The only reason I put a lock on the phone at all is that I was trying out Android Pay, and it requires a lock. Since I keep my cards in my phone case, a lock provides me 0 extra security, but whatever.
I tried out the fingerprint unlock. It is very rare that it unlocks for me on the first try, and not at all uncommon that it fails all tries and forces me to use the passcode. By the time that I've gone through all that, whatever tidbit of info I wanted from opening the phone has long since ceased to be worth the trouble.
The main person locked out of my phone by my fingerprint unlock was me.
If you are worried about your phone being hacked, just use a dumbphone instead.
No, I'm kinda with you. The only reason I put on a lock screen at all is because Android forced me to in order to try out Android Pay. Yes, this means somebody who steals my phone can now use it to steal money from me (using the process I outlined in the GP). However, my phone case is a wallet case containing my bank cards, so they can do that anyway regardless of any security on the phone.
Give that the cards are already right there anyway, I've yet to be convinced that this Android pay thing is worth putting up with the security theater. I also use my phone as the head unit to my car stereo, and having to unlock it when it sleeps is a major issue.
Why on earth do you need some complex setup involving surveillance equipment (which would defeat most schemes)?
I have a phone with the "pattern" security. I noticed straighaway that its barely security at all. All you have to do to see the pattern is look at the phone at an oblique angle. Human fingerprints leave oils behind and in the right light the pattern is clear as day. Since that is the most commonly touched area, its really obvious.
The only "trick" would be figuring out what order its done in. For most people (who aren't smart enough to use a spot twice), that'll take only 2 tries.
As a C++ programmer, I don't know if I'll ever use "concepts" in my own code.
I was just writing something last week that could have done with it. I wanted a class to iterate through ranges of an enumeration (so I can just chuck my enum ranges in those nice safe range-based for loops). Next obvious thing to do was make it a template, so it isn't restricted to just my one enum type. However, there's no way to *restrict* the template to just enums, which means I have to make up the difference with comments, and hope I was clear enough. In theory, I *should* be able to use a "concept" to enforce "this template parameter must be an enum type".
Its very simple code. The kind of stuff any CS101 student could be assigned (if they are so unfortunate as to be using C++ for CS101). And it could have used concepts.
The other bit is language support. So, much C++ code is written using the idea of concepts, but the language does not assist in any way. Templating is completely generic, you say essentially "accept any class", but if you've written against the array concept, and the class doesn't match, you'll get a compile error right in the guts of the algorithm where you try to use [] on an array.
...at which point, your poor client gets the dreaded Error Novel; possibly multiple screens of a single error report, from down deep in the bowels of *your* template.
It would be nice, instead of saying "this function accepts any class" to say "this function accepts any class matching the Array concept", or in short "this function accepts any Array".
... which is exactly how Ada generics have worked for 34 years. Let's be honest: this is a fix for a serious design flaw in the language. This problem didn't *have* to be there. It was designed in.
I've heard that phrase almost continually for at least the last 8 years. Heck, denying that particular phrase was THE central theme of the Obama campaign back in 2008, and it didn't even slow the meme down. So how come you only complain about it when a Republican is sworn in?
Not asshole enough. A true master asshole would plant a gigantic car-dealership-sized US flag there. Then whatever legal maneuver he tries, they go on Fox News and complain about how unpatriotic Zuck is.
On one hand we have a man with 10 year perfect record for truth telling
Two points here:
I know of no human being on the face of this earth this sentence describes.
You can only assert this in a public figure's case if you personally grant yourself the right to define for the entire world what "truth" is. This isn't the set of Fox News; you don't get to do that.
If you are worried about trying to find some kind of official corporate "truth" in the allegations against him, that's exactly what we humans created courts for. If you don't trust the courts in this particular case, that's your prerogative. But you don't get to substitute yourself for them.
Snowden swore an oath to uphold the constitution when he took his job at NSA/CIA, not an oath to protect the illegal activities of the agencies he worked for
Well, technically he also swore an oath to not divulge classified material when he was granted the security clearance that gave him access to that information.
I wonder if this has implications for what kind of fireworks different people like. One of my favorites are the ones that are just a single quick very bright flash of light, followed by the explosion that you can feel as well as hear. My wife hates those.
People with that condition would definitely "hear" something extra with those, moreso than with any other kind of firework. So that particular firework would be a totally different experience than it is for everyone else.
Have you actually calculated the amount of CO2 released per distance traveled for a car powered by gasoline, versus one powered by electricity from a coal plant?
(data showing Coal produced electric releasing about half of the gas-ICE's CO2 cut)
Even that's way worst-case though. Who gets all their electricity from coal these days? Here in fossil-fueled Oklahoma, my Electricity is barely half coal. Natural Gas plants (about a third here) are still carbon-producing true, but much less than coal. The remainder is downright green solar, wind, and hydro (remember hydro, the other carbon-free power tech?)
The little tool on that website figures I release about 20lbs (9kg) of CO2 per KWH here. My math is probably off here, but it looks like when I plug that number into what you did ( *1.2 to account for charge efficiency, ignore line losses because that should already be in the reported number), I get about 10.8kg CO2 per 100km traveled (vs gasoline's 22). Smaller, but a similar amount.
The existence of people who have that driving pattern was never a question. The issue is whether the percentage of people who rarely if ever commute beyond their own metropolitan areas is great enough that a shift to the majority of the population driving electric cars is economically and practically feasible. Pointing out that counterexamples exist to a trend in an attempt to question the existence or magnitude of the trend is fallacious and dishonest.
Concrete example of this:
My family of 5 currently owns 4 cars. (Don't freak out, they are all way used. My last name isn't Rockefeller) Only one of them is large enough to reasonably seat all of us. That's just fine, because its rare we actually need to do that. Only one of them has the 4WD required to get in and our of our hilly neighborhood after a snow or ice storm, but those only happen about 2 days a year on average, so that's fine.
So I'm not seeing the problem at all here if we had only one car (likely the big one) of our 4 using an internal combustion engine. The last time I had to buy a car I would have happily gone electric if there was a used one to be had in our price range.
Trump uses profanity to appear honest; and as people associate profanity with honesty they attribute "straight-forward" and "honest" to his persona (I'm not American or pro or anti Trump, just an interested outside observer). Bullshit is an art, and he's better at it than most.
He has spent rather a lot of time training for this in the entertainment industry (almost a decade and a half). Which reminds me of something fellow entertainer George Burns was fond of saying:
The key to success is sincerity. If you can fake that you've got it made.
Like how supermarkets should show price per unit even though anyone can do math if they take the time
Ever actually tried that? That's when you'll notice that manufacturers also like to use completely different units from each other. I hope you've studied up recently on your imperial units. How many quarts are in a liter and/or a cup and/or a pint and/or a "fluid ounce".
And that doesn't get into packaging differences. For instance, some dishwashing detergents use self contained pellets (marked as X pellets per bag), while others sell a big container of loose powder. Which is the better deal, per wash? Well, to know that I need to know how much I typically pour into the soap container, how many of those are in that bottle, then divide both of those "per container" amounts by the respective prices or somesuch. I once spent 5 minutes in the detergent isle doing this. You ever seen anybody else do that? Me neither. You gonna do that every time you shop? Me neither.
...and of course he spent the exact same amount of effort checking into the veracity of those youtube videos as he did looking for them in the first place?
Here's the difference....
Fact-checking: I like this information. I'd like it to be true. That's really dangerous because it makes me easy prey for charlatans, so before I go spreading this around, I should go check on it to make sure it isn't misleading. Perhaps I might even have to change my thinking on this matter to conform to what I find.
Rebunking: I don't like this information. I'd like it to not be true. So I'll keep digging for info on this subject until the instant I find a piece of info that realigns things with the way I want them to be. Then I stop looking and start spreading that.
I think the point is that Fox has 2.3, but than if the others all have 1.5 million with CNN, NBC, ABC, HuffPo, NY Times, etc, etc, etc, etc.
You ball up every single non-Conservative outlet (some things on that list aren't close to liberal. CNN is essentially the 24/7 Trump network. But fine, do it), add all those up, and they probably have more viewers than Fox. But that's before we add in popular Right Wing networks, newspapers or websites (eg: CNBC, Drudge, Breitbart, WSG and nearly every other paper owned by Murdoch).
That's a loooong way to go to still be able to front like you're the underdog.
Searching desperately for a video somewhere, anywhere, that allows you to continue to continue to believe the way you already do is not "fact-checking". In fact, its pretty much the opposite. Its more like "re-bunking".
Fox News had about 2.3 million viewers last year. They are the single biggest news broadcaster in the USA right now. The NYT has about 1.3 million digital subscribers (and about another half million dead-tree readers, but that number is dropping like a stone).
So I'm sorry if it bursts somebody's bubble, but you simply do not get more "mainstream" than Fox News is right now.
Nice in theory and if journalists actually aspired to be moral and ethical in their reporting it would be great. However, the problem with all this is NEWS (fake or not) is now a business. You have to sell advertisements or subscriptions to pay the bills... So what *you* think is news may just be some tall tale to somebody else and what gets reported is what makes the most money.
This is exactly why I think CNN, the sole major national news outlet striving for actual "balanced reporting", is IMHO worse than all but the worst partisan outlets. As much as I might dislike Fox News and disagree with their morals, at least they have some. They tried a bit to tell people how bad Trump would be for the country, and covered other Republican candidates. CNN OTOH realized Trump was ratings gold, precisely because he was so bad for the country, and practically became the 24/7 Trump channel. CNN would happily torch the entire country for a 1 point bump in their own Nielsens.
There shouldn't be conservative or liberal news. There should just be news.
This is, quite frankly, late 20th-Century thinking. Since the inception of the printing press, news reporting has been partisan. A lot of papers even named themselves after the party/cause they were promoting. This is why every major town in the USA used to have at least two newspapers. You could tell what a person's politics were by the papers they took.
It was only the advent of large national broadcast media that got us the modern conception of "balanced reporting". Unlike newspapers, not just anyone can get up a national radio/TV network. Probably just as importantly, its helps to keep the Federal Government from interfering with the monopolistic practices required to do this if neither major party feels like you have it out for them specifically. But they still had an agenda, just one that the Federal Government can't complain about: pro-US and anti-extremist. If you were too far to the left or right for the comfort of the national media, heaven help you. The sainted Edward R. Morrow these types like to point to reported live sympathetic pieces from the London Blitz at a time most in the US wanted to stay out of WWII. That's not really "balance" (and a damn good thing he did). Balance was never a real thing. Its just a smokescreen for saying the media's bias should be within a certain range in the middle of the political spectrum, wherever that middle happens to be today.
So this talk about being neutral, unbiased, or balanced is just a bunch of hooey. It was a polite fiction we all agreed to pretend to believe for 50 years while it was useful. But the broadcast era is dead and buried now. Anyone can start up a podcast, website, or twitter account, and report the news any way they damn well please.
More to the point, reporting on evil in a "balanced" way is neither desirable nor moral. For all the talk about "balance", Murrow understood that.
this sounds like that Canadian agency had a $1m budget deficit and they wanted to cover it fast.
That's not how bureaucracies work. More likely they had a $1m budget surplus they needed to get rid of, otherwise they'd get their budget cut in next year's allotment, and they figured paying lawyers to go up against Amazon's lawyers was just the money pit to do the job.
The video is about testing 3D plastic models. Exactly what they have achieved is unclear to
They have achieved a paper with some interesting theoretical stuff on it, which is what the world pays university researchers to do. If somebody wants to achieve something practical with it, that's what we have profit-oriented companies and engineers for.
I actually don't build a completely new system so that I can do some smaller upgrades every year.
That's been my strategy. The problem with it is that motherboards change every 3 CPU generations or so, and generally memory tech every 2nd motherboard generation or so as well. What that means is that by the time CPU's have advanced far enough that I'll get notable improvement from upgrading mine, I also have to replace the motherboard, and likely all the RAM.
Sure, there are important parts to a PC aside from those 3. But really they are the heart of it. And that's about $300 (assuming you cheap out, and also assuming you don't need to buy a new OS to go with your massively-changed hardware.). The only other part of the system that it really makes sense to replace on a schedule is the video card. Of the other parts, the power supply, hard-drives, and monitor(s) only get replaced when they die (or in the case of the hard-drive, when it fills up) and the case *never* really needs replacing. (My cases still have floppy bays).
So effectively there are no small upgrades. Its either: MB-CPU-RAM ($300ish), Video Card ($200ish), or its "something broke".
Slashdot Mirror
The only reason I put a lock on the phone at all is that I was trying out Android Pay, and it requires a lock. Since I keep my cards in my phone case, a lock provides me 0 extra security, but whatever.
I tried out the fingerprint unlock. It is very rare that it unlocks for me on the first try, and not at all uncommon that it fails all tries and forces me to use the passcode. By the time that I've gone through all that, whatever tidbit of info I wanted from opening the phone has long since ceased to be worth the trouble.
The main person locked out of my phone by my fingerprint unlock was me.
If you are worried about your phone being hacked, just use a dumbphone instead.
No, I'm kinda with you. The only reason I put on a lock screen at all is because Android forced me to in order to try out Android Pay. Yes, this means somebody who steals my phone can now use it to steal money from me (using the process I outlined in the GP). However, my phone case is a wallet case containing my bank cards, so they can do that anyway regardless of any security on the phone.
Give that the cards are already right there anyway, I've yet to be convinced that this Android pay thing is worth putting up with the security theater. I also use my phone as the head unit to my car stereo, and having to unlock it when it sleeps is a major issue.
Why on earth do you need some complex setup involving surveillance equipment (which would defeat most schemes)?
I have a phone with the "pattern" security. I noticed straighaway that its barely security at all. All you have to do to see the pattern is look at the phone at an oblique angle. Human fingerprints leave oils behind and in the right light the pattern is clear as day. Since that is the most commonly touched area, its really obvious.
The only "trick" would be figuring out what order its done in. For most people (who aren't smart enough to use a spot twice), that'll take only 2 tries.
As a C++ programmer, I don't know if I'll ever use "concepts" in my own code.
I was just writing something last week that could have done with it. I wanted a class to iterate through ranges of an enumeration (so I can just chuck my enum ranges in those nice safe range-based for loops). Next obvious thing to do was make it a template, so it isn't restricted to just my one enum type. However, there's no way to *restrict* the template to just enums, which means I have to make up the difference with comments, and hope I was clear enough. In theory, I *should* be able to use a "concept" to enforce "this template parameter must be an enum type".
Its very simple code. The kind of stuff any CS101 student could be assigned (if they are so unfortunate as to be using C++ for CS101). And it could have used concepts.
The other bit is language support. So, much C++ code is written using the idea of concepts, but the language does not assist in any way. Templating is completely generic, you say essentially "accept any class", but if you've written against the array concept, and the class doesn't match, you'll get a compile error right in the guts of the algorithm where you try to use [] on an array.
...at which point, your poor client gets the dreaded Error Novel; possibly multiple screens of a single error report, from down deep in the bowels of *your* template.
It would be nice, instead of saying "this function accepts any class" to say "this function accepts any class matching the Array concept", or in short "this function accepts any Array".
... which is exactly how Ada generics have worked for 34 years. Let's be honest: this is a fix for a serious design flaw in the language. This problem didn't *have* to be there. It was designed in.
I've heard that phrase almost continually for at least the last 8 years. Heck, denying that particular phrase was THE central theme of the Obama campaign back in 2008, and it didn't even slow the meme down. So how come you only complain about it when a Republican is sworn in?
Not asshole enough. A true master asshole would plant a gigantic car-dealership-sized US flag there. Then whatever legal maneuver he tries, they go on Fox News and complain about how unpatriotic Zuck is.
On one hand we have a man with 10 year perfect record for truth telling
Two points here:
If you are worried about trying to find some kind of official corporate "truth" in the allegations against him, that's exactly what we humans created courts for. If you don't trust the courts in this particular case, that's your prerogative. But you don't get to substitute yourself for them.
Snowden swore an oath to uphold the constitution when he took his job at NSA/CIA, not an oath to protect the illegal activities of the agencies he worked for
Well, technically he also swore an oath to not divulge classified material when he was granted the security clearance that gave him access to that information.
I wonder if this has implications for what kind of fireworks different people like. One of my favorites are the ones that are just a single quick very bright flash of light, followed by the explosion that you can feel as well as hear. My wife hates those.
People with that condition would definitely "hear" something extra with those, moreso than with any other kind of firework. So that particular firework would be a totally different experience than it is for everyone else.
Have you actually calculated the amount of CO2 released per distance traveled for a car powered by gasoline, versus one powered by electricity from a coal plant?
(data showing Coal produced electric releasing about half of the gas-ICE's CO2 cut)
Even that's way worst-case though. Who gets all their electricity from coal these days? Here in fossil-fueled Oklahoma, my Electricity is barely half coal. Natural Gas plants (about a third here) are still carbon-producing true, but much less than coal. The remainder is downright green solar, wind, and hydro (remember hydro, the other carbon-free power tech?)
The little tool on that website figures I release about 20lbs (9kg) of CO2 per KWH here. My math is probably off here, but it looks like when I plug that number into what you did ( *1.2 to account for charge efficiency, ignore line losses because that should already be in the reported number), I get about 10.8kg CO2 per 100km traveled (vs gasoline's 22). Smaller, but a similar amount.
The existence of people who have that driving pattern was never a question. The issue is whether the percentage of people who rarely if ever commute beyond their own metropolitan areas is great enough that a shift to the majority of the population driving electric cars is economically and practically feasible. Pointing out that counterexamples exist to a trend in an attempt to question the existence or magnitude of the trend is fallacious and dishonest.
Concrete example of this:
My family of 5 currently owns 4 cars. (Don't freak out, they are all way used. My last name isn't Rockefeller) Only one of them is large enough to reasonably seat all of us. That's just fine, because its rare we actually need to do that. Only one of them has the 4WD required to get in and our of our hilly neighborhood after a snow or ice storm, but those only happen about 2 days a year on average, so that's fine.
So I'm not seeing the problem at all here if we had only one car (likely the big one) of our 4 using an internal combustion engine. The last time I had to buy a car I would have happily gone electric if there was a used one to be had in our price range.
Trump uses profanity to appear honest; and as people associate profanity with honesty they attribute "straight-forward" and "honest" to his persona (I'm not American or pro or anti Trump, just an interested outside observer). Bullshit is an art, and he's better at it than most.
He has spent rather a lot of time training for this in the entertainment industry (almost a decade and a half). Which reminds me of something fellow entertainer George Burns was fond of saying:
The key to success is sincerity. If you can fake that you've got it made.
Like how supermarkets should show price per unit even though anyone can do math if they take the time
Ever actually tried that? That's when you'll notice that manufacturers also like to use completely different units from each other. I hope you've studied up recently on your imperial units. How many quarts are in a liter and/or a cup and/or a pint and/or a "fluid ounce".
And that doesn't get into packaging differences. For instance, some dishwashing detergents use self contained pellets (marked as X pellets per bag), while others sell a big container of loose powder. Which is the better deal, per wash? Well, to know that I need to know how much I typically pour into the soap container, how many of those are in that bottle, then divide both of those "per container" amounts by the respective prices or somesuch. I once spent 5 minutes in the detergent isle doing this. You ever seen anybody else do that? Me neither. You gonna do that every time you shop? Me neither.
...and of course he spent the exact same amount of effort checking into the veracity of those youtube videos as he did looking for them in the first place?
Here's the difference....
Fact-checking: I like this information. I'd like it to be true. That's really dangerous because it makes me easy prey for charlatans, so before I go spreading this around, I should go check on it to make sure it isn't misleading. Perhaps I might even have to change my thinking on this matter to conform to what I find.
Rebunking: I don't like this information. I'd like it to not be true. So I'll keep digging for info on this subject until the instant I find a piece of info that realigns things with the way I want them to be. Then I stop looking and start spreading that.
The latter is what's sometimes referred to as the Unscientific Method
I think the point is that Fox has 2.3, but than if the others all have 1.5 million with CNN, NBC, ABC, HuffPo, NY Times, etc, etc, etc, etc.
You ball up every single non-Conservative outlet (some things on that list aren't close to liberal. CNN is essentially the 24/7 Trump network. But fine, do it), add all those up, and they probably have more viewers than Fox. But that's before we add in popular Right Wing networks, newspapers or websites (eg: CNBC, Drudge, Breitbart, WSG and nearly every other paper owned by Murdoch).
That's a loooong way to go to still be able to front like you're the underdog.
Searching desperately for a video somewhere, anywhere, that allows you to continue to continue to believe the way you already do is not "fact-checking". In fact, its pretty much the opposite. Its more like "re-bunking".
Fox News had about 2.3 million viewers last year. They are the single biggest news broadcaster in the USA right now. The NYT has about 1.3 million digital subscribers (and about another half million dead-tree readers, but that number is dropping like a stone).
So I'm sorry if it bursts somebody's bubble, but you simply do not get more "mainstream" than Fox News is right now.
Nice in theory and if journalists actually aspired to be moral and ethical in their reporting it would be great. However, the problem with all this is NEWS (fake or not) is now a business. You have to sell advertisements or subscriptions to pay the bills... So what *you* think is news may just be some tall tale to somebody else and what gets reported is what makes the most money.
This is exactly why I think CNN, the sole major national news outlet striving for actual "balanced reporting", is IMHO worse than all but the worst partisan outlets. As much as I might dislike Fox News and disagree with their morals, at least they have some. They tried a bit to tell people how bad Trump would be for the country, and covered other Republican candidates. CNN OTOH realized Trump was ratings gold, precisely because he was so bad for the country, and practically became the 24/7 Trump channel. CNN would happily torch the entire country for a 1 point bump in their own Nielsens.
There shouldn't be conservative or liberal news. There should just be news.
This is, quite frankly, late 20th-Century thinking. Since the inception of the printing press, news reporting has been partisan. A lot of papers even named themselves after the party/cause they were promoting. This is why every major town in the USA used to have at least two newspapers. You could tell what a person's politics were by the papers they took.
It was only the advent of large national broadcast media that got us the modern conception of "balanced reporting". Unlike newspapers, not just anyone can get up a national radio/TV network. Probably just as importantly, its helps to keep the Federal Government from interfering with the monopolistic practices required to do this if neither major party feels like you have it out for them specifically. But they still had an agenda, just one that the Federal Government can't complain about: pro-US and anti-extremist. If you were too far to the left or right for the comfort of the national media, heaven help you. The sainted Edward R. Morrow these types like to point to reported live sympathetic pieces from the London Blitz at a time most in the US wanted to stay out of WWII. That's not really "balance" (and a damn good thing he did). Balance was never a real thing. Its just a smokescreen for saying the media's bias should be within a certain range in the middle of the political spectrum, wherever that middle happens to be today.
So this talk about being neutral, unbiased, or balanced is just a bunch of hooey. It was a polite fiction we all agreed to pretend to believe for 50 years while it was useful. But the broadcast era is dead and buried now. Anyone can start up a podcast, website, or twitter account, and report the news any way they damn well please.
More to the point, reporting on evil in a "balanced" way is neither desirable nor moral. For all the talk about "balance", Murrow understood that.
Yep. Wikipedia has citations going back to 1989 for that.
Sadly most people never notice those citations, because they are down in the Appendix.
this sounds like that Canadian agency had a $1m budget deficit and they wanted to cover it fast.
That's not how bureaucracies work. More likely they had a $1m budget surplus they needed to get rid of, otherwise they'd get their budget cut in next year's allotment, and they figured paying lawyers to go up against Amazon's lawyers was just the money pit to do the job.
The video is about testing 3D plastic models. Exactly what they have achieved is unclear to
They have achieved a paper with some interesting theoretical stuff on it, which is what the world pays university researchers to do. If somebody wants to achieve something practical with it, that's what we have profit-oriented companies and engineers for.
*sigh*. 2016 will go down in history as the year every single campaign, including Giant Meteor 2016, failed us all.
I actually don't build a completely new system so that I can do some smaller upgrades every year.
That's been my strategy. The problem with it is that motherboards change every 3 CPU generations or so, and generally memory tech every 2nd motherboard generation or so as well. What that means is that by the time CPU's have advanced far enough that I'll get notable improvement from upgrading mine, I also have to replace the motherboard, and likely all the RAM.
Sure, there are important parts to a PC aside from those 3. But really they are the heart of it. And that's about $300 (assuming you cheap out, and also assuming you don't need to buy a new OS to go with your massively-changed hardware.). The only other part of the system that it really makes sense to replace on a schedule is the video card. Of the other parts, the power supply, hard-drives, and monitor(s) only get replaced when they die (or in the case of the hard-drive, when it fills up) and the case *never* really needs replacing. (My cases still have floppy bays).
So effectively there are no small upgrades. Its either: MB-CPU-RAM ($300ish), Video Card ($200ish), or its "something broke".