Windows CE (colloquially 'wince' as in the reaction you have to dealing with a device running it) was an entirely separate beast from other Windows.
Windows RT was an ARM build of Windows 8. The thought being that these fancy ARM devices were everywhere, and MS could get a slice of the pie if they just could run on it. Hence the push to 'Universal' apps with a cross-platform runtime so that simple applications would work equally well on ARM and x86 customers. Problem for MS being that Windows isn't that exciting without the legacy software library. Also, Intel made some progress towards appropriate devices for the tablet space (mostly lagging now on radio technology, but not all tablets need direct WWAN capability). In a tablet form factor, the screen dwarfs any delta between a contemporary energy optimized Intel versus ARM.
Basically, Intel and MS get the most benefit out of each other. MS without Intel is not exciting, and Intel isn't particularly well positioned under 10W TDP, except if the user needs to run Windows.
Which is nice and all, but it's not *Dell* bringing it to linux, it's Intel bringing it to Linux, and Dell blessing that via preloading (which by itself isn't so exciting, though it does make an unambiguous statement about expectations around support).
That Intel brought that support to Linux, not Dell. Dell gets credit for preloading Linux, but the subject is misleading, given that Intel did the heavy software lifting.
Well the point would be that the state of public discourse is based around the assumption that the cars have never caused an accident because they wouldn't. Stories were written all the time about how there were no known instances of an accident where the autonomous system were at fault. That dialog could be disingenuous if the safety drivers intervene often. For example, one accident that was caused by a 'safety driver' was when the car gave up trying to make a left term and the human had to try and messed up. Another (non-google) ride along documented how the autonomous system beeped a warning and disengaged when faced with having to merge with high speed, busy traffic.
That's the side of the story that's not often highlighted, that the parties that be are (rightfully) playing it very safe and not taking a lot of chances that a human driver would have to take on. As a result, a lot of people view this as a utopian super-cruise control that is ready to drive their car wherever, rather than a somewhat controlled bunch of research.
Note that you cannot build your own kernel, nor is it the case that all distributions have done the work to get their builds signed. Note that not all firmware is required to let you install custom keys either.
The key is 256 bit AES key. I don't know the Apple implementation, but generally such a key is stored itself encrypted by a key derived from the PIN. When it wants to make it irrecoverable, it forgets all versionns of a key, meaning one must attack a 256 bit random key instead of a key derived from some human piece of knowledge.
Note that for experiences with 1:1 movement, I've never seen anyone get sick as of the DK2 generation of VR. I have made people sick by having their character move without them moving, and that's a significant challenge, but I don't think the Magic Leap multi-focal approach does anything with sickness.
And also, even for the locomotion problem, it's far from ubiquitous. There's also a decent chunk of folks who get nauseous seeing a FPS genre game on a monitor. Somehow that genre thrives in spite of that.
3D movies have the same exact problem if it is a problem, inability for viewer to control the plane of focus.. Usual 3D movie viewing is more likely to give headaches, due to the ghosting from polarized/shutter glasses causing double images (though not a problem for technologies with dedicated screen area per eye, that's not how most 3D content is viewed).
There's plenty of commentary talking about this. The key is in a place that is not trivially gotten at (in other variations of such a scheme long ago, getting at the similar key amounted to dissolving parts of the chip package to get at the relevant bits, lot's of advancement has been made since then).
If you clone to the best of your ability, you'll still not get the key. If there is a way to retrieve the key, it would require more engineering effort than a theoretical software change, and likely be running high risk of destroying the key rather than recovering.
Hence the request to force update software to a) not have an unlock limit and b) accept input over a simulated USB keyboard. Apple doesn't want to produce an image that Apple's update process would in theory accept as valid, since the existence of such a thing would open the door for use elsewhere.
Meanwhile, Apple offered up iCloud access, but the data was too old, and an overly aggressive password change made the device incapable of being forced to sync after the fact. Apple would give FBI full access, except not this particular way.
Also, in this case, they even said point blank the government would have been welcome to the data if it had been backed up to iCloud. It's not like Apple's a saint of privacy here.
Yeah, I think they have a tricky reality they are fighting: overly aggressive RA commonly in IPv6 enabled (or accidentally on) environments.
Hard to not get hit by battery drain from chatty RA but still work for other things. It's a big problem in battery driven devices and IPv6 as deployed commonly. Hopefully over time people will fix their networks, but phones and stuff will have to do better accounting and blame the network for such things (or warn that excessive activity has been detected and *then* disable IPv6 on screen off with the explanation while connected to a blacklisted network).
And do you really care about the battery capacity in mAh? It's how long it lasts that matters - until there are relevant battery tests, you don't know if that 200mAh actually translates to something useful.
While there are many more factors to a device than battery capacity to govern runtime, the batteries contribution is strictly governed by the mAh. The argument is that the mechanical engineering to enable a removable battery necessarily means a smaller battery (among other things). So the removable battery goal runs against the goal of long runtime for a given weight. It is reasonable enough.
I personally would favor a middle ground. Generally it's either 'you can change out batteries without a tool, no problem' or 'you are going to have to have specialty tools and replacement adhesive, and probably going to break the thing anyway'. I don't need to change out batteries as a matter of course anymore (with the popularity of external battery devices), but after a device is 3-4 years old, battery capacity may diminish. Even then the issues are not as pronounced as they used to be, as charging/rundown logic and better battery chemistry has made them last a lot longer in service than they used to as well.
Which circles back around to the 'successful are not bothering'. Cisco largely ignores standard body efforts around network management, Amazon has ignored various initiatives to craft some inter operable cloud computing standards. The industry is rich with examples.
I'd say they couldn't be blamed, by any stretch in this scenario. This scenario might uncover something troubling or not (if this guy had any red flags before). More broadly, I'd like to see a study of Uber driver background checks to see if they would have been somehow excluded from being a taxi driver by a 'traditional' cab company for non-BS reasons (e.g. scarity of medallions being an example of BS reason)
I agree with that stance, but currently the tone of the coverage is more 'curiosity' than 'he could've shot people'.
Maybe things will change if they investigate and uncover something that would have been a red flag in a background check, but for now no one's really doing anything but 'oh look, uber!'.
Yes, strange to be seeing commentary at that at the same time a lot of other debate happens around 'how do we get by with fewer people working if everything is automated'. You would have thought progress would have made less work per household needed rather than more...
Note that some people are really attached to their employer, and would hope to change their relationship with their employer before leaving. Don't know if it is the case here, but some people will stick around if they can manage to do so.
This is one reason why GPG signed would be a much better idea than posting sha512sums. The sums are marginally useful to verify a mirror or whatever, but a gpg signed would allow you to verify new content going forward.
But a router 'firmware' is really a software install. It's architecturally not that distinct from a laptop, with firmware/microcode for things like radios.
True enough. People who don't look get shocked that you can get 512 now for like $115 or so. Of course hard drives that are way bigger are less, but for 250 GB or less, there's no reason for hard drives anymore (both scale down to ~50 baseline price per device, so getting tiny hard drives won't get you the price/GB benefit). Before too long at the rate things have been going, 512 GB will be the clip level where it makes zero sense.
They can't get welfare, therefore they have a job they absolutely hate, and never could find a passion that could reward them.
True, the amount of shitty work to elevate their position would be potentially more rewarding, but after spending decades on the brink, they are pretty well calibrated to it, and would just as soon keep living at that level, with fewer worries about the next pay check. They would spend more time with family, maybe do some creative things on a video sharing service. I can't envision them continuing to work shit job to get disposable income for things they've gotten. Their quality of life would improve, but they'd have to dig up someone else to do the pretty thankless work they've done to date. I could be wrong and they suddenly grow some ambition for nicer things, but it's hard for me to imagine.
I don't know where you live, but in the U.S., welfare is far from guaranteed even to those who need it.
One, if you don't have children, you probably aren't going to get welfare.
Even if you get welfare benefits, you can't get them forever.
Ignoring all of that, there is a huge dynamic shift between 'you can only get welfare if you really need it, and your needs will be verified' and 'you are guaranteed this basic income no matter what' in terms of how a lot of people approach the workforce. I know a few people on the brink of poverty, who would drop their job in a heartbeat with a UBI scheme. Most people well above the line wouldn't think of giving up their luxuries, but a large chunk of people don't have luxuries to start with, so they got nothing to lose.
Hopefully we don't have need to 'force' people to work forever, and we have an awkward potential scenario of some *needing* to work but not needing *everyone* to do so. However things as it stands can have downsides. It might be worth it in the end, but we can't pretend this is a mere administrative change.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows CE (colloquially 'wince' as in the reaction you have to dealing with a device running it) was an entirely separate beast from other Windows.
Windows RT was an ARM build of Windows 8. The thought being that these fancy ARM devices were everywhere, and MS could get a slice of the pie if they just could run on it. Hence the push to 'Universal' apps with a cross-platform runtime so that simple applications would work equally well on ARM and x86 customers. Problem for MS being that Windows isn't that exciting without the legacy software library. Also, Intel made some progress towards appropriate devices for the tablet space (mostly lagging now on radio technology, but not all tablets need direct WWAN capability). In a tablet form factor, the screen dwarfs any delta between a contemporary energy optimized Intel versus ARM.
Basically, Intel and MS get the most benefit out of each other. MS without Intel is not exciting, and Intel isn't particularly well positioned under 10W TDP, except if the user needs to run Windows.
My family has a few and I couldn't see myself ever tolerating Amazon's take on the interface for more than a couple of minutes...
Which is nice and all, but it's not *Dell* bringing it to linux, it's Intel bringing it to Linux, and Dell blessing that via preloading (which by itself isn't so exciting, though it does make an unambiguous statement about expectations around support).
That Intel brought that support to Linux, not Dell. Dell gets credit for preloading Linux, but the subject is misleading, given that Intel did the heavy software lifting.
Well the point would be that the state of public discourse is based around the assumption that the cars have never caused an accident because they wouldn't. Stories were written all the time about how there were no known instances of an accident where the autonomous system were at fault. That dialog could be disingenuous if the safety drivers intervene often. For example, one accident that was caused by a 'safety driver' was when the car gave up trying to make a left term and the human had to try and messed up. Another (non-google) ride along documented how the autonomous system beeped a warning and disengaged when faced with having to merge with high speed, busy traffic.
That's the side of the story that's not often highlighted, that the parties that be are (rightfully) playing it very safe and not taking a lot of chances that a human driver would have to take on. As a result, a lot of people view this as a utopian super-cruise control that is ready to drive their car wherever, rather than a somewhat controlled bunch of research.
Note that you cannot build your own kernel, nor is it the case that all distributions have done the work to get their builds signed. Note that not all firmware is required to let you install custom keys either.
The key is 256 bit AES key. I don't know the Apple implementation, but generally such a key is stored itself encrypted by a key derived from the PIN. When it wants to make it irrecoverable, it forgets all versionns of a key, meaning one must attack a 256 bit random key instead of a key derived from some human piece of knowledge.
Note that for experiences with 1:1 movement, I've never seen anyone get sick as of the DK2 generation of VR. I have made people sick by having their character move without them moving, and that's a significant challenge, but I don't think the Magic Leap multi-focal approach does anything with sickness.
And also, even for the locomotion problem, it's far from ubiquitous. There's also a decent chunk of folks who get nauseous seeing a FPS genre game on a monitor. Somehow that genre thrives in spite of that.
3D movies have the same exact problem if it is a problem, inability for viewer to control the plane of focus.. Usual 3D movie viewing is more likely to give headaches, due to the ghosting from polarized/shutter glasses causing double images (though not a problem for technologies with dedicated screen area per eye, that's not how most 3D content is viewed).
There's plenty of commentary talking about this. The key is in a place that is not trivially gotten at (in other variations of such a scheme long ago, getting at the similar key amounted to dissolving parts of the chip package to get at the relevant bits, lot's of advancement has been made since then).
If you clone to the best of your ability, you'll still not get the key. If there is a way to retrieve the key, it would require more engineering effort than a theoretical software change, and likely be running high risk of destroying the key rather than recovering.
Hence the request to force update software to a) not have an unlock limit and b) accept input over a simulated USB keyboard. Apple doesn't want to produce an image that Apple's update process would in theory accept as valid, since the existence of such a thing would open the door for use elsewhere.
Meanwhile, Apple offered up iCloud access, but the data was too old, and an overly aggressive password change made the device incapable of being forced to sync after the fact. Apple would give FBI full access, except not this particular way.
Also, in this case, they even said point blank the government would have been welcome to the data if it had been backed up to iCloud. It's not like Apple's a saint of privacy here.
Yeah, I think they have a tricky reality they are fighting: overly aggressive RA commonly in IPv6 enabled (or accidentally on) environments.
Hard to not get hit by battery drain from chatty RA but still work for other things. It's a big problem in battery driven devices and IPv6 as deployed commonly. Hopefully over time people will fix their networks, but phones and stuff will have to do better accounting and blame the network for such things (or warn that excessive activity has been detected and *then* disable IPv6 on screen off with the explanation while connected to a blacklisted network).
And do you really care about the battery capacity in mAh? It's how long it lasts that matters - until there are relevant battery tests, you don't know if that 200mAh actually translates to something useful.
While there are many more factors to a device than battery capacity to govern runtime, the batteries contribution is strictly governed by the mAh. The argument is that the mechanical engineering to enable a removable battery necessarily means a smaller battery (among other things). So the removable battery goal runs against the goal of long runtime for a given weight. It is reasonable enough.
I personally would favor a middle ground. Generally it's either 'you can change out batteries without a tool, no problem' or 'you are going to have to have specialty tools and replacement adhesive, and probably going to break the thing anyway'. I don't need to change out batteries as a matter of course anymore (with the popularity of external battery devices), but after a device is 3-4 years old, battery capacity may diminish. Even then the issues are not as pronounced as they used to be, as charging/rundown logic and better battery chemistry has made them last a lot longer in service than they used to as well.
Which circles back around to the 'successful are not bothering'. Cisco largely ignores standard body efforts around network management, Amazon has ignored various initiatives to craft some inter operable cloud computing standards. The industry is rich with examples.
I'd say they couldn't be blamed, by any stretch in this scenario. This scenario might uncover something troubling or not (if this guy had any red flags before). More broadly, I'd like to see a study of Uber driver background checks to see if they would have been somehow excluded from being a taxi driver by a 'traditional' cab company for non-BS reasons (e.g. scarity of medallions being an example of BS reason)
Hey, it's not jush shilling. I myself have personally been murdered 3 or 4 times riding in a conventional taxi.
I agree with that stance, but currently the tone of the coverage is more 'curiosity' than 'he could've shot people'.
Maybe things will change if they investigate and uncover something that would have been a red flag in a background check, but for now no one's really doing anything but 'oh look, uber!'.
Yes, strange to be seeing commentary at that at the same time a lot of other debate happens around 'how do we get by with fewer people working if everything is automated'. You would have thought progress would have made less work per household needed rather than more...
Note that some people are really attached to their employer, and would hope to change their relationship with their employer before leaving. Don't know if it is the case here, but some people will stick around if they can manage to do so.
Note that Maxwell consciously screwed DP performance. You have to go back to Kepler for decent DP.
This is one reason why GPG signed would be a much better idea than posting sha512sums. The sums are marginally useful to verify a mirror or whatever, but a gpg signed would allow you to verify new content going forward.
But a router 'firmware' is really a software install. It's architecturally not that distinct from a laptop, with firmware/microcode for things like radios.
True enough. People who don't look get shocked that you can get 512 now for like $115 or so. Of course hard drives that are way bigger are less, but for 250 GB or less, there's no reason for hard drives anymore (both scale down to ~50 baseline price per device, so getting tiny hard drives won't get you the price/GB benefit). Before too long at the rate things have been going, 512 GB will be the clip level where it makes zero sense.
And the MSRP for that device is $85 dollars. So this is 5% more storage at 12% lower price, comparing apples to apples.
Remember, in this market the MSRP is a vague upper limit rather than a particularly precise indicator of real pricing.
They can't get welfare, therefore they have a job they absolutely hate, and never could find a passion that could reward them.
True, the amount of shitty work to elevate their position would be potentially more rewarding, but after spending decades on the brink, they are pretty well calibrated to it, and would just as soon keep living at that level, with fewer worries about the next pay check. They would spend more time with family, maybe do some creative things on a video sharing service. I can't envision them continuing to work shit job to get disposable income for things they've gotten. Their quality of life would improve, but they'd have to dig up someone else to do the pretty thankless work they've done to date. I could be wrong and they suddenly grow some ambition for nicer things, but it's hard for me to imagine.
I don't know where you live, but in the U.S., welfare is far from guaranteed even to those who need it.
One, if you don't have children, you probably aren't going to get welfare.
Even if you get welfare benefits, you can't get them forever.
Ignoring all of that, there is a huge dynamic shift between 'you can only get welfare if you really need it, and your needs will be verified' and 'you are guaranteed this basic income no matter what' in terms of how a lot of people approach the workforce. I know a few people on the brink of poverty, who would drop their job in a heartbeat with a UBI scheme. Most people well above the line wouldn't think of giving up their luxuries, but a large chunk of people don't have luxuries to start with, so they got nothing to lose.
Hopefully we don't have need to 'force' people to work forever, and we have an awkward potential scenario of some *needing* to work but not needing *everyone* to do so. However things as it stands can have downsides. It might be worth it in the end, but we can't pretend this is a mere administrative change.