The issue isn't duration of data retention. It's who controls the data retention. Yes Google can potentially keep your voice search data for longer, but they let you review and delete it if you want. Amazon also lets you erase Alexa's recordings if you want.
Apple lets you erase your search history, but it's unclear if that also deletes the audio recordings they have of you.
Google and Amazon = YOU decide Apple = They decide for you what's best
In other words, it's a wank control.
Because Google and Amazon know normal users will not bother with it. They give so many warnings about "losing your personal history" and other crap that most users simply don't bother (assuming they know they can even access the setting). Sure, maybe once in a while they come across an article saying to do it, and they do it then, but that's maybe once a year tops. Whereas Apple does it every 6 months, regardless and automatically. Unless you're a super tech privacy geek that sets an alarm to clear your history every day, that is.
Anyhow, the real issue is SIri's database is limited intentionally by Apple. Unlike Alphabet or Amazon, whose privacy policy allows sharing of data within themselves, Apple's privacy policy silos all the data. So while Google Assistant can access your YouTube history, your ad views (yes, Alphabet can share your history within itself, including all the ad networks they own), your emails and other data, Siri is very limited in handling the data it was allowed. So Siri cannot access your Uber history on iCloud, (but is allowed to ask the Uber app to schedule a car via SiriKit but is unable to retain that information - again, privacy)
And it's not just why Apple is on a privacy streak (even at WWDC they continue to poke at Google and others about you being the product), but also because by not having your data on their servers, it's less data they need to serve up to law enforcement. They can't provide what they never collect, and if the data stays local on the device (which for increasing amounts of data, it does), they cannot collect what they're not provided.
Yes, it makes their products less "integrated" because they're not communicating with the cloud constantly, but Apple feels that's the best way to operate in these current times.
I'm curious to learn about this IDS that can catch traffic from compromised network hardware but can't catch the act of compromising network hardware. This is an impractical POC for anything but the most outlandish spy movies. There are far easier ways to exfiltrate data.
If you have a lot of time, you can easily blink a network LED without most IDSes detecting it by simply bringing the link up and down. It's a slow process since it takes several seconds for the LED to react, but if you have enough machines that can be controlled together, you can bring multiple linkx up and down and use that as a rudimentary signalling mechanism. Most IDS won't be able to detect this since it's a common enough event.
Heck, if you need data from a workstation and the switch LED is visible externally this is a great way to blink LEDs remotely. Doesn't matter how deep inside the building a workstation is if the switch its attached to can be seen through a window, for example.
I think the best way to make money in Bitcoin mining is to sell stuff to Bitcoin miners.
Exactly.
The only way to make money with standard equipment is if you steal it. You know, malware that installs a mining client on your PC and steals CPU time. You're paying the bills, someone else gets the benefit.
The only other way to do it is to sell the equipment to do the mining. Hell, I saw a funny ad the other day - a company that rents out "cloud computers" for mining! (Bitcoins, specifically). You rent out their hardware to do your mining. It only took me a couple of seconds to realize that's how they make their money - sure they may have a lot of hardware for you to rent, but if it was profitable, they wouldn't be renting out the equipment.
I hear this a fair amount, and am puzzled. As a physics professor, I'm trying to teach students problem solving skills (usually the engineering and science students). As an astronomy professor, I'm trying to teach students (usually the non-scientists taking the survey astro courses) how to apply the scientific method to figure out what's going on up there and have a functioning BS detector when it comes to pseudoscience.
The definitions I've heard of this "Critical Thinking" meme seem to indicate that these are the sort "top of the learning pyramid" skills that go with "Critical Thinking", but somehow science remains a mindless technical skill in the eyes of many.
Well, the problem is in a lot of technical classes, to get from point A to point B just applies repeated application of algorithms. I know in a lot of my physics tests, if you simply executed some formulas on what you know, you get some results, and if you repeat it with the new results, you get a bit further, until you finally get to the answer you want. To me, that's not critical thinking - that's just algorithm application and it worked even if I had no clue what that problem was asking. All in all, I broke it down as - what information do I have, what is the final result, and what would get me the final result. Working backwards to figure out what you need to get, and what you have will mechanically get you the answer. To me that's not critical thinking.
Critical thinking is far more complex and harder. For the physics problem, it would involve mentally checking the numbers - does the answer seem right for the given problem? If you can justify why it seems right, that's critical thinking - you're not verifying the answer, you're trying to deduce if the answer you got was correct. For science, that would be more like "given these problems, answer these questions". And the questions are "Student A got an answer of X. Would they be right?" and so on. And there would be enough questions that if you tried to figure it out exactly, you'd run out of time, so you'd have to intuitively compute the answer in the ballpark. With justification.
This ability to see if the answer is "in the ballpark" is essential because if you're getting your work checked, you'd like to make sure the answer you got seems correct before you subject someone to verify your results. And your checker will apply the same logic at the beginning too to make sure the answer seems right before checking via a detailed calculation.
Or if it's a complex calculation done on the computer, then the checker may not be able to rerun the simulation, but instead must be able to see the results do look appropriate. After all, more and more work is done on the computer and it's not possible to do it by hand to verify, so you need to be able to see if the computer is probably correct, or is producing junk.
If I was a professor, I'd design a lab experiment that was pointless, and award marks based on how soon a student realized it. If it took them to the end of the lab report (the "analysis" where you look at the results and see that they do not answer the hypothesis at all), then it's a D. If they got to the results and see that something is off, it's a C. If they start the experiment and see it doesn't seem to answer the question, it's a B. An A goes to the student who tells me before right at the start that the experiment will not answer the question at all because of reasons X, Y, and Z, but if you do alternative experiment B, it will.
Critical thinking is a very dangerous skill because it means your lackeys will think and if they think you're heading in the wrong direction, it means being challenged on your decisions.
Then the big iPhone 6 came out and suddenly big screens were cool.
Then the iPhone SE came out and people realized big screens were not cool, they only bought phones with big screens because they had the nicest hardware. (Until the SE, every phone sub 4" screen was compromised in not nice ways).
The iPhone SE was something that took Apple for surprise - everyone was telling Apple they wanted huge screens and iPhones sucked because they lacked a big screen. So Apple followed what the market said and released big screen phones. However, they noticed that not everyone wanted a big screen - there appeared to be a few people who hung onto their tiny screen phones and refused to upgrade. So Apple created the SE to appease this small (and vocal) market. What they didn't expect was how popular it turned out to be - a significant number of people wanted a new phone, but not if it meant going to a big screen, which is why the SE was way underproduced.
(And I've seen people who can't even two-handedly use a big screen phone. They are holding it by both edges and neither hand can cover the entire screen while holding the phone - they need one hand to hold it by the edge while the other one touches it).
So what's stopping us from posing as Googlebot? Are WSJ also filtering on IPs?
A lot of sites actually did this in the past - they'd hide their content behind all sorts of ads and login required blocks, but Google would fully index them (you can always tell because the "cached" link would reveal all). A site with a lot of experts on sex changes did stuff like this often.
People eventually figured it out and surfed as Googlebot to get at all the answers in the open.
So it doesn't really work for either end - because websites that try eventually see regular user traffic become Googlebot traffic so the site tries to clamp down and ends up restricting Google's Googlebot. It ends up self-correcting - if you try to offer more to Google, users will figure it out.
And you can try by IP, but Google spiders the web internationally from all over the place.
Six separate Apple announcements on slashdot's first page : enough ! Can't you just summarize all announcements in a single post ?
Sure they could. But Apple articles usually attract a lot of clicks, and a lot of clicks are commenters who hate Apple. Which means Apple articles are juicy and very good ad revenue wise. So by splitting it into 6 articles, they get to attract 6 times the Apple hate and the clicks that come along with the ad impressions.
Apple haters make the Apple stories extra profitable, which means Apple stories get spammed out as much as possible to attract as much ad revenue as possible. As long as this happens, every Apple story has to run multiple times to keep the ad money flowing. Hell, fake news some Apple story to get extra clicks, too.
I would. it's a silly restriction designed to appease people's feelies. On one hand we can trust people to be responsible enough to navigate 3,500 pounds of steel going 60+ mph, but we don't trust them enough to use some discretion for using a phone.
(see also: cupholders, screaming kids in the back, make-up, radios, in-dash turn by turn navigation systems)
basically it's the new virtue signaling outrage issue. The real problem is distracted drivers.
And the numbers say that distracted driving is now the #1 cause of accidents and deaths, beating out.. drunk driving! (MADD will have to rename themselves to Mothers Against Distracted Driving now). That's a huge change brought about by the rise in smartphones.
And if you're arguing cupholders etc. are as distracting, perhaps, but everytime cops pull someone over for distracted driving, it's because of the shiny slate in their hands. Sure they do catch the few people reading, doing their makeup and hair and such, but by far the biggest offender is the phone.
And yes, most people cannot drive because that shiny slate is such an attention grabber.
In fact, I'm not exactly sure why anyone would want something like this. I really don't want something in my home that's always listening and potentially sending my speech out to computers that I don't control.
Too bad Apple's biggest problem is they're on a privacy kick, then. They're making themselves different from Google by not sending everything into the cloud, in fact, they're moving stuff away from the cloud and more into on-device computing. Look at the number of times they say "this is done on your device" or "we don't send anything to Apple". And Apple's privacy policies have made it difficult for Apple employees to get at data they weren't allowed to have (all requests for data outside the privacy policy go through the privacy officer who generally denies all requests). Unlike Alphabet, who allowed free sharing of all information amongst itself (including all the ad networks they own), data is strictly owned and cared for. It's why Siri sucks compared to Google - it's easier to integrate when you can have all the data at all times, rather than have to work through silos with narrow access points.
So how they do this speaker will be interesting - how much of Siri can be offloaded without needing an internet connection?
So, if workshation-mode gives us peak performance and reliability, then what the hell are we receiving now?
Basically it's like gaming mode. What happens is the kernel alters its scheduling to give more to the workload at hand and less to other tasks. In gaming mode, background tasks are restricted in execution - even I believe scheduled tasks are delayed while in the mode. In addition, graphics accelleration may be turned down in the main OS to give more GPU power to the application. All this extra power is then given to the application running in the foreground, i.e., the game.
It's basically a tweak that favors certain workloads over others - in workstation mode, perhaps the OS will see which applications are pegging the CPU and GPU and give those applications priority over other applications. This may mean while you're crunching away, your desktop is a lot less responsive as Windows is making the compute heavy tasks the priority. Background tasks may be suspended (as well as scheduled tasks may be deferred)
The business (who chooses to cater to smokers) or the government?
The problem is secondhand smoke is injurious to your health. A bar owner who lets their patrons smoke is creating a hazardous workplace by letting his workers breathe in secondhand smoke. (And no, there is no controversy about this - the only controversy was manufactured by the tobacco industry who saw the consequences of their product and scientists who were paid to maintain these views despite it not being their primary area of expertise (the same people show up in all those controversies - be it climate change, tobacco, CFCs/ozone layer and lead in gasoline - it's because those scientists made a name for themselves during the Manhattan project and beyond, and thus have the political connections to maintain the "controversy" by pulling the strings. That's also why they're all physicists).
Thus, the laws against smoking indoors are because you do not willingly put your employees at risk. If a bar owner decides to defy the law, they may, but they should be prepared for the multi-million dollar lawsuits launched by the employees and family over endangering their health. (And hell, it doesn't have to be long term - a new employee has just as much opportunity to claim injury.).
Where it gets murky is a baker not wanting to serve gays, because then it becomes a rights issue - is your right to freedom of religion trumping my right to not be discriminated against? Here it's murky and in general, the principle has been that a business may not discriminate against its clientele. The baker may refuse certain messaging to put on their products (assuming products may be customized with messaging, but can also be sold without), but they may not refuse to serve the customer. So a baker may refuse to put "White Power!" on a cake, but they may not refuse to sell a white supremacist a cake.
This process seems to obey the transistor count rule, but with heat already being the problem it is, it's hard to say what quadrupling the density actually buys you.
Really, you cannot imagine there are any chips in your computer or smartphone today that will not benefit from a quadrupling of density?
There are many transistor-limited devices out there - where the ability to stick more transistors in a smaller area is a net plus (or more transistors in the same area).
I'm talking about memory. And memory in the general sense, at that. DRAM technology has 1 transistor per bit. Quadrupling it means you can either have 4 times the RAM for the same space, or the same RAM in much less space (with lowered power consumption or faster speeds).
And yes, it applies to storage memory, too, for it means either cheaper SSDs (the smaller the area used the cheaper the chip), more capacious SSDs (no, we won't reach 10TB in a reasonable price yet, but we can have lots more storage available).
No, general random logic (e.g., CPUs and other logic devices) will not benefit - the density of transistors in a random logic device is determined less by process technology and more by wire density - the amount of wiring required for all those transistors is dictating how close we can put them together. The only part where this isn't true is the caches, and that's where most of the transistors lie in a modern processor - the density is so high that the area used by caches can be small yet contain 80% of the transistors yet take only 30% of the space.
In fact, a modern random logic device has so low transistor density that most places will fab in tons of extra transistors and logic blocks that are not connected to active circuits. They are not there for use, but for bug fixing - minor bugs can be fixed by changing a few metal layers only, while major bugs may require re-laying out all the transistors again. The stepping often tells you what changed. Going from A0 to A1, usually means a metal layer rework (using those spare transistors laid out during design). Going from A0 to B0 means a full mask set including base transistor layer changes.
It should be possible for a browser to detect when a click on an anchor tag gets intercepted by a javascript onclick that goes to a completely different URL, and for the browser to throw a big fat warning instead.
I believe NoScript's anti-clickjacking does it - it pops up a dialog saying your click would go somewhere else and you can see it with and without the clickjacking.
The real question is - how in the world did someone install the onclick handler? If you're searching Google, all the data comes from Google so...
For internal projects or where the customer doesn't specify, we use Redmine. It's simple and easy and with a few tweaks you get it working the way you want it (it's open source ruby on rails).
The Wiki is good for documenting stuff like setting up the build environment and all that, and the issues page documents all the issues with custom fields and all that. It's simple, and searches are not like Bugzilla with a million fields, and it's easy to get to a "all bugs" list so you can reverse sort (highest to lowest) and see what latest issues are. That way new issues can be easily seen and rapidly classified by your CM person (if you're not going through new bugs on a regular basis, they will accumulate).
With a few plugins to get Gerrit integration and all that to help track fixes for a bug.
Much of the testosterone-laden crap from Silicon Valley, as well as "normal" programming from the world all over would not have been possible without someone like Sammet to lead the way.
This I blame mostly on Nintendo. Yes, Nintendo, with the NES.
Take a look at the video game and computer ads pre-video game crash. You see the whole family - dad, mom, son, daughter gathered in front of the TV behind a game console, or PC. It's fun for the whole family.
But post crash, things changed. This especially with the NES, because to sell it, Nintendo had to sell it as a toy. No retailer would touch video games, having been burned just a year or two earlier and having to write off massive amounts of money invested in garbage.
But to sell it as a toy required Nintendo to tell retailers where to put it. Because a toy store is divided (even today) into Boy's and Girl's sections. You could not put a toy into both sections, so you had to decide where it went, and Nintendo decided to put it with the boy's toys. Subsequent to this, practically every video game and computer ad featured just males in it, leading to the subtle marketing that computers and video games are "male" endeavors.
The problem with the black box algorithm is that in spite of years of things blowing up in their faces, a number that came out of a computer is still imbued with an air of 'rightness' that it most assuredly doesn't deserve. But that air of 'rightness' will make it much harder for a defendant to challenge inappropriately harsh sentencing because people think the computer must know something.
Why not? People already appeal their sentences for being "too harsh" - whether it was made by a judge, or whether it was made by an algorithm, it really doesn't make much of a difference.
And then there's the other side, who often feels the sentence "is too weak".
In the end, a sentence is based on a number of factors, The prosecution will often present a list of what they feel is appropriate, and the defense puts up their range, and they justify why - extenuating circumstances, maybe the guy had an off day but was a pillar of society, etc. I'm sure the algorithm is also just an input for the judge - perhaps the prosecution gave him 8-10 years, the defense asked for 3-5 years, and the algorithm returns 7 years. The judge is free to see if the prosecution made their case better and may use the input to make it 8 years, or perhaps the prosecution was weak and move it to 6 years.
Maybe the algorithm gives 15 years and now the judge has to make a judgement call on whether to exceed even the prosecution's request (was it particularly heinous? or is there precedent that limits such cases to only 10 years? Perhaps the prosecution wanted more, but case history said 8-10 was what you get and asking for more is pointless).
The judge has final say, and it's really more of a machine saying "in the past, offenders of this crime got N years and had X% recidivism, so...". It's basically a big data study into what might be the most effective sentences based on tons of previous cases that the judge certainly wouldn't have had the time to look up, and what might be the most effective ways to deal with such offenders.
I sometimes wonder if Korean manufacturers are mislead by their position home market into believing that there is a desire for them to duplicate everything already provided by Google & al. Is there really anyone outside of Korea interested in using LG Pay or Samsung Pay over Google? Similarly I struggle to envision the person interested in Bixby instead of Google Assistant.
The point is for Samsung that they are not going to be dependent on Google. To use Android and ship Google's apps with it requires following Google's rules which can be onerous (for a manufacturer). Since Google's apps provide much of the functionality over AOSP (the AOSP versions are generally very sad limited functionality versions), if you wanted a full featured Android phone you're really having to go with Google.
But Samsung decided they didn't want to be beholden to Google, so for every Google app they license, they developed a version of their own. Should Google decide to screw Samsung over, Samsung would simply withdraw licensing Google's apps, use AOSP and ship their own versions.
And because of this, Samsung is also huge in the Android world, so Google cannot make huge changes to Android's licensing terms without risking Samsung's departure. And with a full suite of replacement apps, that would fork the Android ecosystem.
In the end, it's Google versus Samsung in a massive showdown, and Samsung has basically told Google that Samsung doesn't need them. If you wonder why Google doesn't force every OEM to provide software updates, you can bet Samsung would be a reason.
The trigger for the violation was when the steering wheel was turned more than 15 degrees. That seems an odd trigger. It's not like the position of the steering wheel should affect the combustion in any way, nor would it be something a reasonable person would use to start a secret 'less pollution for the testing mode'.
It seems more like a major coding flaw rather than an intentional cheat. Like someone assumed that a set of values would be inside a range but when the wheel was turned, it gave an out of range reading that confused a computer, resulting in poor pollution control.
Very different than a 'test mode', that VW clearly used just to intentionally fool government agencies.
Here's how the VW cheat worked, and how Audi's does as well (aren't they same company?).
Basically, when you start the engine, it goes into "test mode" or the low pollution mode. There are a bunch of triggers that would take it out of test mode and into "normal high performance" mode. These are triggers that are believed if they occur, the car is not under testing. One of them is steering wheel - during the emissions test, it's not done on a road, but on a dynomometer, There's no reason to turn the wheel while on the dyno so it's assumed if the wheel hasn't moved it's to stay in test mode.
For Audi, another reason is acoustic management - when a diesel starts up, it makes a heck of a racket. However, if you inject a bit more fuel at start up, it quiets down at the cost of emissions (it's why the VW code references "acoustic management"). Since Audis are considered higher end vehicles, being able to do a nice quiet start is a plus.
This is SOP. Put features into specs late in the day to make it impossible for other vendors, who may have been working in a standards body for an industry wide solution, to have compatible silicon available in a timely fashion.
Well, the competition is going for USB-PD (Power Delivery), which IS an industry standard of supplying up to 100W. It's used by laptops so far, and a few phones support it as well. So you could plug your laptop charger into your phone and have it charge at max rate.
Even worse for Qualcomm, Google has announced that all devices must support USB-PD for fast charging - proprietary solutions would not be acceptable.
Isn't that exactly what the audience score on Rotten Tomatoes is? It's basically a measure of how entertaining a movie is, even if it won't be winning any awards, come Oscar season.
The audience score is influenced by what the audience wants people to believe.
The REAL audience score is the returns.
Because face it - no Michael Bay movie will ever get any decent rating. Audience or otherwise. Yet they can bring in a billion dollars, meaning the audience is watching the movie (the real rating is "asses in seats").
If the audience rating is so poor, and the critic rating is atrocious, yet you're still raking in the cash as one of the top billings of the year, then something is seriously off. Bay even called "f**k the critics" when his movie is raking in the money despite bombing.
Asses in seats is the real measure of a movie, not audience ratings.
For medium-sized and large aircraft, the cause is this bottleneck is usually the order in which people board. If people entered the plane in an optimal way, it would go faster. People loading up their luggage would not be a problem, since there would be no one (or a minimal amount of people) waiting to get past them. Airlines try to do this via boarding by zones, but it's a bit like herding cats. The guy who should have boarded first maybe shows up last at the gate, thus screwing up the process, and so on.
Actually, the fastest boarding is done without any order at all. Everyone rushes to the gate and you board and take whatever seat you want. You can board an entire plane very quickly, but the passenger dissatisfaction is very high. It's actually the fastest way to board a plane. Of course, dissatisfaction is very high since there's no order and structure and if you're near the end, the chances of finding a set of contiguous seats is low.
The next fastest way is outside in zoned, so you fill the back window seats first, then the middle window seats and back middle seats, the the front window seats, middle middle seats and back aisle seats.
The problem is, it's freaking complicated to announce.
But yes, of the ways they're doing it, back to front would be a significant improvement.
When I was at RIM, the iPhone 4 came out with one of the benefits for buyers was the extensive library of apps that were available for download. The iPhone SDK was free or a very nominal cost. To develop an app for the Blackberry at the time required an expensive SDK as well as a costly testing process to make sure the app met their standards.
RIM at the time (and I talked about this with very senior executives) made it clear that the way Apple was doing would destroy Apple as professionals wouldn't want something which had unvetted and, to their eye, silly apps.
Actually, until the Apple App Store came out, the whole vetting process was a gong show. Apps were everywhere - every phone had a version of J2ME that could run apps and often shipped with games and such for it.
The big problem was if anyone wanted to develop an app for a phone, they had to get SDKs from the manufacturer, and then the carrier had to approve the app for a specific phone in the end. It was a gong show and only the largest companies could actually do it. (These days, those companies are much smaller now as they didn't have to jump through a million hoops to get dinky apps onto phones anymore).
Even with Apple's approval mechanism, it was still way easier to go through Apple's process and get an app up than the old way. And it worked across all of Apple's phones - there was no messing with individual phone SDKs (each phone had their own J2ME implementation, and every phone had idiosyncrasies in it) and in general it was one all very consistent development environment.
And yes, Apple did it to prevent unvetted silly apps too. Thought it was also to try to contain developers so they'd avoid doing stuff that would kill the battery, DoS the cell network or impact system security over trying to keep fart apps off the phone. (One has to admit, there's a whole category of silly/stupid apps that simply never existed... until some developers decided to get creative).
Can it run linux or *bsd? Because the odds of MS continuing to support this in the next cycle of management change are very low. I'll bet they drop it just like an old version of "windows phone".
Of course, if you are only planning to use it for a maximum of a couple of years go ahead - the stuff that came with it will work and you probably won't miss the new stuff coming out that will not run on it so much.
Of course it can, it's a standard ARM processor.
Some OEM or other will want to release an Android phone with a SnapDragon 835 in it, so...
As dumb as it is, Siri could have been extended with thousands of commands, by simple API hookups. It was plain old programming, not AI. They didn't do it. They didn't make Siri truly useful.
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, it's a wank control.
Because Google and Amazon know normal users will not bother with it. They give so many warnings about "losing your personal history" and other crap that most users simply don't bother (assuming they know they can even access the setting). Sure, maybe once in a while they come across an article saying to do it, and they do it then, but that's maybe once a year tops. Whereas Apple does it every 6 months, regardless and automatically. Unless you're a super tech privacy geek that sets an alarm to clear your history every day, that is.
Anyhow, the real issue is SIri's database is limited intentionally by Apple. Unlike Alphabet or Amazon, whose privacy policy allows sharing of data within themselves, Apple's privacy policy silos all the data. So while Google Assistant can access your YouTube history, your ad views (yes, Alphabet can share your history within itself, including all the ad networks they own), your emails and other data, Siri is very limited in handling the data it was allowed. So Siri cannot access your Uber history on iCloud, (but is allowed to ask the Uber app to schedule a car via SiriKit but is unable to retain that information - again, privacy)
And it's not just why Apple is on a privacy streak (even at WWDC they continue to poke at Google and others about you being the product), but also because by not having your data on their servers, it's less data they need to serve up to law enforcement. They can't provide what they never collect, and if the data stays local on the device (which for increasing amounts of data, it does), they cannot collect what they're not provided.
Yes, it makes their products less "integrated" because they're not communicating with the cloud constantly, but Apple feels that's the best way to operate in these current times.
If you have a lot of time, you can easily blink a network LED without most IDSes detecting it by simply bringing the link up and down. It's a slow process since it takes several seconds for the LED to react, but if you have enough machines that can be controlled together, you can bring multiple linkx up and down and use that as a rudimentary signalling mechanism. Most IDS won't be able to detect this since it's a common enough event.
Heck, if you need data from a workstation and the switch LED is visible externally this is a great way to blink LEDs remotely. Doesn't matter how deep inside the building a workstation is if the switch its attached to can be seen through a window, for example.
Exactly.
The only way to make money with standard equipment is if you steal it. You know, malware that installs a mining client on your PC and steals CPU time. You're paying the bills, someone else gets the benefit.
The only other way to do it is to sell the equipment to do the mining. Hell, I saw a funny ad the other day - a company that rents out "cloud computers" for mining! (Bitcoins, specifically). You rent out their hardware to do your mining. It only took me a couple of seconds to realize that's how they make their money - sure they may have a lot of hardware for you to rent, but if it was profitable, they wouldn't be renting out the equipment.
Well, the problem is in a lot of technical classes, to get from point A to point B just applies repeated application of algorithms. I know in a lot of my physics tests, if you simply executed some formulas on what you know, you get some results, and if you repeat it with the new results, you get a bit further, until you finally get to the answer you want. To me, that's not critical thinking - that's just algorithm application and it worked even if I had no clue what that problem was asking. All in all, I broke it down as - what information do I have, what is the final result, and what would get me the final result. Working backwards to figure out what you need to get, and what you have will mechanically get you the answer. To me that's not critical thinking.
Critical thinking is far more complex and harder. For the physics problem, it would involve mentally checking the numbers - does the answer seem right for the given problem? If you can justify why it seems right, that's critical thinking - you're not verifying the answer, you're trying to deduce if the answer you got was correct. For science, that would be more like "given these problems, answer these questions". And the questions are "Student A got an answer of X. Would they be right?" and so on. And there would be enough questions that if you tried to figure it out exactly, you'd run out of time, so you'd have to intuitively compute the answer in the ballpark. With justification.
This ability to see if the answer is "in the ballpark" is essential because if you're getting your work checked, you'd like to make sure the answer you got seems correct before you subject someone to verify your results. And your checker will apply the same logic at the beginning too to make sure the answer seems right before checking via a detailed calculation.
Or if it's a complex calculation done on the computer, then the checker may not be able to rerun the simulation, but instead must be able to see the results do look appropriate. After all, more and more work is done on the computer and it's not possible to do it by hand to verify, so you need to be able to see if the computer is probably correct, or is producing junk.
If I was a professor, I'd design a lab experiment that was pointless, and award marks based on how soon a student realized it. If it took them to the end of the lab report (the "analysis" where you look at the results and see that they do not answer the hypothesis at all), then it's a D. If they got to the results and see that something is off, it's a C. If they start the experiment and see it doesn't seem to answer the question, it's a B. An A goes to the student who tells me before right at the start that the experiment will not answer the question at all because of reasons X, Y, and Z, but if you do alternative experiment B, it will.
Critical thinking is a very dangerous skill because it means your lackeys will think and if they think you're heading in the wrong direction, it means being challenged on your decisions.
Then the iPhone SE came out and people realized big screens were not cool, they only bought phones with big screens because they had the nicest hardware. (Until the SE, every phone sub 4" screen was compromised in not nice ways).
The iPhone SE was something that took Apple for surprise - everyone was telling Apple they wanted huge screens and iPhones sucked because they lacked a big screen. So Apple followed what the market said and released big screen phones. However, they noticed that not everyone wanted a big screen - there appeared to be a few people who hung onto their tiny screen phones and refused to upgrade. So Apple created the SE to appease this small (and vocal) market. What they didn't expect was how popular it turned out to be - a significant number of people wanted a new phone, but not if it meant going to a big screen, which is why the SE was way underproduced.
(And I've seen people who can't even two-handedly use a big screen phone. They are holding it by both edges and neither hand can cover the entire screen while holding the phone - they need one hand to hold it by the edge while the other one touches it).
A lot of sites actually did this in the past - they'd hide their content behind all sorts of ads and login required blocks, but Google would fully index them (you can always tell because the "cached" link would reveal all). A site with a lot of experts on sex changes did stuff like this often.
People eventually figured it out and surfed as Googlebot to get at all the answers in the open.
So it doesn't really work for either end - because websites that try eventually see regular user traffic become Googlebot traffic so the site tries to clamp down and ends up restricting Google's Googlebot. It ends up self-correcting - if you try to offer more to Google, users will figure it out.
And you can try by IP, but Google spiders the web internationally from all over the place.
Sure they could. But Apple articles usually attract a lot of clicks, and a lot of clicks are commenters who hate Apple. Which means Apple articles are juicy and very good ad revenue wise. So by splitting it into 6 articles, they get to attract 6 times the Apple hate and the clicks that come along with the ad impressions.
Apple haters make the Apple stories extra profitable, which means Apple stories get spammed out as much as possible to attract as much ad revenue as possible. As long as this happens, every Apple story has to run multiple times to keep the ad money flowing. Hell, fake news some Apple story to get extra clicks, too.
And the numbers say that distracted driving is now the #1 cause of accidents and deaths, beating out.. drunk driving! (MADD will have to rename themselves to Mothers Against Distracted Driving now). That's a huge change brought about by the rise in smartphones.
And if you're arguing cupholders etc. are as distracting, perhaps, but everytime cops pull someone over for distracted driving, it's because of the shiny slate in their hands. Sure they do catch the few people reading, doing their makeup and hair and such, but by far the biggest offender is the phone.
And yes, most people cannot drive because that shiny slate is such an attention grabber.
Too bad Apple's biggest problem is they're on a privacy kick, then. They're making themselves different from Google by not sending everything into the cloud, in fact, they're moving stuff away from the cloud and more into on-device computing. Look at the number of times they say "this is done on your device" or "we don't send anything to Apple". And Apple's privacy policies have made it difficult for Apple employees to get at data they weren't allowed to have (all requests for data outside the privacy policy go through the privacy officer who generally denies all requests). Unlike Alphabet, who allowed free sharing of all information amongst itself (including all the ad networks they own), data is strictly owned and cared for. It's why Siri sucks compared to Google - it's easier to integrate when you can have all the data at all times, rather than have to work through silos with narrow access points.
So how they do this speaker will be interesting - how much of Siri can be offloaded without needing an internet connection?
Basically it's like gaming mode. What happens is the kernel alters its scheduling to give more to the workload at hand and less to other tasks. In gaming mode, background tasks are restricted in execution - even I believe scheduled tasks are delayed while in the mode. In addition, graphics accelleration may be turned down in the main OS to give more GPU power to the application. All this extra power is then given to the application running in the foreground, i.e., the game.
It's basically a tweak that favors certain workloads over others - in workstation mode, perhaps the OS will see which applications are pegging the CPU and GPU and give those applications priority over other applications. This may mean while you're crunching away, your desktop is a lot less responsive as Windows is making the compute heavy tasks the priority. Background tasks may be suspended (as well as scheduled tasks may be deferred)
The problem is secondhand smoke is injurious to your health. A bar owner who lets their patrons smoke is creating a hazardous workplace by letting his workers breathe in secondhand smoke. (And no, there is no controversy about this - the only controversy was manufactured by the tobacco industry who saw the consequences of their product and scientists who were paid to maintain these views despite it not being their primary area of expertise (the same people show up in all those controversies - be it climate change, tobacco, CFCs/ozone layer and lead in gasoline - it's because those scientists made a name for themselves during the Manhattan project and beyond, and thus have the political connections to maintain the "controversy" by pulling the strings. That's also why they're all physicists).
Thus, the laws against smoking indoors are because you do not willingly put your employees at risk. If a bar owner decides to defy the law, they may, but they should be prepared for the multi-million dollar lawsuits launched by the employees and family over endangering their health. (And hell, it doesn't have to be long term - a new employee has just as much opportunity to claim injury.).
Where it gets murky is a baker not wanting to serve gays, because then it becomes a rights issue - is your right to freedom of religion trumping my right to not be discriminated against? Here it's murky and in general, the principle has been that a business may not discriminate against its clientele. The baker may refuse certain messaging to put on their products (assuming products may be customized with messaging, but can also be sold without), but they may not refuse to serve the customer. So a baker may refuse to put "White Power!" on a cake, but they may not refuse to sell a white supremacist a cake.
Really, you cannot imagine there are any chips in your computer or smartphone today that will not benefit from a quadrupling of density?
There are many transistor-limited devices out there - where the ability to stick more transistors in a smaller area is a net plus (or more transistors in the same area).
I'm talking about memory. And memory in the general sense, at that. DRAM technology has 1 transistor per bit. Quadrupling it means you can either have 4 times the RAM for the same space, or the same RAM in much less space (with lowered power consumption or faster speeds).
And yes, it applies to storage memory, too, for it means either cheaper SSDs (the smaller the area used the cheaper the chip), more capacious SSDs (no, we won't reach 10TB in a reasonable price yet, but we can have lots more storage available).
No, general random logic (e.g., CPUs and other logic devices) will not benefit - the density of transistors in a random logic device is determined less by process technology and more by wire density - the amount of wiring required for all those transistors is dictating how close we can put them together. The only part where this isn't true is the caches, and that's where most of the transistors lie in a modern processor - the density is so high that the area used by caches can be small yet contain 80% of the transistors yet take only 30% of the space.
In fact, a modern random logic device has so low transistor density that most places will fab in tons of extra transistors and logic blocks that are not connected to active circuits. They are not there for use, but for bug fixing - minor bugs can be fixed by changing a few metal layers only, while major bugs may require re-laying out all the transistors again. The stepping often tells you what changed. Going from A0 to A1, usually means a metal layer rework (using those spare transistors laid out during design). Going from A0 to B0 means a full mask set including base transistor layer changes.
I believe NoScript's anti-clickjacking does it - it pops up a dialog saying your click would go somewhere else and you can see it with and without the clickjacking.
The real question is - how in the world did someone install the onclick handler? If you're searching Google, all the data comes from Google so ...
Same.
For internal projects or where the customer doesn't specify, we use Redmine. It's simple and easy and with a few tweaks you get it working the way you want it (it's open source ruby on rails).
The Wiki is good for documenting stuff like setting up the build environment and all that, and the issues page documents all the issues with custom fields and all that. It's simple, and searches are not like Bugzilla with a million fields, and it's easy to get to a "all bugs" list so you can reverse sort (highest to lowest) and see what latest issues are. That way new issues can be easily seen and rapidly classified by your CM person (if you're not going through new bugs on a regular basis, they will accumulate).
With a few plugins to get Gerrit integration and all that to help track fixes for a bug.
This I blame mostly on Nintendo. Yes, Nintendo, with the NES.
Take a look at the video game and computer ads pre-video game crash. You see the whole family - dad, mom, son, daughter gathered in front of the TV behind a game console, or PC. It's fun for the whole family.
But post crash, things changed. This especially with the NES, because to sell it, Nintendo had to sell it as a toy. No retailer would touch video games, having been burned just a year or two earlier and having to write off massive amounts of money invested in garbage.
But to sell it as a toy required Nintendo to tell retailers where to put it. Because a toy store is divided (even today) into Boy's and Girl's sections. You could not put a toy into both sections, so you had to decide where it went, and Nintendo decided to put it with the boy's toys. Subsequent to this, practically every video game and computer ad featured just males in it, leading to the subtle marketing that computers and video games are "male" endeavors.
C'mon, everyone knows the front end interface to a SGI machine is fsn, also known for the "it's a Unix system, I know this!" line from Jurassic Park.
Why not? People already appeal their sentences for being "too harsh" - whether it was made by a judge, or whether it was made by an algorithm, it really doesn't make much of a difference.
And then there's the other side, who often feels the sentence "is too weak".
In the end, a sentence is based on a number of factors, The prosecution will often present a list of what they feel is appropriate, and the defense puts up their range, and they justify why - extenuating circumstances, maybe the guy had an off day but was a pillar of society, etc. I'm sure the algorithm is also just an input for the judge - perhaps the prosecution gave him 8-10 years, the defense asked for 3-5 years, and the algorithm returns 7 years. The judge is free to see if the prosecution made their case better and may use the input to make it 8 years, or perhaps the prosecution was weak and move it to 6 years.
Maybe the algorithm gives 15 years and now the judge has to make a judgement call on whether to exceed even the prosecution's request (was it particularly heinous? or is there precedent that limits such cases to only 10 years? Perhaps the prosecution wanted more, but case history said 8-10 was what you get and asking for more is pointless).
The judge has final say, and it's really more of a machine saying "in the past, offenders of this crime got N years and had X% recidivism, so ...". It's basically a big data study into what might be the most effective sentences based on tons of previous cases that the judge certainly wouldn't have had the time to look up, and what might be the most effective ways to deal with such offenders.
The point is for Samsung that they are not going to be dependent on Google. To use Android and ship Google's apps with it requires following Google's rules which can be onerous (for a manufacturer). Since Google's apps provide much of the functionality over AOSP (the AOSP versions are generally very sad limited functionality versions), if you wanted a full featured Android phone you're really having to go with Google.
But Samsung decided they didn't want to be beholden to Google, so for every Google app they license, they developed a version of their own. Should Google decide to screw Samsung over, Samsung would simply withdraw licensing Google's apps, use AOSP and ship their own versions.
And because of this, Samsung is also huge in the Android world, so Google cannot make huge changes to Android's licensing terms without risking Samsung's departure. And with a full suite of replacement apps, that would fork the Android ecosystem.
In the end, it's Google versus Samsung in a massive showdown, and Samsung has basically told Google that Samsung doesn't need them. If you wonder why Google doesn't force every OEM to provide software updates, you can bet Samsung would be a reason.
Here's how the VW cheat worked, and how Audi's does as well (aren't they same company?).
Basically, when you start the engine, it goes into "test mode" or the low pollution mode. There are a bunch of triggers that would take it out of test mode and into "normal high performance" mode. These are triggers that are believed if they occur, the car is not under testing. One of them is steering wheel - during the emissions test, it's not done on a road, but on a dynomometer, There's no reason to turn the wheel while on the dyno so it's assumed if the wheel hasn't moved it's to stay in test mode.
For Audi, another reason is acoustic management - when a diesel starts up, it makes a heck of a racket. However, if you inject a bit more fuel at start up, it quiets down at the cost of emissions (it's why the VW code references "acoustic management"). Since Audis are considered higher end vehicles, being able to do a nice quiet start is a plus.
And that's really the essence of the cheat.
Well, the competition is going for USB-PD (Power Delivery), which IS an industry standard of supplying up to 100W. It's used by laptops so far, and a few phones support it as well. So you could plug your laptop charger into your phone and have it charge at max rate.
Even worse for Qualcomm, Google has announced that all devices must support USB-PD for fast charging - proprietary solutions would not be acceptable.
The audience score is influenced by what the audience wants people to believe.
The REAL audience score is the returns.
Because face it - no Michael Bay movie will ever get any decent rating. Audience or otherwise. Yet they can bring in a billion dollars, meaning the audience is watching the movie (the real rating is "asses in seats").
If the audience rating is so poor, and the critic rating is atrocious, yet you're still raking in the cash as one of the top billings of the year, then something is seriously off. Bay even called "f**k the critics" when his movie is raking in the money despite bombing.
Asses in seats is the real measure of a movie, not audience ratings.
Actually, the fastest boarding is done without any order at all. Everyone rushes to the gate and you board and take whatever seat you want. You can board an entire plane very quickly, but the passenger dissatisfaction is very high. It's actually the fastest way to board a plane. Of course, dissatisfaction is very high since there's no order and structure and if you're near the end, the chances of finding a set of contiguous seats is low.
The next fastest way is outside in zoned, so you fill the back window seats first, then the middle window seats and back middle seats, the the front window seats, middle middle seats and back aisle seats.
The problem is, it's freaking complicated to announce.
But yes, of the ways they're doing it, back to front would be a significant improvement.
Actually, until the Apple App Store came out, the whole vetting process was a gong show. Apps were everywhere - every phone had a version of J2ME that could run apps and often shipped with games and such for it.
The big problem was if anyone wanted to develop an app for a phone, they had to get SDKs from the manufacturer, and then the carrier had to approve the app for a specific phone in the end. It was a gong show and only the largest companies could actually do it. (These days, those companies are much smaller now as they didn't have to jump through a million hoops to get dinky apps onto phones anymore).
Even with Apple's approval mechanism, it was still way easier to go through Apple's process and get an app up than the old way. And it worked across all of Apple's phones - there was no messing with individual phone SDKs (each phone had their own J2ME implementation, and every phone had idiosyncrasies in it) and in general it was one all very consistent development environment.
And yes, Apple did it to prevent unvetted silly apps too. Thought it was also to try to contain developers so they'd avoid doing stuff that would kill the battery, DoS the cell network or impact system security over trying to keep fart apps off the phone. (One has to admit, there's a whole category of silly/stupid apps that simply never existed... until some developers decided to get creative).
Of course it can, it's a standard ARM processor.
Some OEM or other will want to release an Android phone with a SnapDragon 835 in it, so ...
You mean like SiriKit (Introduced in iOS 10)? It's how you can request an Uber or Lyft through SIri - apps can register commands against Siri for these actions.