...using c. Although I do like to comment thusly, and so prefer a compiler that understands at least basic c++:// comment
I like to stay as close to the metal as I can get. I'd use assembler, but many of my projects are cross platform, so c it is.
End of Line terminated comments ("//") actually are in the C spec as part of C99. And while it did take GCC a little while for that to be accepted in C mode, most other commercial compilers accepted them just fine. (C++ is not completely compatible with C, mind you, unlike Obj-C which is fully C compatible. This can cause issues if you try to compile C code using a C++ compiler rather than a C/C++ compiler)
Now, one interesting thing in C++14 is binary literals (using "0b" a la "0x" for hex). That seems handy, though it would be more appropriate to be in C than C++ as C generally needs that sort of specification. Though, annoyingly, they didn't seem to allow use of something like _ to break long literals up into human-readable groups. I mean, a 32-bit string of bits is already hard enough to visually see, allowing the use of something like "_" in the string to help arbitrarily break up and group long constants would be helpful. (Even in hex it would be useful when doing 64-bit values).
E.g., would you rather try to see which bit is set in a string like "0b001011010011011101011100" or have it broken up like "0b0010_1101_0011_0111_0101_1100" or "0b00101101_00110111_01011100". If it's a bit field, you may even want "0b001011_010011011_01_0_111_0_0" if breaking it into fields has meaning.
In fact, by the end of the last event, I believe it has been established that those ash clouds do not harm the air planes, and you can just fly through them without worry (Airplane companies' CEOs got together to do a fly-through to inspire confidence). Anyone got more detail on that?
Actually, more to the point, that the ash cloud has dissipated so there's less of a threat. Because this was at the end of it and air traffic had been shut down for over a week and a half, so people were skeptical that things have changed so much that you couldn't fly yesterday, but you can today. (Plus, airline finances are such that if you're not flying them, you're losing money, so the CEOs were really desperate to get moving again and stem the losses).
Volcanic ash is still nasty stuff - it erodes surfaces and glasses up in engines, which causes them to fail. In fact we didn't know about ash clouds until the late 1970s when a 747 was barely able to land in Indonesia after all of its engines failed and won't restart (until the engines cooled to the point the glassed ash broke off AND they were below the ash cloud and could restore limited power). And on landing, they realized they couldn't see out the front windshield because the ash was like sandpaper to it.
The CEO show was basically to say that there wasn't enough ash to down your plane anymore and that it was safe to travel again. (Though I'm sure they probably called for extra inspections because of buildup could cause a failure later on down the line).
There is worldwide monitoring of ash clouds and all that because of that accident because it's still harmful. It doesn't happen TOO often that air travel has be diverted because of volcanic activity, but it's still something pilots avoid.
Yes, the summary's idea that one could get a heart transplant with faked records is baloney. But there are a lot of simpler health care interactions which are easier to get with faked records, such as basic prescriptions. And it's not much harder to monetize, you do it the same way you do credit cards. Those marketplaces are well established for both CC info and health info, in many cases they are the same place.
It only works for so long - insurance has dealt with this fraud for ages now too - they get curious as to why you're taking two conflicting drugs, or why your prescription has suddenly doubled instead of getting a double-strength version, etc.
Yeah, you're not likely to get caught if you're just charging one bottle of antibiotics to it, but at $50, you'd be repeatedly using it and insurance would start making inquiries.
Doubly so if some drugs suddenly show up without a corresponding medical record - e.g., heart medication even though your doctor hasn't found a heart condition or explicitly mentioned treatment. (And really, the only reason would be to charge expensive drugs to it that often have corresponding medical conditions).
As for insurance companies buying the data up for data collection purposes - they really don't have to. First, it's not exactly legal, and second, they have far more legal ways to get all that information and more and can be had far easier too.
I might be ok with this for certain books if ebooks were substantially cheaper. Currently even for books I don't want to keep it's cheaper to buy the book, read it, and resell it on amazon. If a $20 paper book gives the author $7 of royalties then at a maximum an ebook should be priced at about $7.50 but because you can't turn around and resell that ebook it should probably be priced closer to $3 or less. If ebooks actually started being priced at a rental price then it would make alot more sense to buy ebooks. I still prefer paper books and most of the times the paperback and used copies are cheaper than the ebooks even before you include resell value and alot of that goes to shipping. I would love to see 30 day rental fees for ebooks be priced at or below the paperback/used book price instead of ebooks being priced at 70% of the hardback price. It makes no sense that I can get a NEW physical paperback book SHIPPED to me cheaper than I can buy the electronic version.
What makes you think a traditional author deserves that much money off an ebook? Neverminding the 30% cut Amazon takes in self-publishing?
In the traditional print model (the one most authors do with publishers), the ONLY THING the author delivers the publisher is a block of text. That's all they're contracted to provide.
From there, a gaggle of other people work to transform that block of text into a book. Someone needs to do the cover art, another needs to go through and at least try to fix the most egregious errors (this back-and-forth with the author takes the longest as the editor will catch an error, and they need to confirm with the author that it's really an error and not deliberate), then revise, edit, consult, etc. Once that's done, Other things is that the publisher needs ISBNs, someone to do a table of contents, an index (if necessary), rework illustrations (with the illustrator - or the author because they have no qualms about submitting a 160x160 pixel image for a full page illustration) as well as securing rights to use third party images (photos, illustrations, etc) that the author may have included. And all the other stuff in a book including author bio and other front and back matter.
And then, someone has to go and take that final work, and lay it out on the page (real or electronic) - ensuring graphics, text, photos, etc are all properly laid out together, scaled properly, and that it looks good - that dark image you included may end up as a black square on e-readers, for example as they have a limited palette. And make sure chapter headings and all that other stuff are properly inserted, and linked and everything is in its place.
And somehow, you think the author who gets $7 out of a $30 book deserves to get it all when the ebook is priced $7.50? After Amazon's cut, that's $5 and the author would probably get $3 tops because those other guys behind the work don't work for free.
In fact, the editing process is such that the cost of printing, shipping, warehousing, distribution is really only around 10% of the retail cost.
So of a $30 hardcover, the publisher gets $20. And they probably need to price it at $27 to make up for the 30% cut at the electronic store (Amazon, Apple, Google, Kobo, whatever, and 30% is on the LOW side! Amazon "makes deals" at 30%, showing their real take is often far higher (30% being forced by Apple's flat-rate plan)).
Maybe $25 to make it a nice number since there's $3 in savings due to not having to actually print/ship/distribute/warehouse/handle returns.
I fail to see how this proposed behavior solves anything. Most software out there was written to assume that if you get back an address DNS resolution worked, if there was a problem you get back something like NXDOMAIN. Lots of apps are not going to report any problems if they get back 127.0.53.53, there are going to sit and wait for the connection to time out or depending on how the system is configured report connection refused. Leaving the user with no way to know the name was wrong.
It should be connection refused for most client systems. Because 127.0.53.53 is smack dab in 127/8 space - aka localhost space where all connections inside of 127/8 are supposed to resolve to itself, despite the actual IP used. For the few that have actual services in use (FTP, HTTP, etc), it's going to lead to a confusing mess.
The demand for this technology is there, as demonstrated by the popularity of 3D films. The availability of the technology to the consumer audience at the price point that will spark widespread adoption is not.
The technology was developed and released at a time when consumers have little extra money to adopt the technology. Alongside that, the distribution model for 3DTV is flawed, demanding a clear chain of the 3DTV capable devices all be purchased in order to enable the functionality. Finally, there's not a single implementation of 3DTV, but rather several including side-by-side, interlace, every-other-frame, which has led to some interesting bugs affecting specific makes and models that fail to support these methods correctly.
I believe my first point is ultimately what has delayed widespread adoption of 3DTV tech and caused some to call it a "fad".
Having actually done 3D work, you're partially right.
Though, the major issue with 3DTV is the damn glasses. While the percentage of spectacle wearers is fairly high, there's a good chunk of the population who don't, and wearing 3D glasses is goofy. Even among spectacle wearers 3D glasses are often ill-fitting and ill-wearing.
Especially since multitasking is the norm these days where people may look at the screen, then look elsewhere (smartphone, tablet, laptop) to tweet or other stuff, and dealing with the glasses in this case is even more annoying.
If 3DTV is to take off, you're going to need a glasses free display - which is still in the early R&D phase. And no, it's not like the 3DS screen (which is mediocre). I've seen real demos of it and it's actually very impressive (it was multi-view technology so the view shifts as you move about, creating a HUGE 120 degree viewing angle).
The signal formats are interesting since there are 4 primary formats - 3 of them halve a resolution, the aast is full res - side-by-side (quite common for existing implementations), top-and-bottom and line-interleaved (usually when converting interleaved input to progressive), with the last being frame-packed (a full-res version of top-and-bottom). Line interleaved is annoying to deal with, Frame packed is probably most common as that's what Blu-Ray uses (you want the quality, right? Well it's the only full-resolution format). Game consoles normally use side-by-side for 3D as it requires no change in hardware.
As the blog in EE Times ("The Case for Free, Open Instruction Sets") argues, an ARM license costs $1M to $10M and takes 6 to 24 months to negotiate and then they take a small royalty per chip. http://www.eetimes.com/author....
The proprietary instruction sets (ARM, IBM, Intel) have indeed evolved; that is not the problem. The problem is that you're not allowed to share implementations of the proprietary instruction sets with others. Thus, the lowRISC project is using a design from UC Berkeley for free without having to take the time or money to negotiate a contract, and they can modify it as much as they desire. Can't do that with ARM.
A more hidden advantage is that a lower complexity chip is easier to fab.
A modern ARM core that you get spending $1M would be easily a 6-7 Metal process, and masks aren't cheap ($100K each. And a 6-7 Metal would easily need 15-20 masks, so $2M outlay before the first chip is made).
If the low complexity design can get away with a 4Metal design, that can easily halve the cost of just starting up. Plus if you use lower end technologies that they're about to retire instead of the latest and greatest, that'll cut fab costs down even more.
And Unity 5 is supposed to support multi-threaded physics as well. That should translate into a huge performance boost.
KSP, a game created by people who have never made a game before, that pushes both Unity and the best processors to their max. A game actually written to take advantage of a premium system instead of being written to a console level and ported.
I find it amusing that an Xbox One and PS4 would rank as low end computers for this game.
So much for Next-Gen.
Well, given the purpose of the game is educational, porting to consoles would be pointless. It's also an indie title hence its relatively low cost.
As for high end gaming PCs, well, yeah, the consoles have never matched what you could throw money at. But compared to the average Windows machine which doesn't have such advanced graphics and such, it probably is next-gen.
You have to remember a console is optimized for cost over its entire life - sure Sony and Microsoft could put the guts of a $2000 gaming PC in their consoles, but they'd either cost a lot of money, or never make back their cost.
It's also why Steam Machines are going to be pretty interesting in what you can stuff inside a box for $500 and how long they last - I don't see them lasting more than maybe 2-3 years before people in general give up on them. Either they'd be forced to upgrade something, or spend way more money in the end. I dare anyone to be able to take a $500 steam machine today and use it to the bitter end when the Xbox Two or PS5 are released.
Is there a list of guaranteed to never be used names?.local is not really that usefull for anything but the most simple LANs
Not to mention.local is used by IETF's ZeroConf (aka Bonjour) protocol to resolve using mDNS.
(It comes in handy on networks where the internal DNS servers don't accept registrations so your Linux machines can still be referenced using mDNS as if it was done regularly).
And well, on home networks that don't typically run DNS, well, mDNS makes it easy to find where that )(@*&%@)( printer is you just connected.
You're just miffed because I have a hotel on Park Place and three houses on Boardwalk.
Personal experience has it that the low rent district is the best - purely because no one wants it, and you can go to hotels readily. So you're pretty much dinging everyone early on in the game and getting tons of money out of it.
ANyhow, if the mere existence of alternative coins already devalues bitcoin, then bitcoin has already lost. Because now the value of your currency is dependent on the mere existence of another currency and how they choose to act.
That's like saying the value of the US Dollar can depend on how many zeroes Zimbabwe decided to put on their money today - while there is an influence (thanks to currency conversion) it doesn't influence the end user THAT much. Bread doesn't go up but USD$1 a loaf because Zimbabwe added three zeroes today instead two.
I think article poster is bitter that everyone realizes just how easy it is to do something like Bitcoin and that's undermining the value of those with significant holdings because any idiot can make their own currency and when it does, they lose 10% of their virtual holdings.
Heck, Ars Technica created their own currency to give everyone experience with doing a cryptocurrency. It could be used to buy pointless things to decorate your posts with (hats!), and that's it. No value otherwise since there's nothing else you could do with them on purpose. I suppose the interesting thing was is how many people went crazy with it and used high end rigs. Even though a couple of months later, they killed it all, wiped all wallets and even got rid of all the hats so everyone was back to the way they were. (And no, they actually said this at the beginning that it would happen in a few months so no point getting huge hauls).
Actually, even janitors and low level administration staff make a difference.
The new Employee who asks for something simple and reasonable to be done can get the response "sorry, you can not order me to do that" or he can just do it. In the latter case the new employee may get another picture of your company.
The team assistant with not even a bachelor degree can significantly influence the output of the specialist.
If i see that a demotivated mode of work is bussiness as usual in a company, then i run.
There is also a theme of interviews to ask the low-level receptionist and janitor about new prospects.- the thing being how the new hire treats people "lower than them" speaks volumes as to how they relate to other people.
In this case, the janitor or receptionist really do make business decisions. It's also a case of treating everyone equally.
#1 - Chrome and IE do this. Windows VIsta and above implement User Account Control, which implements a major part of the sandboxing - Low Integrity Processes. A Low Integrity Process is limited in what it can do - it can only read and write one directory of the filesystem - the temp directory. It can't forcibly interact with regular processes - if you want IPC, you need to implement standard IPC.
IE uses this for downloads - the LIP part of IE does the webpage, and when you download a file, it spawns a download helper that pops up the "Open/Save/Cancel" and save dialogs. The LIP proceeds with the download, while the helper waits to move the file. This architecture means the LIP can't dismiss the download dialog.
#2 is implemented by Windows and OS X - Windows has signed binaries for the Windows provided binaries, while unsigned apps are asked if you want to run them. On OS X, it's a bit rougher - the default trust level is signed apps by either Apple or a trusted developer. You can temporarily bypass it for unsigned apps by holding CTRL on launch, but the apps have to be signed by the developer using an Apple-provided certificate or the Mac App Store in order to run without being noisy.
NOTE: OS X doesn't actually prompt for all unsigned apps - only from "untrusted sources" - e.g., the Internet. So as a developer, because it originated from the compiler (trusted), it isn't asked on your system.
And #3 is illustrated already.
Of these, only general purpose computers can do #1 and #2 - #3 is not possible unless you limit the OS (e.g., ChromeOS). Appliances can do #3, but you can't put it on a general computer.
What FPS BS? I deployed. I was under fire. Death was seen, bodies, human bones, discarded equipment with blood splotches, people shitting themselves, the whole nine yards. I still love FPS games. They are fun and are imaginary.
I think the FPS BS is that "war is cool" and "fighting is awesome" - the over-glorification of war. Whereas well, REAL wars aren't fun. They're tragic wastes of human life and put real toll on people (soldiers and civilians alike). And for most wars, done because some person wanted some inches of land or other reason to justify taking human life.
Basically the dad was annoyed that his kids had that view (war is NOT cool, war is NOT fun), so he brought them to a war zone to show them the reality of what they thought was cool.
You know the type - they're all badass because they can no-scope a shot thousands of feet away where the closest they've gotten to war is the nightly news.
Effectively, he's given his kids the ultimate "screen vs reality" speech. The FPS game may be fun (it's a game), but it in no way reflects reality, so enjoy it as a game, but don't think you're a badass and that war is cool because it isn't.
Both are terrible, and started going downhill around the same time, racing each other to the bottom - beginning in 2005 (when you started getting shows like Deadliest Catch and Decoding the Past, which became the prototype for many future series of increasingly less "reality"), and then full force by 2007 where you start getting too many shows to name.
Thank the threat of the ill-thought-out "a la carte" plans where instead of channels having to fight for subscribers as a group, they have to fight for subscribers individually.
This results in a race to the bottom lowest common denominator play where the goal is to get as many eyeballs as possible.
So what was once a cheap WWII theme channel now has to fight for eyeballs and subscribers on its own so the quality goes down in an attempt to attract the widest possible audience.
The other trick is that popular shows get moved to other channels so subscribers have to get them all.
All a la carte has done is moved the terribleness of network TV to cable since they all have to fight for the same attention.
Oh, and what sells is drama. Fake drama works, which is why all the "good" shows have to incorporate some form of interpersonal conflict.
Just another day in the law of unintended consequences. And in the meantime, speciality cable channels wither and die because they can no longer afford to produce high quality niche content on fewer subscribers. So all channels need to generalize.
I mean, maybe back when the original iPhone was released, people were releasing ever-tinier cellphones, then it made sense. But given that cellphones are going bigger and bigger, the pressure to make smaller and smaller SoCs is decreasing.
I mean, 3.5" was ginormous before. Now we have people buying phones with 6" screens and large, the amount of size reduction needed is practically nil.
Or it could be they're testing the next-generation of UIs so when those children grow up to be of serving age, they can easily sit down and use them in war.
They're children now, and will take at least a decade before something real comes out. That's about long enough to take the DARPA research stuff and implement in military hardware so by the time the children hit 18, it's ready.
DARPA is research, and it can take many years to commercialize the research. Being military related, well, a decade is probably the minimum amount of time it'll take.
Or it can be perfectly innocent research into human-computer-interactions, especially between military hardware and their drivers.
You could also boot with the install media and do a System Restore since Windows Update generates a checkpoint when you install updates.
Or you can boot the recovery partition on Windows (startup repair), and you can use it to restore from a previous restore point.
You should also be able to find a copy of the older gdi32.dll in the WinSxS directory (that's where all updates are stored - then the files are hard-linked to their final location in the Windows directory. You could, in theory just alter the hard link to point to the earlier version.
On Android, access to the contents of the device requires the screen to be unlocked. Does iOS also require this?
On iOS, it's the same - if you want to see your photos or other content, you have to unlock the phone (or slide to unlock if you don't have a passcode).
HOWEVER, I think if you plug in your phone for a sync (with iTunes to backup/install/etc), you don't get that as long as the connection was established as a trusted connection. (Plug into a new computer and it will charge, but not establish communications until you dismiss the dialog which requires unlocking the phone).
Not sure what happens if you have a passcode if you need to unlock it first to sync.
No. The phone should display a notification if an application is side loaded over USB. It shouldn't be possible to install an application without the user's knowledge. Trusting the connection should merely allow the phone and the computer to communicate. It should not allow remote control of the device.
Technically, the application is signed by Apple still. Or it's self-signed using a developer certificate (which only gives you 100 devices once a year - you can freely add devices up to that 100 limit, but after that, you can only change their device IDs once a year.).
The hack is effectively being able to install a provisioning profile to allow an unsigned app to run. The provisioning profile is signed by Apple, so it's either an enterprise or developer profile.
At the same time, it works by hijacking the iTunes connection to do so.
In other words, all that's going ot happen is Apple is going to ask for confirmation to install new provisioning profiles. Doesn't matter when you ask since the profile is required to run the unsigned app - you can ask at the beginning, at the end, in the middle, or when the app is attempted to be run.
(Provisioning profiles also expire after a certain amount of time - after which the app will NOT run. And the user is free to remove them at any time. None of this is any protection though).
Though, provisioning profiles are tracable to the original account that had them made, and since they cost $99, that makes the attack far less easy than it appears because if you do this, it's traceable to the person who paid for it.
Granted, developers have been warned to keep their provisioning certificates safe because a fair bit of malware does target ripping them off.
Here in Canada faxing is still common industries that do international business for the exact reason that emailing PDFs doesn't work. Some countries simply don't have reliable internet services. Telegram services probably still exist world wide since they are legally binding unlike email. Its one of those funny quirks about the legal system. Maybe people would have less problems cancelling with Comcast if they sent notice through telegram.
It's not really a funny quirk, when you realize that telegrams generate a lot of records.
First, you compose a telegram, and a record of you sending that telegram is noted. Then the company sends the telegram to the other end, where both ends make a record that it was transmitted at what time, and on the receiving end, that it was received - what was received at what time, and then on delivery - what was delivered when to whom.
That sort of record keeping makes telegrams "more legal" since if a misleading message was sent, it's easy to tell did it originate at the sender, the receiver, or was it messed up along the way.
After all, other media can be mangled and no one is exactly sure where it got screwed up. You attached a signed PDF and it gets mangled somewhere - you're not sure where. Maybe you signed the wrong document. Maybe someone screwed it up in the middle (known-prefix attacks are the holy grail in cracking hashes).
Sales pitch of cricket to Americans : Imagine a game that takes longer and is simpler to understand than baseball. Imagine being at the park for, very likely, 4 to 6 hours. Think of all the beer you can drink at an event like this.
Hours? Proper cricket matches can last for DAYS - you start at sunup, play until sundown, rest, and continue the game the next morning!
One of the few places left that actively plays cricket (India) actually do have games lasting for days at a time.
The US government has it's citizens barely able to control their bowels due to unfounded fear of terrorism. Dissidents are corralled into "free speech zones" or simply ignored.
The two don't follow. One perfectly normal reason for "free speech zones" is simply because the local populace gets fed up with the protests and protesters in general.
First is property damage - 99.99% of protesters may be completely peaceful, but the 0.01% that decide to use it to go rioting get the news, and the people whose property is damaged gets enough sympathy and other stuff that governments take notice. (Insurance companies help, too, since they're paying for this, and taxpayers are often stuck with the cleanup costs).
Second is inconvenience - a simple 5 minute road blockade can easily lead to an hour long tieup in traffic, and most commuters, already tired from work and just wanting to get home now get snarled and even more annoyed at protestors who seem to have nothing better to do than screw with everyone else.
Third, related to the first two, are "professional protesters" - the kind that literally have a job doing protests. Doesn't matter what the cause is - anti-abortion one day, pro-choice the next - their entire livelihood is based on protesting and panhandling money off "hardworking people".
And that's the real problem - the people who are the target of protests rarely end up having to deal with the costs of a protest - it's borne by everyone else who deals with the mess, the traffic and all the other inconveniences. (Not that it's necessarily fair on the target either - since it may just be someone having the opposite opinion).
So when the public is fed up with dealing with the crap, they start demanding changes, leading to these zones. Governments (often strapped for cash and not wanting to deal with more unexpected cleanup costs, plus a quick-win decision that appeals to the majority) are more than happy to oblige.
This is way more likely when the real target of the protest is distant - e.g., the Israeli-Hamas conflict.
Yeah "Where do I hide a body" is an old Siri joke from launch. You used to be able to ask her that and she'd give you locations of nearest mineshafts, dumpsters and so on. It was just a bad taste demonstration of the backend search powers.
Well, anyone asked Google Now and Cortana the same question? I think everyone's been comparing them to Siri for a while now so do they give useful responses?
Except a standard $100 helmet vrs a standard $500 helmet is a huge improvement in safety and feature set.
The question is: is this a $100 helmet with $1299 of gadgets, or a $500 helmet with $799 of gadgets.
Maybe there will be a niche for this product, but I don't know of but a handful of motorcyclists interested in the helmet.
Not to mention that safety gear like helmets do have expiry dates. I mean, it generally should be replaced every 5 years or so purely due to material degradation. So $1400 gets a little pricey when genuinely good ones are around $500-600.
(Plus, there are many variations in head shapes and unless the helmets are custom molded, just because it's a $1400 helmet, it could fit you worse than your $200 Wal-Mart special and actually lead to more injuries).
Of course, making one is also hard - since everything has to be rigidly mounted - we can't have the screen detaching and flying into the eye because the motorcyclist took a spill.(you need a high-G tolerant mount and screen because in an accident, the last thing you want is your helmet to injure you MORE because of broken screen pieces flying into your face and eyeballs.
Slashdot Mirror
End of Line terminated comments ("//") actually are in the C spec as part of C99. And while it did take GCC a little while for that to be accepted in C mode, most other commercial compilers accepted them just fine. (C++ is not completely compatible with C, mind you, unlike Obj-C which is fully C compatible. This can cause issues if you try to compile C code using a C++ compiler rather than a C/C++ compiler)
Now, one interesting thing in C++14 is binary literals (using "0b" a la "0x" for hex). That seems handy, though it would be more appropriate to be in C than C++ as C generally needs that sort of specification. Though, annoyingly, they didn't seem to allow use of something like _ to break long literals up into human-readable groups. I mean, a 32-bit string of bits is already hard enough to visually see, allowing the use of something like "_" in the string to help arbitrarily break up and group long constants would be helpful. (Even in hex it would be useful when doing 64-bit values).
E.g., would you rather try to see which bit is set in a string like "0b001011010011011101011100" or have it broken up like "0b0010_1101_0011_0111_0101_1100" or "0b00101101_00110111_01011100". If it's a bit field, you may even want "0b001011_010011011_01_0_111_0_0" if breaking it into fields has meaning.
Such a small change to help readability...
Actually, more to the point, that the ash cloud has dissipated so there's less of a threat. Because this was at the end of it and air traffic had been shut down for over a week and a half, so people were skeptical that things have changed so much that you couldn't fly yesterday, but you can today. (Plus, airline finances are such that if you're not flying them, you're losing money, so the CEOs were really desperate to get moving again and stem the losses).
Volcanic ash is still nasty stuff - it erodes surfaces and glasses up in engines, which causes them to fail. In fact we didn't know about ash clouds until the late 1970s when a 747 was barely able to land in Indonesia after all of its engines failed and won't restart (until the engines cooled to the point the glassed ash broke off AND they were below the ash cloud and could restore limited power). And on landing, they realized they couldn't see out the front windshield because the ash was like sandpaper to it.
The CEO show was basically to say that there wasn't enough ash to down your plane anymore and that it was safe to travel again. (Though I'm sure they probably called for extra inspections because of buildup could cause a failure later on down the line).
There is worldwide monitoring of ash clouds and all that because of that accident because it's still harmful. It doesn't happen TOO often that air travel has be diverted because of volcanic activity, but it's still something pilots avoid.
It only works for so long - insurance has dealt with this fraud for ages now too - they get curious as to why you're taking two conflicting drugs, or why your prescription has suddenly doubled instead of getting a double-strength version, etc.
Yeah, you're not likely to get caught if you're just charging one bottle of antibiotics to it, but at $50, you'd be repeatedly using it and insurance would start making inquiries.
Doubly so if some drugs suddenly show up without a corresponding medical record - e.g., heart medication even though your doctor hasn't found a heart condition or explicitly mentioned treatment. (And really, the only reason would be to charge expensive drugs to it that often have corresponding medical conditions).
As for insurance companies buying the data up for data collection purposes - they really don't have to. First, it's not exactly legal, and second, they have far more legal ways to get all that information and more and can be had far easier too.
What makes you think a traditional author deserves that much money off an ebook? Neverminding the 30% cut Amazon takes in self-publishing?
In the traditional print model (the one most authors do with publishers), the ONLY THING the author delivers the publisher is a block of text. That's all they're contracted to provide.
From there, a gaggle of other people work to transform that block of text into a book. Someone needs to do the cover art, another needs to go through and at least try to fix the most egregious errors (this back-and-forth with the author takes the longest as the editor will catch an error, and they need to confirm with the author that it's really an error and not deliberate), then revise, edit, consult, etc. Once that's done, Other things is that the publisher needs ISBNs, someone to do a table of contents, an index (if necessary), rework illustrations (with the illustrator - or the author because they have no qualms about submitting a 160x160 pixel image for a full page illustration) as well as securing rights to use third party images (photos, illustrations, etc) that the author may have included. And all the other stuff in a book including author bio and other front and back matter.
And then, someone has to go and take that final work, and lay it out on the page (real or electronic) - ensuring graphics, text, photos, etc are all properly laid out together, scaled properly, and that it looks good - that dark image you included may end up as a black square on e-readers, for example as they have a limited palette. And make sure chapter headings and all that other stuff are properly inserted, and linked and everything is in its place.
And somehow, you think the author who gets $7 out of a $30 book deserves to get it all when the ebook is priced $7.50? After Amazon's cut, that's $5 and the author would probably get $3 tops because those other guys behind the work don't work for free.
In fact, the editing process is such that the cost of printing, shipping, warehousing, distribution is really only around 10% of the retail cost.
So of a $30 hardcover, the publisher gets $20. And they probably need to price it at $27 to make up for the 30% cut at the electronic store (Amazon, Apple, Google, Kobo, whatever, and 30% is on the LOW side! Amazon "makes deals" at 30%, showing their real take is often far higher (30% being forced by Apple's flat-rate plan)).
Maybe $25 to make it a nice number since there's $3 in savings due to not having to actually print/ship/distribute/warehouse/handle returns.
It should be connection refused for most client systems. Because 127.0.53.53 is smack dab in 127/8 space - aka localhost space where all connections inside of 127/8 are supposed to resolve to itself, despite the actual IP used. For the few that have actual services in use (FTP, HTTP, etc), it's going to lead to a confusing mess.
Having actually done 3D work, you're partially right.
Though, the major issue with 3DTV is the damn glasses. While the percentage of spectacle wearers is fairly high, there's a good chunk of the population who don't, and wearing 3D glasses is goofy. Even among spectacle wearers 3D glasses are often ill-fitting and ill-wearing.
Especially since multitasking is the norm these days where people may look at the screen, then look elsewhere (smartphone, tablet, laptop) to tweet or other stuff, and dealing with the glasses in this case is even more annoying.
If 3DTV is to take off, you're going to need a glasses free display - which is still in the early R&D phase. And no, it's not like the 3DS screen (which is mediocre). I've seen real demos of it and it's actually very impressive (it was multi-view technology so the view shifts as you move about, creating a HUGE 120 degree viewing angle).
The signal formats are interesting since there are 4 primary formats - 3 of them halve a resolution, the aast is full res - side-by-side (quite common for existing implementations), top-and-bottom and line-interleaved (usually when converting interleaved input to progressive), with the last being frame-packed (a full-res version of top-and-bottom). Line interleaved is annoying to deal with, Frame packed is probably most common as that's what Blu-Ray uses (you want the quality, right? Well it's the only full-resolution format). Game consoles normally use side-by-side for 3D as it requires no change in hardware.
A more hidden advantage is that a lower complexity chip is easier to fab.
A modern ARM core that you get spending $1M would be easily a 6-7 Metal process, and masks aren't cheap ($100K each. And a 6-7 Metal would easily need 15-20 masks, so $2M outlay before the first chip is made).
If the low complexity design can get away with a 4Metal design, that can easily halve the cost of just starting up. Plus if you use lower end technologies that they're about to retire instead of the latest and greatest, that'll cut fab costs down even more.
Well, given the purpose of the game is educational, porting to consoles would be pointless. It's also an indie title hence its relatively low cost.
As for high end gaming PCs, well, yeah, the consoles have never matched what you could throw money at. But compared to the average Windows machine which doesn't have such advanced graphics and such, it probably is next-gen.
You have to remember a console is optimized for cost over its entire life - sure Sony and Microsoft could put the guts of a $2000 gaming PC in their consoles, but they'd either cost a lot of money, or never make back their cost.
It's also why Steam Machines are going to be pretty interesting in what you can stuff inside a box for $500 and how long they last - I don't see them lasting more than maybe 2-3 years before people in general give up on them. Either they'd be forced to upgrade something, or spend way more money in the end. I dare anyone to be able to take a $500 steam machine today and use it to the bitter end when the Xbox Two or PS5 are released.
Not to mention .local is used by IETF's ZeroConf (aka Bonjour) protocol to resolve using mDNS.
(It comes in handy on networks where the internal DNS servers don't accept registrations so your Linux machines can still be referenced using mDNS as if it was done regularly).
And well, on home networks that don't typically run DNS, well, mDNS makes it easy to find where that )(@*&%@)( printer is you just connected.
Personal experience has it that the low rent district is the best - purely because no one wants it, and you can go to hotels readily. So you're pretty much dinging everyone early on in the game and getting tons of money out of it.
ANyhow, if the mere existence of alternative coins already devalues bitcoin, then bitcoin has already lost. Because now the value of your currency is dependent on the mere existence of another currency and how they choose to act.
That's like saying the value of the US Dollar can depend on how many zeroes Zimbabwe decided to put on their money today - while there is an influence (thanks to currency conversion) it doesn't influence the end user THAT much. Bread doesn't go up but USD$1 a loaf because Zimbabwe added three zeroes today instead two.
I think article poster is bitter that everyone realizes just how easy it is to do something like Bitcoin and that's undermining the value of those with significant holdings because any idiot can make their own currency and when it does, they lose 10% of their virtual holdings.
Heck, Ars Technica created their own currency to give everyone experience with doing a cryptocurrency. It could be used to buy pointless things to decorate your posts with (hats!), and that's it. No value otherwise since there's nothing else you could do with them on purpose. I suppose the interesting thing was is how many people went crazy with it and used high end rigs. Even though a couple of months later, they killed it all, wiped all wallets and even got rid of all the hats so everyone was back to the way they were. (And no, they actually said this at the beginning that it would happen in a few months so no point getting huge hauls).
There is also a theme of interviews to ask the low-level receptionist and janitor about new prospects.- the thing being how the new hire treats people "lower than them" speaks volumes as to how they relate to other people.
In this case, the janitor or receptionist really do make business decisions. It's also a case of treating everyone equally.
Yet examples of all three exist today.
#1 - Chrome and IE do this. Windows VIsta and above implement User Account Control, which implements a major part of the sandboxing - Low Integrity Processes. A Low Integrity Process is limited in what it can do - it can only read and write one directory of the filesystem - the temp directory. It can't forcibly interact with regular processes - if you want IPC, you need to implement standard IPC.
IE uses this for downloads - the LIP part of IE does the webpage, and when you download a file, it spawns a download helper that pops up the "Open/Save/Cancel" and save dialogs. The LIP proceeds with the download, while the helper waits to move the file. This architecture means the LIP can't dismiss the download dialog.
#2 is implemented by Windows and OS X - Windows has signed binaries for the Windows provided binaries, while unsigned apps are asked if you want to run them. On OS X, it's a bit rougher - the default trust level is signed apps by either Apple or a trusted developer. You can temporarily bypass it for unsigned apps by holding CTRL on launch, but the apps have to be signed by the developer using an Apple-provided certificate or the Mac App Store in order to run without being noisy.
NOTE: OS X doesn't actually prompt for all unsigned apps - only from "untrusted sources" - e.g., the Internet. So as a developer, because it originated from the compiler (trusted), it isn't asked on your system.
And #3 is illustrated already.
Of these, only general purpose computers can do #1 and #2 - #3 is not possible unless you limit the OS (e.g., ChromeOS). Appliances can do #3, but you can't put it on a general computer.
I think the FPS BS is that "war is cool" and "fighting is awesome" - the over-glorification of war. Whereas well, REAL wars aren't fun. They're tragic wastes of human life and put real toll on people (soldiers and civilians alike). And for most wars, done because some person wanted some inches of land or other reason to justify taking human life.
Basically the dad was annoyed that his kids had that view (war is NOT cool, war is NOT fun), so he brought them to a war zone to show them the reality of what they thought was cool.
You know the type - they're all badass because they can no-scope a shot thousands of feet away where the closest they've gotten to war is the nightly news.
Effectively, he's given his kids the ultimate "screen vs reality" speech. The FPS game may be fun (it's a game), but it in no way reflects reality, so enjoy it as a game, but don't think you're a badass and that war is cool because it isn't.
Thank the threat of the ill-thought-out "a la carte" plans where instead of channels having to fight for subscribers as a group, they have to fight for subscribers individually.
This results in a race to the bottom lowest common denominator play where the goal is to get as many eyeballs as possible.
So what was once a cheap WWII theme channel now has to fight for eyeballs and subscribers on its own so the quality goes down in an attempt to attract the widest possible audience.
The other trick is that popular shows get moved to other channels so subscribers have to get them all.
All a la carte has done is moved the terribleness of network TV to cable since they all have to fight for the same attention.
Oh, and what sells is drama. Fake drama works, which is why all the "good" shows have to incorporate some form of interpersonal conflict.
Just another day in the law of unintended consequences. And in the meantime, speciality cable channels wither and die because they can no longer afford to produce high quality niche content on fewer subscribers. So all channels need to generalize.
The question is, will they have to?
I mean, maybe back when the original iPhone was released, people were releasing ever-tinier cellphones, then it made sense. But given that cellphones are going bigger and bigger, the pressure to make smaller and smaller SoCs is decreasing.
I mean, 3.5" was ginormous before. Now we have people buying phones with 6" screens and large, the amount of size reduction needed is practically nil.
Last time Java wanted me to update, it asked if I wanted to install Google Chrome!
Hrm...
Or it could be they're testing the next-generation of UIs so when those children grow up to be of serving age, they can easily sit down and use them in war.
They're children now, and will take at least a decade before something real comes out. That's about long enough to take the DARPA research stuff and implement in military hardware so by the time the children hit 18, it's ready.
DARPA is research, and it can take many years to commercialize the research. Being military related, well, a decade is probably the minimum amount of time it'll take.
Or it can be perfectly innocent research into human-computer-interactions, especially between military hardware and their drivers.
Or you can boot the recovery partition on Windows (startup repair), and you can use it to restore from a previous restore point.
You should also be able to find a copy of the older gdi32.dll in the WinSxS directory (that's where all updates are stored - then the files are hard-linked to their final location in the Windows directory. You could, in theory just alter the hard link to point to the earlier version.
On iOS, it's the same - if you want to see your photos or other content, you have to unlock the phone (or slide to unlock if you don't have a passcode).
HOWEVER, I think if you plug in your phone for a sync (with iTunes to backup/install/etc), you don't get that as long as the connection was established as a trusted connection. (Plug into a new computer and it will charge, but not establish communications until you dismiss the dialog which requires unlocking the phone).
Not sure what happens if you have a passcode if you need to unlock it first to sync.
Technically, the application is signed by Apple still. Or it's self-signed using a developer certificate (which only gives you 100 devices once a year - you can freely add devices up to that 100 limit, but after that, you can only change their device IDs once a year.).
The hack is effectively being able to install a provisioning profile to allow an unsigned app to run. The provisioning profile is signed by Apple, so it's either an enterprise or developer profile.
At the same time, it works by hijacking the iTunes connection to do so.
In other words, all that's going ot happen is Apple is going to ask for confirmation to install new provisioning profiles. Doesn't matter when you ask since the profile is required to run the unsigned app - you can ask at the beginning, at the end, in the middle, or when the app is attempted to be run.
(Provisioning profiles also expire after a certain amount of time - after which the app will NOT run. And the user is free to remove them at any time. None of this is any protection though).
Though, provisioning profiles are tracable to the original account that had them made, and since they cost $99, that makes the attack far less easy than it appears because if you do this, it's traceable to the person who paid for it.
Granted, developers have been warned to keep their provisioning certificates safe because a fair bit of malware does target ripping them off.
It's not really a funny quirk, when you realize that telegrams generate a lot of records.
First, you compose a telegram, and a record of you sending that telegram is noted. Then the company sends the telegram to the other end, where both ends make a record that it was transmitted at what time, and on the receiving end, that it was received - what was received at what time, and then on delivery - what was delivered when to whom.
That sort of record keeping makes telegrams "more legal" since if a misleading message was sent, it's easy to tell did it originate at the sender, the receiver, or was it messed up along the way.
After all, other media can be mangled and no one is exactly sure where it got screwed up. You attached a signed PDF and it gets mangled somewhere - you're not sure where. Maybe you signed the wrong document. Maybe someone screwed it up in the middle (known-prefix attacks are the holy grail in cracking hashes).
Hours? Proper cricket matches can last for DAYS - you start at sunup, play until sundown, rest, and continue the game the next morning!
One of the few places left that actively plays cricket (India) actually do have games lasting for days at a time.
The two don't follow. One perfectly normal reason for "free speech zones" is simply because the local populace gets fed up with the protests and protesters in general.
First is property damage - 99.99% of protesters may be completely peaceful, but the 0.01% that decide to use it to go rioting get the news, and the people whose property is damaged gets enough sympathy and other stuff that governments take notice. (Insurance companies help, too, since they're paying for this, and taxpayers are often stuck with the cleanup costs).
Second is inconvenience - a simple 5 minute road blockade can easily lead to an hour long tieup in traffic, and most commuters, already tired from work and just wanting to get home now get snarled and even more annoyed at protestors who seem to have nothing better to do than screw with everyone else.
Third, related to the first two, are "professional protesters" - the kind that literally have a job doing protests. Doesn't matter what the cause is - anti-abortion one day, pro-choice the next - their entire livelihood is based on protesting and panhandling money off "hardworking people".
And that's the real problem - the people who are the target of protests rarely end up having to deal with the costs of a protest - it's borne by everyone else who deals with the mess, the traffic and all the other inconveniences. (Not that it's necessarily fair on the target either - since it may just be someone having the opposite opinion).
So when the public is fed up with dealing with the crap, they start demanding changes, leading to these zones. Governments (often strapped for cash and not wanting to deal with more unexpected cleanup costs, plus a quick-win decision that appeals to the majority) are more than happy to oblige.
This is way more likely when the real target of the protest is distant - e.g., the Israeli-Hamas conflict.
Well, anyone asked Google Now and Cortana the same question? I think everyone's been comparing them to Siri for a while now so do they give useful responses?
Not to mention that safety gear like helmets do have expiry dates. I mean, it generally should be replaced every 5 years or so purely due to material degradation. So $1400 gets a little pricey when genuinely good ones are around $500-600.
(Plus, there are many variations in head shapes and unless the helmets are custom molded, just because it's a $1400 helmet, it could fit you worse than your $200 Wal-Mart special and actually lead to more injuries).
Of course, making one is also hard - since everything has to be rigidly mounted - we can't have the screen detaching and flying into the eye because the motorcyclist took a spill.(you need a high-G tolerant mount and screen because in an accident, the last thing you want is your helmet to injure you MORE because of broken screen pieces flying into your face and eyeballs.