And, really think about it... it's actually got a 100% detection rate of finding something, some fraction of which seems to be stars instead of planets.
If I understand this correctly, none of these are "nope, there was nothing to see here", more that we're realizing that some of the candidates are stars instead of planets.
More importantly, they found something using the technique. The technique worked.
That they then looked closer and said "wow, not a planet, but another star" doesn't mean anything other than we're getting remarkably good at identifying candidates and then figuring out what they actually are.
I'd say it's a great success, because they're actually finding things to look closer at. If some of those turn out to be not planets, but still actual things, then the technique is working just fine.
They can search for things because the candidates show a difference which suggests you should look closer.
How the hell can you search for nothing to then use that to help you find something?
The false positives can be pared down with closer looks. There is no way in hell you can look at all of the stars, determine they don't have planets, and then use that to find the stars which might have planets.
The ONLY way forward on that is by finding anything which might be a positive, false or otherwise, and then exclude things which were false.
But you sure as hell can't look at every star, rule them out as having planets, and then use that list to find the ones which do have planets -- that's completely backwards.
I'm pretty sure if there was a better way to be looking, they'd be doing it.
Actual real-time communication with a smart-phone seems to be an afterthought.
LOL, I have an HTC Desire C or somesuch. It's a little older, not overly fancy, and has no data plan.
It's great for texting, and is an Android device.
The problem is it is terrible as a phone. When it's not on speakerphone, or isn't connected to a Bluetooth device, it's impossible to hold it as a handset and actually hear anything.
Now, this is mostly OK because I mostly text, or can connect to a Bluetooth thing.
When the odd time when I need to try to use the damned thing as an actual hand held phone, I find myself thinking "the ability to actually use this thing like a phone was the last thing on their checklist".
Sometimes I miss my old Motorolla Krazr. Huge amount of standby time, good as a phone, not gummed up with a bunch of other crap.
At some point I'm going to have to get a replacement phone for this thing. I just don't want something which is a smart-phone first, and an actual phone as an afterthought.
They shouldn't pay it anyway. All they have is this guy's word that he won't release any (more) data
Isn't this kind of an intrinsic thing with blackmail and extortion?
Yes, the guy shaking you down for money may not be honest and give you what he promised once you pay the money. Nobody ever said blackmail was done by honest, law abiding citizens.
I mean, I don't disagree with you. But I'm pretty sure in any such situation you have no real way of knowing the bad guys will play fair.
Hmmm... so nothing at all in the article suggests this has ANYTHING to do with cellular carriers, and EVERYTHING to do with phones which require a far stronger signal to work than they should.
So, to sum it up:
Nice screed, but it has nothing to do with the conclusions in TFA.
tested cellphones and found that many needed a much higher signal than the standards recommend in order to send and receive data
I'm sure congestion is more of a problem.
But if the phone under test conditions needs a stronger signal that the standards say, then they're simply not working as effectively.
Some smartphones require a minimum signal 10 times stronger than the best non-smart phone before they can make or receive a call, according to Ofcom's research.
See, that's not congestion... that's a badly designed phone.
Is "in just 5 or 6 years" the universal code for "I have an idea, it doesn't work, but I need to get some PR in the meantime"?
Because when I see it I mostly think "sure, whatever, tell me about it in 5 years when it actually happens".
So many things come along and say "in 5 years", and then 5 years later we hear nothing more about it.
I've taken to assuming that all such claims are pretty much bullshit. Stopping aging in 5 years? Yeah, I'll stick with my assumption this is bullshit too.
You do understand the section is a direct quote from TFA (the quotation marks are a dead giveaway, as is the part which says "From the Hackaday story") and that in the TFA there are paragraphs, right?
I don't normally defend the editors around here, but posting a submission written by some anonymous guy and quoting directly from the article... your kvetching about the use of the word paragraph is kind of meaningless here.
"EVEN if the original companies release fixes, the telcos are likely too lazy/cheap/indifferent to fix the damned things, and users can't exactly swap out the modems."
Why not? Are you required to use the ISP's modem and router, or is it just convenient to do so?
I strongly suspect in a lot of cases it is a requirement. ISPs tend to just sort of tell you what they're doing and don't much care what you think of it.
If I was required to use the ISP's hardware, I would put my own trusted equipment between my network and the ISP's.
I have a router/firewall between me and the ISPs modem, but I'm not certain that the class of problems these holes create can all be mitigated by treating the modem as not trusted. Because ultimately it still carries your traffic.
Actually if I was required, I would probably choose a different ISP, but luckily I do have that option.
It's great if you have the choice, and it's meaningless if you don't.
All of these modems are distributed by various telcos to their customers.
As well as:
It also appears that some of the modem's firmware was also modified by the telecommunications companies that distributed the modems to their customers.
So, the real problem is these modems belong to the telco, you probably can't change the firmware, and the bugs in some cases seem to have been introduced by the telcos.
No amount of open source ANYTHING is going to fix telcos who are providing customers with modified versions of the routers which they've done a poor job of changing.
EVEN if the original companies release fixes, the telcos are likely too lazy/cheap/indifferent to fix the damned things, and users can't exactly swap out the modems.
Shit like this is why companies need to bear some legal responsibility, and why telcos should be barred from modifying equipment for their own purposes -- their desire to brand it or add their own special functionality as often as not leaves users with abandoned devices which can't be fixed.
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. And this is some pretty advanced incompetence.
It's a singular belief, but it's not a "belief system".
However, accompanying that is likely to be the idea that believing in anything for which there is no evidence is magical thinking, and a corresponding rejection of things coming out of those magical beliefs.
Which means if someone came to me and said "the great sky weasel Arthur shat out the universe 5,000 years ago", and there is no evidence for any of this, and this belief requires pretending that we don't have evidence for things actually being millions and millions of years old... well, then I'm afraid I'm going to have to tell you that I think your notion of Arthur the sky weasel is bullshit, because it's not only lacking evidence, it runs contrary to evidence we actually have.
The problems really start when someone starts to claim that their unsubstantiated belief that Arthur the sky weasel shat out the universe is something I should treat as anything but unsubstantiated bullshit which has nothing to do with reality.
Atheism isn't a belief system, because it's really only one thing. But the rest of your belief system might be built around the notion that only reality is real, and the shit you just made up isn't counted the same as actual reality.
The Student Privacy Pledge will hold school service providers accountable to:
Not sell student information Not behaviorally target advertising Use data for authorized education purposes only Not change privacy policies without notice and choice Enforce strict limits on data retention Support parental access to, and correction of errors in, their childrenâ(TM)s information Provide comprehensive security standards Be transparent about collection and use of data.
Google has publicly stated they'll comply with this.
Students do have some expectation of privacy as it relates to Google. Because Google has agreed to give it.
Slashdot Mirror
I swoon over the innovation here, and hereby retract my previous assertions Yahoo is growing irrelevant and pointless.
Adding a feature to a product which TFS calls "almost-mothballed", that's sure to save the company!!
My nipples crinkle in admiration.
And, really think about it ... it's actually got a 100% detection rate of finding something, some fraction of which seems to be stars instead of planets.
If I understand this correctly, none of these are "nope, there was nothing to see here", more that we're realizing that some of the candidates are stars instead of planets.
That's not a miss in my books.
More importantly, they found something using the technique. The technique worked.
That they then looked closer and said "wow, not a planet, but another star" doesn't mean anything other than we're getting remarkably good at identifying candidates and then figuring out what they actually are.
I'd say it's a great success, because they're actually finding things to look closer at. If some of those turn out to be not planets, but still actual things, then the technique is working just fine.
They can search for things because the candidates show a difference which suggests you should look closer.
How the hell can you search for nothing to then use that to help you find something?
The false positives can be pared down with closer looks. There is no way in hell you can look at all of the stars, determine they don't have planets, and then use that to find the stars which might have planets.
The ONLY way forward on that is by finding anything which might be a positive, false or otherwise, and then exclude things which were false.
But you sure as hell can't look at every star, rule them out as having planets, and then use that list to find the ones which do have planets -- that's completely backwards.
I'm pretty sure if there was a better way to be looking, they'd be doing it.
LOL, I have an HTC Desire C or somesuch. It's a little older, not overly fancy, and has no data plan.
It's great for texting, and is an Android device.
The problem is it is terrible as a phone. When it's not on speakerphone, or isn't connected to a Bluetooth device, it's impossible to hold it as a handset and actually hear anything.
Now, this is mostly OK because I mostly text, or can connect to a Bluetooth thing.
When the odd time when I need to try to use the damned thing as an actual hand held phone, I find myself thinking "the ability to actually use this thing like a phone was the last thing on their checklist".
Sometimes I miss my old Motorolla Krazr. Huge amount of standby time, good as a phone, not gummed up with a bunch of other crap.
At some point I'm going to have to get a replacement phone for this thing. I just don't want something which is a smart-phone first, and an actual phone as an afterthought.
Hmmm ... I've seen crappy cars with ugly neon lights along the running boards ... we don't call them hovercars.
Sorry, 'hoverboard' is some asshole in marketing who things lights and hovering mean the same thing.
This is a sideways, motorized skateboard.
Isn't this kind of an intrinsic thing with blackmail and extortion?
Yes, the guy shaking you down for money may not be honest and give you what he promised once you pay the money. Nobody ever said blackmail was done by honest, law abiding citizens.
I mean, I don't disagree with you. But I'm pretty sure in any such situation you have no real way of knowing the bad guys will play fair.
Ummm ... straight off the account information which was leaked?
If it was dollars instead of dirham, would you be asking the same question?
I assume the "0.38" is the equivalent of "cents".
Yes, that's exactly what it is.
What do you think holding something for ransom is?
Hmmm ... so nothing at all in the article suggests this has ANYTHING to do with cellular carriers, and EVERYTHING to do with phones which require a far stronger signal to work than they should.
So, to sum it up:
Nice screed, but it has nothing to do with the conclusions in TFA.
I'm sure congestion is more of a problem.
But if the phone under test conditions needs a stronger signal that the standards say, then they're simply not working as effectively.
See, that's not congestion ... that's a badly designed phone.
Is "in just 5 or 6 years" the universal code for "I have an idea, it doesn't work, but I need to get some PR in the meantime"?
Because when I see it I mostly think "sure, whatever, tell me about it in 5 years when it actually happens".
So many things come along and say "in 5 years", and then 5 years later we hear nothing more about it.
I've taken to assuming that all such claims are pretty much bullshit. Stopping aging in 5 years? Yeah, I'll stick with my assumption this is bullshit too.
LOL .. in Soviet Russia, technology fucks you!!
And everywhere else in the world.
You do understand the section is a direct quote from TFA (the quotation marks are a dead giveaway, as is the part which says "From the Hackaday story") and that in the TFA there are paragraphs, right?
I don't normally defend the editors around here, but posting a submission written by some anonymous guy and quoting directly from the article ... your kvetching about the use of the word paragraph is kind of meaningless here.
I strongly suspect in a lot of cases it is a requirement. ISPs tend to just sort of tell you what they're doing and don't much care what you think of it.
I have a router/firewall between me and the ISPs modem, but I'm not certain that the class of problems these holes create can all be mitigated by treating the modem as not trusted. Because ultimately it still carries your traffic.
It's great if you have the choice, and it's meaningless if you don't.
So, here's the problem with that:
As well as:
So, the real problem is these modems belong to the telco, you probably can't change the firmware, and the bugs in some cases seem to have been introduced by the telcos.
No amount of open source ANYTHING is going to fix telcos who are providing customers with modified versions of the routers which they've done a poor job of changing.
EVEN if the original companies release fixes, the telcos are likely too lazy/cheap/indifferent to fix the damned things, and users can't exactly swap out the modems.
Shit like this is why companies need to bear some legal responsibility, and why telcos should be barred from modifying equipment for their own purposes -- their desire to brand it or add their own special functionality as often as not leaves users with abandoned devices which can't be fixed.
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. And this is some pretty advanced incompetence.
From what I've seen over the years, there's always someone for whom storage density is always a plus, no matter the cost.
The rest of us thank them and wait until the price comes down.
I figure right now, someone with highly specific storage needs is trying to see how soon they can get these.
It's a singular belief, but it's not a "belief system".
However, accompanying that is likely to be the idea that believing in anything for which there is no evidence is magical thinking, and a corresponding rejection of things coming out of those magical beliefs.
Which means if someone came to me and said "the great sky weasel Arthur shat out the universe 5,000 years ago", and there is no evidence for any of this, and this belief requires pretending that we don't have evidence for things actually being millions and millions of years old ... well, then I'm afraid I'm going to have to tell you that I think your notion of Arthur the sky weasel is bullshit, because it's not only lacking evidence, it runs contrary to evidence we actually have.
The problems really start when someone starts to claim that their unsubstantiated belief that Arthur the sky weasel shat out the universe is something I should treat as anything but unsubstantiated bullshit which has nothing to do with reality.
Atheism isn't a belief system, because it's really only one thing. But the rest of your belief system might be built around the notion that only reality is real, and the shit you just made up isn't counted the same as actual reality.
Actually, according to TFA, Google signed the Student Privacy Pledge.
Google has publicly stated they'll comply with this.
Students do have some expectation of privacy as it relates to Google. Because Google has agreed to give it.
Search and portals, they also own Flickr.
Honestly, if you need to know about Yahoo, just Google it. ;-)
Well, you know the possible results, but you sure don't know which it is before you roll.
Until you roll, it's both 0 and 100. It's Schroedinger's dice.
I can think of no better time to quote the Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons: Oh, I've wasted my life.
The dork is strong in this one. ;-)
Yeah, no kidding ... I'm pretty sure I've not used Mozilla as a mail client in at least a decade, maybe even longer.
I want a fast, lean, standards compliant browser, which respects my privacy, and isn't trying to do 50 other things.
Why is that so hard, and why does everyone think Mozilla needs to be a catchall for everything you could possibly do on the internet?
The meaning aside, "Hong Kong" is as close as possible to the actual Cantonese name:
So, it's not like it was just given an Anglo name, it was pretty close to the actual Cantonese, give or take what we could pronounce.
It's not like they call it Larry or anything like that.
I would love to know how ... in no way shape or form do I have any interest in anything bloody animated ever appearing on my screen.
It's annoying as hell, distracting, and I'm not interested.
So, yeah, if someone gives me a plugin to disable any form of animation bullshit in HTML 5, I will gladly use it.
If HTML 5 is just a way to force me to see ads and animations, then HTML 5 is broken by design.