One plausible theory is also that it's the interaction of gear deployed to spy on the embassy by the host country and the anti-spying gear deployed by the embassy to thwart it.
Think of it this way, the US probably has some mock/test environment where they validate equipment and conduct offensive tests on it. At that point, they would notice any weird interaction of their own gear. But they didn't notice it till it went to the embassy, meaning that the interaction is likely between their gear and something else that's not in their testing environment.
This is explained in a few of the works in the interim. I won't do it full justice, but it goes something like: the New Republic is set up again, they fight for 5 long years and eventually defeat the Empire at Jaku. The Empire surrenders and and signs the Galactic Concordance.
At this point, the New Republic feared making the same mistake as the Old Republic (e.g. having a large military force that could be co-opted by a nefarious leader and turning into a New Empire) and demilitarize and decentralize. This allows the remnants of the Empire to violate the treaty and reorganize into the First Order, which in turn spawned the Resistance as a guerrilla group that was covertly supported by the faction in the New Republic that favored a more muscular military approach to the FO.
Of course, at the end of TFA, the FO wipes out the Senate and the NR, vindicating the folks that opposed demilitarization but also plunging them into a war where they are vastly outgunned. Of course that's the entire shtick of the series so it had to somehow be arranged that Leia leads a band of hopelessly outmatched soldiers.
In the end, it's actually a kind of rich counterpoint to the prequel trilogy's telling of the rise of the Empire. Moreso than you would expect from what is essentially a children's story. At least I liked the nuance of navigating between the danger of being so weak you succumb to tyranny versus being so strong you become a tyrant yourself.
Inspecting the software load via ADB does not reveal the software in question
How does this prove anything if the device malware got root?
ADB is just talking to a service on the phone (that happens to be available over USB) which is serviced by software. If Malware achieved root access and can modify any software on the device, it could easily modify whatever bits are handling ADB to conveniently remove any package from the listing sent out.
If you think this is paranoid, read about the state of the art in Windows malware. Many will modify the kernel hooks that list files/processes/sockets/resources to remove themselves from those interfaces.
THEN why can't MY personal information cannot be only "licensed", with my consent, for YOUR limit use?
Of course it can. You can sell your personal data to anyone under whatever mutually-agreeable terms you see fit.
The question is who originated the data. If you took photos of yourself, then they are yours to license. If I take a photo of you from a legal vantage point (e.g. not trespassing on your property or while you are in a changing room or taking a shit) then that photo is mine to license.
No one believes that if a news reporter takes a photo of George Clooney at an event then the photo belongs to George Clooney.
The EM drive, if it works, violates conservation of momentum, which can easily be used to also violate conservation of energy. (/. commenters on previous EM drive stories have gone into this at some length.)
Moreover, if you violate the conservation of momentum then Noether's theorem tells you that you've violated the principle of invariance under translation. If that were true, no two observers in different locations could ever agree on the laws of physics because the outcome of identical systems would be different if they were in different places.
The correspondence between conservation laws and physical symmetries is immensely useful when reasoning about systems like these. Noether's theorem doesn't require conservation of momentum to be true, but it explains the consequences if it is/isn't.
Frankly, arrest info shouldn't be published on the Internet at all, though it should be available to those who go in person to a courthouse.
Are you saying it ought to be legal for me to go to the courtroom and look up arrest info, but, having done so, it should be illegal for me to discuss it over the internet? I mean, you used the passive voice about 'shouldn't be published' but you haven't explained operationally what you intend.
What's more, this kind of blanket statement is way overbroad for dealing with creeps like these. Extortion/blackmail is a well defined crime that properly suits these jackasses without making huge policy changes.
if we take away your calculator I bet I can run rings around you at math
And if we take away their jackhammers, I bet John Henry can bang holes in rock faster than any modern construction worker.
But in all seriousness, English isn't about being able to spell any more than mathematics is about arithmetic. There are higher level skills that we should be striving towards, and so if you want to make an argument that long division is useful (which it very well may be) you should be claiming that understanding it allows one to more easily absorb next-level topics (like calculus or linear algebra) rather than because it allows you to divide numbers without a calculator.
Yes, it's possible and indeed 'subnuclear fission' is already done in particle accelerators, you can smash a proton into a quark plasma -- although at those energies you are spontaneously generating new particle/anti-particle pairs so the idea of discrete particle identities makes a bit less sense.
No, there's no energy to be had there. The proton is stable for at least 10**34 years (age of the universe is 10**10 year) and so any such fission will necessarily require you put in more energy than you get out.
At least two reasons: radio performance, inductive charging.
With a phone supporting WiFi (MIMO), LTE (also MIMO), Bluetooth and NFC, cramming those antennas next to a metal back is non-ideal since it desensitizes them.
Someone from accounting brings a check over, or hands it to my boss (who then hands it to me).
Must be a small company. Our accounts payable is in a different State:-P
That's for payroll. Reimbursements are handled by accounts payable.
I know, but get this: somehow they interlinked the two systems (across departments!) so that accounts payable to an employee automagically get routed to that employee's direct deposit just like their paycheck. Will the wonders of technologies never cease?
It's a poor choice of words, but at the same time I think the reasonable reader should be able to identify that the intent was "endogenously to the brewing process".
In other words, it's not added to the product. Contrast with the laundry list of shit they put in cigarettes, as opposed to nicotine that is already in the tobacco.
Moreover, there's some rationale to believing in stricter standards and warning labels for a substance that's added to a product. Certainly a company bears a higher moral responsibility to ensure the safety (or communicate the danger) when they actively add a substance.
For another goofy example, grapefruits contain enzymes that interfere with medication. No one is suggesting that California require a warning label on grapefruits or grapefruit juice as a result, but surely it would not be OK for a company to add those very same enzymes to apple juice without a warning label.
1. Raise VC money, build and test drones. 2. Gather data about the oceans 3. ??????? 4. Profit
BTW, this isn't satire. From TFA:
Saildrone's investors say they're taking a longer view, and that a global database of the oceans will benefit the company's future more than chasing whatever business it can book today. "The most important asset is the data, and getting data that no one else can accumulate," says Chamath Palihapitiya, founder of investor Social Capital. Palihapitiya, like several of Saildrone's other big backers, tends to support companies with social and environmental bents, and to allow for a bit more time to work out a business.
Honestly, I don't think Tim Cook has a problem with that.
You can't make one product that pleases everyone, and if you make 20 different products. then you cannot pay as much attention to each one. The best a mass-market* company can do is analyze the market and try to make a handful of products to satisfy as many people as best they can.
The fact that this doesn't cover 100% of customers is a feature of proper focus, not a bug.
* There are also companies aiming for niche markets, attempting to capitalize on the long tail of demand.
Indeed. I think the question of whether food that doesn't market itself as healthy constitutes 'preying'
By all means if someone is advertising burgers as health food, shut 'em down for false advertising. But when a place advertises it's as the Heart Attack Grill, it seems like they are being pretty damned honest about it.
Wow, a law that seemed to be actually accomplishing what it intended to do! Who would have thought?
In the context of data collected by a third party app, it seems certain that the OS and/or hardware manufacturer is not a data processor or data controller within the meaning of the GDPR.
So this has nothing at all to do with the GDPR. Sure the actual processors/controllers of the data -- here the app developer and whatever third-party services to which they are sending the data -- might be out of compliance, but that can't be Apple's problem.
[ Think of it this way, if the GDPR considered the platform owner to be a processor or controller of data collected by a third-party application and liable for that data, then it would be crazy to even allow an application to bring up a WebView, since that would mean that a remote service could request arbitrary information (e.g. name/DOB) in a way the platform would have no visibility into and no way to later revoke/delete.
Ultimately, the application that actually collects the data needs to be the one that's compliant. The OS/hardware/app-store/platform can provide tools to help, but they cannot enforce the GDPR. ]
[[ Also, it occurs to me that maybe the law is accomplishing this by raising awareness of location privacy and thus spurring Apple to take an action that, while not required by the law, is in the spirit of the law. In that case, sure, but at least that requires acknowledging that the law didn't coerce them into doing so. ]]
I legitimately feel sorry for service workers who are going to have to take orders from Duplex. It seems oddly dehumanizing to be ordered around by a machine.
I spend all day being fed bug reports from a machine. And yet even though the message was delivered to my by our bug tracking software, it ultimately originated from the intent of a human being.
I spend all day responding to emails (and posts on/.) delivered by a machine. But I assume that you are not a bot and that even though this interaction was mediated by machines, it serves our common human purpose.
When I worked in food service, I spent all day being ordered to prepare food by tiny slips of paper with horrible handwriting on one of those turny-things. I hope that the food being made was ultimately consumed by humans though.
At the end, you seem to be arguing that it is more dehumanizing to be relayed orders by a machine that emulates flapping meat sounds in meat-English as opposed to receiving those orders by reading off a computer screen or on a slip of paper. Perhaps you are right (after all, this is subjective) but it seems that the crux of your claim is that voice is different, not that you are 'ordered around by a machine'.
The GDPR isn't a stick to beat small companies with. It's a set of guidelines to stop Facebook and other advertisers from abusing the entire population.
Cool. That's why the law gives small companies more time and leeway to comply and limit the fines to be something that they can absorb without folding.
Yeah, sure, the technology is crap. That doesn't mean anyone is cutting corners, it means that self-driving cars is still in its infancy and is kind of shit.
I suppose it was also negligent homocide for the makers of the Comet
Maybe that's a fair immediate assumption, but did you view the video and, if so, did it cause you to reevaluate your initial assessment?
I started by assuming that the technology was still its infancy and hence crap[1], then I saw the video and realize that no only is the technology crap, but it's literally a person jumping out from a shadow at the last possible moment on a large thoroughfare nowhere near a crosswalk.
[1] Not even a judgment on Uber TBQH, could have been Tesla or GM or Toyota. I've seen enough technologies come up to realize that the cutting edge is riddled with snakes. By the time it's thoroughly ironed out, it's also super boring.
Having run a very large scale service, I can say that my legitimate interest was "log as much as we have storage for" so I don't have to go in front of the bosses and say "things are failing but we don't log enough to know why". Of course, this is a defensive position -- I hope there are no issues and that my logs remain forever unreviewed. But if there is an issue, I can't predict ahead of time what information will be needed to diagnose and fix it.
None of it was used for marketing purposes, and it was tightly controlled (engineering didn't even have the ability to search logs in production) but I couldn't guarantee that it's GDPR compliance. And I can't justify spending $50K on a legal review to have someone check.
The real problem is that the USA is not trustworthy. Even if Trump and the current Congress make promises, the next election can change things.
Isn't that true for all countries that have elections? And isn't a design feature in a (somewhat) representative government that the electorate has the power to change foreign policy?
And what's the alternative? Install a dictator so thinks only change every few decades when one croaks?
Slashdot Mirror
One plausible theory is also that it's the interaction of gear deployed to spy on the embassy by the host country and the anti-spying gear deployed by the embassy to thwart it.
Think of it this way, the US probably has some mock/test environment where they validate equipment and conduct offensive tests on it. At that point, they would notice any weird interaction of their own gear. But they didn't notice it till it went to the embassy, meaning that the interaction is likely between their gear and something else that's not in their testing environment.
This is explained in a few of the works in the interim. I won't do it full justice, but it goes something like: the New Republic is set up again, they fight for 5 long years and eventually defeat the Empire at Jaku. The Empire surrenders and and signs the Galactic Concordance.
At this point, the New Republic feared making the same mistake as the Old Republic (e.g. having a large military force that could be co-opted by a nefarious leader and turning into a New Empire) and demilitarize and decentralize. This allows the remnants of the Empire to violate the treaty and reorganize into the First Order, which in turn spawned the Resistance as a guerrilla group that was covertly supported by the faction in the New Republic that favored a more muscular military approach to the FO.
Of course, at the end of TFA, the FO wipes out the Senate and the NR, vindicating the folks that opposed demilitarization but also plunging them into a war where they are vastly outgunned. Of course that's the entire shtick of the series so it had to somehow be arranged that Leia leads a band of hopelessly outmatched soldiers.
In the end, it's actually a kind of rich counterpoint to the prequel trilogy's telling of the rise of the Empire. Moreso than you would expect from what is essentially a children's story. At least I liked the nuance of navigating between the danger of being so weak you succumb to tyranny versus being so strong you become a tyrant yourself.
Inspecting the software load via ADB does not reveal the software in question
How does this prove anything if the device malware got root?
ADB is just talking to a service on the phone (that happens to be available over USB) which is serviced by software. If Malware achieved root access and can modify any software on the device, it could easily modify whatever bits are handling ADB to conveniently remove any package from the listing sent out.
If you think this is paranoid, read about the state of the art in Windows malware. Many will modify the kernel hooks that list files/processes/sockets/resources to remove themselves from those interfaces.
THEN why can't MY personal information cannot be only "licensed", with my consent, for YOUR limit use?
Of course it can. You can sell your personal data to anyone under whatever mutually-agreeable terms you see fit.
The question is who originated the data. If you took photos of yourself, then they are yours to license. If I take a photo of you from a legal vantage point (e.g. not trespassing on your property or while you are in a changing room or taking a shit) then that photo is mine to license.
No one believes that if a news reporter takes a photo of George Clooney at an event then the photo belongs to George Clooney.
Moreover, if you violate the conservation of momentum then Noether's theorem tells you that you've violated the principle of invariance under translation. If that were true, no two observers in different locations could ever agree on the laws of physics because the outcome of identical systems would be different if they were in different places.
The correspondence between conservation laws and physical symmetries is immensely useful when reasoning about systems like these. Noether's theorem doesn't require conservation of momentum to be true, but it explains the consequences if it is/isn't.
I think we could easily crowdfund the money to pay a clerk $20 an hour wait in line for records and scan/OCR them to a central location.
So long as you aren't extorting people to remove it, I don't see a problem.
Frankly, arrest info shouldn't be published on the Internet at all, though it should be available to those who go in person to a courthouse.
Are you saying it ought to be legal for me to go to the courtroom and look up arrest info, but, having done so, it should be illegal for me to discuss it over the internet? I mean, you used the passive voice about 'shouldn't be published' but you haven't explained operationally what you intend.
What's more, this kind of blanket statement is way overbroad for dealing with creeps like these. Extortion/blackmail is a well defined crime that properly suits these jackasses without making huge policy changes.
if we take away your calculator I bet I can run rings around you at math
And if we take away their jackhammers, I bet John Henry can bang holes in rock faster than any modern construction worker.
But in all seriousness, English isn't about being able to spell any more than mathematics is about arithmetic. There are higher level skills that we should be striving towards, and so if you want to make an argument that long division is useful (which it very well may be) you should be claiming that understanding it allows one to more easily absorb next-level topics (like calculus or linear algebra) rather than because it allows you to divide numbers without a calculator.
No and yes.
Yes, it's possible and indeed 'subnuclear fission' is already done in particle accelerators, you can smash a proton into a quark plasma -- although at those energies you are spontaneously generating new particle/anti-particle pairs so the idea of discrete particle identities makes a bit less sense.
No, there's no energy to be had there. The proton is stable for at least 10**34 years (age of the universe is 10**10 year) and so any such fission will necessarily require you put in more energy than you get out.
At least two reasons: radio performance, inductive charging.
With a phone supporting WiFi (MIMO), LTE (also MIMO), Bluetooth and NFC, cramming those antennas next to a metal back is non-ideal since it desensitizes them.
And it's a total killer for inductive charging.
Someone from accounting brings a check over, or hands it to my boss (who then hands it to me).
Must be a small company. Our accounts payable is in a different State :-P
That's for payroll. Reimbursements are handled by accounts payable.
I know, but get this: somehow they interlinked the two systems (across departments!) so that accounts payable to an employee automagically get routed to that employee's direct deposit just like their paycheck. Will the wonders of technologies never cease?
It's a poor choice of words, but at the same time I think the reasonable reader should be able to identify that the intent was "endogenously to the brewing process".
In other words, it's not added to the product. Contrast with the laundry list of shit they put in cigarettes, as opposed to nicotine that is already in the tobacco.
Moreover, there's some rationale to believing in stricter standards and warning labels for a substance that's added to a product. Certainly a company bears a higher moral responsibility to ensure the safety (or communicate the danger) when they actively add a substance.
For another goofy example, grapefruits contain enzymes that interfere with medication. No one is suggesting that California require a warning label on grapefruits or grapefruit juice as a result, but surely it would not be OK for a company to add those very same enzymes to apple juice without a warning label.
1. Raise VC money, build and test drones.
2. Gather data about the oceans
3. ???????
4. Profit
BTW, this isn't satire. From TFA:
Yeah, so we'll work out the business model later.
Honestly, I don't think Tim Cook has a problem with that.
You can't make one product that pleases everyone, and if you make 20 different products. then you cannot pay as much attention to each one. The best a mass-market* company can do is analyze the market and try to make a handful of products to satisfy as many people as best they can.
The fact that this doesn't cover 100% of customers is a feature of proper focus, not a bug.
* There are also companies aiming for niche markets, attempting to capitalize on the long tail of demand.
You've never had your company reimburse you for a business expense by mailing you a check at your business address?
[ Today we have direct deposit for that . . . ]
Indeed. I think the question of whether food that doesn't market itself as healthy constitutes 'preying'
By all means if someone is advertising burgers as health food, shut 'em down for false advertising. But when a place advertises it's as the Heart Attack Grill, it seems like they are being pretty damned honest about it.
Wow, a law that seemed to be actually accomplishing what it intended to do! Who would have thought?
In the context of data collected by a third party app, it seems certain that the OS and/or hardware manufacturer is not a data processor or data controller within the meaning of the GDPR.
So this has nothing at all to do with the GDPR. Sure the actual processors/controllers of the data -- here the app developer and whatever third-party services to which they are sending the data -- might be out of compliance, but that can't be Apple's problem.
[ Think of it this way, if the GDPR considered the platform owner to be a processor or controller of data collected by a third-party application and liable for that data, then it would be crazy to even allow an application to bring up a WebView, since that would mean that a remote service could request arbitrary information (e.g. name/DOB) in a way the platform would have no visibility into and no way to later revoke/delete.
Ultimately, the application that actually collects the data needs to be the one that's compliant. The OS/hardware/app-store/platform can provide tools to help, but they cannot enforce the GDPR. ]
[[ Also, it occurs to me that maybe the law is accomplishing this by raising awareness of location privacy and thus spurring Apple to take an action that, while not required by the law, is in the spirit of the law. In that case, sure, but at least that requires acknowledging that the law didn't coerce them into doing so. ]]
I legitimately feel sorry for service workers who are going to have to take orders from Duplex. It seems oddly dehumanizing to be ordered around by a machine.
I spend all day being fed bug reports from a machine. And yet even though the message was delivered to my by our bug tracking software, it ultimately originated from the intent of a human being.
I spend all day responding to emails (and posts on /.) delivered by a machine. But I assume that you are not a bot and that even though this interaction was mediated by machines, it serves our common human purpose.
When I worked in food service, I spent all day being ordered to prepare food by tiny slips of paper with horrible handwriting on one of those turny-things. I hope that the food being made was ultimately consumed by humans though.
At the end, you seem to be arguing that it is more dehumanizing to be relayed orders by a machine that emulates flapping meat sounds in meat-English as opposed to receiving those orders by reading off a computer screen or on a slip of paper. Perhaps you are right (after all, this is subjective) but it seems that the crux of your claim is that voice is different, not that you are 'ordered around by a machine'.
The GDPR isn't a stick to beat small companies with. It's a set of guidelines to stop Facebook and other advertisers from abusing the entire population.
Cool. That's why the law gives small companies more time and leeway to comply and limit the fines to be something that they can absorb without folding.
Yeah, sure, the technology is crap. That doesn't mean anyone is cutting corners, it means that self-driving cars is still in its infancy and is kind of shit.
I suppose it was also negligent homocide for the makers of the Comet
Maybe that's a fair immediate assumption, but did you view the video and, if so, did it cause you to reevaluate your initial assessment?
I started by assuming that the technology was still its infancy and hence crap[1], then I saw the video and realize that no only is the technology crap, but it's literally a person jumping out from a shadow at the last possible moment on a large thoroughfare nowhere near a crosswalk.
[1] Not even a judgment on Uber TBQH, could have been Tesla or GM or Toyota. I've seen enough technologies come up to realize that the cutting edge is riddled with snakes. By the time it's thoroughly ironed out, it's also super boring.
Having run a very large scale service, I can say that my legitimate interest was "log as much as we have storage for" so I don't have to go in front of the bosses and say "things are failing but we don't log enough to know why". Of course, this is a defensive position -- I hope there are no issues and that my logs remain forever unreviewed. But if there is an issue, I can't predict ahead of time what information will be needed to diagnose and fix it.
None of it was used for marketing purposes, and it was tightly controlled (engineering didn't even have the ability to search logs in production) but I couldn't guarantee that it's GDPR compliance. And I can't justify spending $50K on a legal review to have someone check.
One resort in the Caribbean had two bins of sunscreen for sale: one for lounging on the beach, the other for swimming in the water.
No need for the coral-safe version if you are just going to sunbathe anyway . . .
It could be that a market with three viable competitors is going to be better than one with 4 but 2 of them are too small to really make a play.
At the very least, it's not outside the bounds of possibility.
Isn't that true for all countries that have elections? And isn't a design feature in a (somewhat) representative government that the electorate has the power to change foreign policy?
And what's the alternative? Install a dictator so thinks only change every few decades when one croaks?