Many of us know the term FOSS (Free Open Source Software). Even at $1, the government is still overpaying for open-source software.
Maybe, but that's if the government was buying an existing software package. This is new development - in other words, a developer bid $1 to do the required development the government wants. Not sure if it's new code for a new program, or customizations to an existing program, but $1 is a steal for that.
Imagine being able to demand a project add a bunch of code to do what you want by "donating" them just $1.
Not to mention any SERIOUS webhost is NOT going to be running Gnome/KDE/whatever, so the usual "infection vector", namely the browser (FF/Chrome) is not present and therefore is not going to be able to do its dirty work.. Frankly, I can't really imagine *how* this malware would get onto a properly setup Linux-based webhost.. Perhaps I'm missing something, after all I've only been using Linux professionally since 1994 or so...
Easy - piracy.
You have to remember a properly secured webhost would mean the instances are separated from each other, but an infected instance can will wreak damage on the instance its on. (And more malware these days are user-space based - sure it's harder to hide, but sometimes... why bother?).
And what are people pirating? Well, think of things like "premium" themes for stuff like WordPress and other things people buy crap for.
And this doesn't exclude the piracy of stuff like monitoring tools and other such things because the company refuses to pay for it.
If Canadians actually asked to table the permit; they were asking for immediate resolution of the issue. That is one of the mental speed bumps I ran into my first project in Canada. In Canada and the UK, to "table" an issue is to bring it out on the table for immediate consideration. In the U.S. when you "table" and issue; you leave it sitting on the table for later consideration.
UK meaning. TransCanada, seeing the elections are ahead, asked Obama to delay the decision a year. This was however, after asking Obama to accelerate the decision years before.
Anyhow, Keystone actually exists - it funnels bitumen to refineries in Chicago, providing gas and oil based products for the US. The "XL" part of it extends the pipeline to the Gulf Coast.
The reason that pipeline is more controversial is the conditions attached - with the exception of a small part of it, the US cannot use it to shuttle their own oil through the nation. They're also not allowed to buy it and refine it - the bitumen is to be loaded onto tankers and shipped off. And the amount of bitumen being used by Chicago will be reduced.
The key issue is that bitumen commands a very low price - the oil price you see reported on the news is referred to "light sweet crude" - the easiest stuff to refine and generally what comes out of the likes of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Coast. Bitumen from the tarsands (or, as Alberta decided to rebrand it, "oilsands") is thick, heavy, sticky stuff that in the dead of winter is more solid than a hockey puck. It's why it's referred to as "dirty oil" by opponents - because you need to use a LOT of oil to extract it (it comes out as a solid), then more oil still to heat it up so you can actually move it around. The "light sweet crude" is pretty liquid at room temperature. Bitumen though, requires a lot more energy to "crack" it into the standard oil products, and even then it's not very pure.
So that's the state of the production - few refineries in North America can refine the stuff, and what is available is at capacity. Supply and demand shows that the price of it will fall. So that's why TransCanada wants to build pipelines - because Asia and Europe are willing to pay more for it than they could sell in North America.
But it also means the average American doesn't benefit - the oil doesn't get refined and turned into products in North America, and gas prices will stay as they are. Sure, oil prices might go down a tiny bit, but the places they're shipping bitumen to are demanding a lot of it, so it's unlikely to have a huge effect (think the pipelines will flood China in cheap gas? Unlikely - it'll make their gas slightly cheaper, but demand is still insatiable).
In the meantime, if the pipeline leaks, guess who gets to pay the billions in cleanup? The American taxpayer - because there's almost no leverage the US will have to demand repayment on the billions in cleanup, nevermind the billions in rehabilitation, and the indirect losses to tourism and all that.
And also, gas prices will go up - TransCanada will also reduce the amount of oil going to Chicago for refining - why sell it at crap North American prices when you can ship it to Europe for far more?
Qualified electricial engineers who were working within some of the world's largest companies in 1991 (when I was barely in secondary school?). They'd be about 60-something by now. Probably retired. Certainly not in the "social media" generation, in any large way. And probably still subject to NDA's.
Most of those people would have had a small part personally, be long out of the industry, and likely can't talk without checking with legal departments at companies they left years ago anyway. And most likely they are Japanese, I'd assume?
You also forgot one major factor - this was the product of Japanese engineers, too, who aren't well known for their openness. The Japanese gaming industry is one of secrecy - rarely do you get the openness that's present in the western gaming industry.
So all the big people "in the know" are restricted from talking about it, and given it's been nearly 25 years, memories have long faded among the smaller people.
No. Expect this to maybe have an impact during the next 100 years or so. Mathematicians are not like the stupid masses that want everything to pay off _now_. They see the value in doing things with a very long-term perspective.
Well, there are three possible outcomes.
1) Absolutely nothing comes of it. Happens, but when you're doing pure research you don't know.
2) Potential uses 5 years down the road or longer. We don't know why we might need it now, but the research is out there, and maybe someone down the line has a problem it solves neatly and practically. But we just don't know what it is yet.
3) A use crops up unexpectedly and in a surprising place. History is full of such happenstances where two unrelated fields suddenly converge unexpectedly
That's why you do pure research without industry uses - because what you discover might not be useful to industry now, but may become a cornerstone later on.
Or if you want to get closer to home, cocoa is very toxic to some mammals (especially dogs) but not at all toxic to humans.
Actually, the reason is a component of chocolate is toxic to dogs because they can't metabolize it fast enough so it builds up and poisons them. It's call theobromine, and the darker the chocolate, the higher the concentration. It's a mild simulant like caffeine. Humans are generally larger animals so not only do we require more chocolate, our livers are able to process it far faster.
it is possible to be poisoned, but it requires eating a LOT of chocolate really quickly. Which practically speaking is such a large quantity to be impractical for humans.
The current government has all kinds of promises made that they're going to follow up on without that data (killing income splitting for below average household income couples, for example---because, according to Trudeau, when your earnings are below average, you're "rich" and need to be eaten up by the poor). Just like the previous government. And the one before it. And so on.
Say what?
Income splitting for famliies was you could transfer up to $50,000 from the higher earner to the lower earner to save on taxes.
Evidence has shown that predominantly benefits the rich (the median income in Canada is around $30K per person).
So a family with two parents earning $100,000 and $0, would pay the same taxes as two parents early $50,000 each. Which is inherently unfair, because the $100,000 earner has benefits the two income family doesn't - i.e., a parent to stay home and raise kids. The two income family would have to pay for child care, which easily is $500/month/child. So the single income family saves $2000, while the dual income family has expenses of $6000/year/child. And that ignores the psychological aspects of having a parent stay at home to raise the kids instead of shuffling them off to child care.
So the rich basically benefit while the working stiffs get shafted.
You can argue about the TFSA - $10,000 this year, $5500 again next year. But then again - only 40% of Canadians were maxing it out (putting $5500 away). At the new limit, only 15% were. Even worse, the calculation went the taxes not collected would exceed the amount of Old Age Security saved by raising the age from 65 to 67. Again, those likely to need OAS get screwed, while those rich enough to save benefit.
You can argue about "responsibility" all you want, but the truth is, everyone's going to pay for it. If you're too poor to save up, you're going to end up on the street, likely to commit petty crime just to eat. And either you go to jail, and be a burden on taxpayers (to the tune of $100k/year/prisoner), or taxpayers are going to pay through increased crime. And let's not forget health care for places that don't have single-payer. When someone gets sick and visits the ER, that's the most expensive health care available - and those who can pay will have to subsidize those who don't - of the most expensive health care available, even.
In the end, there's no black and white. And no, the rich don't flee when taxes go up - if they only cared about taxes, there's plenty of other countries with very low taxes. But they don't because there's often problems with those countries.
The problem with the Conservatives was their smoke and mirrors were evaporating. They implemented a lot of plans that on paper, looked good, but when you sat down and crunched through it, really only benefited the top 20% (the six-figure income earners). At the same time, gutting the programs that benefited the most vulnerable.
I wouldn't say that's an example of the accuracy of a slide rule. Rather, I'd say it's an example of your lack of skill with one.
Ditto. I gave it a quick try, and was pixel-perfect.
Just following the instructions on the website was all I needed to get the right answer. I can't imagine how bad you have to be to not get the right answer...
How does this 'Ransomware' get downloaded and run on the machine?
Easy. From most likely to least, here's a few ways
1) User visits web page, web page says it needs to install a plugin to work, click here for the link. (Variants include downloading a movie that shows "Codec not installed. Visit http://evil-site.example.com/c... to download required software", email that says "Your invoice is enclosed - refund and cancellation instructions contained within" (interestingly - all those emails for fake invoices always make it so helpful to cancel the order), and many others).
2) User downloads pirated software or crack/keygen wrapped with this software so before the crack/keygen runs, it infects the PC. This is a very popular way, so popular that malware authors are dispensing with the whole "wrapping" aspect (where a legitimate application has a malware executable set to run first then the application, bundled into a single file) and just releasing the malware stubs under all sorts of filenames in the hopes the user will download it and blindly click it.
3) Infected media exploiting autoplay (USB, optical disc, etc)
There is absolutely no reason why they had to repeat the confusion with USB-C & 3.1. They should have just said "USB-C = USB 3.1", and that was it. Throw in some adapters for compatibility, and we'd be done. But no, now we have to worry about USB-C v2.0, v3.0, v3.1, USB-C Thunderbolt....
Those only matter if you use the auxiliary pins. If you're just using it as a straight up USB cable, any cable will do.
The confusion happens if you want to plug in a device that use the auxiliary pins, and even then, there's a good chance devices will support multiple configurations.
And Type C 2.0/3.0/3.1 only matters for data transfers - the cable and connectors are the same.
A better question is "Why delete it?" Keeping it involves near zero effort and near zero cost. If deciding what to delete takes more than a few seconds, it is not cost effective. I have every email I have sent or received for the last 30 years (except for spam) and it fits in 10 cents worth of storage. Even if you count backups and redundant copies, it is under $1. My archive has come in handy many times, including helping a third party dismiss a $150,000 lawsuit from a patent troll by documenting prior art. That was worth $1.
No, the OP is asking why is it necessary to have all the emails from years past always accessible. At least his solutions all seem to imply online instant access to the archived emails.
It wasn't about deleting old emails - it was keeping them online 24/7. Which I find is a point - I have years of emails archived and backed up, but not instantly accessible - because after about 3 months, the frequency of access drops off considerably - from maybe once a month to less than once a year.
And if the OP is asking how to prevent a breach, the best way is to keep it offline - you can't get at data that's not stored accessibly.
So yeah, keep your email, but I've found I can put each year's worth on a DVD or something (multiply backed up) or external HDD, and put it on the shelf, because I'll rarely need to access it, so the extra effort doesn't matter. If I kept it all online, yes I could get to it in seconds rather than minutes, but I risk a security breach exposing everything.
So first, perhaps examine what emails you do access in the archive frequently and then make a copy of them elsewhere, then everything else you put locally and offline, safe from hackers (but not burglars!).
It still makes for bug hunting today. See the article today about 32-bit vs 64-bit Windows. Assign a pointer to an int to an int and it works just fine in a 32-bit build. Compile for 64-bit and fire up your debugger. Most compilers will generate a warning for this but there are often so many warnings (from things that used to be considered a sign of smartness) in any project of appreciable size that cleaning them all up is a project in and of itself and you don't know which ones will destabilize your 64-bit version.
Yes, and that's why modern C uses inttypes.h, and if you want to cast a pointer to an int, you use intptr_t - it's an int guaranteed to be big enough to fit a pointer. It might be bigger than the pointer, but it is safe to cast the pointer to the int and back using intptr_t.
Though the only thing I don't like is how the compilers are picky when using printf() style functions and the various int types - long longs, etc., all see to require a different % specifier. It would be nice if gcc, besides telling you the % specifier was wrong, what you should use instead. Many hours were wasted trying to find out if you were to use %d, %llu, %lu, %l or %ll or varying combinations thereof to satisfy the compiler. intptr_t is especially nasty in that regard. Though there are supposed to be definitions as well but they're clunky as all heck to use. (Where's the "Pick the right thing for the type" option?).
Of course, I didn't read anything but would love someone to tell me if this affects NAFTA in any way...
It does, actually. It puts you in a very bad spot because while the principle in general is if two treaties contradict, the treaty ratified later has precedence, it doesn't mean that's always true. And many a trade dispute has happened because of it and the interpretation of which treaties are in effect. And naturally, when there's a contradiction, you get long drawn out lawsuits and cases as everyone argues back and forth.
If you're an international relations lawyer, I say your business will be looking up over the next 30 years or so.
In short, both are in effect. Where they contradict, lawyers (and the mightiest, most likely the US) win.
A tail section badly repaired after a minor accident came off in mid-air. The airplane spun out of control and disintegrated before crashing into the ground. That fits this accident very well.
Without conclusive evidence of a bomb, I would be very careful to scream terrorism. Terrorists claiming responsibility doesn't mean a thing without evidence.
Actually determining if a plane was downed because of a bomb or not is fairly easy. So easy, it's one of the first scenarios they test and eliminate in most crashes at the very beginning.
A bomb leaves certain signatures that are not present in any other form of breakup, including fire and disintegration. Notably, a bomb works by creating an overpressure wave that is difficult to contain. (Explosives are classified by how rapidly they generate this overpressure wave - do they do it slowly over a long period of time, or suddenly).
The end result is that metal curls away, shrapnel leaves holes that have bits pointing away, and shrapnel itself generally follows a path of "away" from the explosion. Add in chemical remnants and it's easy to tell it was an explosion.
Whereas a fire or other cause doesn't generally leave such organized patterns - an explosion wouldn't cause metal to curl towards the source, or shrapnel to go backwards, so if there's evidence this took place, then a bomb can be discounted.
Way to miss the point. The point is that there is no need to do that. Programming is gender-agnostic, race-agnostic, age-agnostic. A movie that showed boys writing code and enjoying it can also demonstrate to BOTH boys and girls that coding can be enjoyable. Why are you suggesting that girls need to see other girls in order to understand that? That is very sexist and microaggresive behavior.
Because somewhere along the lines of "growing up", girls somehow get discouraged from doing these things. And not discouraged as in "this is hard stuff", but discouraged along the lines of "boys do this. girls don't". You know, like how boys are blue, girls are pink. Or boys play with action figures of soldiers and astronauts and whatnot, while girls play with barbies and miniature houses. (And how girls who want to play with action figures and all that get discouraged by calling them "tomboys").
That's the real reason. Girls ARE actively discouraged from pursuing careers in science and technology as they're more "masculine" occupations and steered towards more "feminine" occupations like teacher and nurse.
End result is the few people who cross the line only really do it because of dogged determination and rebellion against society and more importantly, their parents. (This applies to both men and women who decide to break the traditional gender roles - male teachers, male nurses apply as well).
And I don't think there's any culture that's not guilty of this in some way - China's one-child policy caused a huge imbalance of males to females - families preferred males because they are perceived to be the breadwinners and to "carry one's honor" and all that, while women worked at home and were "basically worthless" (which also led to a lot of selective sex abortions and disownership). Even now some cultures find it deeply offensive if a woman talks back or is superior to men or commands men.
I noticed Visual Studio is only 32 bit only, and defaults to making 32 bit builds. I don't think Microsoft is big on the whole 64 bit thing.
That's because Microsoft believes you should just stick with 32 bit unless there's a really good reason to go 64. And they're not incorrect - there's many good reasons to stick with 32 bit - compatibility with 32 bit systems for starters (yeah, you could provide two builds, but that's two times the QA work) and other things.
The other thing is - 32 bit has been around for 20 years now, and there's a huge library of legacy code out there. A 64-bit process can't host 32-bit plugins, and plugins are what give a lot of power to Visual Studio and even Office, which is why Microsoft still recommends them. Sure Microsoft does provide 64-bit office, but that breaks a lot of things that integrate with Office.
It's also why browsers are often 32-bit - if you need Silverlight, or Flash, you're stuck with 32-bit as there aren't 64-bit versions of those plugins.
yes, there's a youtube app as well. all four networks, half dozen different sports networks, another dozen or so basic cable channels, a handful of premium cable channels. niche stuff like crunchyroll for anime. no amazon and no hulu.
Hulu's been on AppleTV for a while now, requires Hulu+ subscription. Maybe they don't have a tvOS app, but I think they're still available as an Apple-provided channel.
Amazon, well that's Amazon's thing. On the old AppleTV, Apple would write the channels with content partners - so the content partners provide details on how to access their content, and Apple would code it up. The lack of Amazon content would either be lack of interest on Apple's side (unlikely), or lack of cooperation.
With the new AppleTV, though, the ball's in Amazon's court to provide the app. In which case it'll be Amazon's fault for not providing an app.
telling a meaningful story with an engaging plot, complex dialogue and interesting characters? or pinching out another Avengers/Batman/Bond/Furious? studios have decided the easiest way to make money is to paint with a shotgun, so its no surprise we get cognitive neuroscience involved.
The rules are already pretty simple: keep the dialogue at the 8th grade level and the characters simple. House is a meanie bo beanie, sheldon is a goofy nerd, and the team on NCIS follows such predictability they could be used as a canary to ensure a tv stations satellites were tracking properly. Combine your average sitcom with a healthy dose of product placement and well timed advertisements between painfully obvious and intentional cliffhangers and youve got yourself a riveting cinematic blockbuster thats sure to entertain some 300 pound navel-gazing white trash single mom for at least the 30 minutes it takes to chug a soda and finish a cold pizza.
the devils in the details. You cant expect to gain 10-15% profit quarterly and assume a product anything less than C grade is going to come out of the effort. it means rehash concepts, repeat plotlines, and a whole lot of commercial time. It means squeezing out stinkers like minions and then skull-fucking parents into everything from online games to fast food and clothing tie-ins because you dont have time for ideas. Exploiting basic human urges is simply a more cost effective means to ensure people who already watch this shit, continue to watch it.
Here's the thing.
A broadcast (network) TV show shows TV programming to sell ads. So the goal is to attract as many eyeballs as possible during the programming, in the hopes that it carries onto the ads.
Ad breaks carry the same "ratings" that programming does - and Neilsen makes their money selling those numbers to studios, who use them to sell blocks of ad time to advertisers. For example, a popular show like the Big Bang Theory might demand $250,000 per 30-second block, per episode based on ratings.
So network TV optimize their programming choices to maximize the desirable 18-49 audience during prime time (it is assumed the under-18s and 50+ crowd are reachable at other cheaper times) , because they want to attract eyeballs. So you will get plots that are repetitive, because they score well with the target audience.
If you want originally clever programming, you need to go to a model where it's not the number of eyeballs you need, but some other factor. HBO, Netflix etc., use the "subscribers" as the other factor - their goal is to create programming that's attractive to subscribers - and more importantly, will attract new subscribers. They also do market studies and manipulations, this time with the goal of identifying the most likely subset of the population who would subscribe to their service - they don't want programming to appeal to the masses - they want programming that will target those with money to subscribe to the service.
The other method of funding is public funding, like PBS, which tries to be able to do anything because they don't have advertisers to appease, nor subscribers to chase away, so they can run more controversial programming or programming that doesn't have to appeal to the masses - like educational programming.
You don't need to tell the issuing bank that the other bank's card is a debit card.
Why? Debit cards incur a swipe fee as well. not as much as a credit card, but they still have fees.
Usually the merchant and the customer pay around 25 cents each - yes, debit dings both - the amount charged to you is bumped up by 25 cents, and the merchant pays 25 cents. Unlike a credit card, the merchant rarely pays a percentage of the transaction cost. And the bank may decide they went over the number of transactions for the month, so the account gets dinged a $1 per transaction overage fee, etc. etc. etc.,
Eventually, customer B will have a bad month and not make the minimum payment. Maybe they'll forget the payment, maybe a medical expense, maybe their car broke down. Whatever it was, it will be an unavoidable expense. So instead of only making $45 from accrued interest, they get another $50 from a late payment. Oh, but that bumped the card over the limit, which is another $50 fee.
For the issuer, this is a wonderful situation because they get all of the benefits of a higher monthly payment without any of the risk associated with a higher balance. If customer B gets caught up at some point then its time to increase their limit (if you haven't already speculatively done so) in order to make it easier for them to miss a payment.
And usually if you miss a payment, your interest rate shoots up. I checked the terms of mine, and they're 19.99% APR, but miss a payment, and they have a right to raise it to 24.99%. (Not that it makes a difference - I pay off the card every month).
The problem is, it's a risk. The guy who pays it off - is a very safe bet, and banks love having a base of "safe bets" for guaranteed income. The guy who makes minimums, well, you can try to bilk them of everything, but a credit card is unsecured - they could very well walk away from the debt and you're stuck holding the bag with nothing to show for it. You can't repo either - unsecured.
That's why credit cards are structured they way they are - it's an unsecured loan so the banks want to get people close to as much money as possible, but not so much they walk away from the debt.
The article says that it's used to judge people that have never had credit ever. If you already have a credit card, it doesn't really apply to you. I'd say it doesn't apply, but I'm sure there's a variable in an equation somewhere that has an effect but is so minor that it's almost 0 on an account that already has credit.
Basically the creditors are wondering if you're going to be a responsible person. If you already have a credit history - a credit card with a history of on time payments, that's generally a far better predictor of your responsibility with credit than social media.
But if you don't, then seeing your social media profile can provide hints as to how likely you're are to be responsible. Think about it - would you like t loan money to someone who goes on benders almost daily to the point of blacking out, or someone who shows restraint, etc?
I dont' understand how Candy Crush makes money. Does anyone know?
Given the hours people put in it, it's easy.
Ads and in-app upgrades.
Ads are obvious - with the hours people put in it, you can make a lot of money showing ads to players.
The second way is in-app purchases. Like all addictive games, your plays are limited - you can only make so many moves or play so long before you have to stop. But if you can spend $1 to play unlimited for a day or week, that easily rakes in cash.
Because they weren't asked. No need to make up other reasons Avast, just because you weren't picked.
The government obviously isn't trying to have a peek at all anti-virus/security software.
They probably only want to look at the code for the software they may want to actually use, since it runs at the highest privilege on all their workstations and inspects all the email on their mail server, etc.
In other words, lemonade!
USG wants to purchase security software and roll it out across their various departments or so. They put in a call for bids to let anyone who has such software submit for testing and evaluation and maybe even purchase. (And believe me, government purchases are huge).
The problem is, Avast didn't make it past the first cut - presumably what happens is the bids are examined for how suitable the proposal is to meeting requirements, then after that cut (which will probably cut out the vast majority of submissions for being inappropriate, inadequate, and insufficient), they do far more technical evaluations. If you get 1000 entrants, it's harder to effectively test them all, than if you can eliminate 980 from the running, then you can test the 20 remaining ones more thoroughly.
Avast probably was one of those cut. Instead of the negative news that they were out of the running while their competitors was still in, they simply spun some PR around and make it seem like they took "the moral high ground", thus turning lemons (not being part of the bid) into lemonade (we won't release source code!). Presumably a source code audit might be one of the technical merits they'd be judged upon had they succeeded past the first round.
Reminds me of an old joke - the US and Russia decided to race each other in a classic car race. The US car won. The Russian newspapers had the following headline - "Russia comes in second. US comes in next to last."
Being able to preemptively multitask DOS, 16-bit Windows and 32-bit OS/2 apps was pretty special in 1992. And an object-oriented GUI was pretty much exclusive to OS/2 for some time.
OS/2 is a special OS - because unlike modern OSes designed for portability, it's one of the few that exploited a lot of x86 specific features. That's how it could not only intermingle 16 bit DOS, Windows and OS/2 apps together, but OS/2 1.x was actually a 16-bit OS. Later versions moved to 32-bit, but had the capability of running drivers in 16-bit mode.
And not just run them, run them pre-emptively. Remember formatting a floppy disk in Win9x and how it would stall out your PC? That was because the Windows 9x kernel called into the BIOS to do that, and when it did, it went to a 16-bit DOS VM to do so (this was how Windows 9x could run DOS drivers as a compatibility mode), but doing so halted the scheduler. Since formatting a floppy disk was a BIOS call, that meant the OS was stalled out into the BIOS.
NT based kernels didn't have this problem because the NT OS has its own 32-bit routines for formatting a floppy disk, which meant the scheduler kept running.
OS/2 did one better - it not only could do this, but it kept the scheduler running as well, which meant the system not only wouldn't stall out, but you could mix in ancient drivers with modern drivers and the system would still be functional. And unlike the terribleness that happened when Microsoft tried to do WDM in WinME, mixing drivers in OS/2 didn't result in the stability or huge performance penalties that Windows had.
So yeah, having a device that would basically never go obsolete since even the oldest of drivers still worked in the newest of OSes... (might be a challenge now since x64 can't run 16-bit code...).
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe, but that's if the government was buying an existing software package. This is new development - in other words, a developer bid $1 to do the required development the government wants. Not sure if it's new code for a new program, or customizations to an existing program, but $1 is a steal for that.
Imagine being able to demand a project add a bunch of code to do what you want by "donating" them just $1.
Easy - piracy.
You have to remember a properly secured webhost would mean the instances are separated from each other, but an infected instance can will wreak damage on the instance its on. (And more malware these days are user-space based - sure it's harder to hide, but sometimes... why bother?).
And what are people pirating? Well, think of things like "premium" themes for stuff like WordPress and other things people buy crap for.
And this doesn't exclude the piracy of stuff like monitoring tools and other such things because the company refuses to pay for it.
UK meaning. TransCanada, seeing the elections are ahead, asked Obama to delay the decision a year. This was however, after asking Obama to accelerate the decision years before.
Anyhow, Keystone actually exists - it funnels bitumen to refineries in Chicago, providing gas and oil based products for the US. The "XL" part of it extends the pipeline to the Gulf Coast.
The reason that pipeline is more controversial is the conditions attached - with the exception of a small part of it, the US cannot use it to shuttle their own oil through the nation. They're also not allowed to buy it and refine it - the bitumen is to be loaded onto tankers and shipped off. And the amount of bitumen being used by Chicago will be reduced.
The key issue is that bitumen commands a very low price - the oil price you see reported on the news is referred to "light sweet crude" - the easiest stuff to refine and generally what comes out of the likes of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Coast. Bitumen from the tarsands (or, as Alberta decided to rebrand it, "oilsands") is thick, heavy, sticky stuff that in the dead of winter is more solid than a hockey puck. It's why it's referred to as "dirty oil" by opponents - because you need to use a LOT of oil to extract it (it comes out as a solid), then more oil still to heat it up so you can actually move it around. The "light sweet crude" is pretty liquid at room temperature. Bitumen though, requires a lot more energy to "crack" it into the standard oil products, and even then it's not very pure.
So that's the state of the production - few refineries in North America can refine the stuff, and what is available is at capacity. Supply and demand shows that the price of it will fall. So that's why TransCanada wants to build pipelines - because Asia and Europe are willing to pay more for it than they could sell in North America.
But it also means the average American doesn't benefit - the oil doesn't get refined and turned into products in North America, and gas prices will stay as they are. Sure, oil prices might go down a tiny bit, but the places they're shipping bitumen to are demanding a lot of it, so it's unlikely to have a huge effect (think the pipelines will flood China in cheap gas? Unlikely - it'll make their gas slightly cheaper, but demand is still insatiable).
In the meantime, if the pipeline leaks, guess who gets to pay the billions in cleanup? The American taxpayer - because there's almost no leverage the US will have to demand repayment on the billions in cleanup, nevermind the billions in rehabilitation, and the indirect losses to tourism and all that.
And also, gas prices will go up - TransCanada will also reduce the amount of oil going to Chicago for refining - why sell it at crap North American prices when you can ship it to Europe for far more?
You also forgot one major factor - this was the product of Japanese engineers, too, who aren't well known for their openness. The Japanese gaming industry is one of secrecy - rarely do you get the openness that's present in the western gaming industry.
So all the big people "in the know" are restricted from talking about it, and given it's been nearly 25 years, memories have long faded among the smaller people.
ARM supports virtualization. It's the mode above kernel mode, and ARM even has sample code to setup a VM instance using the ARM hypervisor.
Well, there are three possible outcomes.
1) Absolutely nothing comes of it. Happens, but when you're doing pure research you don't know.
2) Potential uses 5 years down the road or longer. We don't know why we might need it now, but the research is out there, and maybe someone down the line has a problem it solves neatly and practically. But we just don't know what it is yet.
3) A use crops up unexpectedly and in a surprising place. History is full of such happenstances where two unrelated fields suddenly converge unexpectedly
That's why you do pure research without industry uses - because what you discover might not be useful to industry now, but may become a cornerstone later on.
Actually, the reason is a component of chocolate is toxic to dogs because they can't metabolize it fast enough so it builds up and poisons them. It's call theobromine, and the darker the chocolate, the higher the concentration. It's a mild simulant like caffeine. Humans are generally larger animals so not only do we require more chocolate, our livers are able to process it far faster.
it is possible to be poisoned, but it requires eating a LOT of chocolate really quickly. Which practically speaking is such a large quantity to be impractical for humans.
Say what?
Income splitting for famliies was you could transfer up to $50,000 from the higher earner to the lower earner to save on taxes.
Evidence has shown that predominantly benefits the rich (the median income in Canada is around $30K per person).
So a family with two parents earning $100,000 and $0, would pay the same taxes as two parents early $50,000 each. Which is inherently unfair, because the $100,000 earner has benefits the two income family doesn't - i.e., a parent to stay home and raise kids. The two income family would have to pay for child care, which easily is $500/month/child. So the single income family saves $2000, while the dual income family has expenses of $6000/year/child. And that ignores the psychological aspects of having a parent stay at home to raise the kids instead of shuffling them off to child care.
So the rich basically benefit while the working stiffs get shafted.
You can argue about the TFSA - $10,000 this year, $5500 again next year. But then again - only 40% of Canadians were maxing it out (putting $5500 away). At the new limit, only 15% were. Even worse, the calculation went the taxes not collected would exceed the amount of Old Age Security saved by raising the age from 65 to 67. Again, those likely to need OAS get screwed, while those rich enough to save benefit.
You can argue about "responsibility" all you want, but the truth is, everyone's going to pay for it. If you're too poor to save up, you're going to end up on the street, likely to commit petty crime just to eat. And either you go to jail, and be a burden on taxpayers (to the tune of $100k/year/prisoner), or taxpayers are going to pay through increased crime. And let's not forget health care for places that don't have single-payer. When someone gets sick and visits the ER, that's the most expensive health care available - and those who can pay will have to subsidize those who don't - of the most expensive health care available, even.
In the end, there's no black and white. And no, the rich don't flee when taxes go up - if they only cared about taxes, there's plenty of other countries with very low taxes. But they don't because there's often problems with those countries.
The problem with the Conservatives was their smoke and mirrors were evaporating. They implemented a lot of plans that on paper, looked good, but when you sat down and crunched through it, really only benefited the top 20% (the six-figure income earners). At the same time, gutting the programs that benefited the most vulnerable.
Ditto. I gave it a quick try, and was pixel-perfect.
Just following the instructions on the website was all I needed to get the right answer. I can't imagine how bad you have to be to not get the right answer...
Easy. From most likely to least, here's a few ways
1) User visits web page, web page says it needs to install a plugin to work, click here for the link. (Variants include downloading a movie that shows "Codec not installed. Visit http://evil-site.example.com/c... to download required software", email that says "Your invoice is enclosed - refund and cancellation instructions contained within" (interestingly - all those emails for fake invoices always make it so helpful to cancel the order), and many others).
2) User downloads pirated software or crack/keygen wrapped with this software so before the crack/keygen runs, it infects the PC. This is a very popular way, so popular that malware authors are dispensing with the whole "wrapping" aspect (where a legitimate application has a malware executable set to run first then the application, bundled into a single file) and just releasing the malware stubs under all sorts of filenames in the hopes the user will download it and blindly click it.
3) Infected media exploiting autoplay (USB, optical disc, etc)
Those only matter if you use the auxiliary pins. If you're just using it as a straight up USB cable, any cable will do.
The confusion happens if you want to plug in a device that use the auxiliary pins, and even then, there's a good chance devices will support multiple configurations.
And Type C 2.0/3.0/3.1 only matters for data transfers - the cable and connectors are the same.
No, the OP is asking why is it necessary to have all the emails from years past always accessible. At least his solutions all seem to imply online instant access to the archived emails.
It wasn't about deleting old emails - it was keeping them online 24/7. Which I find is a point - I have years of emails archived and backed up, but not instantly accessible - because after about 3 months, the frequency of access drops off considerably - from maybe once a month to less than once a year.
And if the OP is asking how to prevent a breach, the best way is to keep it offline - you can't get at data that's not stored accessibly.
So yeah, keep your email, but I've found I can put each year's worth on a DVD or something (multiply backed up) or external HDD, and put it on the shelf, because I'll rarely need to access it, so the extra effort doesn't matter. If I kept it all online, yes I could get to it in seconds rather than minutes, but I risk a security breach exposing everything.
So first, perhaps examine what emails you do access in the archive frequently and then make a copy of them elsewhere, then everything else you put locally and offline, safe from hackers (but not burglars!).
Yes, and that's why modern C uses inttypes.h, and if you want to cast a pointer to an int, you use intptr_t - it's an int guaranteed to be big enough to fit a pointer. It might be bigger than the pointer, but it is safe to cast the pointer to the int and back using intptr_t.
Though the only thing I don't like is how the compilers are picky when using printf() style functions and the various int types - long longs, etc., all see to require a different % specifier. It would be nice if gcc, besides telling you the % specifier was wrong, what you should use instead. Many hours were wasted trying to find out if you were to use %d, %llu, %lu, %l or %ll or varying combinations thereof to satisfy the compiler. intptr_t is especially nasty in that regard. Though there are supposed to be definitions as well but they're clunky as all heck to use. (Where's the "Pick the right thing for the type" option?).
It does, actually. It puts you in a very bad spot because while the principle in general is if two treaties contradict, the treaty ratified later has precedence, it doesn't mean that's always true. And many a trade dispute has happened because of it and the interpretation of which treaties are in effect. And naturally, when there's a contradiction, you get long drawn out lawsuits and cases as everyone argues back and forth.
If you're an international relations lawyer, I say your business will be looking up over the next 30 years or so.
In short, both are in effect. Where they contradict, lawyers (and the mightiest, most likely the US) win.
Actually determining if a plane was downed because of a bomb or not is fairly easy. So easy, it's one of the first scenarios they test and eliminate in most crashes at the very beginning.
A bomb leaves certain signatures that are not present in any other form of breakup, including fire and disintegration. Notably, a bomb works by creating an overpressure wave that is difficult to contain. (Explosives are classified by how rapidly they generate this overpressure wave - do they do it slowly over a long period of time, or suddenly).
The end result is that metal curls away, shrapnel leaves holes that have bits pointing away, and shrapnel itself generally follows a path of "away" from the explosion. Add in chemical remnants and it's easy to tell it was an explosion.
Whereas a fire or other cause doesn't generally leave such organized patterns - an explosion wouldn't cause metal to curl towards the source, or shrapnel to go backwards, so if there's evidence this took place, then a bomb can be discounted.
Because somewhere along the lines of "growing up", girls somehow get discouraged from doing these things. And not discouraged as in "this is hard stuff", but discouraged along the lines of "boys do this. girls don't". You know, like how boys are blue, girls are pink. Or boys play with action figures of soldiers and astronauts and whatnot, while girls play with barbies and miniature houses. (And how girls who want to play with action figures and all that get discouraged by calling them "tomboys").
That's the real reason. Girls ARE actively discouraged from pursuing careers in science and technology as they're more "masculine" occupations and steered towards more "feminine" occupations like teacher and nurse.
End result is the few people who cross the line only really do it because of dogged determination and rebellion against society and more importantly, their parents. (This applies to both men and women who decide to break the traditional gender roles - male teachers, male nurses apply as well).
And I don't think there's any culture that's not guilty of this in some way - China's one-child policy caused a huge imbalance of males to females - families preferred males because they are perceived to be the breadwinners and to "carry one's honor" and all that, while women worked at home and were "basically worthless" (which also led to a lot of selective sex abortions and disownership). Even now some cultures find it deeply offensive if a woman talks back or is superior to men or commands men.
It's not ability, it's society.
Here's a letter from an enlightened (male) engineering student who sums it up nicely - http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/a...
Equal in ability, yes. But opportunity? Nope.
That's because Microsoft believes you should just stick with 32 bit unless there's a really good reason to go 64. And they're not incorrect - there's many good reasons to stick with 32 bit - compatibility with 32 bit systems for starters (yeah, you could provide two builds, but that's two times the QA work) and other things.
The other thing is - 32 bit has been around for 20 years now, and there's a huge library of legacy code out there. A 64-bit process can't host 32-bit plugins, and plugins are what give a lot of power to Visual Studio and even Office, which is why Microsoft still recommends them. Sure Microsoft does provide 64-bit office, but that breaks a lot of things that integrate with Office.
It's also why browsers are often 32-bit - if you need Silverlight, or Flash, you're stuck with 32-bit as there aren't 64-bit versions of those plugins.
Hulu's been on AppleTV for a while now, requires Hulu+ subscription. Maybe they don't have a tvOS app, but I think they're still available as an Apple-provided channel.
Amazon, well that's Amazon's thing. On the old AppleTV, Apple would write the channels with content partners - so the content partners provide details on how to access their content, and Apple would code it up. The lack of Amazon content would either be lack of interest on Apple's side (unlikely), or lack of cooperation.
With the new AppleTV, though, the ball's in Amazon's court to provide the app. In which case it'll be Amazon's fault for not providing an app.
Here's the thing.
A broadcast (network) TV show shows TV programming to sell ads. So the goal is to attract as many eyeballs as possible during the programming, in the hopes that it carries onto the ads.
Ad breaks carry the same "ratings" that programming does - and Neilsen makes their money selling those numbers to studios, who use them to sell blocks of ad time to advertisers. For example, a popular show like the Big Bang Theory might demand $250,000 per 30-second block, per episode based on ratings.
So network TV optimize their programming choices to maximize the desirable 18-49 audience during prime time (it is assumed the under-18s and 50+ crowd are reachable at other cheaper times) , because they want to attract eyeballs. So you will get plots that are repetitive, because they score well with the target audience.
If you want originally clever programming, you need to go to a model where it's not the number of eyeballs you need, but some other factor. HBO, Netflix etc., use the "subscribers" as the other factor - their goal is to create programming that's attractive to subscribers - and more importantly, will attract new subscribers. They also do market studies and manipulations, this time with the goal of identifying the most likely subset of the population who would subscribe to their service - they don't want programming to appeal to the masses - they want programming that will target those with money to subscribe to the service.
The other method of funding is public funding, like PBS, which tries to be able to do anything because they don't have advertisers to appease, nor subscribers to chase away, so they can run more controversial programming or programming that doesn't have to appeal to the masses - like educational programming.
And usually if you miss a payment, your interest rate shoots up. I checked the terms of mine, and they're 19.99% APR, but miss a payment, and they have a right to raise it to 24.99%. (Not that it makes a difference - I pay off the card every month).
The problem is, it's a risk. The guy who pays it off - is a very safe bet, and banks love having a base of "safe bets" for guaranteed income. The guy who makes minimums, well, you can try to bilk them of everything, but a credit card is unsecured - they could very well walk away from the debt and you're stuck holding the bag with nothing to show for it. You can't repo either - unsecured.
That's why credit cards are structured they way they are - it's an unsecured loan so the banks want to get people close to as much money as possible, but not so much they walk away from the debt.
Basically the creditors are wondering if you're going to be a responsible person. If you already have a credit history - a credit card with a history of on time payments, that's generally a far better predictor of your responsibility with credit than social media.
But if you don't, then seeing your social media profile can provide hints as to how likely you're are to be responsible. Think about it - would you like t loan money to someone who goes on benders almost daily to the point of blacking out, or someone who shows restraint, etc?
Given the hours people put in it, it's easy.
Ads and in-app upgrades.
Ads are obvious - with the hours people put in it, you can make a lot of money showing ads to players.
The second way is in-app purchases. Like all addictive games, your plays are limited - you can only make so many moves or play so long before you have to stop. But if you can spend $1 to play unlimited for a day or week, that easily rakes in cash.
In other words, lemonade!
USG wants to purchase security software and roll it out across their various departments or so. They put in a call for bids to let anyone who has such software submit for testing and evaluation and maybe even purchase. (And believe me, government purchases are huge).
The problem is, Avast didn't make it past the first cut - presumably what happens is the bids are examined for how suitable the proposal is to meeting requirements, then after that cut (which will probably cut out the vast majority of submissions for being inappropriate, inadequate, and insufficient), they do far more technical evaluations. If you get 1000 entrants, it's harder to effectively test them all, than if you can eliminate 980 from the running, then you can test the 20 remaining ones more thoroughly.
Avast probably was one of those cut. Instead of the negative news that they were out of the running while their competitors was still in, they simply spun some PR around and make it seem like they took "the moral high ground", thus turning lemons (not being part of the bid) into lemonade (we won't release source code!). Presumably a source code audit might be one of the technical merits they'd be judged upon had they succeeded past the first round.
Reminds me of an old joke - the US and Russia decided to race each other in a classic car race. The US car won. The Russian newspapers had the following headline - "Russia comes in second. US comes in next to last."
OS/2 is a special OS - because unlike modern OSes designed for portability, it's one of the few that exploited a lot of x86 specific features. That's how it could not only intermingle 16 bit DOS, Windows and OS/2 apps together, but OS/2 1.x was actually a 16-bit OS. Later versions moved to 32-bit, but had the capability of running drivers in 16-bit mode.
And not just run them, run them pre-emptively. Remember formatting a floppy disk in Win9x and how it would stall out your PC? That was because the Windows 9x kernel called into the BIOS to do that, and when it did, it went to a 16-bit DOS VM to do so (this was how Windows 9x could run DOS drivers as a compatibility mode), but doing so halted the scheduler. Since formatting a floppy disk was a BIOS call, that meant the OS was stalled out into the BIOS.
NT based kernels didn't have this problem because the NT OS has its own 32-bit routines for formatting a floppy disk, which meant the scheduler kept running.
OS/2 did one better - it not only could do this, but it kept the scheduler running as well, which meant the system not only wouldn't stall out, but you could mix in ancient drivers with modern drivers and the system would still be functional. And unlike the terribleness that happened when Microsoft tried to do WDM in WinME, mixing drivers in OS/2 didn't result in the stability or huge performance penalties that Windows had.
So yeah, having a device that would basically never go obsolete since even the oldest of drivers still worked in the newest of OSes... (might be a challenge now since x64 can't run 16-bit code...).