Not much of a difference anymore. "Smart TVs" are just monitors with built in computers running one OS or another and a bunch of pre-installed run-on-start-up applications with the option of switching to an external input. Just like a dual input monitor.
Actually, even general TVs always had a OS on them. Even the dumbest of the dumb displays often had firmware updates even without "smart" features (usually labelled as "service" USB port). The only reason we have a proliferation of smart TVs is because the CPU controlling the TV hardware (and doing the GUI and such) went from being a puny ARM used to control the scalers and overlays and GUIs.
Thing is, the smartphone revolution has made it such that it's more economical to build the video processing hardware into the GPU and tie it into a dual core or higher processor. Qualcomm at one point wanted to release a "TV SoC" but low demand made them cancel it.
So basically TVs started getting smart features because the video processors started getting super powerful as smartphones made the SoCs really cheap. TV manufacturers could use the old scaler chips or for the same price (due to higher volumes) use the new SoCs with higher end GPUs and scalers. At the same time, they could add value by adding the smart features to soak up some of that excess CPU and GPU power.
If you want someone to have free healthcare, you pay for it. Forcing everyone else to pay is not "free" healthcare.
Well, advocate for single payer healthcare first - because dealing with multiple insurance agencies costs a lot of money. In Canada, the average doctor's office spends about $30k/year dealing with the government for medical service payments. In the US, it's roughly triple that. These are costs - staff mostly, who do nothing but all that.
Second, denying even the poor medical care is actually very bad economically - because the poor then have to use the ER (which by law is free). ER is the most expensive medical treatment available - you'll spend three to four times as much money treating someone coming into the ER for a medical condition that could be treated at say, a doctor's office. So yeah, having the poor be able to go see a much cheaper doctor at a walk-in clinic saves a ton of money over having them see the doctor in the ER.
Of course, since they're poor and can't afford medical insurance, WE ALL PAY THROUGH THE NOSE for their care because they can only use the ER.
And of course, because they can't pay for followup care (not covered since it's not emergency) they go back to whatever their miserable lives take them, get ill again, and again, we pay top dollar for ER medical care for them. Heck, we could probably get them really good care for the money spent healing them in the ER.
Canada, with a lower rate of urbanization that the U.S., and a population density about 1/10 that of the U.S. does better in broadband access, and has nearly identical data rates.
To be fair, 95% of Canada's population is concentrated within about 5 degrees of the 49th parallel, so we do have high population densities as well. Rural areas generally have crap for coverage - wireless or otherwise. In fact, one small town lost their internet completely when their ISP went out of business (a co-op). And yes, that town realized what a boon it was - being online improved their town's quality of life quite substantially - from businesses doing e-commerce to just being able to communicate. But they were so rural, even the big providers would take a couple of months to be able to get to them. (The co-op was trying to upgrade connectivity when they ran out of money).
And yes, we complain as well about poor connectivity and high prices. Hell, most of our ISPs in Canada have quotas, and piss-poor upload speeds (5Mbps or less is common, even on the 100-150Mbps packages which are the top-tiers available). Some tiny pockets are experimenting with gigabit, but... we're talking about maybe a couple hundred people or so.
The whole Mac side of their business seems to be getting very little attention, which is rather sad. The current offerings were overpriced and used less than stellar hardware when they were first shipped, and mostly that was a looong time ago. Beautiful cases, but mobile grade guts with integrated graphics (or massively marked up GPU's).
Reasons are varied.
1) Apple doesn't make much money off it - Apple's record is traditionally to concentrate on the money makers. The other products they don't spend much R&D on. Macs (PCs in general) sales have been slipping, and while Apple still has robust sales, they're a fraction of what they once were. See the Mac Pro and Mac Mini - traditionally two of Apple's WORST sellers. Granted, they still move a few units and a few PC vendors would love to have those kind of sales, but they still don't sell compared to an iMac or the laptop line. There is, however, a strong fan base for them so Apple can't really drop them entirely.
2) For the vast majority of Apple purchasers, they're "good enough". We're not getting huge advances in computing that makes buying next year's model practically a necessity - a several year old Mac is still quite useful and quite supported. With the exception of the 32-bit EFI Macs, the OS support for is close to reaching 10 years (I think the old Mac El Capitan can run on is what, 7-8 years old?). In fact, I think the only big reason why I'd replace it would be because it only supported 8GB of RAM or something.
3) Apple gets great deals from Intel, so Apple needs to see what processors Intel will release that they can use. One of the reasons why the Mac Mini's i7 is wimpy is because it will fit in the same pinout as the i5s, while the quad core i7s require a different motherboard. Since Apple doesn't want to put too much R&D in, they're going to need an entire line of processors supported for a few years that have the same socket, and depend on Intel to provide it. So a refresh using faster parts can be done by simply using the new parts in the existing design rather than having to build it from scratch.
Why not just monkeywrench the replacement training?
Train them wrong. Give them incomplete information. Be anti-social. Make a game and see how long you can go answering only yes or no. Basically make the training as empty and useless as possible. Waste time on useless details. Take long shits.
Obviously, no active sabotage, that would be a problem. But who says you have to be any good at the training?
True, unless you've been hired to train people, you don't necessarily have that as a skill.
And depending on how things are, you might sabotage them by not letting them ramp up. Toss them to the flames - tell them what to do quickly and in the time limit. If something takes you 15 minutes to fix, they have 15 minutes. You'll point out what they need to do, but you won't wait for them to absorb it. If you ever watched Undercover Boss and how the guy never has a chance because he's expected to know it from the get-go, that's the idea.
And if they're too slow, they can learn by watching you do it. No one said they had to learn by doing, they can learn by observing. And if you do it in 15 minutes, so much the better if they don't have time to write notes. And of course, you hurry them to the next task so they don't have a chance to write it down.
And we know studies have shown you only retain about 10-20% of what you see...
The private market has decided to focus on near-term R&D and products for the most part. The days of Xerox's GUI-like research are mostly gone (with the notable exception of near-Earth-orbit spaceflight.)
I'm not sure why industry changed. It could be a bad batch of MBA's trained via education fads to chase short-term, or maybe the pressure of global competition putting companies in semi-panic survival mode. But it has changed.
Easy, greed took over. It used to be executives managed their companies looking in the interest of the entire company, not just in the short term, but also in the longer term.
Then they got greedy - realizing that short term gains give them a lot of money, and then they start cutting because a dollar saved then goes into their pocket.
There's a chart showing how real incomes of regular folks and CEOs pretty much kept in step until the 70s or so, then started diverging with the 1% (and 10%) rising far faster. This coincides with the fact that the CEO to lowest paid worker ratio started increasing dramatically - it was around 5:1 and started heading to 10:1. It was worrying that 20:1 would result in collapse (we're around 100-200:1 or so now).
That seems really counter-intuitive. A cheap espresso machine is actually a better machine that produces a more consistent cup than an expensive machine, which also requires expensive accessories like micro fine adjustments?
Not really. The cheap machine is the home unit that's mostly automated and gets you a good cup of coffee.
The expensive machine has al sorts of adjustments and switches and requires careful tending, but with proper knowledge and skill, can out-do what the automatic machine makes.
The deal is, the former machine sells by the millions, the latter by the hundreds.
It depends what the coffee is for - is it to simply perk you up in the morning, or is it something you want to experience and savor? The former is well served by the automatic machine, and is probably why most people drink coffee. The latter is for the few aficionados who treat it as more than a beverage.
You can compare it to standard mass produced bulk beer versus craft beer. Do you want a beverage to gulp down or do you want to experience it?
How do you learn it? Discoverability is a core concept in UI design. It's one of the reasons that the menu bar, in spite of its other failings, is still a pretty good UI model: everything that you can do is visible in the menu bar and a user can explore the functionality of a new application by browsing the menu. Gestures tend to be terrible for discoverability. Do I need to go and read some documentation to discover that I can swipe those things (or read a pop-up hint that either pops up once and then I forget the gesture, or pops up repeatedly and annoys me)? Or do I just gesture at every widget and eventually find the ones where it works? You can bet, given Google's horrendous track record for HCI, that they aren't going to make swipeable controls visually distinctive in any way.
it's kind of why Apple still sticks with the single moues button. You don't NEED to discover the popup menu because all the actions are there. (Unlike some Windows apps whose sole interaction is via the RIGHT mouse button). The push for popup is more like right-clicking - it brings up a contextual menu that lets you do things a bit quicker than having to select the item then tap the hamburger or whatever then tap the action you want to do.
App developers won't immediately move to the new interactions - they still need to keep the full actions available because there's going to be a bunch of devices which do not support it
As for the users, it's hoped they'd discover it by accident - they are tapping and then accidentally press hard enough to activate it
And yes, you can compare it to the right mouse button.
You can buy single cup coffee machines that make small cups of coffee. They have a bean hopper for pre-roasted unground beans and they grind them, press water through them and dispense a cup of coffee.
Basically the convenience of a Keurig, with no waste (the grounds can be composted directly). You just need to keep it filled with beans and water.
They work almost like an espresso machine, except they are a general coffee machine which can make espresso, or regular coffee.
The only catch is they are EXPENSIVE.A keurig is under $100. These machines can easily be $600+. But beans are cheap and a cup costs just the few cents. They are fully automated for complete convenience other than loading beans, filling the ater tank and emptying the grounds container.
I think Boaty McBoatface is the best name they could have received. Do they understand how many kids will be attracted to that name? I could see this being a great way to get kids interested in polar science. It will always be Boaty McBoatface to me!
And having to raise money for science is much easier if they can license the name for various books and other children's products. The boat pays for itself!
Wait, we're saying "apps" to describe non-mobile software now? Is that what we're doing? Could we avoid that if I asked politely?
I think server usage predated mobile applications. After all, we have application stacks such as LAMP, web applications, etc. All of which do get abbreviated to app. App stacks, web apps, etc.
He tries to get more business by saying he deleted all his customers' data ? What an idiot. And anyone who remains his customer after this is an even bigger idiot.
Tell me, you're a tiny hosting provider in Italy. Suddenly, this one little story gets posted and makes it around the world, even in mainstream media.
You cannot buy that sort of promotion - it's marketing worth is probably in the billions of dollars, and instead of being a tiny hosting provider in Italy no one's heard of, now everyone knows your name. If even a tiny percentage of people know he is a hosting provider and purchase his services...
Trump seems to be the new communist party. People think nothing of petitioning stores to discontinue his products, disrupting his rallys, or publishing blatant lies. We accept this, because we feel that corporations have free speech, and so can do whatever they want.
You make it seem like it only happens to Trump. It does not - people disrupt political rallies all the time. You probably don't hear much about protesters because well, it's not news. The only reason Trump gets it because Trump IS news.
And people push business to stop selling product all the time. Again, Trump seems to attract it because it was news. But it isn't. This very site pushed people away from Amazon because of the one-click patent a long time ago - they would purposefully link to the site of any other store other than Amazon. Is that a political statement? What about people being anti-Microsoft? Anti-Sony?
Trump is newsworthy. Apple is newsworthy. Suicides and poisonings at a Samsung plant aren't newsworthy and barely make it out of China. Suicides and poisonings at an Apple plant are very newsworthy and go around the globe.
I'm sure there are Trump supporters are Cruz rallies or Sanders supporters at Clinton rallies. It's just they're small, don't usually lead to violence and are usually ignored.
What do millennial and younger crowd love about vinyl? why do think it is regaining in popularity? Please post.
Easy - digital is easy, but is' somewhat... isolating and abstracted away. You have a CD and it's a silver disc filled with 1s and 0s that mysteriously turns into music. Or it's a file on the hard drive. It's a pretty abstract thing.
Vinyl however, is not abstract. You can feel it, you can look at the grooves and "see" the music within. It's a more tangible medium to experience the music. Effects like flanger and such were physical effects, not just some random DSP algorithm that happened to sound nice. You can induce wow and flutter on the turntable with your finger and see how it affects the music.
Same goes for "analog" photography. A lot of Photoshop filters were modeled after real processes (dodging and burning) and it's just more tangible to do it for real than to simply click a mouse.
They know digital is the best medium for quality out there, but it's not necessarily the best medium to "play" with the art in a tangible way, or even experimentally. Yes, you can run through and click a bunch of buttons and click at the screen and make stuff happen digitally, but it lacks physicality.
It's like the difference between doing chemistry in a simulator on a computer versus doing it in real life with real chemicals.
Right for the environment? What chemical processes do they use? What amount of toxic chemicals are used? How does it compare to not chopping the gadgets up so they can sell more new shinies?
It's actually far cheaper to extract precious metals and such from e-waste than to mine it from the earth. The reason is simple - e-waste has a higher concentration of the metals than raw ore. So it's far cheaper to extract from e-waste than it is pull it out of the ground. And since it's easier, it's also less damaging on the environment since less energy is used extracting the metals.
It's is generally the case too. If Apple's robot pre-sorts the mateirals you can get even higher extraction rates and less energy use overall.
In other cases, though, there is a plausible case for access, but it might well be hiding nefarious intent. Although a published policy alone won't prevent nefarious intent, if there's enforcement behind it, it will certainly help.
Actually, the main reason for the overreach is because the app is free, and the devs are making it up showing ads. It's a sad fact that Android users as a whole hate paying for apps (the app piracy rate rival's the PC, and we're talking 99 cent apps here, not Photoshop or Office).. Thus, as a dev, well, the only way is to sell ads. (Which is probably why Google's got you covered).
And those ad networks are, generally speaking, going to try to rape your phone of its data. Like they did on iOS until Apple made the user painfully aware of that.
As for other apps - an airline app may want camera access so you can quickly transfer a booking to your phone - you know, to show the gate agent your electronic ticket instead of a paper printout. This may require scanning in the information via a barcode, which requires the camera.
And until the FTC started making noise about it, I'm sure some apps needed microphone access to see what you were watching on TV or listening to on the radio.
Except there are valid uses for iTunes that you really should use it if you have an iOS device.
Backups - iCloud works, but iTunes backups, especially encrypted ones, are far better and back up more data (encrypted backups will backup authentication information, for example, so you don't have to set up your email. Regular and iCloud backups don't capture that because Apple not only doesn't want that information, Apple doesn't want it to appear unencrypted either).
Plus, local backups - aren't we always saying we should have local backups of our stuff and not rely on the cloud?
Second - archiving. When an app is removed from the App store, it continues to function where it's installed. (Apple so far has not disabled nor remotely removed any app from anyone's devices). if you sync with iTunes, iTunes will capture the app and save a copy locally. The app can then be synced over and installed on other devices even though it is no longer possible to download them. (You will need iTunes to back up the data for that app as well).
So there's some necessity in iTunes if you want to be paranoid and keep local backups of everything.
What in blazes is Microsoft R Open? A Microsoft rebranding of R?
Basically, yes. There is a Visual Studio R thing that Microsoft added quite recently, so I'm pretty sure they built a R runtime for that so you can develop and deploy using Visual Studio to the image.
This is true. Also WHY is the ipad following NTP if the slew rate is greater than 500ppm? The NTP RFC's clearly states that this is the maximum you should adjust the clock via the protocol(s).
NTP has two modes.
First is to keep clocks in sync, so if you have a network of devices, the clocks can tick pretty much together. This is what you use NTPd for - to keep clocks on a network in sync.
The other use is to set the clock, which uses the same protocol, except we call it "daytime protocol" because they do an NTP query to get the current date/time to set it. In Linux, you use "ntpdate" to set the clock initially since NTPd will refuse to run if the system clock and server clock are too far apart. So you use ntpdate to get the clock close enough.
Most devices when you set "Automatically set date/time" use daytime to set the clocks. It's only stuff like the Apple watch (which is used to keep time) that generally wants to keep time in sync.
From what I can gather without any real detail in the rather useless article Microsoft are looking for timing discrepancies to try to detect this attack. Normally packets come in at regular intervals, so if one comes outside the regularly expected window it is considered malicious. There must be some clever filtering because the clock on the keyboard/mouse will drift in relation to the computer etc.
This could be overcome by simply replicating the timing of the keyboard/mouse. They don't transmit constantly to save battery power, only when a key is pressed or the mouse is moved.
Anyone know if Bluetooth keyboards are vulnerable?
It's based on a hack to get additional keyboards and mice paired with your computer. It's because there are flaws in the way Logitech, Microsoft and many other wireless products add devices to their receivers and synchronize them. So Microsoft's patch, which is only for their products because they don't know how Logitech's or others work, is to basically examining the timing of the packets to make sure the vulnerability isn't being exploited.
It's a device-add attack - the attacker is trying to add their keyboard and mouse to your computer remotely so they can control it. That's what the driver is looking for.
Bluetooth keyboards may be vulnerable too, depending on how they do their pairing. But in general it's a lot less problematic because a Bluetooth keyboard requires OS support to pair and OS drivers to handle the input. The non-Bluetooth wireless devices use the dongle to emulate a standard HID device and do all their pairing internally.
This is why you can use those keyboards during boot or with multiple OSes, whereas Bluetooth ones can't be used during boot (except for say, Macs) and if you dual/triple/etc boot, you have to re-pair the keyboard all the itme.
If it is possible to negotiate rogue key/mouse input (which presumably requires proper communication between the rogue keyboard/mouse and the target device), then would it not also be possible to capture the data from the real keyboard/mouse? And in that case, it would seem quite possible, then, to steal keystrokes/mouse movements -- say during someone's login.
No, the hack is to add keyboards and mice to your PC. Wireless communications for keyboard sand mice are generally encrypted (including Bluetooth) to prevent capturing of keystrokes and mouse movements
Once the attacker has added their keyboard and mouse to your PC, they can then do anything - install malware, etc to then get your passwords and information, or to get access to your PC remotely.
Suppose rooting around on the phone they find evidence of someone helping them plan and execute their crimes. Suppose the evidence doesn't directly indicate culpability, but strongly implies it.
Can that be used as evidence against such a 3rd party conspirator?
Would chain-of-evidence be broken, and could that be used as a defence in court?
Depends. If the phone is the only logical evidence tying both people together, then the FBI has a major problem, because a competent defense attorney would first ask what ties the two people together, because presumably they want to introduce evidence that ties them together so they can charge the 3rd party with that act as well.
If it boils down a text message on the phone, they will ask about the phone itself - how was that message obtained? If it turns out they broke chain of custody then that evidence can be discarded (again, competent attorney needed) because who knows what that person did. In fact, even before that all the information needs to be revealed - what that person did to get into the phone, etc because the phone is the link, and the defense attorney will want to make sure all that i's were dotted and t's crossed, so they will make sure the phone's evidence is 100% solid against their client. This also includes making sure the hack used doesn't affect the phone's contents - e.g., does it install an app to break in (every jailbreak since iOS7 required loading an app onto the phone, then running that app) which would mean the phone's contents were tampered with as a result of breaking in. So even if chain of custody was maintained, the fact that breaking in changed the contents of the phone is grounds for dismissal since the evidence was tampered. (It's why they make great use of write blocker hardware and such).
Chances are, they will make sure the phone isn't the only link - they will hunt down other pieces of evidence that links the two people together other than the phone and make sure the phone's evidence is convenient, but not necessary nor needed.
And no, it cannot be used as a defense, but the defense can use it to exclude or toss out evidence. If the phone is the only link, then tossing that evidence can cause the prosecution's case to collapse since any subsequent piece of evidence may be excludable if it was obtained with faulty evidence.
But since the FBI will try to find more convenient evidence, they will try to avoid needing to present the phone to begin with - they just happened to find a piece of paper in the house linking the two people.
My biggest complaint is the formulaic nature of most films these days.
Movies have always been formulaic. Just like why "old stuff lasted longer", the crap simply disappeared from memory. We threw out old appliances that broke, cars that broke down in favor of newer models, etc. And we forgot about the crap load of books, movies, tv and music that we deemed crap back then as well. I mean, B movies were a thing in the past.
The other thing is, well, social media. A crap movie will be known about pretty quickly, whereas in the past it would take a bit for word of mouth to kill it. So stuff like B movies won't be made today because they'd be dead after the first showing, while in the past, they'd be killed after a few weeks
Responsible people carry disability insurance. Irresponsible ones get "forgiven" by the government. Which group would you like to shrink and which to expand?
Well, irresponsible people live, too. If they can't work, they steal what they need. They rob people, increasing crime. Increased crime means increased costs in policing for everyone. Stores get robbed, increasing prices for everyone as well.
Since irresponsible people will be around, you either help them (social security net) or you ignore them. Either way, you still have to pay for them. Either through direct taxes with government helping, or indirectly through increased crime (robberies, muggings, etc), unease (do you want to walk down the street? Will opening your front door get you mobbed?), higher prices when you buy stuff, and higher taxes?
It's one reason why basic income has proven successful - the irresponsible are still housed, clothed and fed, but the conditions are, minimal - barracks and really basic nutrition. Most people will want to upgrade and that takes money so they work to earn the ability to live in a private residence, buy nicer clothes, eat steaks and oysters and other high end foods, have a TV they don't have to fight over, not share a bathroom, etc.
Anyone advocating "personal responsibility" almost always means "rich people want to pay less taxes" because none of the solutions will turn an irresponsible person into a responsible one - it's just so the 1%-ers can pay less tax because they generally live far away from where the irresponsible live.
Unless you can cure people of irresponsibility, you're still going to pay. Just the way of "abandoning them" generally costs more for society than aid.
Also, disability discharge for student loans is a one time thing - once you get it, you cannot qualify for another student loan ever again unless you can prove you can hold down gainful employment.to pay it back.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, even general TVs always had a OS on them. Even the dumbest of the dumb displays often had firmware updates even without "smart" features (usually labelled as "service" USB port). The only reason we have a proliferation of smart TVs is because the CPU controlling the TV hardware (and doing the GUI and such) went from being a puny ARM used to control the scalers and overlays and GUIs.
Thing is, the smartphone revolution has made it such that it's more economical to build the video processing hardware into the GPU and tie it into a dual core or higher processor. Qualcomm at one point wanted to release a "TV SoC" but low demand made them cancel it.
So basically TVs started getting smart features because the video processors started getting super powerful as smartphones made the SoCs really cheap. TV manufacturers could use the old scaler chips or for the same price (due to higher volumes) use the new SoCs with higher end GPUs and scalers. At the same time, they could add value by adding the smart features to soak up some of that excess CPU and GPU power.
Well, advocate for single payer healthcare first - because dealing with multiple insurance agencies costs a lot of money. In Canada, the average doctor's office spends about $30k/year dealing with the government for medical service payments. In the US, it's roughly triple that. These are costs - staff mostly, who do nothing but all that.
Second, denying even the poor medical care is actually very bad economically - because the poor then have to use the ER (which by law is free). ER is the most expensive medical treatment available - you'll spend three to four times as much money treating someone coming into the ER for a medical condition that could be treated at say, a doctor's office. So yeah, having the poor be able to go see a much cheaper doctor at a walk-in clinic saves a ton of money over having them see the doctor in the ER.
Of course, since they're poor and can't afford medical insurance, WE ALL PAY THROUGH THE NOSE for their care because they can only use the ER.
And of course, because they can't pay for followup care (not covered since it's not emergency) they go back to whatever their miserable lives take them, get ill again, and again, we pay top dollar for ER medical care for them. Heck, we could probably get them really good care for the money spent healing them in the ER.
To be fair, 95% of Canada's population is concentrated within about 5 degrees of the 49th parallel, so we do have high population densities as well. Rural areas generally have crap for coverage - wireless or otherwise. In fact, one small town lost their internet completely when their ISP went out of business (a co-op). And yes, that town realized what a boon it was - being online improved their town's quality of life quite substantially - from businesses doing e-commerce to just being able to communicate. But they were so rural, even the big providers would take a couple of months to be able to get to them. (The co-op was trying to upgrade connectivity when they ran out of money).
And yes, we complain as well about poor connectivity and high prices. Hell, most of our ISPs in Canada have quotas, and piss-poor upload speeds (5Mbps or less is common, even on the 100-150Mbps packages which are the top-tiers available). Some tiny pockets are experimenting with gigabit, but ... we're talking about maybe a couple hundred people or so.
Reasons are varied.
1) Apple doesn't make much money off it - Apple's record is traditionally to concentrate on the money makers. The other products they don't spend much R&D on. Macs (PCs in general) sales have been slipping, and while Apple still has robust sales, they're a fraction of what they once were. See the Mac Pro and Mac Mini - traditionally two of Apple's WORST sellers. Granted, they still move a few units and a few PC vendors would love to have those kind of sales, but they still don't sell compared to an iMac or the laptop line. There is, however, a strong fan base for them so Apple can't really drop them entirely.
2) For the vast majority of Apple purchasers, they're "good enough". We're not getting huge advances in computing that makes buying next year's model practically a necessity - a several year old Mac is still quite useful and quite supported. With the exception of the 32-bit EFI Macs, the OS support for is close to reaching 10 years (I think the old Mac El Capitan can run on is what, 7-8 years old?). In fact, I think the only big reason why I'd replace it would be because it only supported 8GB of RAM or something.
3) Apple gets great deals from Intel, so Apple needs to see what processors Intel will release that they can use. One of the reasons why the Mac Mini's i7 is wimpy is because it will fit in the same pinout as the i5s, while the quad core i7s require a different motherboard. Since Apple doesn't want to put too much R&D in, they're going to need an entire line of processors supported for a few years that have the same socket, and depend on Intel to provide it. So a refresh using faster parts can be done by simply using the new parts in the existing design rather than having to build it from scratch.
True, unless you've been hired to train people, you don't necessarily have that as a skill.
And depending on how things are, you might sabotage them by not letting them ramp up. Toss them to the flames - tell them what to do quickly and in the time limit. If something takes you 15 minutes to fix, they have 15 minutes. You'll point out what they need to do, but you won't wait for them to absorb it. If you ever watched Undercover Boss and how the guy never has a chance because he's expected to know it from the get-go, that's the idea.
And if they're too slow, they can learn by watching you do it. No one said they had to learn by doing, they can learn by observing. And if you do it in 15 minutes, so much the better if they don't have time to write notes. And of course, you hurry them to the next task so they don't have a chance to write it down.
And we know studies have shown you only retain about 10-20% of what you see...
Easy, greed took over. It used to be executives managed their companies looking in the interest of the entire company, not just in the short term, but also in the longer term.
Then they got greedy - realizing that short term gains give them a lot of money, and then they start cutting because a dollar saved then goes into their pocket.
There's a chart showing how real incomes of regular folks and CEOs pretty much kept in step until the 70s or so, then started diverging with the 1% (and 10%) rising far faster. This coincides with the fact that the CEO to lowest paid worker ratio started increasing dramatically - it was around 5:1 and started heading to 10:1. It was worrying that 20:1 would result in collapse (we're around 100-200:1 or so now).
You do know the universe is run by mice, right?. So this research is merely the next step in their experiments and getting the one true answer.
Not really. The cheap machine is the home unit that's mostly automated and gets you a good cup of coffee.
The expensive machine has al sorts of adjustments and switches and requires careful tending, but with proper knowledge and skill, can out-do what the automatic machine makes.
The deal is, the former machine sells by the millions, the latter by the hundreds.
It depends what the coffee is for - is it to simply perk you up in the morning, or is it something you want to experience and savor? The former is well served by the automatic machine, and is probably why most people drink coffee. The latter is for the few aficionados who treat it as more than a beverage.
You can compare it to standard mass produced bulk beer versus craft beer. Do you want a beverage to gulp down or do you want to experience it?
it's kind of why Apple still sticks with the single moues button. You don't NEED to discover the popup menu because all the actions are there. (Unlike some Windows apps whose sole interaction is via the RIGHT mouse button). The push for popup is more like right-clicking - it brings up a contextual menu that lets you do things a bit quicker than having to select the item then tap the hamburger or whatever then tap the action you want to do.
App developers won't immediately move to the new interactions - they still need to keep the full actions available because there's going to be a bunch of devices which do not support it
As for the users, it's hoped they'd discover it by accident - they are tapping and then accidentally press hard enough to activate it
And yes, you can compare it to the right mouse button.
You can buy single cup coffee machines that make small cups of coffee. They have a bean hopper for pre-roasted unground beans and they grind them, press water through them and dispense a cup of coffee.
Basically the convenience of a Keurig, with no waste (the grounds can be composted directly). You just need to keep it filled with beans and water.
They work almost like an espresso machine, except they are a general coffee machine which can make espresso, or regular coffee.
The only catch is they are EXPENSIVE.A keurig is under $100. These machines can easily be $600+. But beans are cheap and a cup costs just the few cents. They are fully automated for complete convenience other than loading beans, filling the ater tank and emptying the grounds container.
And having to raise money for science is much easier if they can license the name for various books and other children's products. The boat pays for itself!
I think server usage predated mobile applications. After all, we have application stacks such as LAMP, web applications, etc. All of which do get abbreviated to app. App stacks, web apps, etc.
Tell me, you're a tiny hosting provider in Italy. Suddenly, this one little story gets posted and makes it around the world, even in mainstream media.
You cannot buy that sort of promotion - it's marketing worth is probably in the billions of dollars, and instead of being a tiny hosting provider in Italy no one's heard of, now everyone knows your name. If even a tiny percentage of people know he is a hosting provider and purchase his services...
You make it seem like it only happens to Trump. It does not - people disrupt political rallies all the time. You probably don't hear much about protesters because well, it's not news. The only reason Trump gets it because Trump IS news.
And people push business to stop selling product all the time. Again, Trump seems to attract it because it was news. But it isn't. This very site pushed people away from Amazon because of the one-click patent a long time ago - they would purposefully link to the site of any other store other than Amazon. Is that a political statement? What about people being anti-Microsoft? Anti-Sony?
Trump is newsworthy. Apple is newsworthy. Suicides and poisonings at a Samsung plant aren't newsworthy and barely make it out of China. Suicides and poisonings at an Apple plant are very newsworthy and go around the globe.
I'm sure there are Trump supporters are Cruz rallies or Sanders supporters at Clinton rallies. It's just they're small, don't usually lead to violence and are usually ignored.
Easy - digital is easy, but is' somewhat... isolating and abstracted away. You have a CD and it's a silver disc filled with 1s and 0s that mysteriously turns into music. Or it's a file on the hard drive. It's a pretty abstract thing.
Vinyl however, is not abstract. You can feel it, you can look at the grooves and "see" the music within. It's a more tangible medium to experience the music. Effects like flanger and such were physical effects, not just some random DSP algorithm that happened to sound nice. You can induce wow and flutter on the turntable with your finger and see how it affects the music.
Same goes for "analog" photography. A lot of Photoshop filters were modeled after real processes (dodging and burning) and it's just more tangible to do it for real than to simply click a mouse.
They know digital is the best medium for quality out there, but it's not necessarily the best medium to "play" with the art in a tangible way, or even experimentally. Yes, you can run through and click a bunch of buttons and click at the screen and make stuff happen digitally, but it lacks physicality.
It's like the difference between doing chemistry in a simulator on a computer versus doing it in real life with real chemicals.
It's actually far cheaper to extract precious metals and such from e-waste than to mine it from the earth. The reason is simple - e-waste has a higher concentration of the metals than raw ore. So it's far cheaper to extract from e-waste than it is pull it out of the ground. And since it's easier, it's also less damaging on the environment since less energy is used extracting the metals.
It's is generally the case too. If Apple's robot pre-sorts the mateirals you can get even higher extraction rates and less energy use overall.
Why bother?
Consider Pwn2Own removed Firefox from a contenders list for being "too easy" I hope the FBI didn't pay more than a few bucks for the one. I'm sure if they paid a few more bucks they could've had 10, 100, 1000 or more.
Heck, there's tons of bugs that are reported and haven't been fixed at all...
Actually, the main reason for the overreach is because the app is free, and the devs are making it up showing ads. It's a sad fact that Android users as a whole hate paying for apps (the app piracy rate rival's the PC, and we're talking 99 cent apps here, not Photoshop or Office).. Thus, as a dev, well, the only way is to sell ads. (Which is probably why Google's got you covered).
And those ad networks are, generally speaking, going to try to rape your phone of its data. Like they did on iOS until Apple made the user painfully aware of that.
As for other apps - an airline app may want camera access so you can quickly transfer a booking to your phone - you know, to show the gate agent your electronic ticket instead of a paper printout. This may require scanning in the information via a barcode, which requires the camera.
And until the FTC started making noise about it, I'm sure some apps needed microphone access to see what you were watching on TV or listening to on the radio.
Except there are valid uses for iTunes that you really should use it if you have an iOS device.
Backups - iCloud works, but iTunes backups, especially encrypted ones, are far better and back up more data (encrypted backups will backup authentication information, for example, so you don't have to set up your email. Regular and iCloud backups don't capture that because Apple not only doesn't want that information, Apple doesn't want it to appear unencrypted either).
Plus, local backups - aren't we always saying we should have local backups of our stuff and not rely on the cloud?
Second - archiving. When an app is removed from the App store, it continues to function where it's installed. (Apple so far has not disabled nor remotely removed any app from anyone's devices). if you sync with iTunes, iTunes will capture the app and save a copy locally. The app can then be synced over and installed on other devices even though it is no longer possible to download them. (You will need iTunes to back up the data for that app as well).
So there's some necessity in iTunes if you want to be paranoid and keep local backups of everything.
Basically, yes. There is a Visual Studio R thing that Microsoft added quite recently, so I'm pretty sure they built a R runtime for that so you can develop and deploy using Visual Studio to the image.
NTP has two modes.
First is to keep clocks in sync, so if you have a network of devices, the clocks can tick pretty much together. This is what you use NTPd for - to keep clocks on a network in sync.
The other use is to set the clock, which uses the same protocol, except we call it "daytime protocol" because they do an NTP query to get the current date/time to set it. In Linux, you use "ntpdate" to set the clock initially since NTPd will refuse to run if the system clock and server clock are too far apart. So you use ntpdate to get the clock close enough.
Most devices when you set "Automatically set date/time" use daytime to set the clocks. It's only stuff like the Apple watch (which is used to keep time) that generally wants to keep time in sync.
It's based on a hack to get additional keyboards and mice paired with your computer. It's because there are flaws in the way Logitech, Microsoft and many other wireless products add devices to their receivers and synchronize them. So Microsoft's patch, which is only for their products because they don't know how Logitech's or others work, is to basically examining the timing of the packets to make sure the vulnerability isn't being exploited.
It's a device-add attack - the attacker is trying to add their keyboard and mouse to your computer remotely so they can control it. That's what the driver is looking for.
Bluetooth keyboards may be vulnerable too, depending on how they do their pairing. But in general it's a lot less problematic because a Bluetooth keyboard requires OS support to pair and OS drivers to handle the input. The non-Bluetooth wireless devices use the dongle to emulate a standard HID device and do all their pairing internally.
This is why you can use those keyboards during boot or with multiple OSes, whereas Bluetooth ones can't be used during boot (except for say, Macs) and if you dual/triple/etc boot, you have to re-pair the keyboard all the itme.
No, the hack is to add keyboards and mice to your PC. Wireless communications for keyboard sand mice are generally encrypted (including Bluetooth) to prevent capturing of keystrokes and mouse movements
Once the attacker has added their keyboard and mouse to your PC, they can then do anything - install malware, etc to then get your passwords and information, or to get access to your PC remotely.
Depends. If the phone is the only logical evidence tying both people together, then the FBI has a major problem, because a competent defense attorney would first ask what ties the two people together, because presumably they want to introduce evidence that ties them together so they can charge the 3rd party with that act as well.
If it boils down a text message on the phone, they will ask about the phone itself - how was that message obtained? If it turns out they broke chain of custody then that evidence can be discarded (again, competent attorney needed) because who knows what that person did. In fact, even before that all the information needs to be revealed - what that person did to get into the phone, etc because the phone is the link, and the defense attorney will want to make sure all that i's were dotted and t's crossed, so they will make sure the phone's evidence is 100% solid against their client. This also includes making sure the hack used doesn't affect the phone's contents - e.g., does it install an app to break in (every jailbreak since iOS7 required loading an app onto the phone, then running that app) which would mean the phone's contents were tampered with as a result of breaking in. So even if chain of custody was maintained, the fact that breaking in changed the contents of the phone is grounds for dismissal since the evidence was tampered. (It's why they make great use of write blocker hardware and such).
Chances are, they will make sure the phone isn't the only link - they will hunt down other pieces of evidence that links the two people together other than the phone and make sure the phone's evidence is convenient, but not necessary nor needed.
And no, it cannot be used as a defense, but the defense can use it to exclude or toss out evidence. If the phone is the only link, then tossing that evidence can cause the prosecution's case to collapse since any subsequent piece of evidence may be excludable if it was obtained with faulty evidence.
But since the FBI will try to find more convenient evidence, they will try to avoid needing to present the phone to begin with - they just happened to find a piece of paper in the house linking the two people.
Movies have always been formulaic. Just like why "old stuff lasted longer", the crap simply disappeared from memory. We threw out old appliances that broke, cars that broke down in favor of newer models, etc. And we forgot about the crap load of books, movies, tv and music that we deemed crap back then as well. I mean, B movies were a thing in the past.
The other thing is, well, social media. A crap movie will be known about pretty quickly, whereas in the past it would take a bit for word of mouth to kill it. So stuff like B movies won't be made today because they'd be dead after the first showing, while in the past, they'd be killed after a few weeks
Well, irresponsible people live, too. If they can't work, they steal what they need. They rob people, increasing crime. Increased crime means increased costs in policing for everyone. Stores get robbed, increasing prices for everyone as well.
Since irresponsible people will be around, you either help them (social security net) or you ignore them. Either way, you still have to pay for them. Either through direct taxes with government helping, or indirectly through increased crime (robberies, muggings, etc), unease (do you want to walk down the street? Will opening your front door get you mobbed?), higher prices when you buy stuff, and higher taxes?
It's one reason why basic income has proven successful - the irresponsible are still housed, clothed and fed, but the conditions are, minimal - barracks and really basic nutrition. Most people will want to upgrade and that takes money so they work to earn the ability to live in a private residence, buy nicer clothes, eat steaks and oysters and other high end foods, have a TV they don't have to fight over, not share a bathroom, etc.
Anyone advocating "personal responsibility" almost always means "rich people want to pay less taxes" because none of the solutions will turn an irresponsible person into a responsible one - it's just so the 1%-ers can pay less tax because they generally live far away from where the irresponsible live.
Unless you can cure people of irresponsibility, you're still going to pay. Just the way of "abandoning them" generally costs more for society than aid.
Also, disability discharge for student loans is a one time thing - once you get it, you cannot qualify for another student loan ever again unless you can prove you can hold down gainful employment.to pay it back.