NN is an ABSTRACT CONCEPT, the desire for networks to allow us to access any kind of traffic without blocking.
Can a provider like Comcast proclaim it supports Network Neutrality without supporting regulation? Why yes, in fact it can and has.
The problem the whole time is that regulation that supposedly embodied network neutrality from the FCC actually did the opposite, but people not adept to reading 30 page regulations were easily deceived into thinking it did and supporting it.
First off, there's no way to know that it doesn't just not bother sending anything if behind a proxy
Yes, possibly, but there is also Charles on IOS now, which works as a VPN and not a proxy... I don't see anything on there either.
Beyond that, you're assuming it's sending data to China and not to control servers located elsewhere.
I'm looking for odd traffic regardless of destination and try to figure out what it is transmitting.
Basically there are enough people watching here and there that if something were there, people would notice. Like I said I'm not the only one doing this.
we know that iCloud was likely compromised by Chinese backdoor hardware.
*Rolls eyes*
We know the opposite actually, thanks for playing. I'll just leave you to play with your tinfoil hat.
Yep it's that goo that I worry about failing - something similar failed around one corner of my house, leading to a leak in the garage. I was able to re-seal with some silicon caulking, but it made me wonder about the larger holes from mounting hardware... like you say, the nail holes are self-sealing by the shingles.
We have some people around us that have a large range of solar panels on the roof, like yours they cover most of the shingles... however I've always wondered if that many support struts being attached to the roof did not create a lot of opportunity for leaks over time.
That's why I've been kind of waiting for true solar shingles, which would act like real shingles and be more durable also. They seem to be coming along really slowly though in terms of wider adoption, and it seems like they would probably be less efficient.
Maybe you should actually try visiting places instead of just looking at maps.
I have travelled quite a lot through Oregon, and the actual desert area is kind of a small corner compared to the rest of the state. if you actually DO look at a map, which it seems you did not, you'd see an awful lot of forest in your "desert state". A small part is desert, at least a third is coastal region, and the rest semi-arid (which is descent for solar but also not as many people live in those areas).
My point stands that the more Northern ranges of California still to to make sense to mandate solar. Yes the Central Valley is OK and will work well, but northern coastal areas? Come on.
I see you totally ignored my very insightful point that requiring houses to have solar panels even where it makes less sense will drive up the cost of panels for everyone everywhere... Would you say more people tend to live near the coast, or in the dry barren valleys? HMMMMM.
What the brainiacs in California government seem to have forgotten is how far north to south California really goes.
Sure this makes sense maybe down in Palm Springs.
But what as you travel more and more north? SF and the surrounding areas have a ton of fog. The more north you go, the more you are basically almost in Oregon and we all know Oregon is not really known for vast amounts of sunshine...
I love solar power and think it will grow prominent in a lot of areas naturally. So why drive up the price of solar panels everywhere by forcing a lot of people who will get no benefit to install solar? To my mind this move actually delays the inevitable adoption of solar energy across many other areas of the country that could really benefit from it.
Lots of people (including myself) spend a lot of time with all iPhone networking traffic going through web proxies. We'd especially notice some odd connections going off to China...
It might be lower pay compared to hiring other more experienced data scientists.
But if you are basically taking an almost-data-scientists and hiring them on as one - they are very probably getting what they would consider to be a sizable pay boost.
Not to mention if they turn out to be any good, they are quickly going to be getting large raises to match "real" data scientist, less they get poached by some other company... so that pay being "lower" is either very temporary or non-existent depending on the angle.
there are security people who ride along most trains anyway
Will there still be as many in a system no longer generating revenue? I'm suspicious of how the end game looks here.
I was always fine with the system where people with money paid for public transit, and people without skipped paying fares. That seems to work pretty well most places, and it brought in a lot of revenue for public transit specifically.
Step forward to WHAT???? My iphone SE (64gb, used $160) runs the same ios as iphone x.
I am an iOS developer - so I have (and have used) most previous iPhones. You do not even own an iPhone X to compare day to day...
So I can say with absolute confidence the iPhone X is a big step forward, in so many respects....
There is nothing the iphonex does that warrants that kind of price.
Face ID alone is worth 2k easy. Especially in winter.
You are deluding yourself.
Or.... maybe it is you, who claims a $160 much older phone is "the same" as a newer model device with greatly improved speed, screen, and authentication tech, that suffers from a delusion. It's like you are claiming your Sopwith Camel is just as good as any modern jet because you can see the city from above.
It's great you like your old phone. My wife for example is perfectly happy with her iPhone 6 and has no plans to upgrade for a few more years still. Use your old phone for as long as you can, and be happy in that life...
But let's not pretend there is not sometimes massive value to be had in newer technology. FaceID especially was a huge leap forward, vastly better in every regard than TouchID or any fingerprint based tech. Like I said, $2k feature all by itself, never mind the other improvements the iPhone X has. And also like I said, I have no desire for this years models - that is how I can tell it was a real step, because the iterations after feel again just like slight improvements where I can wait for some cycles before an upgrade.
I hadn't dug down that far, gotta admit that looks overly simple... what is odd is that from the video I thought it had more promise as they were showing light and drop shadows and other things. So how did the most common UI element end up so flat and plain, not even any kind of material aspect? Just blah.
I don't need a full 3D splendorfest but I would love to see some depth actually come back into UI design, shadows if nothing else.
Even if that was accurate, why would anyone pay $1000+ for a $390 phone?
Because no-one is making a phone for $390 and selling it at $390.
Also because if I wanted to build an equivalent phone myself it would probably cost around $10 million+, and work like crap (see: so many lower tier Android handset makers).
Idiotic
Only if you hate nice things, and are super-bad at math to figure out your average cost per day...
The iPhone X last year is by far my favorite phone I have ever owned. Over many years some upgrades were just kind of slight advances, but all of the things in the iPhone X made it feel like a real step forward again. I like it so much will probably not even upgrade next year either, making for a good three year run on a phone. At that point the difference between a $1k phone and a $390 phone is nothing, with better economics of enjoyment than just about anything on this planet.
Anyone intelligent does not check specs on mobile devices these days, because it's not raw hardware or software alone that matters - it is the combination of the two.
That is why iOS devices can get away with less RAM. Technically it's "lower spec" than some Android devices, but it ends up working better because iOS simply needs much less RAM to function well.
Same for battery, if you "check the specs" on an android device you might find a bigger battery where the entire phone has much worse real-life battery life than a similar iOS device.
Even highly technical people like myself stopped "checking the spec" some time ago for this very reason - my remain cognizant of what the specs are, but keep them in perspective within the entire function of the device.
"Checking specs" makes more sense with desktop and laptop hardware because there all of the OS choices have been heavily optimized over a long time (though even then the administration overhead matters a lot to me which is why I still will not run Windows).
True, take that post with a grain of salt, but it sure beats the random trolling! At least interesting to hear a possible perspective of the other side of he coin.
If it were the olden days I would be more concerned about the EEE approach of old.
But these days? Microsoft really seems committed to a more standards based approach. Probably in part because they want to, but in large part because they no longer have the power to truly pull off the Extend/Extinguish part of the dance. If they go too far people will just keep using Chrome.
If anything I think having Microsoft on board will help keep Google more honest as Microsoft will have a vested interest in the Chromium engine being more reliable, and probably bring in new ideas for development of their own.
You're a known coward, I don't see how that's worth 2 points.
It's because I use my Powers Of Cower for good, not ill.
Instead of me Cowering, it is those who stand for the Darkness who tremble before me! Such are the strengths of their rage-spasms they cannot even manage a login, much less a coherent counter-thought beam!
You may shine as a Being, or devour your own soul with hate until naught is left but bitter dark husk. It is up to you - but truly there *is* more worth loving than we have strength to love, so all who seek the light are welcome, no matter how far they have fallen beforehand. Know that I sit here smiling with welcome gaze at all those below, merely waiting for you to begin the climb so that I may assist.
I question if this is as reliable as it seems. Giat would be affected by encumbrance, physical issues (pulled something at the gym), heck even just very different clothing could affect this, or make it hard to measure...
If gait detection becomes pervasive maybe a bunch of people will all get duster coats.:-)
To make solar-only power generation viable, this needs to get up to ~24 hours.
For that part of Australia, probably only needs to be able out provide ~12 hours of power, since there is almost never an overcast or snowy conditions like you would see in other parts of the world...
30 years doesn't seem to unrealistic, and would probably be more like ten when you factor in constantly diminishing cost of batteries over the next decade.
I've tried taking an EKG a few times today, the results seem pretty consistent, and agree with what I was expecting in terms of my heart rate (even lower than I thought in fact, shows the value of regular exercise!).
Of interest, there was a fair amount of screen to wade through in turning this on basically telling you it did not replace a real doctor and so on and so forth. Even while you are measuring your heart rate it has a tiny bit of text saying "At no time will we be trying to detect heart attacks". They just report if anything seems odd about the heartbeat and leave it up to you, though they do let you send the EKG results to someone later if you choose.
The results are stored in the Health app on your phone only, not sent to Apple - you can either just keep them there, delete previous measurements, or send them to someone via PDF I think (just sends a graph, no csv style data I could see).
Since you can delete recordings the nice thing is, you could potentially use this to take one-off EKG readings for other people, send it to them via email, and then delete that reading from your own records. I plan to try it out on a few family members at Christmas to see what it says.
Slashdot Mirror
Network neutrality by definition is regulation
NN is an ABSTRACT CONCEPT, the desire for networks to allow us to access any kind of traffic without blocking.
Can a provider like Comcast proclaim it supports Network Neutrality without supporting regulation? Why yes, in fact it can and has.
The problem the whole time is that regulation that supposedly embodied network neutrality from the FCC actually did the opposite, but people not adept to reading 30 page regulations were easily deceived into thinking it did and supporting it.
First off, there's no way to know that it doesn't just not bother sending anything if behind a proxy
Yes, possibly, but there is also Charles on IOS now, which works as a VPN and not a proxy... I don't see anything on there either.
Beyond that, you're assuming it's sending data to China and not to control servers located elsewhere.
I'm looking for odd traffic regardless of destination and try to figure out what it is transmitting.
Basically there are enough people watching here and there that if something were there, people would notice. Like I said I'm not the only one doing this.
we know that iCloud was likely compromised by Chinese backdoor hardware.
*Rolls eyes*
We know the opposite actually, thanks for playing. I'll just leave you to play with your tinfoil hat.
Yep it's that goo that I worry about failing - something similar failed around one corner of my house, leading to a leak in the garage. I was able to re-seal with some silicon caulking, but it made me wonder about the larger holes from mounting hardware... like you say, the nail holes are self-sealing by the shingles.
He just opposes using regulation to achieve network neutrality, worrying it would harm the internet as it is - which is working fine.
Why people want to take a perfectly good system and tart it up with regulations that can only do harm, I've no idea.
Also the California state capital, where this was decided, is actually north of San Francisco
Way to cherry pick a dry valley for your one-off example!!
Sacramento is way inland, I wonder if all of the people with houses around Eureka and similar areas will see the same benefit.
Also, did you factor in weeks per year of smoke reduced power generation.
We have some people around us that have a large range of solar panels on the roof, like yours they cover most of the shingles... however I've always wondered if that many support struts being attached to the roof did not create a lot of opportunity for leaks over time.
That's why I've been kind of waiting for true solar shingles, which would act like real shingles and be more durable also. They seem to be coming along really slowly though in terms of wider adoption, and it seems like they would probably be less efficient.
Also most of Oregon is desert, and very sunny.
Nope.
Maybe you should actually try visiting places instead of just looking at maps.
I have travelled quite a lot through Oregon, and the actual desert area is kind of a small corner compared to the rest of the state. if you actually DO look at a map, which it seems you did not, you'd see an awful lot of forest in your "desert state". A small part is desert, at least a third is coastal region, and the rest semi-arid (which is descent for solar but also not as many people live in those areas).
My point stands that the more Northern ranges of California still to to make sense to mandate solar. Yes the Central Valley is OK and will work well, but northern coastal areas? Come on.
I see you totally ignored my very insightful point that requiring houses to have solar panels even where it makes less sense will drive up the cost of panels for everyone everywhere... Would you say more people tend to live near the coast, or in the dry barren valleys? HMMMMM.
What the brainiacs in California government seem to have forgotten is how far north to south California really goes.
Sure this makes sense maybe down in Palm Springs.
But what as you travel more and more north? SF and the surrounding areas have a ton of fog. The more north you go, the more you are basically almost in Oregon and we all know Oregon is not really known for vast amounts of sunshine...
I love solar power and think it will grow prominent in a lot of areas naturally. So why drive up the price of solar panels everywhere by forcing a lot of people who will get no benefit to install solar? To my mind this move actually delays the inevitable adoption of solar energy across many other areas of the country that could really benefit from it.
Lots of people (including myself) spend a lot of time with all iPhone networking traffic going through web proxies. We'd especially notice some odd connections going off to China...
It might be lower pay compared to hiring other more experienced data scientists.
But if you are basically taking an almost-data-scientists and hiring them on as one - they are very probably getting what they would consider to be a sizable pay boost.
Not to mention if they turn out to be any good, they are quickly going to be getting large raises to match "real" data scientist, less they get poached by some other company... so that pay being "lower" is either very temporary or non-existent depending on the angle.
there are security people who ride along most trains anyway
Will there still be as many in a system no longer generating revenue? I'm suspicious of how the end game looks here.
I was always fine with the system where people with money paid for public transit, and people without skipped paying fares. That seems to work pretty well most places, and it brought in a lot of revenue for public transit specifically.
And I shall name you Yang.
I shall name you Yin!
Step forward to WHAT???? My iphone SE (64gb, used $160) runs the same ios as iphone x.
I am an iOS developer - so I have (and have used) most previous iPhones. You do not even own an iPhone X to compare day to day...
So I can say with absolute confidence the iPhone X is a big step forward, in so many respects....
There is nothing the iphonex does that warrants that kind of price.
Face ID alone is worth 2k easy. Especially in winter.
You are deluding yourself.
Or.... maybe it is you, who claims a $160 much older phone is "the same" as a newer model device with greatly improved speed, screen, and authentication tech, that suffers from a delusion. It's like you are claiming your Sopwith Camel is just as good as any modern jet because you can see the city from above.
It's great you like your old phone. My wife for example is perfectly happy with her iPhone 6 and has no plans to upgrade for a few more years still. Use your old phone for as long as you can, and be happy in that life...
But let's not pretend there is not sometimes massive value to be had in newer technology. FaceID especially was a huge leap forward, vastly better in every regard than TouchID or any fingerprint based tech. Like I said, $2k feature all by itself, never mind the other improvements the iPhone X has. And also like I said, I have no desire for this years models - that is how I can tell it was a real step, because the iterations after feel again just like slight improvements where I can wait for some cycles before an upgrade.
I hadn't dug down that far, gotta admit that looks overly simple... what is odd is that from the video I thought it had more promise as they were showing light and drop shadows and other things. So how did the most common UI element end up so flat and plain, not even any kind of material aspect? Just blah.
I don't need a full 3D splendorfest but I would love to see some depth actually come back into UI design, shadows if nothing else.
Even if that was accurate, why would anyone pay $1000+ for a $390 phone?
Because no-one is making a phone for $390 and selling it at $390.
Also because if I wanted to build an equivalent phone myself it would probably cost around $10 million+, and work like crap (see: so many lower tier Android handset makers).
Idiotic
Only if you hate nice things, and are super-bad at math to figure out your average cost per day...
The iPhone X last year is by far my favorite phone I have ever owned. Over many years some upgrades were just kind of slight advances, but all of the things in the iPhone X made it feel like a real step forward again. I like it so much will probably not even upgrade next year either, making for a good three year run on a phone. At that point the difference between a $1k phone and a $390 phone is nothing, with better economics of enjoyment than just about anything on this planet.
no one checks specs
Anyone intelligent does not check specs on mobile devices these days, because it's not raw hardware or software alone that matters - it is the combination of the two.
That is why iOS devices can get away with less RAM. Technically it's "lower spec" than some Android devices, but it ends up working better because iOS simply needs much less RAM to function well.
Same for battery, if you "check the specs" on an android device you might find a bigger battery where the entire phone has much worse real-life battery life than a similar iOS device.
Even highly technical people like myself stopped "checking the spec" some time ago for this very reason - my remain cognizant of what the specs are, but keep them in perspective within the entire function of the device.
"Checking specs" makes more sense with desktop and laptop hardware because there all of the OS choices have been heavily optimized over a long time (though even then the administration overhead matters a lot to me which is why I still will not run Windows).
Probably will evaluate Chromium also, I honestly had not heard there was a standalone Google-free variant.
True, take that post with a grain of salt, but it sure beats the random trolling! At least interesting to hear a possible perspective of the other side of he coin.
If it were the olden days I would be more concerned about the EEE approach of old.
But these days? Microsoft really seems committed to a more standards based approach. Probably in part because they want to, but in large part because they no longer have the power to truly pull off the Extend/Extinguish part of the dance. If they go too far people will just keep using Chrome.
If anything I think having Microsoft on board will help keep Google more honest as Microsoft will have a vested interest in the Chromium engine being more reliable, and probably bring in new ideas for development of their own.
You're a known coward, I don't see how that's worth 2 points.
It's because I use my Powers Of Cower for good, not ill.
Instead of me Cowering, it is those who stand for the Darkness who tremble before me! Such are the strengths of their rage-spasms they cannot even manage a login, much less a coherent counter-thought beam!
You may shine as a Being, or devour your own soul with hate until naught is left but bitter dark husk. It is up to you - but truly there *is* more worth loving than we have strength to love, so all who seek the light are welcome, no matter how far they have fallen beforehand. Know that I sit here smiling with welcome gaze at all those below, merely waiting for you to begin the climb so that I may assist.
Come friend, begin the True Journey.
Too bad all of the best responses to this story are all AC, they should all be ranked higher.
Gait Recognition
I question if this is as reliable as it seems. Giat would be affected by encumbrance, physical issues (pulled something at the gym), heck even just very different clothing could affect this, or make it hard to measure...
If gait detection becomes pervasive maybe a bunch of people will all get duster coats. :-)
To make solar-only power generation viable, this needs to get up to ~24 hours.
For that part of Australia, probably only needs to be able out provide ~12 hours of power, since there is almost never an overcast or snowy conditions like you would see in other parts of the world...
30 years doesn't seem to unrealistic, and would probably be more like ten when you factor in constantly diminishing cost of batteries over the next decade.
I've tried taking an EKG a few times today, the results seem pretty consistent, and agree with what I was expecting in terms of my heart rate (even lower than I thought in fact, shows the value of regular exercise!).
Of interest, there was a fair amount of screen to wade through in turning this on basically telling you it did not replace a real doctor and so on and so forth. Even while you are measuring your heart rate it has a tiny bit of text saying "At no time will we be trying to detect heart attacks". They just report if anything seems odd about the heartbeat and leave it up to you, though they do let you send the EKG results to someone later if you choose.
The results are stored in the Health app on your phone only, not sent to Apple - you can either just keep them there, delete previous measurements, or send them to someone via PDF I think (just sends a graph, no csv style data I could see).
Since you can delete recordings the nice thing is, you could potentially use this to take one-off EKG readings for other people, send it to them via email, and then delete that reading from your own records. I plan to try it out on a few family members at Christmas to see what it says.