identical but cannot run the same "exclusives".
you do realize the cellular texting systems were designed for
meet u 4 lnch
True, and it shows they're not really with it and happening and hellow fellow kids. If they had any sense, they'd send out YouTube alerts rather than text messages, it's what the cool kids are doing.
Hi, President [Placeholder] here with an important message for the entire country, we're going to be talking about some frightening stuff that's going to happen to all of you in just a few minutes, but first I want to say hello to our sponsors, Dollar Shave Club, who are bringing this alert to you today. Dollar Shave has some awesome gear to keep that face smooth and fresh, and if you wait until the end of this message, they've got an exclusive message just for our viewers. So, uh, stay on to the end! OK, now, let's talk about the alert, yes, the alert, now some of you may be aware that we're currently not having a friendly relationship with China, I mean, we've put some tariffs on some of their goods, they've put some on our's, there's that whole lead painted iPhones thing, and, well, one thing's lead to another, and YES, it looks like they've launched some nuclear weapons. Mostly at the West Coast, so those of you in Seattle, well, you're screwed. Californians, you might want to high tail it out of there if you're in San Diego, Angelians you might as well stay put, the traffic's going to keep you there anyway, am I right? So yes, West Coast, Nuke coming your way. Now we are sending some Nukes their way of course, so if you have friends in China, you probably want to call them now and say goodbye. Alright. Well, that's the alert. Brought to you by Dollar Shave Club, if you go to their website right now and punch in the code SAVE10, you can get 10% off your very next order. That code again, SAVE10. Right, that's all I have today, if you like alerts like this, don't forget to subscribe! We'll see you next time, unless you're on the West Coast of course! See you soon!"
I don't see where anyone is saying you're "owed" a job. That said, an employer who fires someone because they were skilled enough to automate their job is an idiot. That's someone you want to keep on to fix other inefficient processes.
It's a shame that when DARPA pushes money towards this kind of thing, it means less money for real science, rather than less money for overpriced, unnecessary, fighter jets.
Commercial speech has always been subject to local, state, and Federal regulation. This is rather obviously commercial speech. I mean, you can't get either more commercial or more speechy than a bot promoting a product by "talking" to people.
I'm not sure what you're saying is 100% true, but that said, the difference between the lowest and highest paid in most companies means that the wages of the bottom 50-80% of the company's employees are rarely a significant part of the sale price.
To put it another way, if you want to reduce costs in most modern corporations, you'd achieve more by firing half the top executives than half the people who do the work.
It's not going to be able to do anything about a Russian bot trying to make you mad about The Last Jedi.
It is, however, likely to be enforceable if a Burger King bot farm is trying to convince people, including at least one Californian, that the new BK Whopper Deluxe With Bacon Plus is the best burger ever made. Even if the bot is operating outside of CA, the fact it interacted with a Californian brings it within the jurisdiction of the Californian courts, and the fact Burger King wants to do business in California means the Californian courts have enforcement powers.
I guess the question is how much of the latter is going on and is a problem.
...which is fine. Anti-union campaigns that involve smearing unions and firing unionization advocates suck. Anti-union campaigns that involve improving conditions for workers so they don't need to unionize are a good thing. Even the unions will tell you that.
I hate that phrase, it makes no sense. You're either guilty or you're not. Whether it's proven or not is a different issue.
A legitimate rephrasing would be "You are assumed innocent until proven guilty."
But let's be clear too: that applies to criminal trials. It doesn't apply to civil trials. And it certainly doesn't apply to job interviews, especially not job interviews for one of the most important jobs in the country, one with a life tenure.
For civil trials, generally a balance of probabilities test is used. For job interviews, the fact someone is a controversial choice is frequently enough to ensure they don't get the job.
The Kavanaugh hearings are for a job interview. It's being asked whether he can be trusted to be a Supreme Court justice. Disregarding his actions since the attempted rape allegations were made (which are disqualifying, you don't slam a political party you disagree with claiming an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory, trivialize the affects of your own alcoholism, and most importantly of all, repeatedly make completely unnecessary lies), he wouldn't get high-up, public facing, jobs elsewhere in the country with any private institutions given the number of sexual assault allegations against him, and given his failure to address them truthfully.
First of all, they are not regulating interstate commerce. They are only regulating how ISPs get to do business in california. The ISPs can do as they like in other states.
Interstate commerce is a very broad concept, and I forget the case, but at one point was used to justify the Feds determining what could food you could grow in your own back yard, the logic being that your doing so affects how you'd spend money on Interstate goods.
And, you know what, they're right. The concept of states regulating commerce was already shaky when the the constitution was drawn up given the Feds would be in charge of issuing currency, but back then a visit to a market ten miles away was a three day round trip for most participants so it probably sounded like a good ida. The concepts of states regulating the economy became obsolete, and positively silly, with the first interstate railroads.
As far as your second point goes: the Federal government does have power to regulate the (American part of) the Internet. They, and specifically the agency that should, may claim not to, but they do have that power. The fact that they pretend not to wouldn't make California's actions constitutional (I'm told CA has made efforts to ensure it can't count as interstate commerce, but I'll believe that when I see it, I seriously doubt there's a way to do so.)
Reminder: the fact the Federal government has power is not a reason to vote for cretins who whine about "small government" although somehow always manage to make it more draconian, it's a reason to vote for competence. Even if that means voting for a woman who committed the worst crime possible - running her own email server.
He's going to have a boss he can look at. He's always had shareholders as his nominal bosses, but his actions have proven he can't be trusted to represent their interests, so now he's going to have someone over him that can tell him to stop.
It's worth noting that if he's respected by the board and his influence is felt to be an integral to the way the company works, this'll be little more than symbolic. Boards rarely overrule CEOs or micromanage them. If the relationship between a CEO and the board breaks down to the point that the CEO's influence over the immediate and long term direction of the company is undermined, boards usually fire the CEO and pick someone they can trust.
I don't have the same high opinion of Musk that people here generally do, but I find it doubtful that the board of Tesla, even with two new outsiders joining, is suddenly going to go anti-Musk. He has built the company's culture, he's a popular figure outside of Tesla, he's Tesla's post-NeXT Steve Jobs. If he's kicked out, it'll be after some disastrous performance from the company as a whole, and if that happens the chances are Tesla will be dead anyway, whoever's in charge.
Probably got the name from overhearing something at a coffee/cheese shop, too.
No, it's the domain they'd been using for years for their own business.
I'm also entirely happy with the notion that they held out because the purchasers had deep pockets. I think that's entirely reasonable when you're talking about what's essentially a luxury item - get a domain name that matches your preferred branding. The proposed buyers could easily have backed out, said the proposed price was too high, and picked a different name. There was literally NOTHING about that domain name and branding that meant they had to use it or that it would have created massive barriers to what they wanted to do to choose a different one.
Some of it is implied access. For example, if a phone rotates from portrait to landscape mode, it'll typically re-layout the page to fit the new aspect ratio. It then becomes trivial for Javascript to determine that the phone has been rotated.
As far as stuff like the proximity and lighting sensors, there are direct APIs and I couldn't tell you why phones give developers access to those by default.
While CBS owns the appearance of the TNG Enterprise, the law clearly allows derivative works (such as parodies and fan-inspired art).
No it doesn't. Parodies usually fall under the banner of fair use, though not as often as people think. Fan inspired art has no defenses at all that I'm aware of. The law far from allowing derivative works usually restricts it.
Nope. This was "You check your personal email at work, suddenly your bookmarks include all those personal sites you bookmarked on your home PC that you wouldn't want your employer to know you visit" (you know, Monster.com, DICE.com, LinkedIn.com, NakedHotSexyJobs.xxx, that kind of thing)
While arcade games are the obvious headline use of "VR", I'm bothered that a company whose entire business model is about sucking the most private personal secrets from you, and manipulating you by attacking your emotions, is in control of a system that could potentially be used for some very personal applications.
Especially as that's the number one reason why I think Facebook bought Oculus in the first place.
The question isn't "Will Facebook abuse this?" but what plans do they already have for abusing it.
I recall Linus Torvalds saying that telneting to a Bitkeeper server's service port and typing the word "HELP" amounted to hacking, so our standards are pretty low already.
1. More and more applications are being delivered via the browser.
2. It's not really that any more. Almost Chromebooks are capable of running native apps, there just aren't many right now. More than 90% of Chromebooks, and pretty much all new Chromebooks, can run Android applications. And, as I said, Crostini is being rolled out now, making the functionality of a Chromebook indistinguishable from that of any more traditional GNU/Linux system, except with really strong sandboxing.
I would have no problem running a business from my Chromebook. My major reason for not using one as my primary system is that I'm a software developer, but that may change once Crostini becomes production ready. Being able to run Atom and/or Eclipse, with a native Outlook client, moderately good Microsoft file format options (Microsoft's own Office Online and Mobile Office work fine on it already), without having to deal with Windows 10's constant BS, will be awesome. It's already working better for certain applications than my Windows PC does.
If they could release a version with Firefox instead of Chrome, it'd be perfect.
it's pretty hard to buy a computer with it pre-installed and supported
Define "Linux". The second most popular type of laptop computer right now are Chromebooks, which do everything most people need (and will cover a much greater percentage of those left's needs once Crostini is ready.) I've stopped recommending Windows machines to family members who have problems with computers. a Chromebook fits their requirements perfectly, with no risk of being bamboozed by calls from "Windows" about viruses on their computers.
The scope of the environment Microsoft controls is reducing rapidly. Nerds can run Ubuntu (or I guess a Ubuntu fork, because Ubuntu isn't hipster compliant enough); people who need a computer to write emails, browse the web, and occasionally pay their taxes or write letters, are well served by Chromebooks. Macs have their creativity niche. Which leaves Windows as a gamers platform, for those gamers who want something a little more mod friendly than a console.
Why doesn't Google just come out and say it. They're sucking up every bit of your information to sell to someone
Because there's no evidence they are, and good reasons for them not to, namely that if they started selling your information to others, then other rival advertisers could buy that information and use it to provide an advertising service that competes with Google.
For all their faults, Google has absolutely no good reason to share the information it collects with anyone else. It'd completely undermine their advertising business if they did, and their advertising business is what makes the money.
Slashdot Mirror
This is only a small part of the issues I have about the report. What is the chip monitoring or able to monitor? How is it programmed?
It's not impossible to envisage something that, say, could monitor Ethernet for a string and use that to program itself, but something that can both see an incoming Ethernet packet and see what the CPU is doing is harder to conceptualize.
And that will change if the service gets abused.
I think you're talking to the wrong crowd there, the right wing was pretty pissed when, for example, Randi Harper created the anti-gamergate block list.
That said, almost every freedom has a limit. Choosing not to accept emergency alerts places not just you but others around you that may not have the same technologies in danger.
And on that note, that's probably ultimately why the "Trump will abuse this" thing is silly. If Trump starts using it to slime survivors of attempted rape or promote smears against hispanics, the probability is that people will start blocking the alerts regardless, and phone companies themselves may pull out of the program.
If I'm reading SB correctly, he's not saying "Why should I pay for this in any way", he's saying "Why shouldn't this be subsidized, so it's free for all, which I'll pay for through my taxes. Why should people have to pay for it directly when they may feel that it's no benefit to themselves to do so?" The first line of the post you're responding to says "This is the solution. That vaccine should be free. Herd immunity benefits everyone."
That doesn't require the substantial changes, or even merit an announcement, that the article implies - "Motherboard revision B" type stuff has been typical since the microcomputer industry was created (and presumably predates that.)
It does all suggest that the Switch just isn't selling well, which is a shame. Nintendo definitely got it right with the Wii, but they seem to have been having problems since. Everyone has their own opinions, but my gut tells me that the Wii succeeded because it had special features that whose utility was obvious to the market, and it was cheap. Both the Wii U and Switch also have special features with obvious utility, but neither were/are inexpensive, and you get the impression watching the ads that the Switch is the ultimate successor to the DS, not a "proper" TV console.
I love what Nintendo does, and hope they can ultimately find a way to make this work. It'd be depressing for the market to contract to two phenomenally expensive consoles that are pretty much identical but cannot run the same "exclusives".
True, and it shows they're not really with it and happening and hellow fellow kids. If they had any sense, they'd send out YouTube alerts rather than text messages, it's what the cool kids are doing.
That wouldn't answer the question, the question is how many people received the message, not how many should have received the message.
I don't see where anyone is saying you're "owed" a job. That said, an employer who fires someone because they were skilled enough to automate their job is an idiot. That's someone you want to keep on to fix other inefficient processes.
It's a shame that when DARPA pushes money towards this kind of thing, it means less money for real science, rather than less money for overpriced, unnecessary, fighter jets.
Commercial speech has always been subject to local, state, and Federal regulation. This is rather obviously commercial speech. I mean, you can't get either more commercial or more speechy than a bot promoting a product by "talking" to people.
I'm not sure what you're saying is 100% true, but that said, the difference between the lowest and highest paid in most companies means that the wages of the bottom 50-80% of the company's employees are rarely a significant part of the sale price.
To put it another way, if you want to reduce costs in most modern corporations, you'd achieve more by firing half the top executives than half the people who do the work.
It's not going to be able to do anything about a Russian bot trying to make you mad about The Last Jedi.
It is, however, likely to be enforceable if a Burger King bot farm is trying to convince people, including at least one Californian, that the new BK Whopper Deluxe With Bacon Plus is the best burger ever made. Even if the bot is operating outside of CA, the fact it interacted with a Californian brings it within the jurisdiction of the Californian courts, and the fact Burger King wants to do business in California means the Californian courts have enforcement powers.
I guess the question is how much of the latter is going on and is a problem.
...which is fine. Anti-union campaigns that involve smearing unions and firing unionization advocates suck. Anti-union campaigns that involve improving conditions for workers so they don't need to unionize are a good thing. Even the unions will tell you that.
I hate that phrase, it makes no sense. You're either guilty or you're not. Whether it's proven or not is a different issue.
A legitimate rephrasing would be "You are assumed innocent until proven guilty."
But let's be clear too: that applies to criminal trials. It doesn't apply to civil trials. And it certainly doesn't apply to job interviews, especially not job interviews for one of the most important jobs in the country, one with a life tenure.
For civil trials, generally a balance of probabilities test is used. For job interviews, the fact someone is a controversial choice is frequently enough to ensure they don't get the job.
The Kavanaugh hearings are for a job interview. It's being asked whether he can be trusted to be a Supreme Court justice. Disregarding his actions since the attempted rape allegations were made (which are disqualifying, you don't slam a political party you disagree with claiming an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory, trivialize the affects of your own alcoholism, and most importantly of all, repeatedly make completely unnecessary lies), he wouldn't get high-up, public facing, jobs elsewhere in the country with any private institutions given the number of sexual assault allegations against him, and given his failure to address them truthfully.
Interstate commerce is a very broad concept, and I forget the case, but at one point was used to justify the Feds determining what could food you could grow in your own back yard, the logic being that your doing so affects how you'd spend money on Interstate goods.
And, you know what, they're right. The concept of states regulating commerce was already shaky when the the constitution was drawn up given the Feds would be in charge of issuing currency, but back then a visit to a market ten miles away was a three day round trip for most participants so it probably sounded like a good ida. The concepts of states regulating the economy became obsolete, and positively silly, with the first interstate railroads.
As far as your second point goes: the Federal government does have power to regulate the (American part of) the Internet. They, and specifically the agency that should, may claim not to, but they do have that power. The fact that they pretend not to wouldn't make California's actions constitutional (I'm told CA has made efforts to ensure it can't count as interstate commerce, but I'll believe that when I see it, I seriously doubt there's a way to do so.)
Reminder: the fact the Federal government has power is not a reason to vote for cretins who whine about "small government" although somehow always manage to make it more draconian, it's a reason to vote for competence. Even if that means voting for a woman who committed the worst crime possible - running her own email server.
He's going to have a boss he can look at. He's always had shareholders as his nominal bosses, but his actions have proven he can't be trusted to represent their interests, so now he's going to have someone over him that can tell him to stop.
It's worth noting that if he's respected by the board and his influence is felt to be an integral to the way the company works, this'll be little more than symbolic. Boards rarely overrule CEOs or micromanage them. If the relationship between a CEO and the board breaks down to the point that the CEO's influence over the immediate and long term direction of the company is undermined, boards usually fire the CEO and pick someone they can trust.
I don't have the same high opinion of Musk that people here generally do, but I find it doubtful that the board of Tesla, even with two new outsiders joining, is suddenly going to go anti-Musk. He has built the company's culture, he's a popular figure outside of Tesla, he's Tesla's post-NeXT Steve Jobs. If he's kicked out, it'll be after some disastrous performance from the company as a whole, and if that happens the chances are Tesla will be dead anyway, whoever's in charge.
No, it's the domain they'd been using for years for their own business.
I'm also entirely happy with the notion that they held out because the purchasers had deep pockets. I think that's entirely reasonable when you're talking about what's essentially a luxury item - get a domain name that matches your preferred branding. The proposed buyers could easily have backed out, said the proposed price was too high, and picked a different name. There was literally NOTHING about that domain name and branding that meant they had to use it or that it would have created massive barriers to what they wanted to do to choose a different one.
This is legally sanctioned thievery.
Some of it is implied access. For example, if a phone rotates from portrait to landscape mode, it'll typically re-layout the page to fit the new aspect ratio. It then becomes trivial for Javascript to determine that the phone has been rotated.
As far as stuff like the proximity and lighting sensors, there are direct APIs and I couldn't tell you why phones give developers access to those by default.
No it doesn't. Parodies usually fall under the banner of fair use, though not as often as people think. Fan inspired art has no defenses at all that I'm aware of. The law far from allowing derivative works usually restricts it.
Nope. This was "You check your personal email at work, suddenly your bookmarks include all those personal sites you bookmarked on your home PC that you wouldn't want your employer to know you visit" (you know, Monster.com, DICE.com, LinkedIn.com, NakedHotSexyJobs.xxx, that kind of thing)
While arcade games are the obvious headline use of "VR", I'm bothered that a company whose entire business model is about sucking the most private personal secrets from you, and manipulating you by attacking your emotions, is in control of a system that could potentially be used for some very personal applications.
Especially as that's the number one reason why I think Facebook bought Oculus in the first place.
The question isn't "Will Facebook abuse this?" but what plans do they already have for abusing it.
I recall Linus Torvalds saying that telneting to a Bitkeeper server's service port and typing the word "HELP" amounted to hacking, so our standards are pretty low already.
There are two issues with that analysis:
1. More and more applications are being delivered via the browser.
2. It's not really that any more. Almost Chromebooks are capable of running native apps, there just aren't many right now. More than 90% of Chromebooks, and pretty much all new Chromebooks, can run Android applications. And, as I said, Crostini is being rolled out now, making the functionality of a Chromebook indistinguishable from that of any more traditional GNU/Linux system, except with really strong sandboxing.
I would have no problem running a business from my Chromebook. My major reason for not using one as my primary system is that I'm a software developer, but that may change once Crostini becomes production ready. Being able to run Atom and/or Eclipse, with a native Outlook client, moderately good Microsoft file format options (Microsoft's own Office Online and Mobile Office work fine on it already), without having to deal with Windows 10's constant BS, will be awesome. It's already working better for certain applications than my Windows PC does.
If they could release a version with Firefox instead of Chrome, it'd be perfect.
Define "Linux". The second most popular type of laptop computer right now are Chromebooks, which do everything most people need (and will cover a much greater percentage of those left's needs once Crostini is ready.) I've stopped recommending Windows machines to family members who have problems with computers. a Chromebook fits their requirements perfectly, with no risk of being bamboozed by calls from "Windows" about viruses on their computers.
The scope of the environment Microsoft controls is reducing rapidly. Nerds can run Ubuntu (or I guess a Ubuntu fork, because Ubuntu isn't hipster compliant enough); people who need a computer to write emails, browse the web, and occasionally pay their taxes or write letters, are well served by Chromebooks. Macs have their creativity niche. Which leaves Windows as a gamers platform, for those gamers who want something a little more mod friendly than a console.
Everyone has choices right now.
Because there's no evidence they are, and good reasons for them not to, namely that if they started selling your information to others, then other rival advertisers could buy that information and use it to provide an advertising service that competes with Google.
For all their faults, Google has absolutely no good reason to share the information it collects with anyone else. It'd completely undermine their advertising business if they did, and their advertising business is what makes the money.