In the US, just over 3,000 people have died of terrorist attacks. In 21 years. How many millions die from car crashes alone each year? Are we going to start improving our public transit? No, of course not, because that's not the sexy ratings our senators here want.
The really sad part isthat these are people who voted in, they are not dictators or such. A majority of people are actually stupid enough to vote for such idiots, and it makes me wonder where our future is headed. Given the rather extreme views that have become fashionable over the last year, I don't think it's too far off we'll soon be looking at the level of control shown in Russia today. I sure hope it was worth losing our privacy, safety, and fundamental values to save us from those "evil terrorists", who haven't played a role in 99.999% of the population. Might I point out, that's not an exaggeration.
Why hasn't Google blurred or removed this persons' farm from their maps? Oh and by the way the more this story is circulated the more idiots will go and harass this person in Kansas. If anything and anyone has a 'right to be forgotten' on the Internet, it's this poor 85 year old woman in Kansas.
Becase the right to be forgotten was something ruled in the EU, and the US is not a member of the EU. For some reason people keep dredging that up, and while a service may offer to do it for her out of good will, Google has absolutly no other reason to do so. And if I may, many of the people who make the most noise about it aren't affected by it either.
That being said, my sentiments are with yours exactly - why the business didn't check first if they were putting the marker on somebody's property is stupid and irresponsible.
Whether it's Assad's regime using chemical weapons on the Syrian people or ISIL committing all sorts of atrocities, there are no good guys in the fight. Both sides are Islamic, and both are clearly in the wrong. ISIL has committed numerous attacks around the world, slaughtering innocent civilians in cowardly terror attacks. We'll probably learn more about the attacks on the Syrian people by the Assad regime in this data breach. Again, all of these evils are done by Muslims in a war that is very much about Islam. In the West, we're constantly told that Islam is a religion of peace. Those who point out the violence in Islam are branded as bigots or dismissed as fools. Islam is called a religion of peace and is given a free pass for the violence committed in its name. However, a Christian baker who refuses to bake a cake for an LGBT wedding gets widely criticized by the media and Christianity is labeled a religion of hate. The Christians aren't stopping the LGBT couple from getting married ad there are plenty of other bakers willing to bake that cake. Yet Christianity is routinely attacked by the media as a religion of hate, while Islam is considered a religion of peace and gets a free pass. Can anyone justify this double standard as anything but extremely unfair?
Wars were caused in the middle east because the current leaders are all idiots, not because of a religion. The religion's just a propoganda cover story, for the purpose of convincing more idiots to bloe themselves up - or, for people like you to once again bring back the xenophobia. Blacks were once responsible for all our problems: then it was Jews, then Japanese, then Russians, then Chinese, and now the Middle East gets their turn. Do you really think we haven't done this whole spiel before?
By American Vernacular English, that's not wrong. People frequently substitute "should of" in place of "should've".
Please, don't confuse illiteracy with 'vernacular'.
"Should of" is NOT 'vernacular', it's making random meat noises to approximate language and failing to grasp something they taught you fairly early in school.
It is hearing sloppy speaking, turning that into a sloppy understanding of the words you're using, and then using that in a written form which demonstrates you think the incoherent mumbling you do in the real world corresponds to speaking the language.
"Should of" is so wrong it defies belief.
Between the dangling definition of "they", the godawful run on sentence in the second portion of your comment, and the horrendous collision of your tenses, I'm going to interpret this as either an intentional troll or a sarcastic remark. I apologize if I seem hesitant to recognize that, but my sarcasm detector is temporarily out of order after pulling an all-nighter.
Amount of comment slots spent on this topic: three, and apparently counting.
It's like people who say, "For all intensive purposes" when they what they really mean is, "For all intents and purposes".
"Vernacular" is not a synonym for "wrong".
You're right, it's not. If you walked up to someone in the US and said, "Has I downs gones school walked", it's accepted as incorrect and undecipherable. If you walked up to someone in the US, and instead said that "all intensive purposes" phrase in a sentence, no one is going to correct you or have trouble understanding the meaning behind it. If no one has trouble understanding it and people widely use that phrase, how can it be wrong? If you really want to press the point, sure, I'll concede that it's technically grammatically incorrect - but then I'll refuse to recognize you as any better in this manner, because you used a contraction. Contractions started out as vernacular as well, and we only write proper English around here, eh?
Should of gone after loan abuse with schools as well.
Like the one that taught you English?
By American Vernacular English, that's not wrong. People frequently substitute "should of" in place of "should've". The only other thing is loan and schools being different number cases, which is indeed technically incorrect.
However, I couldn't help but notice the use of an indirect reference ("the one") in your sentence. I'm not exactly sure on the specifics of context, but you specifically said "the one" when he clearly used a plural form, which results in a disagreement of number. If you try to tell me that context conveys the school he went to and not the one in this sentence, would it not also be in context to interpret for the most widely used language on this website?
In any case, it's Slashdot. We don't come here to learn English, we come here to read the news, and you've wasted a whole comment slot that could have been useful for something else - perhaps something that actually discusses the topic at hand.
This is sort of the "neckbeard bubble" on display. It meets *my* needs, therefore it must meet everyone's needs. (Forgetting if that's actually true, or if it meets any of their "wants" besides)
Uh-uh, no, absolutely not. We need to focus on the multicore performance and on the security features, not the GUI or the ecosystem, and if you disagree with me than ZOMGNECKBEARDALERTARRRRRRRRRRRGHNECKBEARDNECKBEARDTROLLFAIMBAITALERTSCORE:-99999999999999.99999999999DISAGREE
You see how that works? We all have needs, and Torvalds juggles demands from an insanely large amount of people who all want their way in every matter, whether it's from large corporations with lots of funding and manpower to incredibly... persistent... individuals (like a very famous Mr. Poeterring). Torvalds designed an entire kernel, he manages tons of crap, and he puts up with it so that we can enjoy an alternative OS if we want one. If he wants to try a new frontier, why not? Choice can only help, and we could always use a fresh perspective on things. Forgive me if I have very little sympathy for your, eh, earth shattering plight.
I'm guessing this is an April Fool's story, because even if the signal is encrypted, there's no authentication factor to it, all you have to do is get in range. Furthermore, range boosters become a serious weakness; slip a tiny one in a corner or something, and BOOM! Instant security breach. I will say though, this was a pretty good one - not nearly so obvious as previous years.
In all seriousness, it looks like this is a follow-up to an earlier story in which owners of devices based around DASH (Sony's me-too competitor to Chumby)
...and WTF is a "Chumby"?
Must we google everything in the summary? WTF good is the summary if it doesn't, you know, sum up the story in a comprehensible fashion?
The summary probably should have mentioned it's an addon story, and maybe even a little bit about the dashboard, but you have to be careful not to let it grow too large. What's the point of the summary if it's as long as the article?
Inserting "...Sony's wifi tablet-without-that-annoying-battery-thing that came out in 2010..." into TFS would have made it "too large"?
No, but I'm a little weary of people advocating for stuff like this. Reading the article has never been a bad thing, although you're right, I concede that there should be a little bit more here.
I thought this was supposed to be a tech news site....in the past weeks....since dice took over...it's only mainstream crap...and wasn't expecting this from timothy.... maybe from that manishs guy...
In all seriousness, it looks like this is a follow-up to an earlier story in which owners of devices based around DASH (Sony's me-too competitor to Chumby)
...and WTF is a "Chumby"?
Must we google everything in the summary? WTF good is the summary if it doesn't, you know, sum up the story in a comprehensible fashion?
The summary probably should have mentioned it's an addon story, and maybe even a little bit about the dashboard, but you have to be careful not to let it grow too large. What's the point of the summary if it's as long as the article?
Learning to code at school isn't just about gaining employability, any more than physical education is about becoming a professional athlete.
An understanding of how to write software will teach skills around how to approach complex problems (decomposition, logical thinking, planning, separation of responsibilities, etc), how to troubleshoot systems (not just IT systems but other workflows), how to identify opportunities for optimisation and automation, and so on.
They didn't specifically mention in schools, more for people looking for a career, which could be upper high school or college as well. And, they're right - many people seem to get the impression that programming is an easy career that pays really well. If you're going to program, you have to put the same amount of effort into it as any other career, and I think that's what the point of the article is. It's much more competitive nowadays than the magical surveys suggest.
Uh, you're aware many newer solar panels are made of lead,
You're aware that these are brand new, and already people are working on lead-free alternatives ? And manufacturing is as clean as you want it to be. The problem is China doesn't really want to be that clean (but that is changing too).
I'm pretty certain my toaster is not made out of an extremely toxic heavy metal.
No, but it probably has some of these metals inside, just like your phone. And people are more likely to throw a toaster in the garbage than big solar installations.
Sunny Hawaii and California, maybe, but up north in Washington or Oregon they'd only work during the Summer
Germany is even further up North, and they're breaking solar records every year. Add wind power, and combine low-loss grids to cover most of the needs, and work on storage, such as new types of liquid calcium batteries. Add smart grids, so you can use home batteries for storage.
Having actually lived in Germany and being half German, yes, we have a large amount of energy come from these. What you probably don't know is that this is only possible because we buy tons of energy from France and other neighbors to make up the loss (lots of that isn't renewabley generated), and ever since our brilliant chancellor decided to close our nuclear reactors, we've compensated by building more coal and natural gas plants to replace them. If anything, Germany should be an example of how not to do it, in my opinion.
And again, you kind of prove my point - they're deployed everywhere, but they don't work well during cloudy or rainy weather, which we get a lot of. They're deployed because the country has a well-meaning goal of being only sustained on renewable energy, and Solar + Wind are the only remotely reliable methods from the bunch for this region, not because they're good replacements. Nuclear energy only caused three incidents in close to 40 years of operation, of which only two released any contamination at all, and these were both extremely minor incidents with no effects on the environment or people. In comparison, over a 30 year period, coal power plants caused a very real amount of deaths or premature deaths; the number is around a million or so, maybe a little lower. If the country chooses coal to make up the difference, you are trading imaginary fears and monsters under the bed for very real dangers and deaths, and there's nothing that grinds my gears more than irrational and short sighted decisions. Something that, unfortunately, seems to be becoming increasingly common.
solar cells contain toxic heavy metals that aren't commonly recycled
Toxic materials in solar cells are used in very small quantities. The bulk of the solar cell is just silicon. Typical every day appliances have just as much toxic materials in them.
Nuclear is the only form of energy that can deal with our need for electricity.
Solar and wind can too, and are much more appealing to the average investor.
Uh, you're aware many newer solar panels are made of lead, in order to boost efficiency? I'm pretty certain my toaster is not made out of an extremely toxic heavy metal. And guess what, manufacturing them isn't as clean as you believe either. And we haven't even talked about any of the other downsides of solar power - they can be disrupted by the weather, they're not that efficient, and most climates simply can't support them. Sunny Hawaii and California, maybe, but up north in Washington or Oregon they'd only work during the Summer, if even that. And that's really the main problem - we could manufacture solar power cleanly even though we don't at the moment, and we could maybe improve the efficiency, but solar ultimately will not be able to provide the world with enough energy. You'd need to pick a second source anyway for climates without reliable sun, and what would that be? Natural gas? That's not really all that sustainable either, once we drain all of that too. Since you'd need to eventually use nuclear power anyway, why not make it our main focus?
Some environmentalists are so stupid!... nuclear is our best option.
Yep, if your kind were in charge we'd have nuke plants everywhere and if some accident happened making 90% of the earth uninhabitable, we could send your kind to Mars or the moon.
Ahem. Given that water comprises 70% of our earth, and water is extremely good at defusing and containing radiation, the chance of 90% of our planet becoming uninhabitable is quiet unlikely, to say the least. Furthermore, the grandparent has a really valid point - solar cells contain toxic heavy metals that aren't commonly recycled, coal releases far more radiation and the explosion from one is actually a lot more destructive than an explosion at a nuclear power plant, hydroelectric dams murder the wildlife in the water and drown out everything if they collapse, and windmills kill birds and disrupt the surrounding landscape. Geothermal is as ideal as it gets, but it's currently limited to only a few places in the world.
Nuclear is the only form of energy that can deal with our need for electricity. It can produce vast amounts of electricity, far more so than any competing technology. It has very low impact on the surrounding area except for the very few times it was disrupted; and in all these cases, it was either careless errors and old reactors, or it was major environmental disasters. We've used it for decades successfully, and if only people would make the rational choice, we'd eliminate even the few cases where they have failed. Take a look at a molten salt reactor. Molten salt fixes the few safety problems in light water reactors, while also creating waste that only take a few hundred years to degrade harmlessly. They can even process existing waste from other power plants!
There are many steps we can take; a solar panel on houses in sunnier climates isn't a bad idea, so long as we're careful to make sure they're properly recycled, but most renewable sources do incredible amounts of damage to the environment they're supposed to protect. I think fish fear the turbines of a dam far more than 1/10000 of the radiation from a banana. If we really want to make a long term investment in our future, then I think nuclear is our only practical option.
Ah, but there's your problem - to compare a hash, you need the hash the user provides. But, you can't single out the file from the disk - a (fully) encrypted disk doesn't allow you to know where files start or end.
Let's ignore the detail that Apple is not going to store the "hash" to an AppleID on a 3rd party server where the 3rd party can read it and just go with the above for the sake of argument. One solution is to store the "hash" outside the encrypted drive. Which is what happens on the iPhone itself. The decryption keys are stored outside of the user's storage.
Now lets consider that the user needs no encrypted 3rd party disk on the cloud. The Mac/iPhone/iPad encrypts each file saved on the cloud before uploading it. Decrypts it after downloading it. There is no need for a 3rd party to ever see plaintext user files, they need only upload/download cyphertext. Similarly anyone intercepting the network traffic only sees cyphertext.
That's one way of handling it, and I suppose it keeps the data itself secure from the processor, so I was wrong there. However, you still run into the problem of the metadata being available to the processor. I may not know the contents, but if I see Mr. Somebody is reading a file 3.6MB large that was created yesterday and has the name "SELFIE230316", it's not hard to deduce what it is. You can hash the name, but all of this done solely on the client side will slow down operations a lot, and might not be practical for a low end phone. And, ultimately, I could simply get a court order to have the hash you use to login in, brute force that, and have access to your entire library myself *shrugs*
And, failing even that, I could at the very least record the IP address you use to login, get your ISP to tell me who's using it, come to your door, confiscate your computer / mobile devices, and read it at your end. That being said, that's pretty far outside the realm of a compromised processor, so I'll admit defeat on my point, I see my mistake. How useful that would be in the real world isn't very clear though - while it's nice if all you're doing is storing files, you can't process them in any way except for the local end, so no consumer would ever use it because of the lack of features. No company would want that either because of the lack of deduplication, so that leaves us screwed I suppose. Unless we start a collective Slashdot encrypted file server or something.
Maybe does. I am however certain you dont understand cryptography.
Almost no online service saves passwords. They save a one way hash of the password. When the user puts their own password in, if the hashes match then authentication happens. For basic cloud data theres no need to have any way at all for the *server* to decrypt it.
It gets a bit more complicated when the data needs to be complicated, invoving row level encryption and all sorts of drama around how that stuff interacts, but its entirely possible.
Ah, but there's your problem - to compare a hash, you need the hash the user provides. But, you can't single out the file from the disk - a (fully) encrypted disk doesn't allow you to know where files start or end. So, your solution would be to unencrypt it with the key - but then you start processing the data unencrypted! Ultimately, having a separate service might work, but that would still require you to leave the filesystem itself unencrypted, if you never want to process the data. That would thus leave a lot of valuable metadata exposed, such as the name of the file, the size, the date it was created, etc. Ultimately, I'm suprised no one has mentioned monitoring the network traffic - for a chip to spy home to the NSA or whatever, it would have to send that information out over a network unless they send a Special Agent to collect it, and even then it'd be pretty easy to trace. All of your servers contacting the same IP address, one which doesn't store any info? Using a different security protocol than all of your consumer programs use? A well configured network sniffer should stand a good chance of detecting things like this, and presumably then you can intercept it.
If computer security is what you want, then a better option is just to use OpenBSD. Unlike most other software projects, including nearly all Linux distros, the OpenBSD developers put security first. Putting security first has the side effect of making quality and robustness high priorities, too, since they all go hand-in-hand. You can't get one without the others. The OpenBSD devs do strenuous reviews of not only their own code, but that of code developed by other projects. They will even fork other projects when those projects don't live up to the OpenBSD standard of security and quality. LibreSSL is an example of this. So if computer security is what you're after, use OpenBSD. It's the only sensible choice.
I'm all for the BSDs, as they do have superior code quality compared to Linux + GNU (having written for both, although it's just my subjective opinion). That said, OpenBSD is the one I'm the least a fan of - it has some very useful extra features, and the devs really do put forth the work. However, only on the base, and I can't stress that enough. OpenBSD's base is suprisingly well developed, and you can run a small router or printer manager or something with it, sure. However, as soon as you want more (such as an advanced webserver, a personal workstation, etc.), you start to rely on the ports more, and OpenBSD's tend to lag a little bit, which makes you vulnerable to application exploits. FreeBSD still gives you really strong security, but also a very up to date ports tree, as well as the MAC framework (mandatory access control, which allows you to set fine grained policies). Plus, I don't think OpenBSD has Capsicum (a sandboxing daemon), though it's been a while since I've checked the status on that.
OpenBSD is a fine project, but it's hardly "the only sensible choice". I'd recommend checking out FreeBSD if anyone's interested, and to exercise prudence as always:-)
I distill my tap water before drinking it, using one of these.
That doesn't solve this problem, of course, but it does give me an extra layer of protection against failings of the water treatment process.
Contrary to strangely-popular belief, distilled water is only barely acidic (thousands of times less acidic than soda pop, slightly less acidic than a banana), and does not leech minerals from your body. It's water. It is perfectly healthy, and it tastes good.
God dammit, not this again. No people, distilled water is not safe to drink. It will try to balance out that PH, it will sap minerals and electrolyres from your water, and it will shorten your lifespan.
Distilled water was a health trend in the 70's, right along with the "don't vaccinate because of autism" trend in the 2000's. It's a clever troll if you want to give someone serious health problems or so, if you really find that funny, but as soon as you crack open a high school chemistry textbook it becomes pretty obvious why it's a bad idea. Did you, sir, ever take Chemistry?
Netscape 4 sucks, so lets throw it out and start again. Back when Spolsky could write he bitched about this.
Mozilla seamonkey sucks, so lets gut most of it and make Phoenix (now known as Firefox)
And now this again?
Seamonkey's actually pretty decent. It's lighterweight than Firefox (!!!) and comes with tons more features and custimizability. The only thing you lose is the newer stuff like Pocket or the chatting service, and you have an older interface pre-Auralis (though I daresay many consider these features). The real loss is fewer extensions are compatible, but a decent selection of Firefox ones still are, and there's even a converter that can get solid results. I don't know if you'll like it, but I'd reccommend to give it a try, if you want a good open source browser.
People don't use buses in US because there are no buses. Outside New York, there is scarcely any usable public transportation in even largest metropolitan areas. Washington DC (with the second largest metro in US, which is also something like 50th world-wide) has what would be considered a "well developed" bus system for US. The buses in many areas run only during rush hour, and even then - 1-2 an hour. Outside rush hour (and immediate city center) buses run once an hour or not at all. The routes are designed to bring suburban commuters to metro stations or city center. There are virtually no usable routes that could take a person shopping, to school, much less from one non-central area to another. Making these buses faster won't change the fact that they are not very practical and few and far between.
Public transportation requires commitment of public funds and desire to develop and support a system. No city in US seems to have the will.
And this, ladies and gentleman, is precisely what's wrong. Bus routes are poorly designed by people who have no idea where customers would want to ride, bus companies waste tons of money on huge buses for every route (when smaller ones don't need to seat 150 people), and they commonly employ old gas guzzling models. However, admittedly funding is very hard to find - people are always willing to subsidize ISPs or corn companies, but public transport isn't as sexy I suppose.
Anyone that wants to see public transportation done right needs to visit Japan.
After coming back from Tokyo, I always sob quietly when I take my local transportation.
> allow buses to drive 25mph on the shoulder of the highway in traffic jams where the main lanes are averaging below 10mph
Where I live, every buss that did that would be followed by a convoy of assholes.
I concurr with you. I actually live in Japan right now, and the public transportation is a dream - buses are clean and well maintained, they actually go interesting places, they always come at every 10-15 minutes on the dot, and they link really nicely with the local taxi and train systems. When it comes to public transportation in the big cities, the US could learn a lot from how Japan handles theirs.
Leaving doors open while running makes passengers less comfortable in hot or cold weather, makes them worry about falling out, and barely increases speed. So it's not recommended.,
The New Routemaster has been criticised for the effectiveness of its air conditioning (although it actually has an air-cooling/heating system, which operates differently from an air 'conditioning' system), especially during hot days.
Although London Buses' Director of Operations promised that all New Routemasters would be staffed by conductors and the rear platform would be open 12 hours a day, when the buses were introduced on route 148, there was no second crew member and the rear platform was opened by the driver at bus stops only.
The common criticisms of the bus, from what I can gather, are very uncomfortable temperatures, which was exactly the person's point. I don't live in London, so perhaps they've fixed that since, but you should at least read your own source before presenting it here. Furthermore, that still doesn't answer the main point - these routemasters have speed limits in most places, so you're gaining a paltry boost, if any at all. What you do gain is a huge increase in noise, car exhaust from the road, and the small-but-constant awareness of a door wide open. When I take the bus, it's because I really don't feel like driving - and the goal really should be to let me read my book in peace.
Fantastic work! Everybody spoke poorly at the start, but you guys definitely deserved the chance, and you've made excellent use of it. I've been around Slashdot for many years, and this is the first time in a long time where I haven't felt, "oh fuck, what's wrong now?", but actual hope for meaningful change. HTTPS was something really long in the coming, and I wondered for many years why the previous owners never switched. I mean, the average reader here could probably do it... Anyway, thank you so much again for improving Slashdot, and I'm sure everybody's excited to see what the future brings.
Slashdot Mirror
sudo rm -rf /
I prefer to delete all my files without sudo.
Am I bungee jumping yet?
In the US, just over 3,000 people have died of terrorist attacks. In 21 years. How many millions die from car crashes alone each year? Are we going to start improving our public transit? No, of course not, because that's not the sexy ratings our senators here want.
The really sad part isthat these are people who voted in, they are not dictators or such. A majority of people are actually stupid enough to vote for such idiots, and it makes me wonder where our future is headed. Given the rather extreme views that have become fashionable over the last year, I don't think it's too far off we'll soon be looking at the level of control shown in Russia today. I sure hope it was worth losing our privacy, safety, and fundamental values to save us from those "evil terrorists", who haven't played a role in 99.999% of the population. Might I point out, that's not an exaggeration.
Why hasn't Google blurred or removed this persons' farm from their maps? Oh and by the way the more this story is circulated the more idiots will go and harass this person in Kansas. If anything and anyone has a 'right to be forgotten' on the Internet, it's this poor 85 year old woman in Kansas.
Becase the right to be forgotten was something ruled in the EU, and the US is not a member of the EU. For some reason people keep dredging that up, and while a service may offer to do it for her out of good will, Google has absolutly no other reason to do so. And if I may, many of the people who make the most noise about it aren't affected by it either.
That being said, my sentiments are with yours exactly - why the business didn't check first if they were putting the marker on somebody's property is stupid and irresponsible.
Whether it's Assad's regime using chemical weapons on the Syrian people or ISIL committing all sorts of atrocities, there are no good guys in the fight. Both sides are Islamic, and both are clearly in the wrong. ISIL has committed numerous attacks around the world, slaughtering innocent civilians in cowardly terror attacks. We'll probably learn more about the attacks on the Syrian people by the Assad regime in this data breach. Again, all of these evils are done by Muslims in a war that is very much about Islam. In the West, we're constantly told that Islam is a religion of peace. Those who point out the violence in Islam are branded as bigots or dismissed as fools. Islam is called a religion of peace and is given a free pass for the violence committed in its name. However, a Christian baker who refuses to bake a cake for an LGBT wedding gets widely criticized by the media and Christianity is labeled a religion of hate. The Christians aren't stopping the LGBT couple from getting married ad there are plenty of other bakers willing to bake that cake. Yet Christianity is routinely attacked by the media as a religion of hate, while Islam is considered a religion of peace and gets a free pass. Can anyone justify this double standard as anything but extremely unfair?
Wars were caused in the middle east because the current leaders are all idiots, not because of a religion. The religion's just a propoganda cover story, for the purpose of convincing more idiots to bloe themselves up - or, for people like you to once again bring back the xenophobia. Blacks were once responsible for all our problems: then it was Jews, then Japanese, then Russians, then Chinese, and now the Middle East gets their turn. Do you really think we haven't done this whole spiel before?
Please, don't confuse illiteracy with 'vernacular'.
"Should of" is NOT 'vernacular', it's making random meat noises to approximate language and failing to grasp something they taught you fairly early in school.
It is hearing sloppy speaking, turning that into a sloppy understanding of the words you're using, and then using that in a written form which demonstrates you think the incoherent mumbling you do in the real world corresponds to speaking the language.
"Should of" is so wrong it defies belief.
Between the dangling definition of "they", the godawful run on sentence in the second portion of your comment, and the horrendous collision of your tenses, I'm going to interpret this as either an intentional troll or a sarcastic remark. I apologize if I seem hesitant to recognize that, but my sarcasm detector is temporarily out of order after pulling an all-nighter.
Amount of comment slots spent on this topic: three, and apparently counting.
By American Vernacular English, that's not wrong.
Ahh, no. It's wrong.
It's like people who say, "For all intensive purposes" when they what they really mean is, "For all intents and purposes".
"Vernacular" is not a synonym for "wrong".
You're right, it's not. If you walked up to someone in the US and said, "Has I downs gones school walked", it's accepted as incorrect and undecipherable. If you walked up to someone in the US, and instead said that "all intensive purposes" phrase in a sentence, no one is going to correct you or have trouble understanding the meaning behind it. If no one has trouble understanding it and people widely use that phrase, how can it be wrong? If you really want to press the point, sure, I'll concede that it's technically grammatically incorrect - but then I'll refuse to recognize you as any better in this manner, because you used a contraction. Contractions started out as vernacular as well, and we only write proper English around here, eh?
Now we've wasted two slots on this.
Like the one that taught you English?
By American Vernacular English, that's not wrong. People frequently substitute "should of" in place of "should've". The only other thing is loan and schools being different number cases, which is indeed technically incorrect.
However, I couldn't help but notice the use of an indirect reference ("the one") in your sentence. I'm not exactly sure on the specifics of context, but you specifically said "the one" when he clearly used a plural form, which results in a disagreement of number. If you try to tell me that context conveys the school he went to and not the one in this sentence, would it not also be in context to interpret for the most widely used language on this website?
In any case, it's Slashdot. We don't come here to learn English, we come here to read the news, and you've wasted a whole comment slot that could have been useful for something else - perhaps something that actually discusses the topic at hand.
This is sort of the "neckbeard bubble" on display. It meets *my* needs, therefore it must meet everyone's needs. (Forgetting if that's actually true, or if it meets any of their "wants" besides)
Uh-uh, no, absolutely not. We need to focus on the multicore performance and on the security features, not the GUI or the ecosystem, and if you disagree with me than ZOMGNECKBEARDALERTARRRRRRRRRRRGHNECKBEARDNECKBEARDTROLLFAIMBAITALERTSCORE:-99999999999999.99999999999DISAGREE
You see how that works? We all have needs, and Torvalds juggles demands from an insanely large amount of people who all want their way in every matter, whether it's from large corporations with lots of funding and manpower to incredibly... persistent... individuals (like a very famous Mr. Poeterring). Torvalds designed an entire kernel, he manages tons of crap, and he puts up with it so that we can enjoy an alternative OS if we want one. If he wants to try a new frontier, why not? Choice can only help, and we could always use a fresh perspective on things. Forgive me if I have very little sympathy for your, eh, earth shattering plight.
I'm guessing this is an April Fool's story, because even if the signal is encrypted, there's no authentication factor to it, all you have to do is get in range. Furthermore, range boosters become a serious weakness; slip a tiny one in a corner or something, and BOOM! Instant security breach. I will say though, this was a pretty good one - not nearly so obvious as previous years.
Must we google everything in the summary? WTF good is the summary if it doesn't, you know, sum up the story in a comprehensible fashion?
The summary probably should have mentioned it's an addon story, and maybe even a little bit about the dashboard, but you have to be careful not to let it grow too large. What's the point of the summary if it's as long as the article?
Inserting "...Sony's wifi tablet-without-that-annoying-battery-thing that came out in 2010..." into TFS would have made it "too large"?
No, but I'm a little weary of people advocating for stuff like this. Reading the article has never been a bad thing, although you're right, I concede that there should be a little bit more here.
I thought this was supposed to be a tech news site....in the past weeks....since dice took over...it's only mainstream crap...and wasn't expecting this from timothy.... maybe from that manishs guy...
You're a few years late there, buddy.
Must we google everything in the summary? WTF good is the summary if it doesn't, you know, sum up the story in a comprehensible fashion?
The summary probably should have mentioned it's an addon story, and maybe even a little bit about the dashboard, but you have to be careful not to let it grow too large. What's the point of the summary if it's as long as the article?
Learning to code at school isn't just about gaining employability, any more than physical education is about becoming a professional athlete.
An understanding of how to write software will teach skills around how to approach complex problems (decomposition, logical thinking, planning, separation of responsibilities, etc), how to troubleshoot systems (not just IT systems but other workflows), how to identify opportunities for optimisation and automation, and so on.
They didn't specifically mention in schools, more for people looking for a career, which could be upper high school or college as well. And, they're right - many people seem to get the impression that programming is an easy career that pays really well. If you're going to program, you have to put the same amount of effort into it as any other career, and I think that's what the point of the article is. It's much more competitive nowadays than the magical surveys suggest.
Uh, you're aware many newer solar panels are made of lead,
You're aware that these are brand new, and already people are working on lead-free alternatives ? And manufacturing is as clean as you want it to be. The problem is China doesn't really want to be that clean (but that is changing too).
I'm pretty certain my toaster is not made out of an extremely toxic heavy metal.
No, but it probably has some of these metals inside, just like your phone. And people are more likely to throw a toaster in the garbage than big solar installations.
Sunny Hawaii and California, maybe, but up north in Washington or Oregon they'd only work during the Summer
Germany is even further up North, and they're breaking solar records every year. Add wind power, and combine low-loss grids to cover most of the needs, and work on storage, such as new types of liquid calcium batteries. Add smart grids, so you can use home batteries for storage.
Having actually lived in Germany and being half German, yes, we have a large amount of energy come from these. What you probably don't know is that this is only possible because we buy tons of energy from France and other neighbors to make up the loss (lots of that isn't renewabley generated), and ever since our brilliant chancellor decided to close our nuclear reactors, we've compensated by building more coal and natural gas plants to replace them. If anything, Germany should be an example of how not to do it, in my opinion.
And again, you kind of prove my point - they're deployed everywhere, but they don't work well during cloudy or rainy weather, which we get a lot of. They're deployed because the country has a well-meaning goal of being only sustained on renewable energy, and Solar + Wind are the only remotely reliable methods from the bunch for this region, not because they're good replacements. Nuclear energy only caused three incidents in close to 40 years of operation, of which only two released any contamination at all, and these were both extremely minor incidents with no effects on the environment or people. In comparison, over a 30 year period, coal power plants caused a very real amount of deaths or premature deaths; the number is around a million or so, maybe a little lower. If the country chooses coal to make up the difference, you are trading imaginary fears and monsters under the bed for very real dangers and deaths, and there's nothing that grinds my gears more than irrational and short sighted decisions. Something that, unfortunately, seems to be becoming increasingly common.
solar cells contain toxic heavy metals that aren't commonly recycled
Toxic materials in solar cells are used in very small quantities. The bulk of the solar cell is just silicon. Typical every day appliances have just as much toxic materials in them.
Nuclear is the only form of energy that can deal with our need for electricity.
Solar and wind can too, and are much more appealing to the average investor.
Uh, you're aware many newer solar panels are made of lead, in order to boost efficiency? I'm pretty certain my toaster is not made out of an extremely toxic heavy metal. And guess what, manufacturing them isn't as clean as you believe either. And we haven't even talked about any of the other downsides of solar power - they can be disrupted by the weather, they're not that efficient, and most climates simply can't support them. Sunny Hawaii and California, maybe, but up north in Washington or Oregon they'd only work during the Summer, if even that. And that's really the main problem - we could manufacture solar power cleanly even though we don't at the moment, and we could maybe improve the efficiency, but solar ultimately will not be able to provide the world with enough energy. You'd need to pick a second source anyway for climates without reliable sun, and what would that be? Natural gas? That's not really all that sustainable either, once we drain all of that too. Since you'd need to eventually use nuclear power anyway, why not make it our main focus?
Some environmentalists are so stupid! ... nuclear is our best option.
Yep, if your kind were in charge we'd have nuke plants everywhere and if some accident happened making 90% of the earth uninhabitable, we could send your kind to Mars or the moon.
Ahem. Given that water comprises 70% of our earth, and water is extremely good at defusing and containing radiation, the chance of 90% of our planet becoming uninhabitable is quiet unlikely, to say the least. Furthermore, the grandparent has a really valid point - solar cells contain toxic heavy metals that aren't commonly recycled, coal releases far more radiation and the explosion from one is actually a lot more destructive than an explosion at a nuclear power plant, hydroelectric dams murder the wildlife in the water and drown out everything if they collapse, and windmills kill birds and disrupt the surrounding landscape. Geothermal is as ideal as it gets, but it's currently limited to only a few places in the world.
Nuclear is the only form of energy that can deal with our need for electricity. It can produce vast amounts of electricity, far more so than any competing technology. It has very low impact on the surrounding area except for the very few times it was disrupted; and in all these cases, it was either careless errors and old reactors, or it was major environmental disasters. We've used it for decades successfully, and if only people would make the rational choice, we'd eliminate even the few cases where they have failed. Take a look at a molten salt reactor. Molten salt fixes the few safety problems in light water reactors, while also creating waste that only take a few hundred years to degrade harmlessly. They can even process existing waste from other power plants!
There are many steps we can take; a solar panel on houses in sunnier climates isn't a bad idea, so long as we're careful to make sure they're properly recycled, but most renewable sources do incredible amounts of damage to the environment they're supposed to protect. I think fish fear the turbines of a dam far more than 1/10000 of the radiation from a banana. If we really want to make a long term investment in our future, then I think nuclear is our only practical option.
Ah, but there's your problem - to compare a hash, you need the hash the user provides. But, you can't single out the file from the disk - a (fully) encrypted disk doesn't allow you to know where files start or end.
Let's ignore the detail that Apple is not going to store the "hash" to an AppleID on a 3rd party server where the 3rd party can read it and just go with the above for the sake of argument. One solution is to store the "hash" outside the encrypted drive. Which is what happens on the iPhone itself. The decryption keys are stored outside of the user's storage. Now lets consider that the user needs no encrypted 3rd party disk on the cloud. The Mac/iPhone/iPad encrypts each file saved on the cloud before uploading it. Decrypts it after downloading it. There is no need for a 3rd party to ever see plaintext user files, they need only upload/download cyphertext. Similarly anyone intercepting the network traffic only sees cyphertext.
That's one way of handling it, and I suppose it keeps the data itself secure from the processor, so I was wrong there. However, you still run into the problem of the metadata being available to the processor. I may not know the contents, but if I see Mr. Somebody is reading a file 3.6MB large that was created yesterday and has the name "SELFIE230316", it's not hard to deduce what it is. You can hash the name, but all of this done solely on the client side will slow down operations a lot, and might not be practical for a low end phone. And, ultimately, I could simply get a court order to have the hash you use to login in, brute force that, and have access to your entire library myself *shrugs*
And, failing even that, I could at the very least record the IP address you use to login, get your ISP to tell me who's using it, come to your door, confiscate your computer / mobile devices, and read it at your end. That being said, that's pretty far outside the realm of a compromised processor, so I'll admit defeat on my point, I see my mistake. How useful that would be in the real world isn't very clear though - while it's nice if all you're doing is storing files, you can't process them in any way except for the local end, so no consumer would ever use it because of the lack of features. No company would want that either because of the lack of deduplication, so that leaves us screwed I suppose. Unless we start a collective Slashdot encrypted file server or something.
Maybe does. I am however certain you dont understand cryptography.
Almost no online service saves passwords. They save a one way hash of the password. When the user puts their own password in, if the hashes match then authentication happens. For basic cloud data theres no need to have any way at all for the *server* to decrypt it.
It gets a bit more complicated when the data needs to be complicated, invoving row level encryption and all sorts of drama around how that stuff interacts, but its entirely possible.
Ah, but there's your problem - to compare a hash, you need the hash the user provides. But, you can't single out the file from the disk - a (fully) encrypted disk doesn't allow you to know where files start or end. So, your solution would be to unencrypt it with the key - but then you start processing the data unencrypted! Ultimately, having a separate service might work, but that would still require you to leave the filesystem itself unencrypted, if you never want to process the data. That would thus leave a lot of valuable metadata exposed, such as the name of the file, the size, the date it was created, etc. Ultimately, I'm suprised no one has mentioned monitoring the network traffic - for a chip to spy home to the NSA or whatever, it would have to send that information out over a network unless they send a Special Agent to collect it, and even then it'd be pretty easy to trace. All of your servers contacting the same IP address, one which doesn't store any info? Using a different security protocol than all of your consumer programs use? A well configured network sniffer should stand a good chance of detecting things like this, and presumably then you can intercept it.
If computer security is what you want, then a better option is just to use OpenBSD. Unlike most other software projects, including nearly all Linux distros, the OpenBSD developers put security first. Putting security first has the side effect of making quality and robustness high priorities, too, since they all go hand-in-hand. You can't get one without the others. The OpenBSD devs do strenuous reviews of not only their own code, but that of code developed by other projects. They will even fork other projects when those projects don't live up to the OpenBSD standard of security and quality. LibreSSL is an example of this. So if computer security is what you're after, use OpenBSD. It's the only sensible choice.
I'm all for the BSDs, as they do have superior code quality compared to Linux + GNU (having written for both, although it's just my subjective opinion). That said, OpenBSD is the one I'm the least a fan of - it has some very useful extra features, and the devs really do put forth the work. However, only on the base, and I can't stress that enough. OpenBSD's base is suprisingly well developed, and you can run a small router or printer manager or something with it, sure. However, as soon as you want more (such as an advanced webserver, a personal workstation, etc.), you start to rely on the ports more, and OpenBSD's tend to lag a little bit, which makes you vulnerable to application exploits. FreeBSD still gives you really strong security, but also a very up to date ports tree, as well as the MAC framework (mandatory access control, which allows you to set fine grained policies). Plus, I don't think OpenBSD has Capsicum (a sandboxing daemon), though it's been a while since I've checked the status on that.
OpenBSD is a fine project, but it's hardly "the only sensible choice". I'd recommend checking out FreeBSD if anyone's interested, and to exercise prudence as always :-)
I distill my tap water before drinking it, using one of these.
That doesn't solve this problem, of course, but it does give me an extra layer of protection against failings of the water treatment process.
Contrary to strangely-popular belief, distilled water is only barely acidic (thousands of times less acidic than soda pop, slightly less acidic than a banana), and does not leech minerals from your body. It's water. It is perfectly healthy, and it tastes good.
God dammit, not this again. No people, distilled water is not safe to drink. It will try to balance out that PH, it will sap minerals and electrolyres from your water, and it will shorten your lifespan.
Here's a link
And here's another.
Distilled water was a health trend in the 70's, right along with the "don't vaccinate because of autism" trend in the 2000's. It's a clever troll if you want to give someone serious health problems or so, if you really find that funny, but as soon as you crack open a high school chemistry textbook it becomes pretty obvious why it's a bad idea. Did you, sir, ever take Chemistry?
Netscape 4 sucks, so lets throw it out and start again. Back when Spolsky could write he bitched about this.
Mozilla seamonkey sucks, so lets gut most of it and make Phoenix (now known as Firefox)
And now this again?
Seamonkey's actually pretty decent. It's lighterweight than Firefox (!!!) and comes with tons more features and custimizability. The only thing you lose is the newer stuff like Pocket or the chatting service, and you have an older interface pre-Auralis (though I daresay many consider these features). The real loss is fewer extensions are compatible, but a decent selection of Firefox ones still are, and there's even a converter that can get solid results. I don't know if you'll like it, but I'd reccommend to give it a try, if you want a good open source browser.
People don't use buses in US because there are no buses. Outside New York, there is scarcely any usable public transportation in even largest metropolitan areas. Washington DC (with the second largest metro in US, which is also something like 50th world-wide) has what would be considered a "well developed" bus system for US. The buses in many areas run only during rush hour, and even then - 1-2 an hour. Outside rush hour (and immediate city center) buses run once an hour or not at all. The routes are designed to bring suburban commuters to metro stations or city center. There are virtually no usable routes that could take a person shopping, to school, much less from one non-central area to another. Making these buses faster won't change the fact that they are not very practical and few and far between.
Public transportation requires commitment of public funds and desire to develop and support a system. No city in US seems to have the will.
And this, ladies and gentleman, is precisely what's wrong. Bus routes are poorly designed by people who have no idea where customers would want to ride, bus companies waste tons of money on huge buses for every route (when smaller ones don't need to seat 150 people), and they commonly employ old gas guzzling models. However, admittedly funding is very hard to find - people are always willing to subsidize ISPs or corn companies, but public transport isn't as sexy I suppose.
Anyone that wants to see public transportation done right needs to visit Japan.
After coming back from Tokyo, I always sob quietly when I take my local transportation.
> allow buses to drive 25mph on the shoulder of the highway in traffic jams where the main lanes are averaging below 10mph
Where I live, every buss that did that would be followed by a convoy of assholes.
I concurr with you. I actually live in Japan right now, and the public transportation is a dream - buses are clean and well maintained, they actually go interesting places, they always come at every 10-15 minutes on the dot, and they link really nicely with the local taxi and train systems. When it comes to public transportation in the big cities, the US could learn a lot from how Japan handles theirs.
Leaving doors open while running makes passengers less comfortable in hot or cold weather, makes them worry about falling out, and barely increases speed. So it's not recommended.,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
We get by just fine.
Uh, yeah...
The New Routemaster has been criticised for the effectiveness of its air conditioning (although it actually has an air-cooling/heating system, which operates differently from an air 'conditioning' system), especially during hot days.
Although London Buses' Director of Operations promised that all New Routemasters would be staffed by conductors and the rear platform would be open 12 hours a day, when the buses were introduced on route 148, there was no second crew member and the rear platform was opened by the driver at bus stops only.
The common criticisms of the bus, from what I can gather, are very uncomfortable temperatures, which was exactly the person's point. I don't live in London, so perhaps they've fixed that since, but you should at least read your own source before presenting it here. Furthermore, that still doesn't answer the main point - these routemasters have speed limits in most places, so you're gaining a paltry boost, if any at all. What you do gain is a huge increase in noise, car exhaust from the road, and the small-but-constant awareness of a door wide open. When I take the bus, it's because I really don't feel like driving - and the goal really should be to let me read my book in peace.
Fantastic work! Everybody spoke poorly at the start, but you guys definitely deserved the chance, and you've made excellent use of it. I've been around Slashdot for many years, and this is the first time in a long time where I haven't felt, "oh fuck, what's wrong now?", but actual hope for meaningful change. HTTPS was something really long in the coming, and I wondered for many years why the previous owners never switched. I mean, the average reader here could probably do it... Anyway, thank you so much again for improving Slashdot, and I'm sure everybody's excited to see what the future brings.