My guess is they're building one to try to understand them from the ground up to be suppliers of technology or to lure a major carmaker without an electric car into building it for them.
There's a bit of truth to that. I mean, Apple competing with the likes of Tesla and such seems unlikely, and Google's got a good head start with autonomous vehicles so it seems like an Apple car is nothing more than a research project. Plus, as Tesla found out, the dealership model isn't the greatest in the world to deal with, and there are a lot of dealer-only states.
The most likely explanation is that if you want to deal with car technology, building your own is a good way to learn what is and isn't possible.
If a bird shaped / massed object presents a serious hazard to your aircraft, then your aircraft was never safe to begin with. Don't take me wrong, I'm all for responsible drone ownership and flying, however if you are seriously worried about the ability of a 2 lb drone to take down your aircraft, you should be much more worried about the 10lb canadian goose you are just as likely to hit.
First of all, aircraft fire fighting is EXTREMELY dangerous. Whether it's a helicopter long lining a Bambi bucket, or being in a water tanker dropping water on a fire, it requires extremely skilled pilots. And this is without the distraction that a fire causes - smoke, turbulence caused by the flames (they are nothing like what you get at 30,000 feet), flying low to the ground, etc.
Most aircraft are under 500' above the ground. You need to be extremely skillful when flying this low, and you feel the flames - the rising hot air are shoving your aircraft around, so it's already hard enough keeping blue side up. Then as you release your load, your aircraft's balance shifts and you have to compensate as well as try to fly your lines Oh yeah, did I mention it was smoky so you can't always see clearly out? And there's no map accurate enough so your only protection against flying into terrain is well, the Mk. 1 Eyeball?
In fact, ti's so dangerous there's an aircraft always hanging around overhead - acting as air traffic control so they control and manage aircraft timing, spacing and noting where to attack the fire as well as keeping a general eye on everything in cas something flares up. Everyone is under control in the immediate area.
The problem with a drone is it's not under positive control - who knows where the operator may fly. It's not just damaging the aircraft, but also distracting the pilots who are just trying to keep things under control. If it lands in an engine and takes it out, that aircraft and its crew may land right in the middle of the flames (there's no where to go at 500' AGL). Or it might break through the windshield and seriously distract the pilots.
Perhaps a good way to make conditions relatable to IT workers is imagine trying to write code in the middle of a call center. You have to write your code, but phones are ringing off the hook, people are chatting loudly, and then some idiot starts banging on your keyboard.
It's already a difficult and risky working environment. Drones simply add a risk element that could turn a rescuer into a victim, and that's the last thing anyone needs. It's why SAR often suspend activity when it gets too dangerous, too - because the last thing in the world you want is to make things worse and increase the number of people needing rescue.
Oh, and a crash during a wildfire can spawn more wildfires.
The recommendation doesn't make sense. Yes, your phone may not always be in your possession. That would rule out software authenticators too, since they reside on the same phone that may not always be in your possession. Even dedicated hardware tokens may not always be in your possession, they can be lost or stolen just like a phone. So if not being always in your possession is the criteria, then all of the NIST's recommended methods fail to meet it.
The summary is poorly worded. It's not YOU in possession of your phone, it's your PHONE in possession of the PHONE NUMBER. The idea is this - if you're going to do SMS as a verification, NIST recommends checking that the phone number you're sending the SMS to is actually the phone you intend to send it to.
There is another problem with SMS 2FA that isn't covered in this document, and is much easier to pull off: It is currently too easy to social engineer phone companies to move service to a new device. This has happened recently to several execs to allow script kiddies to take over social media accounts that are using SMS 2-factor.
No, that's what NIST is talking about. Your phone may not be in possession of the phone number.
Basically what NIST is saying is that phone numbers don't lead to a specific phone. They lead to A phone, but not necessarily the phone you think it goes to. This is especially as modern phone systems allow trivial movement of phone numbers to anything that can provide voice service.
It'll be ready when scaled up. Unlike flying cars, which have no current path to commercial viability. That's the point. It works, and would be commercially ready for small screens now, but that's not where the profit is.
It's got a wide 3D viewing angle (120 degrees - 60 degrees off perpendicular each side), and from 120 through 178 degrees, it degrades into a 2D image, so no matter where you are, if you can see the screen, you can see an image. Unlike some other technologies (like the Nintendo 3DS), it never goes unviewable.
In actual reality, most of Moore's law has stopped 6-8 years ago. Just compare a midrange CPU from back then with one from today in actual performance. Not so much of a difference.
And Moore's law has never been about performance. Just transistor density.
General logic like what makes up the computation portion of a CPU don't need Moore's law at all - the transistor density is so low, they generally fab tons more transistors that sit around doing nothing. This way when a bug is found, they can revise the metal layers and put some of those spare transistors to use. This easily saves half of the masks they need to re-do, so at a $100K each per mask, it could mean spending under a million dollars over a couple of million dollars.
Instead, Moore's law is closely followed by memory manufacturers, because the denser the transistors, the more memory available. This applies for bot flash and RAM - 6-8 years ago you probably had a machine where 8GB of RAM is considered high end for a PC. Nowadays, 64GB is often the high end for a PC. As well, 120GB of SSD storage was considered luxury. Nowadays, you can get 480+GB for less money than that 120GB SSD, and it's not just SATA2, but SATA3. Or even PCIe.
There are two things in IC fabrication - you have "pin limited" and "silicon limited" designs. Similar to how in programs, you have "I/O bound" and "CPU bound". "Pin limited" ICs mean the overall functionality and design is limited by the number of pins your package supports. Even with 1000+ pins in modern packages, that still limits what you can do. Whereas in silicon limited designs, the limit is how much area your design takes up - more area means higher costs due to less dice per wafer, as well as higher chance of die defect. Memory devices are area limited - the pin counts of modern RAM and flash devices is low, but the area is high. Moore's law increases the storage density so you can have more storage in the same area.
It's why SSDs have a hard time catching up to HDDs (at least with raw storage) - SSDs improve with roughly Moore's law. HDDs have been improving (storage wise) faster.
In fact, most of the millions and billions of transistors in your CPU aren't used for logic processing - probably 90% of those transistors are memory related - caches, on board memory, etc. Because those are dense. SRAM cells are typically 6T (6 transistor) designs, so if your CPU has 16MB of cache, that's 96M transistors right there and then just in the storage array. Even more fascinating is that those 95M transistors will probably occupy less area than one of the major processing units on the same chip which may be only 1-2M transistors.
A franchise being milked dry by its IP holder, fans being sued for trying to create something, and mostly being sued for creating something that's better and closer to the core idea of the franchise than its IP holder creates...
What exactly is there to celebrate? Any "real" celebration would probably be snuffed instantly by the IP holders.
In the eternal words of Bones: "It's dead, Jim."
Huh, did you sleep a long time or something, because the same comment applies around 20 years ago, too.
In other words, nothing new - CBS/Paramount/Viacom has been milking Trek for decades, suing fans (they've shut down many fan sites over the years. Some of the biggest fan-run sites that were considered the canonical reference, too, got at least a C&D, if not completely shut down. Heck, there were fansite protests against the overly harsh crackdown. These were the early days of CGI and "Content Mangaement System" or "Blog" weren't even terms yet. (Basically all the perl scripts you got did was the ability to add and subtract links to a page in a semi-automated fashion).
And milked dry? Same. Heck, consider what a "uniform" is. And then consider why in the span of a few years, Starfleet would issue 3 different uniforms. No, it was never about the universe, but knowing that fans would flock to buy new uniforms. You can explain away TOS and TNG due to the time difference, but not TNG/DS9/VOY. Or even just TNG from the TV to the movies.Oh yeah, the movies have different uniforms as well.
Brannon/Braga were also well known for disappointing the fan base time and time again.
So it's not unusual to see it happen 20 years later. Funny thing is, Star Trek seems to be like oil. No matter how much the abuse, it just seems fans keep taking it and spending more $$$ on it.
Hell, I remember buying the TNG DVD sets. When the average price of a season DVD set goes for $30 to $40, "Star Trek" pumps it up to $120+ MSRP, or $80 on sale. These days complete series sets are around $100 for DVD and $150 for Blu-Ray remasters,
The abuse is the same and it's been going on for decades. The horse is not just dead, but it's decomposed into dust and the bones have been beaten into a fine powder, too.
a lot of over priced electronics, custom furnishings, wood work, etc.. the essential (albeit high end) components to view hdtv/dvd/bd probably cost 75-100k, tops. not that impressive, just some rich fuck with money to burn. sorry.
Not really, high end components can easily top out at $100K each.
A Trinnov processor, for example, 32 channels can easily run $50K for the unit itself. They make 16 channel versions that average around $20K. This is the processor only, (This is measured in channels - your 7.1 audio is 8 channels, for example, so 32 channels give you standard 7.1 channels plus 24 additional environmental channels for Dolby Atmos or DTS:X processing.)
Then you need 32+ amps for all those channels, which can range from hundreds to thousands each. Let's say another $16K ($500/channel). Then there's the speakers, which can easily be thousands to several hundred dollars each.
And that's just audio, nothing fancy, just high end equipment, which if you estimate it out will probably be about $150K or so. A good screen and projector, can top $100K easily - using proper digital theatre projectors, not dinky little ones you find everywhere.
The players are cheap - trivially so - maybe $5K if you fully outfit yourself with a high end Blu-Ray player ($1K), dozens of other sources and a matrix switcher that goes every which way.
Then there's the huge labor cost - aligning and setting up, and even more importantly, integration. Creston and other integrators are expensive, so it's probably a quarter million for the equipment and installer to get it all hooked together and working as one cohesive unit.
Wonder if the IMAX personal home theatre ($400K) includes options for Atmos and DTS:X processing when you're not using IMAX...
For most "developers" it is cheaper than selling it themselves.
They don't need a web site, customer data, credit card processing, a sales rep, customer service, an accountant etc. p.p.
30% only sounds much if you never have run your own company and have no clue how much that costs.
Also: subscription based in app purchases got reduced to 10% fee half a year ago.
Not to mention having to maintain a customer database so customers can get their product over and over again or download updates, and maintaining that database against hordes of people trying to extract information from it.
And then also the whole business of users not having to make yet ANOTHER account for their product...
And all the necessary security updates - I'm sure most developers would love to spend 30% of their day just maintaining their website over say, developing code.
That's what it really is - a game of virtual geocaching.
And geocaching has had steady performance for a long time now.
Pokemon has also had it out for a long time now. And let's not forget while it seems boring now, that's just because they don't have the server farm to handle it yet. Japan and China have yet to be connected, mostly because there just aren't enough servers out there yet.
Once Niantic has finally activated the game world wide, then you're going to see content improvements. And all sorts of other stuff - if it's a fad, Ingress shows it has staying power, and this is with a powerful brand. No doubt there will be special events with The Pokemon Company and Niantic for game launches and stuff as well.
Apple makes some money - perhaps that's why they're cutting rates. But the biggest winners would be companies like Dell who supply the backend infrastructure (or are busy doing so - Japan is being flooded with servers so when it opens it will hopefully be a lot less rough).
Why not? Everyone should condone "piracy." Piracy enriches our lives and our culture. Copying brings us more of the things we love. The only thing that shouldn't be condoned is using smear words like "piracy" to refer to a basic decent act of human behavior.
So why not encourage GPL violators ("pirates" too)? Instead we seem to cheer whenever we find a GPL violator.
Yes, violating the GPL is copyright infringement, aka piracy. (You don't have to agree to the GPL, but if you don't, it falls back to the "All Rights Reserved" copyright. So if you're distributing binaries without source you're violating basic copyright law).
You really cannot have it both ways - if you want to encourage piracy, then you encourage people (and companies) to violate the GPL by extension.
These always struck me as a fad waiting to die, but I'm not trying to be the usual Slashdot curmudgeon, so I'll ask: what are the killer features of a smart watch?
The best my buddy could come up with who bought an Android one was some mumbling about how its more socially acceptable to glance at texts on your wrist, than to take your phone out.
Easy, you don't need to use two hands to see your texts or make phone calls.
In certain markets, bigger is better, so people are buying gigantic phones that are impossible for them to use. It's too big for their hands. or more practically, they can't put it anywhere because it's also too big for their pockets, so they stuff them in purses and such. But putting your phone there makes it terribly inconvenient when you want to read your texts or send texts.
Hence a smart watch - they bought a phone they couldn't use so they now buy an accessory to make their phone usable.
And yes, for others, FOMO (fear of missing out) is also a big thing - every time their phone dings they get an anxiety attack wanting to know what they're missing out. Given many social gatherings are now of the "don't touch your phone" (where the person who reaches for their phone first has to pay), well...
Could Microsoft make a special version of Windows 10 to comply with French or even EU regulators?
Of course they can.
There already are special versions of Windows available - there's the "K" ones, which are specially made for Korea (not sure what it entails), and there's the "N" ones which lack media player (earlier Europe ruling).
All Microsoft needs to do is modify the N build to exclude data collection or ask for user permission to collect data.
You can see these builds when you make a Windows 10 image and click Advanced.
And a fuck load of them at that. Also it's good to see groups of kids out and about walking and riding places rather than just loitering around with "nothing to do".
It seems the same to me. Before they loitered about with their eyes glued to their phone screens. Today they're loitering about with their eyes glued to their phone screen. Granted, at pokestops it's usually much more loiterers, but they all are still glued to their phone screens, like a bunch of zombies.
Reminds me of the cartoons where everyone texts each other even though they're sitting down at the same table.
I guess the difference is some people are getting some fresh air and a few others are getting some exercise. But it looks a lot like a zombie scene, to be honest.
We had a good run From 1995-1998 with the SVGA cards that did 1024x768 with 32bit color. Then that 3D acceleration came out and buying a good video card became much more difficult. With Displays going up to 4k we should be getting to a point where increase of resolution will not matter, And 3d performance on those displays should be quick enough. While Mores law is in effect our bodies are not adapting as fast as the technology, so there should be a point where the Video from a computer will meet a threshold where playing such upgrade games isn't going to be important.
Much like how we don't talk much about Sound cards.
Not for a long while yet.
Modern video cards can barely sustain 60fps at 4K - and usually only with simplified geometry. Given the state of PC graphics today, there will be plenty that can bog down even a top end video card. And VR demanding higher framerates is not easy yet either.
Sound cards peaked ages ago because what they did was simple - 44.1kHz 16 bit audio is relatively trivial - the DACs are cheap and plentiful and signal wise, it's pretty slow. And processing on the CPU got quick enough that accelerators helped very little - by the time you got the accelerator loaded
Modern video cards can't drive 8 million pixels at 60 fps rock-steady, and with more complex models and environments, they will bog down as well.
That depends on the attack. If it's a bunch of machines running ping, I'll agree with you. But more recently larger DDoS can be quite sophisticated relying on amplification or reflection attacks using bugs or unintended consequences of design in certain protocols. But if it doesn't fit your world view we should all adjust our language accordingly right?
Yeah, but a modern DDoS is almost never using neat tricks or vulnerabilities in protocols. In fact, pingflooding is almost never done because it's too simple to block.
A modern DDoS comprises of a botnet of infected computers. Those computers are set up to imitate the service protocol and then rapidly do it. This way the servers are pegged trying to handle bogus requests while legitimate users are blocked out. And since the traffic is the same, it's really hard to filter the DDoS traffic from the legitimate traffic because they look identical.
Not to mention the retro attitude towards Shareware, which was novel back in the day but is now more-or-less how most commercial software is distributed. As a former Shareware author myself, which morphed into a more commercial version, the vitriol is puzzling, especially in this day and age.
People back then were used to buying software as if it were a physical good: you got a book, media such as floppies or a CD, and perhaps a box to put it all in. But by golly if that same software was something you could download alongside items that were free, then it damned well better not cost anything either! How dare an author try to recoup development costs, at the same time they give a potential customer the ability to actually try out the software before committing to buying it?! The nerve of those guys!
This seems to have evolved into folks who think that all software should be available at no cost, economics be damned, and those who appreciate that there is a FOSS option alongside a more traditional business model (with a much improved distribution system)
But I digress. It was just striking to see the old school hate posted on the site. I guess it is a blast from the past in more ways than one...
Funny enough, I remember those days. I also remember Mac users were probably the biggest enthusiasts of shareware - so much so that it remained a viable business model well beyond the demoware/crippleware era on PCs.
It seemed Mac users embraced it heavily that the honor system remained viable (i.e., you had the full thing...). I don't know the reason behind it - did Mac users have very little software so anytime someone released anything, they opened their wallets?
Of course, I also remember it on the PC side where if it said shareware, you looked for cracks and keygens to activate. Of course, the PC BBSes I dialed into were treasure troves of copyright infringement with the latest games and applications often posted within days of release. Shareware releases were always interesting on those - for the shareware version would get posted, then immediately below it, the full version. And even the serial numbers and such. Perhaps the rarest of all was the BBS that DIDN'T have pirated software on it - it was just...expected.
There were two that had Mac stuff. One was run by the Mac user's group, the other was a primarily PC BBS but allowed Mac uploads in a separate file area
What do you think would Clinton "shake up?" She is the epitome of the status-quo!
You're making the hugely wild assumption that Trump cannot win.
As Brexit and other votes have shown, this is blatantly false. Even though logic dictates that Trump probably shouldn't be POTUS for many reasons, the electorate is composed of humans and not Vulcans, and emotions often overrule logic.
First, Trump's campaign is less about logical things, and just getting the soundbite in. He's probably more in tune with what people who vote want than Clinton, who may have a larger voter base, but is more fickle.
Second, your ballot for POTUS is not just "Trump" or "Clinton", but "Third party", "Too disgusted" and "too lazy". The latter two are really short hand for "I'm not going to vote". Clinton is vulnerable to this - she may have more voters, but if her campaign fails to get votes out, then there's a good chance she can lose.
She's got a sizable lead, voters may simply decide to be lazy - she's going to win anyways, so their non-vote won't be missed. Or voters may be disgusted by Trump that they're not going to vote as a protest. Or Clinton's scandals make voters not want to vote for Trump, but also not vote for Clinton either.
Counting Trump out is probably the worst thing you can say. Even if he's only 30% against Clinton's 60%, that's not an entirely insurmountable barrier - if we count out voters for Clinton who won't vote because of reasons mentioned above, the gap narrows significantly.
Updates may keep it alive. If there is a reward for exploring new places, you can bet people will take out the game to see new stuff when they travel to new places. Currently though, the landmarks can be reused every 5 minutes. The game has a ton of "borrowed" content, it just has to capitalize on it.
So what about their previous game, Ingress? That seems to still be going strong.
So yes, content updates are key, but there's so much content available AND all the experience in Ingress that could be applied to Pokemon Go that could keep it going for a few years still.
The key is to release new content just when people start to get bored - too early and slower players may feel overwhelmed that new stuff is coming too fast, too slow and faster players get bored and you can potentially lose them.
The Pokemon Company I'm sure did their research into Niantic and Ingress to see if they could make a lasting Pokemon mobile game.
The real question is what happens in a year's time - for mobile stuff, a year seems to be whether it will last or fizzle out (see Angry Birds - it was wildly popular when it came out and then faded away).
And soon too - Apple's spaceship campus is set to open either end of this year or mid 2017...
Though I've always wanted to know what Apple would do with their existing 1 Infinite Loop address. (So-called because their new Cray supercomputer is so fast, it can run an infinite loop in under 60 seconds). The other thing was, Apple used the Cray to design Macs, while Cray used Macs to manage the Cray - you interacted with the Mac running in front of the Cray.
The alternative I prefer is to change the law so the entire EULA is invalid if any part of it "steps over the line". Of course, the success of this strategy would depend on the quality of the definition of "step over the line".
Actually, that is the law in a few places. It's why the EULA states that you may have more legal rights than granted, and affected portion is invalidated, but just that one part. If it wasn't, lawyers and everyday life would get WAY more complex. As in having to enter your postal code or zip code and then having an appropriate EULA generated. Or as you have right now a bunch of "If you live in..." type clauses, leading to #ifdef hell.
Oh yeah, lawyers would love such a law because it means having to write tons of different EULAs, based on location...And even more lawyer time in court cases when someone misrepresents their location to try to invalidate a EULA.
After all, they probably know better than anybody what the spending habits are for their customers.
Perhaps they purposely chose the lowest volume day of the month (or even year) and figured they would A) increase sales numbers for that day and B) generate buzz (free/cheap advertising)
Likely. Another reason is with Prime 2 day shipping, the day you order is counted as "day 0", which means if you order after 3pm or so, "day 0" is actually Wednesday.
I suspect Tuesday was picked because with Wednesday being day 0, everyone will be getting their stuff by Friday in time for the weekend.
Am I the only one who wishes languages had different semantics for disabling code versus actual comments? Sometimes it's nice to have, plus it helps avoid the issue of having a block of code with a/* */ comment in it, then putting another/* */ around that block of code to disable it, only to find out that the first */ closed the outer comment.
C does this quite well.
Use
//
and
/* */
for textual comments.
Use
#if 0 .... #endif
for code comments.
Bonus is many editors recognize the #If 0 idiom and automatically block-comment the code out!
And the preprocessor is self-balancing, so every #if must have a corresponding #endif making it ideal for commenting out blocks of code.
Sure - but all this "principled opposition" that Sanders supposedly brought turned out to be no so principled as we thought.
No, the real problem with Sanders is age. If I could vote, that's the reason why I wouldn't pick Sanders. He otherwise has a good platform. The problem is we're voting for someone to be in office for 4 to 8 years, and given the known stresses (compare Obama's 2008 photo to now), I don't want to vote for a leader who might keel over in his first term.
Yes, it's a bit ageist, but the rigours of governing has a tendency to be very physically demanding
Aren't doing more to stop this. I just cut the cord because my kid's off to college and I don't care about sports. The nerd stuff (read: anime) I watch is all online. Yeah, I pay $75/mo for decent internet, but for a while they were getting $150 mo outta me. Yeah, most of the mid west has data caps, but how much longer will they tolerate that?
Probably a lot longer - why do you think there are data caps to begin with? Or they know that evening time will be standard TV watching hour, and throttle all video streaming services the same so the only quality you get will be standard def.
Though, them being able to get out of ESPN is also good - I'm sure Disney bundles the Disney channels with ESPN - if you don't force every subscriber to get ESPN then the Disney channels cost more. ESPN and other sports are the most expensive subscriptions with ESPN easily costing $5+/subscriber/month. Contrast with say, History or Discovery, which are around 25 cents/subscriber/month, and if you take every channel in each respsective network, it probably totals just about a buck a month.
I bet I have used languages with the same frequency as this kind of question comes up on/. -- current favourite is alpasisp+++^21
Seriously, it's all just syntax, convention, and architecture, so I don't bother to track. Off the top of my head, I'm up to 30+ "languages" in 30+ years. Throw in media (yes, starting with punch cards), then it gets worse.
I think a more relevant question is how often does one advance their architecture, paradigms, and most importantly debugging skills. Anyone can write a program that compiles and does something. Building something that is understandable, useful, usable, and maintainable, now that's a discussion.
Exactly. It's not about chasing languages - it's knowing the concepts behind the language. Knowing the concepts means a language is really syntax, idioms and keywords.
And once you know that, you also realize that a big part is libraries. But once you know a library, like say the C library, you realize that when you need a function, there's usually going to be a library for that. Like if you need to date calculations, there are C libraries to do that, so you if you need to a date calculation in another language you know there's got to be an API for that.
Here's the thing to understand - at the very lowest level, you have machine code. It's what the processor executes, it's all the processor knows. Anything you toss on top has to be translated to that - it doesn't matter if it's assembly, C, C++, Java, BrainF**k or any other programming language you can dream up (SQL, say). In the end, it all boils down to machine code.
And even more abstractly, every processor derives its instruction set from an limited implementation of an abstract Turing machine. The Turing machine defines what a "computable" or what a computer can actually do (this applies to hardware like FPGAs too - FPGAs can do a lot, but they only can do computable things).
Once you understand this, you can be one with the machine, and realize what a programming language actually is.
Contrast this to regular human languages where language evolved due to history - the history of English is derived heavily from the history of the world - the barbarians of Great Britain, through the Roman Empire, etc. Which makes it easy if you're learning a shared history language (perhaps a Romantic language), but much more difficult when there's little shared history (say, Asian languages).
The computer has one language and every abstraction on top of that is still limited by the base.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a bit of truth to that. I mean, Apple competing with the likes of Tesla and such seems unlikely, and Google's got a good head start with autonomous vehicles so it seems like an Apple car is nothing more than a research project. Plus, as Tesla found out, the dealership model isn't the greatest in the world to deal with, and there are a lot of dealer-only states.
The most likely explanation is that if you want to deal with car technology, building your own is a good way to learn what is and isn't possible.
First of all, aircraft fire fighting is EXTREMELY dangerous. Whether it's a helicopter long lining a Bambi bucket, or being in a water tanker dropping water on a fire, it requires extremely skilled pilots. And this is without the distraction that a fire causes - smoke, turbulence caused by the flames (they are nothing like what you get at 30,000 feet), flying low to the ground, etc.
Most aircraft are under 500' above the ground. You need to be extremely skillful when flying this low, and you feel the flames - the rising hot air are shoving your aircraft around, so it's already hard enough keeping blue side up. Then as you release your load, your aircraft's balance shifts and you have to compensate as well as try to fly your lines Oh yeah, did I mention it was smoky so you can't always see clearly out? And there's no map accurate enough so your only protection against flying into terrain is well, the Mk. 1 Eyeball?
In fact, ti's so dangerous there's an aircraft always hanging around overhead - acting as air traffic control so they control and manage aircraft timing, spacing and noting where to attack the fire as well as keeping a general eye on everything in cas something flares up. Everyone is under control in the immediate area.
The problem with a drone is it's not under positive control - who knows where the operator may fly. It's not just damaging the aircraft, but also distracting the pilots who are just trying to keep things under control. If it lands in an engine and takes it out, that aircraft and its crew may land right in the middle of the flames (there's no where to go at 500' AGL). Or it might break through the windshield and seriously distract the pilots.
Perhaps a good way to make conditions relatable to IT workers is imagine trying to write code in the middle of a call center. You have to write your code, but phones are ringing off the hook, people are chatting loudly, and then some idiot starts banging on your keyboard.
It's already a difficult and risky working environment. Drones simply add a risk element that could turn a rescuer into a victim, and that's the last thing anyone needs. It's why SAR often suspend activity when it gets too dangerous, too - because the last thing in the world you want is to make things worse and increase the number of people needing rescue.
Oh, and a crash during a wildfire can spawn more wildfires.
The summary is poorly worded. It's not YOU in possession of your phone, it's your PHONE in possession of the PHONE NUMBER. The idea is this - if you're going to do SMS as a verification, NIST recommends checking that the phone number you're sending the SMS to is actually the phone you intend to send it to.
No, that's what NIST is talking about. Your phone may not be in possession of the phone number.
Basically what NIST is saying is that phone numbers don't lead to a specific phone. They lead to A phone, but not necessarily the phone you think it goes to. This is especially as modern phone systems allow trivial movement of phone numbers to anything that can provide voice service.
It already is. Ultra-D technology offers glasses free 3D on screens 50" and 65" screens. It's been featured at CES and it's fairly impressive.
It's got a wide 3D viewing angle (120 degrees - 60 degrees off perpendicular each side), and from 120 through 178 degrees, it degrades into a 2D image, so no matter where you are, if you can see the screen, you can see an image. Unlike some other technologies (like the Nintendo 3DS), it never goes unviewable.
And Moore's law has never been about performance. Just transistor density.
General logic like what makes up the computation portion of a CPU don't need Moore's law at all - the transistor density is so low, they generally fab tons more transistors that sit around doing nothing. This way when a bug is found, they can revise the metal layers and put some of those spare transistors to use. This easily saves half of the masks they need to re-do, so at a $100K each per mask, it could mean spending under a million dollars over a couple of million dollars.
Instead, Moore's law is closely followed by memory manufacturers, because the denser the transistors, the more memory available. This applies for bot flash and RAM - 6-8 years ago you probably had a machine where 8GB of RAM is considered high end for a PC. Nowadays, 64GB is often the high end for a PC. As well, 120GB of SSD storage was considered luxury. Nowadays, you can get 480+GB for less money than that 120GB SSD, and it's not just SATA2, but SATA3. Or even PCIe.
There are two things in IC fabrication - you have "pin limited" and "silicon limited" designs. Similar to how in programs, you have "I/O bound" and "CPU bound". "Pin limited" ICs mean the overall functionality and design is limited by the number of pins your package supports. Even with 1000+ pins in modern packages, that still limits what you can do. Whereas in silicon limited designs, the limit is how much area your design takes up - more area means higher costs due to less dice per wafer, as well as higher chance of die defect. Memory devices are area limited - the pin counts of modern RAM and flash devices is low, but the area is high. Moore's law increases the storage density so you can have more storage in the same area.
It's why SSDs have a hard time catching up to HDDs (at least with raw storage) - SSDs improve with roughly Moore's law. HDDs have been improving (storage wise) faster.
In fact, most of the millions and billions of transistors in your CPU aren't used for logic processing - probably 90% of those transistors are memory related - caches, on board memory, etc. Because those are dense. SRAM cells are typically 6T (6 transistor) designs, so if your CPU has 16MB of cache, that's 96M transistors right there and then just in the storage array. Even more fascinating is that those 95M transistors will probably occupy less area than one of the major processing units on the same chip which may be only 1-2M transistors.
Huh, did you sleep a long time or something, because the same comment applies around 20 years ago, too.
In other words, nothing new - CBS/Paramount/Viacom has been milking Trek for decades, suing fans (they've shut down many fan sites over the years. Some of the biggest fan-run sites that were considered the canonical reference, too, got at least a C&D, if not completely shut down. Heck, there were fansite protests against the overly harsh crackdown. These were the early days of CGI and "Content Mangaement System" or "Blog" weren't even terms yet. (Basically all the perl scripts you got did was the ability to add and subtract links to a page in a semi-automated fashion).
And milked dry? Same. Heck, consider what a "uniform" is. And then consider why in the span of a few years, Starfleet would issue 3 different uniforms. No, it was never about the universe, but knowing that fans would flock to buy new uniforms. You can explain away TOS and TNG due to the time difference, but not TNG/DS9/VOY. Or even just TNG from the TV to the movies.Oh yeah, the movies have different uniforms as well.
Brannon/Braga were also well known for disappointing the fan base time and time again.
So it's not unusual to see it happen 20 years later. Funny thing is, Star Trek seems to be like oil. No matter how much the abuse, it just seems fans keep taking it and spending more $$$ on it.
Hell, I remember buying the TNG DVD sets. When the average price of a season DVD set goes for $30 to $40, "Star Trek" pumps it up to $120+ MSRP, or $80 on sale. These days complete series sets are around $100 for DVD and $150 for Blu-Ray remasters,
The abuse is the same and it's been going on for decades. The horse is not just dead, but it's decomposed into dust and the bones have been beaten into a fine powder, too.
Not really, high end components can easily top out at $100K each.
A Trinnov processor, for example, 32 channels can easily run $50K for the unit itself. They make 16 channel versions that average around $20K. This is the processor only, (This is measured in channels - your 7.1 audio is 8 channels, for example, so 32 channels give you standard 7.1 channels plus 24 additional environmental channels for Dolby Atmos or DTS:X processing.)
Then you need 32+ amps for all those channels, which can range from hundreds to thousands each. Let's say another $16K ($500/channel). Then there's the speakers, which can easily be thousands to several hundred dollars each.
And that's just audio, nothing fancy, just high end equipment, which if you estimate it out will probably be about $150K or so. A good screen and projector, can top $100K easily - using proper digital theatre projectors, not dinky little ones you find everywhere.
The players are cheap - trivially so - maybe $5K if you fully outfit yourself with a high end Blu-Ray player ($1K), dozens of other sources and a matrix switcher that goes every which way.
Then there's the huge labor cost - aligning and setting up, and even more importantly, integration. Creston and other integrators are expensive, so it's probably a quarter million for the equipment and installer to get it all hooked together and working as one cohesive unit.
Wonder if the IMAX personal home theatre ($400K) includes options for Atmos and DTS:X processing when you're not using IMAX...
Not to mention having to maintain a customer database so customers can get their product over and over again or download updates, and maintaining that database against hordes of people trying to extract information from it.
And then also the whole business of users not having to make yet ANOTHER account for their product...
And all the necessary security updates - I'm sure most developers would love to spend 30% of their day just maintaining their website over say, developing code.
Virtual geocaching.
That's what it really is - a game of virtual geocaching.
And geocaching has had steady performance for a long time now.
Pokemon has also had it out for a long time now. And let's not forget while it seems boring now, that's just because they don't have the server farm to handle it yet. Japan and China have yet to be connected, mostly because there just aren't enough servers out there yet.
Once Niantic has finally activated the game world wide, then you're going to see content improvements. And all sorts of other stuff - if it's a fad, Ingress shows it has staying power, and this is with a powerful brand. No doubt there will be special events with The Pokemon Company and Niantic for game launches and stuff as well.
Apple makes some money - perhaps that's why they're cutting rates. But the biggest winners would be companies like Dell who supply the backend infrastructure (or are busy doing so - Japan is being flooded with servers so when it opens it will hopefully be a lot less rough).
So why not encourage GPL violators ("pirates" too)? Instead we seem to cheer whenever we find a GPL violator.
Yes, violating the GPL is copyright infringement, aka piracy. (You don't have to agree to the GPL, but if you don't, it falls back to the "All Rights Reserved" copyright. So if you're distributing binaries without source you're violating basic copyright law).
You really cannot have it both ways - if you want to encourage piracy, then you encourage people (and companies) to violate the GPL by extension.
Easy, you don't need to use two hands to see your texts or make phone calls.
In certain markets, bigger is better, so people are buying gigantic phones that are impossible for them to use. It's too big for their hands. or more practically, they can't put it anywhere because it's also too big for their pockets, so they stuff them in purses and such. But putting your phone there makes it terribly inconvenient when you want to read your texts or send texts.
Hence a smart watch - they bought a phone they couldn't use so they now buy an accessory to make their phone usable.
And yes, for others, FOMO (fear of missing out) is also a big thing - every time their phone dings they get an anxiety attack wanting to know what they're missing out. Given many social gatherings are now of the "don't touch your phone" (where the person who reaches for their phone first has to pay), well...
Of course they can.
There already are special versions of Windows available - there's the "K" ones, which are specially made for Korea (not sure what it entails), and there's the "N" ones which lack media player (earlier Europe ruling).
All Microsoft needs to do is modify the N build to exclude data collection or ask for user permission to collect data.
You can see these builds when you make a Windows 10 image and click Advanced.
It seems the same to me. Before they loitered about with their eyes glued to their phone screens. Today they're loitering about with their eyes glued to their phone screen. Granted, at pokestops it's usually much more loiterers, but they all are still glued to their phone screens, like a bunch of zombies.
Reminds me of the cartoons where everyone texts each other even though they're sitting down at the same table.
I guess the difference is some people are getting some fresh air and a few others are getting some exercise. But it looks a lot like a zombie scene, to be honest.
Not for a long while yet.
Modern video cards can barely sustain 60fps at 4K - and usually only with simplified geometry. Given the state of PC graphics today, there will be plenty that can bog down even a top end video card. And VR demanding higher framerates is not easy yet either.
Sound cards peaked ages ago because what they did was simple - 44.1kHz 16 bit audio is relatively trivial - the DACs are cheap and plentiful and signal wise, it's pretty slow. And processing on the CPU got quick enough that accelerators helped very little - by the time you got the accelerator loaded
Modern video cards can't drive 8 million pixels at 60 fps rock-steady, and with more complex models and environments, they will bog down as well.
Yeah, but a modern DDoS is almost never using neat tricks or vulnerabilities in protocols. In fact, pingflooding is almost never done because it's too simple to block.
A modern DDoS comprises of a botnet of infected computers. Those computers are set up to imitate the service protocol and then rapidly do it. This way the servers are pegged trying to handle bogus requests while legitimate users are blocked out. And since the traffic is the same, it's really hard to filter the DDoS traffic from the legitimate traffic because they look identical.
Funny enough, I remember those days. I also remember Mac users were probably the biggest enthusiasts of shareware - so much so that it remained a viable business model well beyond the demoware/crippleware era on PCs.
It seemed Mac users embraced it heavily that the honor system remained viable (i.e., you had the full thing...). I don't know the reason behind it - did Mac users have very little software so anytime someone released anything, they opened their wallets?
Of course, I also remember it on the PC side where if it said shareware, you looked for cracks and keygens to activate. Of course, the PC BBSes I dialed into were treasure troves of copyright infringement with the latest games and applications often posted within days of release. Shareware releases were always interesting on those - for the shareware version would get posted, then immediately below it, the full version. And even the serial numbers and such. Perhaps the rarest of all was the BBS that DIDN'T have pirated software on it - it was just...expected.
There were two that had Mac stuff. One was run by the Mac user's group, the other was a primarily PC BBS but allowed Mac uploads in a separate file area
Still, the attitudes was quite distinct.
You're making the hugely wild assumption that Trump cannot win.
As Brexit and other votes have shown, this is blatantly false. Even though logic dictates that Trump probably shouldn't be POTUS for many reasons, the electorate is composed of humans and not Vulcans, and emotions often overrule logic.
First, Trump's campaign is less about logical things, and just getting the soundbite in. He's probably more in tune with what people who vote want than Clinton, who may have a larger voter base, but is more fickle.
Second, your ballot for POTUS is not just "Trump" or "Clinton", but "Third party", "Too disgusted" and "too lazy". The latter two are really short hand for "I'm not going to vote". Clinton is vulnerable to this - she may have more voters, but if her campaign fails to get votes out, then there's a good chance she can lose.
She's got a sizable lead, voters may simply decide to be lazy - she's going to win anyways, so their non-vote won't be missed. Or voters may be disgusted by Trump that they're not going to vote as a protest. Or Clinton's scandals make voters not want to vote for Trump, but also not vote for Clinton either.
Counting Trump out is probably the worst thing you can say. Even if he's only 30% against Clinton's 60%, that's not an entirely insurmountable barrier - if we count out voters for Clinton who won't vote because of reasons mentioned above, the gap narrows significantly.
So what about their previous game, Ingress? That seems to still be going strong.
So yes, content updates are key, but there's so much content available AND all the experience in Ingress that could be applied to Pokemon Go that could keep it going for a few years still.
The key is to release new content just when people start to get bored - too early and slower players may feel overwhelmed that new stuff is coming too fast, too slow and faster players get bored and you can potentially lose them.
The Pokemon Company I'm sure did their research into Niantic and Ingress to see if they could make a lasting Pokemon mobile game.
The real question is what happens in a year's time - for mobile stuff, a year seems to be whether it will last or fizzle out (see Angry Birds - it was wildly popular when it came out and then faded away).
And soon too - Apple's spaceship campus is set to open either end of this year or mid 2017...
Though I've always wanted to know what Apple would do with their existing 1 Infinite Loop address. (So-called because their new Cray supercomputer is so fast, it can run an infinite loop in under 60 seconds). The other thing was, Apple used the Cray to design Macs, while Cray used Macs to manage the Cray - you interacted with the Mac running in front of the Cray.
Actually, that is the law in a few places. It's why the EULA states that you may have more legal rights than granted, and affected portion is invalidated, but just that one part. If it wasn't, lawyers and everyday life would get WAY more complex. As in having to enter your postal code or zip code and then having an appropriate EULA generated. Or as you have right now a bunch of "If you live in ..." type clauses, leading to #ifdef hell.
Oh yeah, lawyers would love such a law because it means having to write tons of different EULAs, based on location...And even more lawyer time in court cases when someone misrepresents their location to try to invalidate a EULA.
Likely. Another reason is with Prime 2 day shipping, the day you order is counted as "day 0", which means if you order after 3pm or so, "day 0" is actually Wednesday.
I suspect Tuesday was picked because with Wednesday being day 0, everyone will be getting their stuff by Friday in time for the weekend.
C does this quite well.
Use
and
for textual comments.
Use
for code comments.
Bonus is many editors recognize the #If 0 idiom and automatically block-comment the code out!
And the preprocessor is self-balancing, so every #if must have a corresponding #endif making it ideal for commenting out blocks of code.
No, the real problem with Sanders is age. If I could vote, that's the reason why I wouldn't pick Sanders. He otherwise has a good platform. The problem is we're voting for someone to be in office for 4 to 8 years, and given the known stresses (compare Obama's 2008 photo to now), I don't want to vote for a leader who might keel over in his first term.
Yes, it's a bit ageist, but the rigours of governing has a tendency to be very physically demanding
Aren't doing more to stop this. I just cut the cord because my kid's off to college and I don't care about sports. The nerd stuff (read: anime) I watch is all online. Yeah, I pay $75/mo for decent internet, but for a while they were getting $150 mo outta me. Yeah, most of the mid west has data caps, but how much longer will they tolerate that?
Probably a lot longer - why do you think there are data caps to begin with? Or they know that evening time will be standard TV watching hour, and throttle all video streaming services the same so the only quality you get will be standard def.
Though, them being able to get out of ESPN is also good - I'm sure Disney bundles the Disney channels with ESPN - if you don't force every subscriber to get ESPN then the Disney channels cost more. ESPN and other sports are the most expensive subscriptions with ESPN easily costing $5+/subscriber/month. Contrast with say, History or Discovery, which are around 25 cents/subscriber/month, and if you take every channel in each respsective network, it probably totals just about a buck a month.
Exactly. It's not about chasing languages - it's knowing the concepts behind the language. Knowing the concepts means a language is really syntax, idioms and keywords.
And once you know that, you also realize that a big part is libraries. But once you know a library, like say the C library, you realize that when you need a function, there's usually going to be a library for that. Like if you need to date calculations, there are C libraries to do that, so you if you need to a date calculation in another language you know there's got to be an API for that.
Here's the thing to understand - at the very lowest level, you have machine code. It's what the processor executes, it's all the processor knows. Anything you toss on top has to be translated to that - it doesn't matter if it's assembly, C, C++, Java, BrainF**k or any other programming language you can dream up (SQL, say). In the end, it all boils down to machine code.
And even more abstractly, every processor derives its instruction set from an limited implementation of an abstract Turing machine. The Turing machine defines what a "computable" or what a computer can actually do (this applies to hardware like FPGAs too - FPGAs can do a lot, but they only can do computable things).
Once you understand this, you can be one with the machine, and realize what a programming language actually is.
Contrast this to regular human languages where language evolved due to history - the history of English is derived heavily from the history of the world - the barbarians of Great Britain, through the Roman Empire, etc. Which makes it easy if you're learning a shared history language (perhaps a Romantic language), but much more difficult when there's little shared history (say, Asian languages).
The computer has one language and every abstraction on top of that is still limited by the base.