So which is it? Do the NSA have my Angry Birds high score or don't they?
Nothing Rovio has stated is mutually exclusive with what we know.
The NSA gets data off leaky apps, say, Angry Birds. Rovio denies working with the NSA.
Still leaves the possibility that the NSA gets the information from apps like Angry Birds without knowledge of Rovio. Or other app developers for that matter.
Just like how Apple denies working with the NSA - doesn't mean the NSA doesn't have Apple's data. It could very well be the NSA intercepted the data without Apple's knowledge. Perhaps through vulnerable Windows iTunes installations, for example (weren't there NSA "backdoors" in Windows?).
The operating system refuses to run uncertified applications without an additional fee. This is true of, for example, iOS and game consoles.
Except iOS will run web apps just fine - it always has since it was iPhoneOS 1.0, even (it was the original "development environment" Jobs was promoting for the iPhone. Apps came in 2.0 after developers clamoured for a more "native" development kit, but Apple was until that point campaigning for adding HTML5 extensions for GPS, sensors and camera).
Even today, you can have web apps on iOS which require zero approvals from Apple. Which, if your app is just HTML+CSS+Javascript...
Historically, all campaign finance reform does is make barriers to anyone who has a voice they wish to get out. Barriers that only the "1%" and their team of lawyers can navigate through. Guess I'm playing my cards as a nut job libertarian here, but this is one area more laws and regulation just make the problem they are trying to solve worse.
There's one area of reform that should be tried - getting back to the constitution and the 1 per 30,000 rule, specifically.
Yes, with 300M people, that means 10,000 congresspeople per house. But it doesn't mean we need to pay them much - in fact, we probably shouldn't. They don't all have to be there - we have enough technology these days that voting, etc., can be done remotely. Their pay should be equal to the median pay in the area they serve. They shouldn't need to travel TOO much - so low pay should be OK since the areas are small. Heck, in a big city, it's probably just a few blocks big.
It makes paying for people much harder - convincing 5001 reps costs a lot more money than the 100-odd they usually need to show lettuce to. And enough so even the local area can probably raise more money. After all, a billion dollars in funding 5000 reps only gives them $20,000 each. Or 66 cents per person they represent.
Isn't a "race to the bottom" just a natural consequence of a competitive market working properly?
Only to a point.
A race to the bottom can hit a natural limit under which the only way to make it cheaper is to cut corners. See $500 laptops, cheap LCD monitors, etc, where the GPU is Intel, the screen 1366x768, etc. High res screens are available, but spendy ($300 on sale vs. $80 for 1920x1200 vs. 1080p screens, $500 laptops vs. $1000+ laptops, etc).
You see it on Android too - the flagship phones sell tons, but they're a tiny drop in the bucket (10% or so of the Android market). Everyone sells way more of the free-with-contract style phones with shit CPUs, shit RAM, shit screens, or all three.
Hell, you know it's screwy when Samsung can release a Galaxy Mega - 5" of 480x800 goodness!
The pollution from coal waste is permanent, it never decays unlike nuclear waste. US coal-fired power generators pump 50 tonnes of mercury into the environment every year, it never goes away or decays, it ends up in water and the soil, in the sea and seafood. Nobody cares, any attempt to reduce these sorts of emissions is a "War on Coal".
The irony being those who complain about mercury in CFLs (metallic form) yet don't realize an incandescent that's coal-powered will release far more mercury (in far more dangerous bio-available form) in its lifetime than what's in a CFL bulb.
And metallic mercury is actually quite safe to handle - it's not easily bio-available so it's much more difficult to get mercury poisoning that way. The form in coal is bio-available and the body rapidly absorbs it into the tissues that way.
Ah, I think I get what you're trying to explain to me, you're saying that injection moulding and other trad methods can be beat on price, by current printers, for niche (short-run) products? Is this the case?
Yes. Doing a mould for injection moulding can cost anywhere from $10,000 to $100,000+, which is where most of the setup costs go. After that, you can stamp out thousands of parts using ti for pennies each.
A 3D printer is ideal for small runs (under 1000 or so) because while each part is more expensive, you're not incurring expensive NRE in making a mould. And depending on the quantity, you can save some time since you don't have to wait for the mould to be machined and tested (which can take weeks).
Before that you really only had CNC machining and vacu-forming to make parts. Today, you have an additive process (3D printing).
I suppose the next revolution would be a combined 3D printer and CNC mill - the CNC is great for shaving stuff off bulk (something 3D printing does poorly - the more solid there is, the harder it is to printer), while 3D printing can be used to make structures that are impossible via a single piece.
If I have a 802.11b print server on my network, it might work fine. However, when I get home with my new 802.11n laptop & want to get on the web at 50mbit, that obsolete device can slow down my Netflix streaming because it hogs the channel for longer while someone prints to it.
More to the point, a single user in a public Wifi area (stadium, coffee house, etc) with 802.11b would cause EVERYONE to have a slower connection. Their device is now obsolete and should not be permitted on the network.
Except, you fail to realize one point.
802.11 devices on the same channel are all affected. Even if they are on separate networks.
It doesn't matter that your 802.11n network is fast. If your neighbour has an 802.11b device on the same channel on their network/strong, your network slows down.
802.11 has channel signalling that applies to everyone on the channel, regardless of the network. Everyone obeys it as cooperation gets you better throughput than interference.
So even if your network is 802.11ac compliant, as long as someone within range is on the same frequency, your network will slow down to accommodate their network.
It's also why early "G-only" networks were doomed - just because your network only allows G clients in, someone on the same frequency using B forces G to downgrade.
Just because two users are on two different networks, doesn't mean they can't influence each other. It's a shared medium.
So your neighbour who's very happy with their 802.11b printer will still force your fast 802.11ac or 802.11n network to slow down until you change the channel, or helpfully upgrade their equipment.
I can easily see an AI-like interface being programmed with at least the appearance of emotions in order to improve interactions with humans. It wouldn't take long for the operators of an AI-driven telephone customer services agent to work out that an appearance of empathy leads to improved customer satisfaction. Only way that differs from the real thing is that the fake-empathy would never be allowed to alter the business decisions made at a lower level: It doesn't matter how much the AI appears to feel for your difficulty, if the company policy is no refund then it's not going to make an exception for you.
And that's not that far off. I mean, even Siri knows how to crack a joke now and again (and Siri does not like Her).
It's all artificial and programmed, of course, and Siri won't pass any Turing tests soon (or ever), But given the idea for this movie probably came from Siri and what it might become in the future...
(And while Siri isn't "new" or "innovative", to many people, it still appears to be magic purely because of the way it operates.)
I didn't realise that they show a different shield. It's not particularly obvious as even signed software is shown as a security risk. However, I try not to use windows whenever possible as it ruins my brain.
I didn't look for a shield, I looked at "Publisher". On signed software, it says the name (E.g., "Microsoft Corporation" or "Adobe" or such). On unsigned software, it just shows up as "Unknown publisher".
Unfortunately, the official FileZilla isn't signed.
Interestingly, OS X Gatekeeper warns you when this happens as well as it'll be unsigned software (i.e., not obtained from Mac App Store, NOR has the developer bothered to buy a signing cert from Apple ($99) to sign it). OS X will pop up an alert and unless you hold down CTRL and launch it, OS X won't even launch it no matter the option. (You could disable Gatekeeper, or you can hold down Control to impose a per-app override without disabling).
Of course, Gatekeeper is seen as a way to wall the garden (even though it's not possible for various reasons, including say, development).
Having/using/bangingMyHeadAgainstAWallRepeatedlyBecauseOf/beingMightilyDissapointedBy a makerbot 2x at work, I hope Dell are ready for the tech support nightmare that is going to be involved in this endeavor.
That, I think, is actually a major problem. 3D printers are high-maintenance things and half the time, things don't go right. Of course, you only find out hours later after it's halfway done that for some reason the whole mass shifted and what you got is now crooked.
Especially since it appears that they work great initially, then after a month, you need to recalibrate and do maintenance or the extruders jam up or produce erratic output.
And heck, nevermind the disaster that Joe Average would have - they need something tomorrow, they queue it up to print overnight, and midway through something happens and it screws up.
Of course, after all the re-printing of the same job until it comes out right, one might just give up and send it to Shapeways for them to print and mail it out - probably is quicker and they have people there to sit by the printer and make sure things go right.
What about Asus and others? If the deal is against Apple then it should be between everyone not just Samsung and Google.
Alas, Samsung's the only big player in the Android space, with roughly 90% of Android marketshare. (Though, most of that is NOT of the high end devices - which make up around 10% of Android sales as a whole.). Samsung makes dozens of phones, practically releasing a new variant or other daily.
And they're big enough to quite possibly challenge Google and win - remember, OHA members are not allowed to release anything that's "Android compatible (see what happened to Aliyun and Acer). But Samsung could with their Linux based OS and all that - if Google kicks them out, they're at the ready with AOSP and their own apps.
Samsung is a bigger threat to Google's control of Android than anything. Google released Android as open-source to counter being locked out of iOS. Now it fears being locked out of Android because of it (on two fronts - the Kindle, and Samsung).
Samsung gains a lot of early Android access, and cheap patents. Google gains reassurance that Samsung won't go it alone and screw them on Android.
I have to admit, I don't think graphics are really "it" anymore - 720p on Xbone vs. 900p on PS4? (Yes, on BF4, it doesn't run 1080p either on PS4 - 1600x900).
Both consoles are doing relatively well - and outselling the Wii U (with a one year head start) in global shipments (I wouldn't be surprised if just a couple of months since launch, both Xbone and PS4 have outsold Wii U in global sales).
In fact, the big problem with both PS4 and Xbone is the software is extremely immature. They're really just beta products at the moment, and suffering from launch day blues. Heck, the PS4 has a save game corruption bug that no one is sure what the cause is - other than save games get slowly corrupted until you end up with an error.
(And PS+ cloud saves won't save you here unless you only did manual sync - otherwise the corrupted save may migrate to your cloud saves and thus losing it all. The fix involves reinitializing the console (which loses all data), but even that isn't fixing it for some).
In the end, it's actually in everyone's interest to just go with the flow, and buy whatever one feels they have the most fun on. Because right now, both Sony and Microsoft have shown a willingness to screw everyone as if they were the only game in town.
Heck, even some launch features are no more (Sony has delayed Blu-Ray 3D now to "indefinite" from "available at launch" because Microsoft hasn't announced a date on when they'd support it. Then the whole MP3 thing, and both have screwiness in the UI...).
And no, technical measurebating is not a driving factor. Because the PS3 was supposed to be technically superior to the Xbox360 in many ways in the last generation.
I fail to see how this would be a better comparison, would you be so kind to enlighten me? Specifically, how are the "technology workers" a "corrupt overclass"? Again, how come working for Google is "working against the common good"? A bit more: is "working for their own benefit" imoral now? ('cause illegal is not) Like... what?... they don't pay for their groceries enough/at all? Or are they able to avoid sale taxes on those groceries?
Technology workers are merely the pawn. The VC is the overclass - the real 1%. They're just using the fact that tech workers make significantly way above average pay to obscure the real facts.
What they have done is manage to twist things around into thinking what's good for them is good for everyone - think Tea Party. A lot of people get brainwashed into these ideas because the message is so simple, it goes well in a sound-bite and appeals. And it works itself well into the definition of the American Dream - work hard, and you can be "one of them". Except well, these days it's more of a fiction than fact for the vast majority of believers - working hard just gets you where you currently are.
Heck, the big job builders In the country aren't the big companies with CEOs making millions and all that - it's the little small businesses who really do make well under $250K a year (I know several who employ 3-4 people and barely make 5 digits in profits).
And hell, once you're in the 1% or so, you don't even work - sure you can claim you do 100 hours of "on the job" every week, but most of it isn't slaving away at a desk. And most of the money is really in stuff like stock and investments which are taxed far lower. (Warren Buffett wasn't incorrect in saying he probably paid less taxes than his secretary - who has to pay full employment income taxes, while most of the 1% get it from capital gains).
If an exit node is used; the client is supposed to be anonymous, the server is not.
True, on a perfectly anonymous system.
However, given the NSA is rumored to run the biggest collection of exit nodes (major Tor vulnerability), and given how most Tor users are probably Joe Average who doesn't realize just how identifiable they are, I think a large number of clients are easily identifiable.
From doing basic things like logging into an account (Amazon, Google, Facebook, whatever) while on Tor (and thus being able to leave droppings all over the web (Thanks Google, for owning the world largest ad network and being able to track practically everyone....).
And I'm sure others are just using it as a simple way to log into Hulu or other service...
Apple wouldn't exist if it weren't for Woz. Some might consider that a good thing, but I'm guessing you're not one of them.
Apple wouldn't exist if it weren't for Jobs either - it was a joint collaboration - Woz was the brains, while Jobs was the rest of the business. Anyone who thinks differently (ha!) doesn't realize how complementary those skills are. Woz back then would've just had another "computer" on a circuit board. Jobs actually had the foresight to see that computers had a bright future, and no one was taking it beyond the expensive minicomputers or the tech geek. In other words, Jobs actually managed to sell the Apple 1. (Woz wasn't very sure about selling computers and didn't actually intend to sell the Apple I).
Alas, had Schiller went back to the original Apple I, he would've been right - HP at the time rejected Woz's idea as it used a regular TV. HP was worried people would plug it into a TV and it wouldn't work or work poorly, so they wanted to sell a monitor for their computer. It's what freed up Woz to actually build and sell Apple I's.
While I honestly think this is an awesome idea, I wonder, if this takes off, whether anyone who currently pays for web hosting of a static site will decide, "fuck it--it's backed up on Internet Archive. Might as well save the $N a month I pay to maintain the website and lease the domain name."
Until some domain name spammer goes and hijacks the name and puts up a generic redirect for all URLs back to the home page full of ads.
This thing gets rid of 404s. It doesn't help if the 404 is replaced with a valid, but different, page.
Better yet, some evil genius might decide to re-post the missing content altered in some way...
I think feeling is that they are moving OSX towards more of an iOS/Windows 8 model where you are not allowed to installed arbitrary software easily if at all.
Except that will never be the case.
First, the Mac App Store is a nice idea, but it's not the be-all end-all. Gatekeeper is easy defeated, and defaults to Mac App Store + Signed Apps.
Signed apps are just that - signed. You buy a developer cert from Apple ($99). You sign your app and release it however you want - obviously not through the Mac App Store since you don't need it for that.
And it really only matters if the app was downloaded from the internet. Gatekeeper isn't working if you compiled it yourself. Or you can run unsigned apps without leaving the system completely open (the popup happens, but you can have it ignore that one app always).
And there are plenty of apps that CANNOT be put in the Mac App Store. Firstly, apps are sandboxed from there, so you cannot access files outside. Which limits the utility of well, utilities. Second, companies like Microsoft, Adobe and others are huge players on Mac and they will never use the Mac App Store. (It's not the 30%, either - companies like Autodesk find they make more money per sale from Mac App Store than their traditional channels)..
And no demo apps.
Finally - you need to develop apps on something. There's no way you can limit your OS to "App Store Only" and still be able to develop on it. iOS is fine - no one develops apps on their phones (and we've had years of experience on it - on-mobile development has remained a mere curiosity since PalmOS days).
Hell, just because of the development loophole already means there's one method of arbitrary software development that's always possible - full source code distribution. If Apple somehow made it possible to lock down OS X, but still allow development, well, you just need to distribute source code and every user has to build it to get it to work. Though it would be pretty ironic for a closed-source OS to enforce open-source distribution.
Whatever one's political philosophy about them is, drones really are the future -- if one gets shot down, no expensive pilot lost and no embarrassing flag-draped coffins. Can hotseat pilots to allow for long loiter times. No need to have a cockpit for a pilot. Latency and jamming is an issue, but is steadily improving. It's the same way with aircraft carriers, which are steadily becoming welfare for defense contractors and an easy target for ballistic anti-ship missiles, super cavitating torpedos, etc. Defense needs to get out of the 20th century mindset, and out of the pockets of Congress, and into the business of actually building useful stuff.
It's gotten to the point where even companies like Cessna (yes, Cessna) have created fighter jets using COTS based systems - engines, avionics, etc., are all from existing providers, and while it's not as flashy as an F-35, it probably is "good enough" for a lot of tasks. And it's only like $20M each with running costs about 1/t0th of what a normal fighter has.
Heck, with the cost of an F-35 (initial quote $75M, something like $150M each now), the more limited Cessnas seem to be offer better value. They're not great for long-range use, but are aimed at short and medium range uses.
Or, for every F-35 you could buy, you could buy 8 Cessnas instead for the same money. And while it's still a few years out (first flight happened late 2013), I suspect it probably will be on sale before the F-35...(Look up Cessna Scorpion).
So take it from me and every sad case out there. If you see a single mother, stay the hell away from her. She's a disease. I know that sounds completely awful and it is. But the system was built this way and single mothers take advantage of it far too often. Fathers are guilty until proven innocent and many are still punished afterward. Women are never held accountable for their actions and no one can expect otherwise. The only reasonable way to protect is to treat them as if they were a contagion. The situation is dangerous. Purely dangerous. And the greater the danger, the more extreme the measures one must take to protect one's self.
Sorry ladies... sorry kids. Blame the system and stop using it. If you want to depend on a man to take care of you and your children? How about taking care of him in return and making a family? Also, how about selecting a good man instead of "an exciting one" and being a good person yourself. I know it sounds stupidly old fashioned and somehow out of date, but there is a reason those ancient ideals were formed in ages past and the reasons they were needed then are the same as the reaons they are needed today.
I have found that this is the unspoken philosophy of every intelligent male I have ever encountered. However, speaking this opinion brands you as a misogynist in the eyes of most women and some unintelligent males.
The problem is family law. The system is broken - it obscenely favors the female side and the male side is always guilty. It doesn't matter that the woman may be CEO and earns millions, while the dad is on welfare - the dad's guilty and must pay child support.
Ditto goes for custody - it almost always goes to the female, no matter what anyone wishes or who can provide a better home. And god forbid when the mother withholds custody - there is NO recourse for the father. Even on agreed-to custody.
Hell, if your wife is abusive, the courts will never believe that men can get beaten up by women - they'll instead thing it was self defense and find you guilty for the assault, too.
The system's heavily biased against men, unfortunately. I don't know if this stems from old stereotypes or what, but that's the reality.
Everyone believes the female. No one believes the male. Hell, OP's story is unusual in that it was resolved - usually even in such cases, the system illogically believes her over him.
...and non-free was bitterly fought over and split the community. Debians place has been the spartan outpost standing behind the flashy Ubuntus and Mints of this world... it's there for when people start wondering about the OS the others stand on, and why it exists in the first place. Much of this software is generated by people who are people steeped in the free software ethos - or "freetards" if you prefer - and are bloodyminded enough to sacrifice a lot to live their. You may think it's folly, but it's for them to decide. Undermine their motivation and a lot of people will be sorry.
Debian follows the free software charter pretty seriously.
Ubuntu forked off Debian because Shuttleworth felt Debian was *almost* there and if they would compromise a bit, they could provide a superior user experience. Since compromise wasn't in the books, Ubuntu forked Debian to create something that most people can easily install and use for desktop Linux. Perhaps being a bit TOO successful at that.
Mint grew out of Ubuntu when Ubuntu started doing some odd things - basically to bring Ubuntu back to the way it was, or at least, being a a "usable Debian" without Ubuntu bloat.
Debian has always been very strongly freedom oriented.
In fact, Valve effectively forked Debian to create SteamOS. And Valve could provide Debian with resources that don't inherently conflict with the charter - build machines, money, hiring developers to work on Debian exclusively, etc.
And I won't fault Debian for it. Because if you want a "practical" user-oriented Linux, there's Ubuntu and Mint. If you want a rather pure free software, there's Debian.
This is something that personally bugs the shit out of me.....tell me EXACTLY how YOUR freedom is being blocked by having CHOICE in the matter? Nobody is holding a gun to your head, nobody is making you use non free anything, so why should those that want it have to jump through flaming fucking hoops just because it doesn't follow YOUR personal feelings on the subject?
Why is those that are supposedly "for" freedom damned near ALWAYS translate to "free to be like me and do what I like?".
Except Debian tends to be one of the more Free distributions out there - turning down a LOT of stuff.
In fact, it's why Ubuntu was created - Debian is a great distribution with very powerful open and free beliefs. Even when they get in the way of users. Ubuntu forked Debian, trying to apply a more "user-centric" view by adding appropriate non-free stuff to create something that users expect - including stuff like non-free codecs and such that users expect, and Debian lacks on purpose.
No group of devs, no matter how good they were or how many were hired, ever wrote a single piece of software more complicated than Hello World without bugs in it.
And most "Hello World" programs have bugs in them! There are error conditions that they don't handle and many assumptions few people realize. (Here's a simple one - what happens if there's no stdout? How do you handle that case?)
Sure the failure of Hello World doesn't really amount to much, but doing it properly takes a lot of extra work.
I was the king of bad rolls back in the day... or I would have been if the tens die had been a 9 instead of a 2. Many's the time when I heard the DM roll, then roll again, mutter, then roll again, before announcing that I'd been seriously injured. I think the bad rolls are what kept me from getting too serious about gaming.
Thing is, rules are a guide when you're crafting the story, and dice rolls are a guide when determining outcome.
The DM (or GM) has always had the right to adjust as necessary for the spirit of the game (i.e., the fun factor). If a dice roll would have you killed off, but keeping you barely alive makes it more fun, it's the DM's prerogative to adjust the result accordingly. Which may include dragging one's barely-alive corpse through the rest of the game.
And sometimes, some DMs like to inject some "practicality" into the game. Got some super armor? Well, they'd ensure that after a little while, there may be some pungency to it all.
It's a framework for a story telling session where the results may or may not be as anyone intended.
And rules lawyers? There is only one person who interprets the rules and their ruling always goes - the DM.
One of the reasons (one, it's a complex topic) is that we, the security professionals, are too dense to properly explain things in a language the user understands correctly.
or the problem is the websites in question are so damn full of themselves that they believe they have the keys to Fort Knox.
I mean, a lot of my website passwords are... "password" or "123456". I mean, who cares that some obscure blog or forum somewhere is using that password? They get compromised? So what? Oh yay, they can impersonate someone with a post count that can be counted on one hand.
You can bet my banking password is NOT on the list, nor my eBay, Paypal or other important password.
Hell, I bet/. has a lot of users with similarly simple passwords. Because the sites don't matter to the user. They had to register for some reason, so they did, But they did it with the probable intention of never coming back.
And that's the big problem - these password lists can be useless because they don't tell us anything - if the site was useless to begin with, does it really matter? Or if the site forced you to create an account to read some stupid blog post or get a document?
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing Rovio has stated is mutually exclusive with what we know.
The NSA gets data off leaky apps, say, Angry Birds. Rovio denies working with the NSA.
Still leaves the possibility that the NSA gets the information from apps like Angry Birds without knowledge of Rovio. Or other app developers for that matter.
Just like how Apple denies working with the NSA - doesn't mean the NSA doesn't have Apple's data. It could very well be the NSA intercepted the data without Apple's knowledge. Perhaps through vulnerable Windows iTunes installations, for example (weren't there NSA "backdoors" in Windows?).
Except iOS will run web apps just fine - it always has since it was iPhoneOS 1.0, even (it was the original "development environment" Jobs was promoting for the iPhone. Apps came in 2.0 after developers clamoured for a more "native" development kit, but Apple was until that point campaigning for adding HTML5 extensions for GPS, sensors and camera).
Even today, you can have web apps on iOS which require zero approvals from Apple. Which, if your app is just HTML+CSS+Javascript...
There's one area of reform that should be tried - getting back to the constitution and the 1 per 30,000 rule, specifically.
Yes, with 300M people, that means 10,000 congresspeople per house. But it doesn't mean we need to pay them much - in fact, we probably shouldn't. They don't all have to be there - we have enough technology these days that voting, etc., can be done remotely. Their pay should be equal to the median pay in the area they serve. They shouldn't need to travel TOO much - so low pay should be OK since the areas are small. Heck, in a big city, it's probably just a few blocks big.
It makes paying for people much harder - convincing 5001 reps costs a lot more money than the 100-odd they usually need to show lettuce to. And enough so even the local area can probably raise more money. After all, a billion dollars in funding 5000 reps only gives them $20,000 each. Or 66 cents per person they represent.
Only to a point.
A race to the bottom can hit a natural limit under which the only way to make it cheaper is to cut corners. See $500 laptops, cheap LCD monitors, etc, where the GPU is Intel, the screen 1366x768, etc. High res screens are available, but spendy ($300 on sale vs. $80 for 1920x1200 vs. 1080p screens, $500 laptops vs. $1000+ laptops, etc).
You see it on Android too - the flagship phones sell tons, but they're a tiny drop in the bucket (10% or so of the Android market). Everyone sells way more of the free-with-contract style phones with shit CPUs, shit RAM, shit screens, or all three.
Hell, you know it's screwy when Samsung can release a Galaxy Mega - 5" of 480x800 goodness!
The irony being those who complain about mercury in CFLs (metallic form) yet don't realize an incandescent that's coal-powered will release far more mercury (in far more dangerous bio-available form) in its lifetime than what's in a CFL bulb.
And metallic mercury is actually quite safe to handle - it's not easily bio-available so it's much more difficult to get mercury poisoning that way. The form in coal is bio-available and the body rapidly absorbs it into the tissues that way.
Yes. Doing a mould for injection moulding can cost anywhere from $10,000 to $100,000+, which is where most of the setup costs go. After that, you can stamp out thousands of parts using ti for pennies each.
A 3D printer is ideal for small runs (under 1000 or so) because while each part is more expensive, you're not incurring expensive NRE in making a mould. And depending on the quantity, you can save some time since you don't have to wait for the mould to be machined and tested (which can take weeks).
Before that you really only had CNC machining and vacu-forming to make parts. Today, you have an additive process (3D printing).
I suppose the next revolution would be a combined 3D printer and CNC mill - the CNC is great for shaving stuff off bulk (something 3D printing does poorly - the more solid there is, the harder it is to printer), while 3D printing can be used to make structures that are impossible via a single piece.
Except, you fail to realize one point.
802.11 devices on the same channel are all affected. Even if they are on separate networks.
It doesn't matter that your 802.11n network is fast. If your neighbour has an 802.11b device on the same channel on their network/strong, your network slows down.
802.11 has channel signalling that applies to everyone on the channel, regardless of the network. Everyone obeys it as cooperation gets you better throughput than interference.
So even if your network is 802.11ac compliant, as long as someone within range is on the same frequency, your network will slow down to accommodate their network.
It's also why early "G-only" networks were doomed - just because your network only allows G clients in, someone on the same frequency using B forces G to downgrade.
Just because two users are on two different networks, doesn't mean they can't influence each other. It's a shared medium.
So your neighbour who's very happy with their 802.11b printer will still force your fast 802.11ac or 802.11n network to slow down until you change the channel, or helpfully upgrade their equipment.
And that's not that far off. I mean, even Siri knows how to crack a joke now and again (and Siri does not like Her).
It's all artificial and programmed, of course, and Siri won't pass any Turing tests soon (or ever), But given the idea for this movie probably came from Siri and what it might become in the future...
(And while Siri isn't "new" or "innovative", to many people, it still appears to be magic purely because of the way it operates.)
I didn't look for a shield, I looked at "Publisher". On signed software, it says the name (E.g., "Microsoft Corporation" or "Adobe" or such). On unsigned software, it just shows up as "Unknown publisher".
Unfortunately, the official FileZilla isn't signed.
Interestingly, OS X Gatekeeper warns you when this happens as well as it'll be unsigned software (i.e., not obtained from Mac App Store, NOR has the developer bothered to buy a signing cert from Apple ($99) to sign it). OS X will pop up an alert and unless you hold down CTRL and launch it, OS X won't even launch it no matter the option. (You could disable Gatekeeper, or you can hold down Control to impose a per-app override without disabling).
Of course, Gatekeeper is seen as a way to wall the garden (even though it's not possible for various reasons, including say, development).
That, I think, is actually a major problem. 3D printers are high-maintenance things and half the time, things don't go right. Of course, you only find out hours later after it's halfway done that for some reason the whole mass shifted and what you got is now crooked.
Especially since it appears that they work great initially, then after a month, you need to recalibrate and do maintenance or the extruders jam up or produce erratic output.
And heck, nevermind the disaster that Joe Average would have - they need something tomorrow, they queue it up to print overnight, and midway through something happens and it screws up.
Of course, after all the re-printing of the same job until it comes out right, one might just give up and send it to Shapeways for them to print and mail it out - probably is quicker and they have people there to sit by the printer and make sure things go right.
Alas, Samsung's the only big player in the Android space, with roughly 90% of Android marketshare. (Though, most of that is NOT of the high end devices - which make up around 10% of Android sales as a whole.). Samsung makes dozens of phones, practically releasing a new variant or other daily.
And you can bet that it's also a pre-emptive move by Google to prevent Samsung from releasing non-Google phones. Samsung is the only manufacturer who has a whole suite of apps that rival Google's (even if methods to get apps in its store were a bit questionable).
And they're big enough to quite possibly challenge Google and win - remember, OHA members are not allowed to release anything that's "Android compatible (see what happened to Aliyun and Acer). But Samsung could with their Linux based OS and all that - if Google kicks them out, they're at the ready with AOSP and their own apps.
Samsung is a bigger threat to Google's control of Android than anything. Google released Android as open-source to counter being locked out of iOS. Now it fears being locked out of Android because of it (on two fronts - the Kindle, and Samsung).
Samsung gains a lot of early Android access, and cheap patents. Google gains reassurance that Samsung won't go it alone and screw them on Android.
I own both the PS4 and the Xbone from launch.
I have to admit, I don't think graphics are really "it" anymore - 720p on Xbone vs. 900p on PS4? (Yes, on BF4, it doesn't run 1080p either on PS4 - 1600x900).
Both consoles are doing relatively well - and outselling the Wii U (with a one year head start) in global shipments (I wouldn't be surprised if just a couple of months since launch, both Xbone and PS4 have outsold Wii U in global sales).
In fact, the big problem with both PS4 and Xbone is the software is extremely immature. They're really just beta products at the moment, and suffering from launch day blues. Heck, the PS4 has a save game corruption bug that no one is sure what the cause is - other than save games get slowly corrupted until you end up with an error.
(And PS+ cloud saves won't save you here unless you only did manual sync - otherwise the corrupted save may migrate to your cloud saves and thus losing it all. The fix involves reinitializing the console (which loses all data), but even that isn't fixing it for some).
In the end, it's actually in everyone's interest to just go with the flow, and buy whatever one feels they have the most fun on. Because right now, both Sony and Microsoft have shown a willingness to screw everyone as if they were the only game in town.
Heck, even some launch features are no more (Sony has delayed Blu-Ray 3D now to "indefinite" from "available at launch" because Microsoft hasn't announced a date on when they'd support it. Then the whole MP3 thing, and both have screwiness in the UI...).
And no, technical measurebating is not a driving factor. Because the PS3 was supposed to be technically superior to the Xbox360 in many ways in the last generation.
Technology workers are merely the pawn. The VC is the overclass - the real 1%. They're just using the fact that tech workers make significantly way above average pay to obscure the real facts.
What they have done is manage to twist things around into thinking what's good for them is good for everyone - think Tea Party. A lot of people get brainwashed into these ideas because the message is so simple, it goes well in a sound-bite and appeals. And it works itself well into the definition of the American Dream - work hard, and you can be "one of them". Except well, these days it's more of a fiction than fact for the vast majority of believers - working hard just gets you where you currently are.
Heck, the big job builders In the country aren't the big companies with CEOs making millions and all that - it's the little small businesses who really do make well under $250K a year (I know several who employ 3-4 people and barely make 5 digits in profits).
And hell, once you're in the 1% or so, you don't even work - sure you can claim you do 100 hours of "on the job" every week, but most of it isn't slaving away at a desk. And most of the money is really in stuff like stock and investments which are taxed far lower. (Warren Buffett wasn't incorrect in saying he probably paid less taxes than his secretary - who has to pay full employment income taxes, while most of the 1% get it from capital gains).
True, on a perfectly anonymous system.
However, given the NSA is rumored to run the biggest collection of exit nodes (major Tor vulnerability), and given how most Tor users are probably Joe Average who doesn't realize just how identifiable they are, I think a large number of clients are easily identifiable.
From doing basic things like logging into an account (Amazon, Google, Facebook, whatever) while on Tor (and thus being able to leave droppings all over the web (Thanks Google, for owning the world largest ad network and being able to track practically everyone....).
And I'm sure others are just using it as a simple way to log into Hulu or other service...
Apple wouldn't exist if it weren't for Jobs either - it was a joint collaboration - Woz was the brains, while Jobs was the rest of the business. Anyone who thinks differently (ha!) doesn't realize how complementary those skills are. Woz back then would've just had another "computer" on a circuit board. Jobs actually had the foresight to see that computers had a bright future, and no one was taking it beyond the expensive minicomputers or the tech geek. In other words, Jobs actually managed to sell the Apple 1. (Woz wasn't very sure about selling computers and didn't actually intend to sell the Apple I).
Alas, had Schiller went back to the original Apple I, he would've been right - HP at the time rejected Woz's idea as it used a regular TV. HP was worried people would plug it into a TV and it wouldn't work or work poorly, so they wanted to sell a monitor for their computer. It's what freed up Woz to actually build and sell Apple I's.
Until some domain name spammer goes and hijacks the name and puts up a generic redirect for all URLs back to the home page full of ads.
This thing gets rid of 404s. It doesn't help if the 404 is replaced with a valid, but different, page.
Better yet, some evil genius might decide to re-post the missing content altered in some way...
Because a mandatory authentication module uses ActiveX - probably something to do with their national ID card or something.
Except that will never be the case.
First, the Mac App Store is a nice idea, but it's not the be-all end-all. Gatekeeper is easy defeated, and defaults to Mac App Store + Signed Apps.
Signed apps are just that - signed. You buy a developer cert from Apple ($99). You sign your app and release it however you want - obviously not through the Mac App Store since you don't need it for that.
And it really only matters if the app was downloaded from the internet. Gatekeeper isn't working if you compiled it yourself. Or you can run unsigned apps without leaving the system completely open (the popup happens, but you can have it ignore that one app always).
And there are plenty of apps that CANNOT be put in the Mac App Store. Firstly, apps are sandboxed from there, so you cannot access files outside. Which limits the utility of well, utilities. Second, companies like Microsoft, Adobe and others are huge players on Mac and they will never use the Mac App Store. (It's not the 30%, either - companies like Autodesk find they make more money per sale from Mac App Store than their traditional channels)..
And no demo apps.
Finally - you need to develop apps on something. There's no way you can limit your OS to "App Store Only" and still be able to develop on it. iOS is fine - no one develops apps on their phones (and we've had years of experience on it - on-mobile development has remained a mere curiosity since PalmOS days).
Hell, just because of the development loophole already means there's one method of arbitrary software development that's always possible - full source code distribution. If Apple somehow made it possible to lock down OS X, but still allow development, well, you just need to distribute source code and every user has to build it to get it to work. Though it would be pretty ironic for a closed-source OS to enforce open-source distribution.
It's gotten to the point where even companies like Cessna (yes, Cessna) have created fighter jets using COTS based systems - engines, avionics, etc., are all from existing providers, and while it's not as flashy as an F-35, it probably is "good enough" for a lot of tasks. And it's only like $20M each with running costs about 1/t0th of what a normal fighter has.
Heck, with the cost of an F-35 (initial quote $75M, something like $150M each now), the more limited Cessnas seem to be offer better value. They're not great for long-range use, but are aimed at short and medium range uses.
Or, for every F-35 you could buy, you could buy 8 Cessnas instead for the same money. And while it's still a few years out (first flight happened late 2013), I suspect it probably will be on sale before the F-35...(Look up Cessna Scorpion).
The problem is family law. The system is broken - it obscenely favors the female side and the male side is always guilty. It doesn't matter that the woman may be CEO and earns millions, while the dad is on welfare - the dad's guilty and must pay child support.
Ditto goes for custody - it almost always goes to the female, no matter what anyone wishes or who can provide a better home. And god forbid when the mother withholds custody - there is NO recourse for the father. Even on agreed-to custody.
Hell, if your wife is abusive, the courts will never believe that men can get beaten up by women - they'll instead thing it was self defense and find you guilty for the assault, too.
The system's heavily biased against men, unfortunately. I don't know if this stems from old stereotypes or what, but that's the reality.
Everyone believes the female. No one believes the male. Hell, OP's story is unusual in that it was resolved - usually even in such cases, the system illogically believes her over him.
Debian follows the free software charter pretty seriously.
Ubuntu forked off Debian because Shuttleworth felt Debian was *almost* there and if they would compromise a bit, they could provide a superior user experience. Since compromise wasn't in the books, Ubuntu forked Debian to create something that most people can easily install and use for desktop Linux. Perhaps being a bit TOO successful at that.
Mint grew out of Ubuntu when Ubuntu started doing some odd things - basically to bring Ubuntu back to the way it was, or at least, being a a "usable Debian" without Ubuntu bloat.
Debian has always been very strongly freedom oriented.
In fact, Valve effectively forked Debian to create SteamOS. And Valve could provide Debian with resources that don't inherently conflict with the charter - build machines, money, hiring developers to work on Debian exclusively, etc.
And I won't fault Debian for it. Because if you want a "practical" user-oriented Linux, there's Ubuntu and Mint. If you want a rather pure free software, there's Debian.
Except Debian tends to be one of the more Free distributions out there - turning down a LOT of stuff.
In fact, it's why Ubuntu was created - Debian is a great distribution with very powerful open and free beliefs. Even when they get in the way of users. Ubuntu forked Debian, trying to apply a more "user-centric" view by adding appropriate non-free stuff to create something that users expect - including stuff like non-free codecs and such that users expect, and Debian lacks on purpose.
Hell, the non-free repos are barely tolerated.
And most "Hello World" programs have bugs in them! There are error conditions that they don't handle and many assumptions few people realize. (Here's a simple one - what happens if there's no stdout? How do you handle that case?)
Sure the failure of Hello World doesn't really amount to much, but doing it properly takes a lot of extra work.
Thing is, rules are a guide when you're crafting the story, and dice rolls are a guide when determining outcome.
The DM (or GM) has always had the right to adjust as necessary for the spirit of the game (i.e., the fun factor). If a dice roll would have you killed off, but keeping you barely alive makes it more fun, it's the DM's prerogative to adjust the result accordingly. Which may include dragging one's barely-alive corpse through the rest of the game.
And sometimes, some DMs like to inject some "practicality" into the game. Got some super armor? Well, they'd ensure that after a little while, there may be some pungency to it all.
It's a framework for a story telling session where the results may or may not be as anyone intended.
And rules lawyers? There is only one person who interprets the rules and their ruling always goes - the DM.
or the problem is the websites in question are so damn full of themselves that they believe they have the keys to Fort Knox.
I mean, a lot of my website passwords are ... "password" or "123456". I mean, who cares that some obscure blog or forum somewhere is using that password? They get compromised? So what? Oh yay, they can impersonate someone with a post count that can be counted on one hand.
You can bet my banking password is NOT on the list, nor my eBay, Paypal or other important password.
Hell, I bet /. has a lot of users with similarly simple passwords. Because the sites don't matter to the user. They had to register for some reason, so they did, But they did it with the probable intention of never coming back.
And that's the big problem - these password lists can be useless because they don't tell us anything - if the site was useless to begin with, does it really matter? Or if the site forced you to create an account to read some stupid blog post or get a document?