iSCSI has been around for decades. Think of it as SCSI over IP.
And SCSI underpins a lot of things still... I take it you've never heard of SAS (serial attached SCSI) either?
Pretty much anything you buy that's even remotely "server like" or "storage like" (even a cheap Netgear NAS) will offer iSCSI because so many people use it. And it's essential if you want to do things like virtualise your servers and run the storage across the network (so you can replicate your machines, access the same storage from multiple locations, etc.).
I don't suggest that this site doesn't sometimes throw stuff at me and I think "Why the hell would I care?" but it tends to be business acronyms and weird niche stuff. iSCSI is literally inside every modern Windows (search for iSCSI initiators), every modern Linux, every NAS, every decent server (some of them use iSCSI to communicate with their own in-built storage, e.g. IBM BladeCenters) and you're a second away from discovering that it's just "SCSI-over-IP".
I can't understand why anyone is running ANYTHING connected to the public Internet that's not behind a NAT/firewall that would stop all of these kinds of exposure.
I mean, seriously - the problem is not the password. It's that's its even POSSIBLE to send and receive packets to these kinds of devices from the public Internet. It's just ridiculous.
I was a subscriber long ago, which give me the "Disable Advertising" button.
Guess what? It doesn't. There are ads over the top of article summaries sometimes, there are ads in the page sometimes, and yet the box stays resolutely ticked all the time.
I may not have given money to this new lot, but they can't even abide by the promises of their predecessors - and it happened day one that they took over.
YouTube is damn near full of them, to the point that I can't understand how they afford to be.
Wouldn't touch it with a bargepole but it "works" because random people ask me about it. I tell them to try the software out before they pay for it. Nobody pays for it.
Obtaining a date is easy if you lie - look forward to being downrated, commented on, blocked, etc. though. That's why there are trends for "date reviews" nowadays, to ward off others from the creeps and work on a reputation-based system (whether that's "he was a really good shag" or "he's a wonderful guy, we're really good friends, but we just aren't quite right for each other).
But if 80% of men are saying they're over 6 foot, there's no way that those 80% of men aren't getting repeat dates, hence the only people actually fooling themselves are the women who think they have to have someone over 6 foot and would notice, and men know that and so know they can lie about it and get away with it.
Maybe if we were all a bit less shallow, these things wouldn't matter. Maybe if they opened up their "essential" criteria a bit, it would help everyone. But women get swamped with guys so they can literally afford to filter to what they think is the "perfect" guy. Guys can't be as picky, fact of life. They might all clamber for the young leggy blonde but fact is that they have to await acceptance from the women on such platforms, not the other way around, hence they will lie to pass that filter.
It's one of the reasons that whenever I'm dating online I ignore absolutely any statistic and go entirely by the chat. I don't care if they're 4 feet or 20, what their cup size is, what they claim their age to be, and so on. It literally means nothing because virtually everyone lies about those things and the people who think it's important enough to actually put on their profile are the type of people I don't want to date (sometimes you can't avoid putting it on, but you can make it clear whether you give a shit about matching on that or not).
Even for a one-nighter, if you're that vain that you'll only sleep with people over 6-foot, then I don't really want to know you, whether I'm 6-foot or not.
Now there are some attributes that are worth knowing for elimination purposes - smokers, for instance. But I have to say that all the vital statistics in the world are useless in gauging how much you enjoy someone's company.
Honestly, there's a lot to be said for "online blind dates". Just chatting to someone who you know absolutely nothing about.
But lying about a vital statistic is dumb, and this kind of "verification" will just be photoshopped into oblivion.
I take two sets of images in the first ten minutes of getting there, modify the dates on them, trash the place, claim them to be my "before" and "after" images, and then the next guy who rents it out starts with a trashed place and there's not really much you can do. Or, hell, just tidy the bits and pick the right camera angle.
This isn't rocket science. The aim is to stop your place getting trashed by people who have little to no consequences for doing so (Or else why would you need the camera? Just take your own photos before renting, which prove they trashed it, and the consequences fall on the person responsible). Not to lay blame after it's been trashed.
And in the same way that the people renting the place can trash it without consequences, the people who are renting it out can breach privacy, record sex tapes and not tell anyone without consequences. Maybe not by the letter of the law, but Airbnb wouldn't have these problems in the first place if everyone just abided by the law.
The problem is endemic to the service they're trying to provide - because they are providing it outside any bounds of normality or sensibility. Maybe if you said "To use Airbnb you must lay down a $1000 deposit which we will only refund to your account when the owner says that the condition is good, the property wasn't misused and nothing was stolen" and then use normal renting/surveying normalities to assess that. Then one deposit of $1000, and keeping sensible, keeps your costs down to cheap places only, and you get your $1000 back. And trashing a place costs you $1000 a time, minimal.
But at the moment you can pay a pittance for one person, rent out someone's posh flat for the day, invite 1000 people over, trash it, and pretty much the consequences are minimal. Guess who's gonna use that... drug dens, raves, teenage drunken bashes, brothels. Next day, do the same but have your mate sign up and choose the venue instead of you, and then divide the rent by 1000 people each to cover the cost. Who the hell is going to know? And it'll take 1000 such incidents before you get anywhere near difficulty in signing up with a new account.
Airbnb is a stupid idea. And they aren't monitoring either of their customers properly, as it shows.
Either *AirBNB* come in, certify the place is in good nick, take ID of the renting party, take a deposit, take responsibility for their actions, have insurance, rectify any damage, and check at the end of the rental to ensure everything is how it was, or you're basically putting a sign in a shop window saying "House to rent / trash, $100 a day, no checks required".
Just quite what part are AirBNB playing in the entire transaction? They run a website. That's about it.
P.S. you can't secure anything in a house that someone with a couple of minutes and a few tools can't get into. Not even a safe. Let alone entire fecking rooms.
Gee, it's almost like it's a bad idea to use a middleman to rent out your home on a per-day basis to random strangers who you don't trust enough to not put cameras everywhere, and who don't want you to put cameras everywhere, and where the middleman says you can't put cameras everywhere without telling everyone what the cameras can't see and some places you can't put cameras at all, and then relying on some unspoken trust model to make it all work.
I can't see a problem with that business model *at all*.
Airbnb is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard of. It has nothing *but* advantages for the people renting those places out, and nothing *but* disadvantages for the person doing the renting.
"Rotiski said the lines reopened after officers located the passenger and brought him back for re-screening."
By which time he could have passed off anything else he was carrying to anyone else in the departure lounges who were already "past security" and they could have easily taken it onto a plane.
One of the worst things you can do is to just too little of such things. It means it's not enough to kill the bacteria, just enough for it to live through it and form immunity to it.
You either use it to kill this generation, knowing the next generation will be less in number but probably immune, or you use it en-masse *with other antibiotics* so that nothing can evolve to survive against all of them quickly enough.
Spraying huge amounts (and that is a huge amount - way more than enough to contaminate your entire house and cause you health problems, for instance - generally antibiotics are measured in mg, not cc) of a single antibiotic at a time is basically the best way ever to render it useless permanently worldwide in as short a time as possible.
It's not huge quantities, no, but it doesn't need to be... it works on the microscopic scale where dumping hundreds of thousands of tons of it onto actively harvested crops is stupid. There's literally enough antibiotics left in our urine after sewage treatment to affect the ocean life, what the hell do you think dumping thousands of tons of it into just open nature is going to do?
P.S. About 8m kilos of antimicrobials, including antibotiocs, active ingredient a year is used on US livestock. (Source: 2017 Summary Report on Antimicrobials Sold or Distributed for Use in Food-Producing Animals). This one idea alone accounts for 5.5% of that use across the entire nation.
That number recently dropped in 2017 to under 5.5m,. Guess why. Because the FDA are supposed to be trying to combat antibiotic resistance.
Wow, it's almost like some people realised that batteries don't hold the same charge forever, and that being able to replace batteries in a consumer product is a desirable property.
Somebody please inform every phone manufacturer, every electric toothbrush manufacturer and anyone else who makes battery-powered items where the batteries can't be removed, therefore can't be replaced therefore can't be recycled even.
If only we'd made standardised cell sizes, voltages and properties such that we could easily replace them with a standardised battery by just flipping off a cover and pulling out some kind of module which we can buy in the shops...
"people want their vote to matter, not be ruled by unelected bureaucrats"
Brexit does absolutely nothing about that, in fact it just leaves our own unelected bureaucrats (did anyone vote for Theresa May? No, they voted for David Cameron / the party as a whole) unchecked and able to implement laws that the person on the street will never know about.
The reasons for not leaving are many, the reasons for leaving are many. It's not that clear-cut that most people can even understand them.
There's a reason that we took two years to come up with a deal that neither side really wants but it was the best they could do to compromise.
"What do people when they have zero recourse over their lives?" Carry on, like they have for the last several thousand years of organised government?
Phones at fuel pumps isn't anywhere near as dangerous as they make out.
Sure, it's "distracted pumping" but the phone isn't going to ignite the fumes.
The only recorded instances are where someone has literally damaged the battery so bad that it was a fire hazard on its own anyway, a not-very-common occurrence.
The greatest cause of station fires, except for arson, etc., is static discharge. People getting back into their cars repeatedly, never touching the body work, etc. until they go to put their hand near the thing pumping fumes.
If your only argument is "people will do it anyway", there's pretty much no point in having laws.
The thing that's never mentioned - some people will do it anyway... but less people will do it in general.
I'm amazed that any first-world country still thinks that allowing people to use phones while driving is in any way "safe", no matter the technology in use.
The downhill moment to me is when cars started coming with bluetooth hands-free by default.
3) The car has absolutely no concept of what's actually on the road in front of it, and yet people try to pretend it's capable of driving.
You don't drive cars on public road by GPS data alone. Weird shit happens on roads - temporary cones, closed lanes, a policeman waving you away from a burning truck... none of those are GPS'd, properly signposted or probably even listed explicitly in the highway code. But you still have to drive knowing what you need to do or... get this... slow the fuck down if you don't understand what's happening.
Not fight the driver who's trying to steer away causing you to then aim at a solid barrier at some significant speed.
Duh. That's why anyone with a brain knows these things are deathtraps.
You can't debug a NN, not in any reasonable manner, certainly not one that you're constantly retraining and tweaking all the time. In this case, even providing heuristics ("Hey, there's a bridge near this GPS location, so don't think it's a wall" is literally what Tesla are putting into their software in some places because they can't train the behaviour out of the NN).
This has always been the concern of anyone that deals with such stuff since Tesla said they were using that technology.
You're basically training a black box on unknown criteria from limited test data, and then acting shocked when people say they don't understand how the black box works, can't predict what it will do, can't retrain or untrain it easily, and are surprised that even a million miles of road data aren't enough to let it drive safely across the entire world in perpetuity?
Not in the vast, vast, vast majority of the world, where people know - and have always known - that the polygraph is a load of bullshit, always has been and has basically never been admissible in a court of law in most places.
Only the US are stupid enough to think you can actually make a lie detector with any accuracy whatsoever.
Honestly... if you wanted to do that, you'd take your machine, pay for VMWare Workstation, install MacOS in a VM and allocate the other 90% of the resources to the host OS.
May not be "legit" but will show up this machine in a second... basically I can run OS X in a window on an 8-year-old laptop (with 3D games and browsers running on the main OS) faster than it runs on native Mac machines that were sold with that OS. I tried it once - initially to investigate how easy a Mac port of a game I was writing was, only to discover that unless you're using XCode, you may as well forget it - and kept it around to show people because everyone was amazed you "can run MacOS on Windows?! But I thought it was unique?!".
Why people don't know this, I never understood. Install bootcamp, which is a NATIVE OS for the hardware, and watch as it's all standard drivers, for bog-standard hardware, and gets its arse kicked by cheap laptops.
Whatever Mac you get for that money, you'd get more of a PC for the same cost, and one that would kick its arse *while* virtualising MacOS alongside whatever you needed to do if you really, desperately, absolutely had to do so.
There's a reason Apple don't sell the OS separately. It's their only selling point, and it's not even a very good one. People think it's "slick" because of multi-size-bitmap-rendered-mipmap-style sliding menu that swishes fast (yep, you might think that's all "scalable"... it just caches bitmaps of various sizes on boot-up to make it look like it's zooming the icons... it's not). The OS is just dog-slow below that.
Like everything Apple... all smoke and mirrors, no substance. The only thing they have is a nice display, and I'm sorry but if I wanted that I'd just buy a decent monitor.
If there's one thing I've learned, and one thing that nVidia in particular has taught me, it's never to expect a product to have properly any feature that's only introduced post-launch on other models.
They'll just half-arse it, cut the drivers in a year's time, and it'll never do what could have been done so that they can sell next year's card.
You can't begin to stop them while you're not enforcing laws to do exactly that.
Even then you can't stop them completely but you can certainly punish them historically. The UK ICO has gained powers last year to not only fine those companies (as it always has) but to now push those fines to the company directors even if the company goes bust (the trick was: dial a million people, wait until you're fined, shut up shop, start a new company with the same people and phone lists).
We have a do-not-call list called the TPS. Though not perfect it stops UK-based companies dialling UK-based households. I signed someone up to it who was having serious amounts of junk ringing all times of the day and they went from 2-3 calls a day to nothing. Maybe one a month, from someone in India.
The way to stop the remainder is easy: Hold the telecoms companies responsible. They have caller-ID records, they have traces, they know exactly who actually put those calls in, which provider they came from, and have the power to cut the contracts of those people who facilitated that call, they also know who facilitated the propagation of fake caller-ID and in a position to eliminate falsified Caller-ID. They don't do it, because nobody has made them.
It won't *stop* such calls being attempted. However, there is a way that stops such calls ever getting through, and you can do it yourself, and you don't even need to get your telecoms provider to sell you additional "call blocking" services (you think I'm going to pay you to NOT put obvious spam that you're allowing to happen through to me?). You turn your phone ringer off. Then you set your contacts to ring.
Bam. Problem solved. Now, to ring you, people have to be on your whitelist.
It's at this point people say "Yeah, but what if you're a company / self-employed and need random, unannounced people to ring you any time of the day or night to find work". Then you have an insoluble problem, my friend. You can limit the problem by using automated office services (it costs a pittance to hire a company to provide a business phone number where a real person the other end answers the call, takes down the caller's details and pass it on to you, or tries to ring you from the second they realise it's a genuine caller, while sounding like you have a enormous company with a posh receptionist), voicemail, or just finding a different communications medium (I haven't phoned a company except to complain in years).
Robocalls are easily fixable. You just need a regulator with a vague interest in doing so, legislation to stop the industry gaming the system, and then a small series of technical measures to prevent it interfering with the average person's life.
Case in point: I've had the same phone number for nearly 20 years. I used it for both business and personal use over that time, exclusively (I've not had any other number that I've ever used). I don't have any fancy call blocking. I'm on the TPS. I get a stray call once in a blue moon (anecdotally, my work colleagues in the same office get several a week). I don't answer anything from anyone I don't know. They ring once, don't get an answer (because it rings silently) and then that's it... end of. It'll be another month or more before anyone I don't know tries to ring again.
P.S. Political robocalls are basically illegal without explicit prior consent in the UK. Always have been. We also do not pay for receiving calls (even on mobiles) as some places do, so the cost is all on the sender and not on us. If the cost were on us too, we'd be up in arms.
Since GDPR, there is also a huge axe to hold over their heads about where they got your number from, and whether they can prove explicit consent (they can't just say "well, we got your number from a list from one of our commercial partners" - which partner, when, what authority do you think that gave YOU to call me, did I explicitly say YOU could ring me or even handle that information, who gave that partner explciti consent to share
I refer you to Win32s and WinG, as well as several components of Games for Windows Live.
If you're not familiar with those, they were all released by MIcrosoft, but not part of the core OS, but required to run a multitude of bits of software, never quite elevating the underlying system to the realms of full compatibility across the board but just bodging it enough that some "big money" software developer could bribe Microsoft into expanding their market a little, temporarily.
GfW Live, for example, worked fine on XP for many years. Then it stopped. Then it worked fine on 7 for many years. Then there were problems. All to do with underlying technology upgrades, (e.g..NET Framework, etc.) that it was reliant on, but yet never quite pushing you out (I got Toy Soldiers on Steam to continue to run on XP with GfW Live by dropping in some DLLs available from the Microsoft site, but it was far from easy - if you were a casual user it was basically impossible after a certain period of time as GfW Live demanded things that only Windows 7 actually had).
This is going to be a "mini-DX12" to literally run WoW because WoW have asked for it. That's it. No different to how Microsoft never actually shipped a proper OpenGL DLL for many years.
Microsoft won't give you full DX12, even though it's perfectly viable, because they know you then won't upgrade past 7 for another few years. What they'll do is throw you a bone, because WoW are basically paying them to, that'll work for a small subset of programs. It'll work for a couple of years but not for enough to keep you "DX12 compatible" in any significant way.
This is the biggest problem with Microsoft.... planned obsolescence and pretending to give a damn.
The CCTV FRT has basically a zero percent success rate.
It's useless to look in a crowd of millions for one of a database of millions. The police basically confirm this on a regular basis.
They would be better off stopping every tenth person, in terms of catching people who might be wanted for "something" or have something they shouldn't have on them.
In terms of "spotting the terrorist in the crowd", it's literally zero arrests over many years of deployment.
Hell, they couldn't even trace the guys they wanted to speak to above the Novichok deaths recently. They had to correlate CCTV with passport data (i.e. look when that guy went through passport control and then pull the footage of that time).
And: so that's only (quick maths) 10800 gun deaths a year that aren't suicide-related...?
9/11 was a big attack. It was an atrocity. On the scale of atrocities worldwide, over time, even from the 1960's onwards, it really doesn't justify the response that it incurred. It's arguable that the US has killed many more innocent civilians in its response than were killed in the incident itself - they just weren't American, so they don't get counted, right?
Because you will soon find that there is no alternative for you, not because people have been vying to get rid of it, but because it's simply not practical to operate anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
News for Nerds.
iSCSI has been around for decades. Think of it as SCSI over IP.
And SCSI underpins a lot of things still... I take it you've never heard of SAS (serial attached SCSI) either?
Pretty much anything you buy that's even remotely "server like" or "storage like" (even a cheap Netgear NAS) will offer iSCSI because so many people use it. And it's essential if you want to do things like virtualise your servers and run the storage across the network (so you can replicate your machines, access the same storage from multiple locations, etc.).
I don't suggest that this site doesn't sometimes throw stuff at me and I think "Why the hell would I care?" but it tends to be business acronyms and weird niche stuff. iSCSI is literally inside every modern Windows (search for iSCSI initiators), every modern Linux, every NAS, every decent server (some of them use iSCSI to communicate with their own in-built storage, e.g. IBM BladeCenters) and you're a second away from discovering that it's just "SCSI-over-IP".
I can't understand why anyone is running ANYTHING connected to the public Internet that's not behind a NAT/firewall that would stop all of these kinds of exposure.
I mean, seriously - the problem is not the password. It's that's its even POSSIBLE to send and receive packets to these kinds of devices from the public Internet. It's just ridiculous.
No chance.
I was a subscriber long ago, which give me the "Disable Advertising" button.
Guess what? It doesn't. There are ads over the top of article summaries sometimes, there are ads in the page sometimes, and yet the box stays resolutely ticked all the time.
I may not have given money to this new lot, but they can't even abide by the promises of their predecessors - and it happened day one that they took over.
YouTube is damn near full of them, to the point that I can't understand how they afford to be.
Wouldn't touch it with a bargepole but it "works" because random people ask me about it. I tell them to try the software out before they pay for it. Nobody pays for it.
Obtaining a date is easy if you lie - look forward to being downrated, commented on, blocked, etc. though. That's why there are trends for "date reviews" nowadays, to ward off others from the creeps and work on a reputation-based system (whether that's "he was a really good shag" or "he's a wonderful guy, we're really good friends, but we just aren't quite right for each other).
But if 80% of men are saying they're over 6 foot, there's no way that those 80% of men aren't getting repeat dates, hence the only people actually fooling themselves are the women who think they have to have someone over 6 foot and would notice, and men know that and so know they can lie about it and get away with it.
Maybe if we were all a bit less shallow, these things wouldn't matter. Maybe if they opened up their "essential" criteria a bit, it would help everyone. But women get swamped with guys so they can literally afford to filter to what they think is the "perfect" guy. Guys can't be as picky, fact of life. They might all clamber for the young leggy blonde but fact is that they have to await acceptance from the women on such platforms, not the other way around, hence they will lie to pass that filter.
It's one of the reasons that whenever I'm dating online I ignore absolutely any statistic and go entirely by the chat. I don't care if they're 4 feet or 20, what their cup size is, what they claim their age to be, and so on. It literally means nothing because virtually everyone lies about those things and the people who think it's important enough to actually put on their profile are the type of people I don't want to date (sometimes you can't avoid putting it on, but you can make it clear whether you give a shit about matching on that or not).
Even for a one-nighter, if you're that vain that you'll only sleep with people over 6-foot, then I don't really want to know you, whether I'm 6-foot or not.
Now there are some attributes that are worth knowing for elimination purposes - smokers, for instance. But I have to say that all the vital statistics in the world are useless in gauging how much you enjoy someone's company.
Honestly, there's a lot to be said for "online blind dates". Just chatting to someone who you know absolutely nothing about.
But lying about a vital statistic is dumb, and this kind of "verification" will just be photoshopped into oblivion.
Not hard.
I take two sets of images in the first ten minutes of getting there, modify the dates on them, trash the place, claim them to be my "before" and "after" images, and then the next guy who rents it out starts with a trashed place and there's not really much you can do. Or, hell, just tidy the bits and pick the right camera angle.
This isn't rocket science. The aim is to stop your place getting trashed by people who have little to no consequences for doing so (Or else why would you need the camera? Just take your own photos before renting, which prove they trashed it, and the consequences fall on the person responsible). Not to lay blame after it's been trashed.
And in the same way that the people renting the place can trash it without consequences, the people who are renting it out can breach privacy, record sex tapes and not tell anyone without consequences. Maybe not by the letter of the law, but Airbnb wouldn't have these problems in the first place if everyone just abided by the law.
The problem is endemic to the service they're trying to provide - because they are providing it outside any bounds of normality or sensibility. Maybe if you said "To use Airbnb you must lay down a $1000 deposit which we will only refund to your account when the owner says that the condition is good, the property wasn't misused and nothing was stolen" and then use normal renting/surveying normalities to assess that. Then one deposit of $1000, and keeping sensible, keeps your costs down to cheap places only, and you get your $1000 back. And trashing a place costs you $1000 a time, minimal.
But at the moment you can pay a pittance for one person, rent out someone's posh flat for the day, invite 1000 people over, trash it, and pretty much the consequences are minimal. Guess who's gonna use that... drug dens, raves, teenage drunken bashes, brothels. Next day, do the same but have your mate sign up and choose the venue instead of you, and then divide the rent by 1000 people each to cover the cost. Who the hell is going to know? And it'll take 1000 such incidents before you get anywhere near difficulty in signing up with a new account.
Airbnb is a stupid idea. And they aren't monitoring either of their customers properly, as it shows.
Either *AirBNB* come in, certify the place is in good nick, take ID of the renting party, take a deposit, take responsibility for their actions, have insurance, rectify any damage, and check at the end of the rental to ensure everything is how it was, or you're basically putting a sign in a shop window saying "House to rent / trash, $100 a day, no checks required".
Just quite what part are AirBNB playing in the entire transaction? They run a website. That's about it.
P.S. you can't secure anything in a house that someone with a couple of minutes and a few tools can't get into. Not even a safe. Let alone entire fecking rooms.
Gee, it's almost like it's a bad idea to use a middleman to rent out your home on a per-day basis to random strangers who you don't trust enough to not put cameras everywhere, and who don't want you to put cameras everywhere, and where the middleman says you can't put cameras everywhere without telling everyone what the cameras can't see and some places you can't put cameras at all, and then relying on some unspoken trust model to make it all work.
I can't see a problem with that business model *at all*.
Airbnb is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard of. It has nothing *but* advantages for the people renting those places out, and nothing *but* disadvantages for the person doing the renting.
"Rotiski said the lines reopened after officers located the passenger and brought him back for re-screening."
By which time he could have passed off anything else he was carrying to anyone else in the departure lounges who were already "past security" and they could have easily taken it onto a plane.
Well done guys.
If your last sentence is true, I hereby opt out of "actual security".
One of the worst things you can do is to just too little of such things. It means it's not enough to kill the bacteria, just enough for it to live through it and form immunity to it.
You either use it to kill this generation, knowing the next generation will be less in number but probably immune, or you use it en-masse *with other antibiotics* so that nothing can evolve to survive against all of them quickly enough.
Spraying huge amounts (and that is a huge amount - way more than enough to contaminate your entire house and cause you health problems, for instance - generally antibiotics are measured in mg, not cc) of a single antibiotic at a time is basically the best way ever to render it useless permanently worldwide in as short a time as possible.
It's not huge quantities, no, but it doesn't need to be... it works on the microscopic scale where dumping hundreds of thousands of tons of it onto actively harvested crops is stupid. There's literally enough antibiotics left in our urine after sewage treatment to affect the ocean life, what the hell do you think dumping thousands of tons of it into just open nature is going to do?
P.S. About 8m kilos of antimicrobials, including antibotiocs, active ingredient a year is used on US livestock. (Source: 2017 Summary Report on Antimicrobials Sold or Distributed for Use in Food-Producing Animals). This one idea alone accounts for 5.5% of that use across the entire nation.
That number recently dropped in 2017 to under 5.5m,. Guess why. Because the FDA are supposed to be trying to combat antibiotic resistance.
https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVete...
Wow, it's almost like some people realised that batteries don't hold the same charge forever, and that being able to replace batteries in a consumer product is a desirable property.
Somebody please inform every phone manufacturer, every electric toothbrush manufacturer and anyone else who makes battery-powered items where the batteries can't be removed, therefore can't be replaced therefore can't be recycled even.
If only we'd made standardised cell sizes, voltages and properties such that we could easily replace them with a standardised battery by just flipping off a cover and pulling out some kind of module which we can buy in the shops...
"people want their vote to matter, not be ruled by unelected bureaucrats"
Brexit does absolutely nothing about that, in fact it just leaves our own unelected bureaucrats (did anyone vote for Theresa May? No, they voted for David Cameron / the party as a whole) unchecked and able to implement laws that the person on the street will never know about.
The reasons for not leaving are many, the reasons for leaving are many. It's not that clear-cut that most people can even understand them.
There's a reason that we took two years to come up with a deal that neither side really wants but it was the best they could do to compromise.
"What do people when they have zero recourse over their lives?" Carry on, like they have for the last several thousand years of organised government?
Phones at fuel pumps isn't anywhere near as dangerous as they make out.
Sure, it's "distracted pumping" but the phone isn't going to ignite the fumes.
The only recorded instances are where someone has literally damaged the battery so bad that it was a fire hazard on its own anyway, a not-very-common occurrence.
The greatest cause of station fires, except for arson, etc., is static discharge. People getting back into their cars repeatedly, never touching the body work, etc. until they go to put their hand near the thing pumping fumes.
If your only argument is "people will do it anyway", there's pretty much no point in having laws.
The thing that's never mentioned - some people will do it anyway... but less people will do it in general.
I'm amazed that any first-world country still thinks that allowing people to use phones while driving is in any way "safe", no matter the technology in use.
The downhill moment to me is when cars started coming with bluetooth hands-free by default.
3) The car has absolutely no concept of what's actually on the road in front of it, and yet people try to pretend it's capable of driving.
You don't drive cars on public road by GPS data alone. Weird shit happens on roads - temporary cones, closed lanes, a policeman waving you away from a burning truck... none of those are GPS'd, properly signposted or probably even listed explicitly in the highway code. But you still have to drive knowing what you need to do or... get this... slow the fuck down if you don't understand what's happening.
Not fight the driver who's trying to steer away causing you to then aim at a solid barrier at some significant speed.
Duh. That's why anyone with a brain knows these things are deathtraps.
You can't debug a NN, not in any reasonable manner, certainly not one that you're constantly retraining and tweaking all the time. In this case, even providing heuristics ("Hey, there's a bridge near this GPS location, so don't think it's a wall" is literally what Tesla are putting into their software in some places because they can't train the behaviour out of the NN).
This has always been the concern of anyone that deals with such stuff since Tesla said they were using that technology.
You're basically training a black box on unknown criteria from limited test data, and then acting shocked when people say they don't understand how the black box works, can't predict what it will do, can't retrain or untrain it easily, and are surprised that even a million miles of road data aren't enough to let it drive safely across the entire world in perpetuity?
"Could be a problem?"
Not in the vast, vast, vast majority of the world, where people know - and have always known - that the polygraph is a load of bullshit, always has been and has basically never been admissible in a court of law in most places.
Only the US are stupid enough to think you can actually make a lie detector with any accuracy whatsoever.
10 years ago I was using an MSI gaming laptop that had two drive bays, 12Gb, and cost way less than $5k. Like, half that.
Apple has always been underspecced and overpriced. Just look at the Mac Mini's and laugh yourself silly on any comparison site.
Honestly... if you wanted to do that, you'd take your machine, pay for VMWare Workstation, install MacOS in a VM and allocate the other 90% of the resources to the host OS.
May not be "legit" but will show up this machine in a second... basically I can run OS X in a window on an 8-year-old laptop (with 3D games and browsers running on the main OS) faster than it runs on native Mac machines that were sold with that OS. I tried it once - initially to investigate how easy a Mac port of a game I was writing was, only to discover that unless you're using XCode, you may as well forget it - and kept it around to show people because everyone was amazed you "can run MacOS on Windows?! But I thought it was unique?!".
Why people don't know this, I never understood. Install bootcamp, which is a NATIVE OS for the hardware, and watch as it's all standard drivers, for bog-standard hardware, and gets its arse kicked by cheap laptops.
Whatever Mac you get for that money, you'd get more of a PC for the same cost, and one that would kick its arse *while* virtualising MacOS alongside whatever you needed to do if you really, desperately, absolutely had to do so.
There's a reason Apple don't sell the OS separately. It's their only selling point, and it's not even a very good one. People think it's "slick" because of multi-size-bitmap-rendered-mipmap-style sliding menu that swishes fast (yep, you might think that's all "scalable"... it just caches bitmaps of various sizes on boot-up to make it look like it's zooming the icons... it's not). The OS is just dog-slow below that.
Like everything Apple... all smoke and mirrors, no substance. The only thing they have is a nice display, and I'm sorry but if I wanted that I'd just buy a decent monitor.
If there's one thing I've learned, and one thing that nVidia in particular has taught me, it's never to expect a product to have properly any feature that's only introduced post-launch on other models.
They'll just half-arse it, cut the drivers in a year's time, and it'll never do what could have been done so that they can sell next year's card.
You can't begin to stop them while you're not enforcing laws to do exactly that.
Even then you can't stop them completely but you can certainly punish them historically. The UK ICO has gained powers last year to not only fine those companies (as it always has) but to now push those fines to the company directors even if the company goes bust (the trick was: dial a million people, wait until you're fined, shut up shop, start a new company with the same people and phone lists).
We have a do-not-call list called the TPS. Though not perfect it stops UK-based companies dialling UK-based households. I signed someone up to it who was having serious amounts of junk ringing all times of the day and they went from 2-3 calls a day to nothing. Maybe one a month, from someone in India.
The way to stop the remainder is easy: Hold the telecoms companies responsible. They have caller-ID records, they have traces, they know exactly who actually put those calls in, which provider they came from, and have the power to cut the contracts of those people who facilitated that call, they also know who facilitated the propagation of fake caller-ID and in a position to eliminate falsified Caller-ID. They don't do it, because nobody has made them.
It won't *stop* such calls being attempted. However, there is a way that stops such calls ever getting through, and you can do it yourself, and you don't even need to get your telecoms provider to sell you additional "call blocking" services (you think I'm going to pay you to NOT put obvious spam that you're allowing to happen through to me?). You turn your phone ringer off. Then you set your contacts to ring.
Bam. Problem solved. Now, to ring you, people have to be on your whitelist.
It's at this point people say "Yeah, but what if you're a company / self-employed and need random, unannounced people to ring you any time of the day or night to find work". Then you have an insoluble problem, my friend. You can limit the problem by using automated office services (it costs a pittance to hire a company to provide a business phone number where a real person the other end answers the call, takes down the caller's details and pass it on to you, or tries to ring you from the second they realise it's a genuine caller, while sounding like you have a enormous company with a posh receptionist), voicemail, or just finding a different communications medium (I haven't phoned a company except to complain in years).
Robocalls are easily fixable. You just need a regulator with a vague interest in doing so, legislation to stop the industry gaming the system, and then a small series of technical measures to prevent it interfering with the average person's life.
Case in point: I've had the same phone number for nearly 20 years. I used it for both business and personal use over that time, exclusively (I've not had any other number that I've ever used). I don't have any fancy call blocking. I'm on the TPS. I get a stray call once in a blue moon (anecdotally, my work colleagues in the same office get several a week). I don't answer anything from anyone I don't know. They ring once, don't get an answer (because it rings silently) and then that's it... end of. It'll be another month or more before anyone I don't know tries to ring again.
P.S. Political robocalls are basically illegal without explicit prior consent in the UK. Always have been. We also do not pay for receiving calls (even on mobiles) as some places do, so the cost is all on the sender and not on us. If the cost were on us too, we'd be up in arms.
Since GDPR, there is also a huge axe to hold over their heads about where they got your number from, and whether they can prove explicit consent (they can't just say "well, we got your number from a list from one of our commercial partners" - which partner, when, what authority do you think that gave YOU to call me, did I explicitly say YOU could ring me or even handle that information, who gave that partner explciti consent to share
I refer you to Win32s and WinG, as well as several components of Games for Windows Live.
If you're not familiar with those, they were all released by MIcrosoft, but not part of the core OS, but required to run a multitude of bits of software, never quite elevating the underlying system to the realms of full compatibility across the board but just bodging it enough that some "big money" software developer could bribe Microsoft into expanding their market a little, temporarily.
GfW Live, for example, worked fine on XP for many years. Then it stopped. Then it worked fine on 7 for many years. Then there were problems. All to do with underlying technology upgrades, (e.g. .NET Framework, etc.) that it was reliant on, but yet never quite pushing you out (I got Toy Soldiers on Steam to continue to run on XP with GfW Live by dropping in some DLLs available from the Microsoft site, but it was far from easy - if you were a casual user it was basically impossible after a certain period of time as GfW Live demanded things that only Windows 7 actually had).
This is going to be a "mini-DX12" to literally run WoW because WoW have asked for it. That's it. No different to how Microsoft never actually shipped a proper OpenGL DLL for many years.
Microsoft won't give you full DX12, even though it's perfectly viable, because they know you then won't upgrade past 7 for another few years. What they'll do is throw you a bone, because WoW are basically paying them to, that'll work for a small subset of programs. It'll work for a couple of years but not for enough to keep you "DX12 compatible" in any significant way.
This is the biggest problem with Microsoft.... planned obsolescence and pretending to give a damn.
The CCTV FRT has basically a zero percent success rate.
It's useless to look in a crowd of millions for one of a database of millions. The police basically confirm this on a regular basis.
They would be better off stopping every tenth person, in terms of catching people who might be wanted for "something" or have something they shouldn't have on them.
In terms of "spotting the terrorist in the crowd", it's literally zero arrests over many years of deployment.
Hell, they couldn't even trace the guys they wanted to speak to above the Novichok deaths recently. They had to correlate CCTV with passport data (i.e. look when that guy went through passport control and then pull the footage of that time).
Don't believe the hype about face-recognition.
I'm not the OP but:
Depends where you're from.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And: so that's only (quick maths) 10800 gun deaths a year that aren't suicide-related...?
9/11 was a big attack. It was an atrocity. On the scale of atrocities worldwide, over time, even from the 1960's onwards, it really doesn't justify the response that it incurred. It's arguable that the US has killed many more innocent civilians in its response than were killed in the incident itself - they just weren't American, so they don't get counted, right?
You will be forced.
But not because those people are forcing you.
Because you will soon find that there is no alternative for you, not because people have been vying to get rid of it, but because it's simply not practical to operate anymore.
For an example, see cheques.