"Mozilla said the revamped Firefox consumes less memory than the competition, meaning you can fire up lots of tabs and browsing will still feel buttery smooth."
Unless the code for Facebook has changed significantly, I call bullshit on that statement!
I used to use the old Firefox (pre Quantum) with sometimes up to a hundred open tabs (one or more Facebook) and it it slowly built up to using about 2GB memory. The new Firefox usually has about 3 open tabs, one of which is Facebook, and within hours it has eaten 4GB or more memory and it feels like a glacier, moving ever so slowly...
So they're banning something immensely useful because people don't know how to get rid of them properly?
And they'll replace these billions of bags with... what? - Probably something equally bad for the environment, just in ways people have no control over...
Wouldn't it be a whole lot smarter to teach the kids how to have access to their phones but not to use it? - Because that's how the world is outside the school...
A straight-out ban teaches nothing and only encourages students to find workarounds and similar.
I tend to break jacks (charging, headphone etc.) within a couple of months, so I switched to Bluetooth headphone a long time ago, and when wireless charging came out I jumped on that as well. No jacks to break.
Just look at California, there was never much water and what is there gets mainly exported as vegetables, fruits, nuts, and wine. The rest is wasted on an insane number of golf courses.
Hey! - Golf is great exercise for people who would otherwise sit on their ass drinking margaritas all day...
Sure, disable spell checkers... because in real life they don't exist either,
Sure, it's fine to be able to remember everything but it's only a few who can do it close to perfectly. The rest just need to be able to know how to proof your writing afterwards. It's completely similar to proficiency tests when hiring new people for IT jobs like operations. Sure, it's fine to know exactly what every error means and how to fix them, but it's just as good to know your limits and how to use Google for the rest. What matters is... did you fix the problem?
Maybe I just don't understand the bail system, not living in the US, but from I gather it is a simple system: If you can get released on bail, you pay the bail and are released. When you show up as you're supposed to, you get the bail back - in full.
If this is correct, a bail bondsman just lends you the bail money for a short time. It really can't be that expensive as there's legislation against obscene interest rates and a bail bondsman is usually a lawful business.
So why are they a harmful business? They provide a service to those not wealthy enough to come up with the money themselves.
They are so stupid they even wonder why the rest of the world regard them as stupid... Well, this is why.
A movie cannot have any qualities unless it is shown in french cinemas?!
Netflix should circumvent this moronic 'rule' by buying a small possibly closed cinema somewhere in France and put up their movies there. Set the ticket price at €1.000.000 or similar so there will be no guests to service.
The case against him is the worst case of a witchhunt since well the actual witchhunts.
Mega Upload was a filt storage locker (bitlocker). It did not encourage piracy but didn't mind taking money from the pirates of course. Using it was free but you could buy more storage space or better bandwidth.
If they did something wrong, so did every other part in the process, from network providers, hosting partners and server manufacturers to each and every users own ISPs. They are no more a part in any offenses than the roads criminals use to get to and from the scenes of their crimes.
Most piracy is all about access to releases. If you live the wrong place you are discriminated against when it comes to legal access to movies, tv-shows and music. Pirates have long ago stepped up to fill this gap. The only valid path is to release globally on all forms of media every single time. The cinemas then would need to wake up and devise a concept people would want to pay extra for - sound, picture, environment... Upgrade the hard gun-filled seats and the overpriced popcorn and be vigilant so that noisy guests (talking, on the phone etc.) are kicked out immedately.
There's a huge market for apps like this and the void left by Retina-X will quickly be filled by someone else - or the same company under a new name and with better security staff (or they'll be attacked again).
I don't like surveillance any more than most, but the need is there when it comes to parents and kids, and probably also between employers and employees.
If you allow your spouse/significant other full access to your smartphone for the 20-30 minutes apps like this takes to install, you're sort of asking for it. Physical access is still king and smartphones are no exception. Trust no one.
So repair techs had a number for the FBI to call if they find kiddie porn on a computer. Are they just supposed to ignore it? What's the issue here?
Yes, they are supposed to ignore it. They are not supposed to look at anything on the devices they repair except technical stuff. No browsing into picture folders and especially not opening any files.
Anything else is an invasion of privacy.
You could say that anyone storing illegal stuff in plain sight on their computer is asking for it. Free encryption software has been around for ages.
Almost as efficient as the military style back-to-front column loading were the back-to-front row loading. As families usually sit in the same row or clustered around a few rows, they would be able to board almost as the same time, and exceptions to the boarding order could be made with very little cost. Flight attendants would be on hand ensuring that people stow the carry-on either at their seat or further back. This way the usual road blocks could be avoided: The people boarding early due to special seating (business, children etc.) blocking the rest with oversized luggage, obnoxious children, excessive comfort maneuvers with coats (taking several layers of coats off one at a time, folding, and storing in various bins) etc. and similar when deplaning where the same people either run around looking for their extra luggage stored in bins several rows back or forward.
My usual boarding method is this: Go to seat, put carry-on nearest overhead bin. I've already taken out the stuff I'll need on the plane and put it into my coat pockets at the gate, so I just sit down with my coat on. When all has boarded, I stand up, take out the stuff I needed from my pockets, take off the coat and put it in the bin. If I'm not at the aisle I'll ask for the aisle person to help. There's almost always room in the nearest bin as a coat is much more flexible than a bag.
1) The owner of A still has A and A is the exactly the same as A before it was copied. 2) The owner of A may never know that A was copied. There is zero impact on A and its owner as a result of the copying.
The owner of A may claim that the person holding A2 would (with 100% certainty) have bought a legal copy of A if A2 wasn't available. This claim requires:
1) The holder of A2 would have legal access to buy A. 2) The holder of A2 would to able to afford A. 3) The holder of A2 wants to buy A if A2 wasn't available.
None of these three has ever been validated in court. Lots of piracy is about availability and cheaper alternatives, yet holders of A2 would be prosecuted even if A isn't available for legal purchase and/or is so expensive that it is impossible for the holder of A2 to afford A.
Final fact: The creation of A2 has not cost the owner of A anything in most cases, simply because almost no sale of A is replaced by getting A2 elsewhere.
Somedays I think photographers and publishers have no idea how the internet works.
Around 95% of the world population don't know how the internet works, especially so-called 'experts' commenting on hacking, malware or similar. They obviously don't know what they're talking about and they have no clue how to be critical of their sources.
Just yesterday the danish secretary of defense claimed that the WannaCry attack was the work of Russian government hackers (his source: NATO experts). No it wasn't. It was the work of a Russian cyber criminal, nothing more.
Inquiring minds wants to know. I'm not entirely sure that the origin defined the content, i.e. the stories might be true despite coming from Russia, especially if the content reported is being suppressed elsewhere in the world.
I used to work for the company making the EasyViz dicom/mint medical image reader used by many hospitals and image reading facilities, and apart from the workstation edition (everything in a desktop application) it requires "rendernodes" placed in a datacenter from where the images are streamed to a thin client. All these rendernodes are equipped with high-end consumer NVidia cards. EasyViz can use any NVidia card but absolutely everybody uses a consumer version due to cost.
The "hate speech" laws are designed to crack down on "extremists" but of course they'll be used to crack down on "dissenting opinion" soon enough as the concept of hate speech is ill-defined and open to interpretation.
This is exactly why the US Supreme Court struck down the updates to the CDA twice. It talks about 'obscene' and similar without a single attempt at defining them. Doesn't work the court said - people need to be able to know if they violate the law or not, and the judgements based on the law must be consistent and not subject to random interpretation.
Slashdot Mirror
"Mozilla said the revamped Firefox consumes less memory than the competition, meaning you can fire up lots of tabs and browsing will still feel buttery smooth."
Unless the code for Facebook has changed significantly, I call bullshit on that statement!
I used to use the old Firefox (pre Quantum) with sometimes up to a hundred open tabs (one or more Facebook) and it it slowly built up to using about 2GB memory.
The new Firefox usually has about 3 open tabs, one of which is Facebook, and within hours it has eaten 4GB or more memory and it feels like a glacier, moving ever so slowly...
So they're banning something immensely useful because people don't know how to get rid of them properly?
And they'll replace these billions of bags with... what? - Probably something equally bad for the environment, just in ways people have no control over...
Wouldn't it be a whole lot smarter to teach the kids how to have access to their phones but not to use it? - Because that's how the world is outside the school...
A straight-out ban teaches nothing and only encourages students to find workarounds and similar.
Why? - I'd much rather have wireless charging.
I tend to break jacks (charging, headphone etc.) within a couple of months, so I switched to Bluetooth headphone a long time ago, and when wireless charging came out I jumped on that as well. No jacks to break.
Just look at California, there was never much water and what is there gets mainly exported as vegetables, fruits, nuts, and wine. The rest is wasted on an insane number of golf courses.
Hey! - Golf is great exercise for people who would otherwise sit on their ass drinking margaritas all day...
Sure, disable spell checkers... because in real life they don't exist either,
Sure, it's fine to be able to remember everything but it's only a few who can do it close to perfectly. The rest just need to be able to know how to proof your writing afterwards. It's completely similar to proficiency tests when hiring new people for IT jobs like operations. Sure, it's fine to know exactly what every error means and how to fix them, but it's just as good to know your limits and how to use Google for the rest. What matters is... did you fix the problem?
1) Buy $9999 worth of gold. ...
2) Repeat.
3) Repeat.
4)
Use gold to buy house or car.
Maybe I just don't understand the bail system, not living in the US, but from I gather it is a simple system: If you can get released on bail, you pay the bail and are released. When you show up as you're supposed to, you get the bail back - in full.
If this is correct, a bail bondsman just lends you the bail money for a short time. It really can't be that expensive as there's legislation against obscene interest rates and a bail bondsman is usually a lawful business.
So why are they a harmful business? They provide a service to those not wealthy enough to come up with the money themselves.
France can have france.fr or similar.
France.com belong to the guy who registrered it first and are using it properly.
Oh, and the name of a nation is not a registered trademark.
They are so stupid they even wonder why the rest of the world regard them as stupid... Well, this is why.
A movie cannot have any qualities unless it is shown in french cinemas?!
Netflix should circumvent this moronic 'rule' by buying a small possibly closed cinema somewhere in France and put up their movies there. Set the ticket price at €1.000.000 or similar so there will be no guests to service.
The case against him is the worst case of a witchhunt since well the actual witchhunts.
Mega Upload was a filt storage locker (bitlocker). It did not encourage piracy but didn't mind taking money from the pirates of course. Using it was free but you could buy more storage space or better bandwidth.
If they did something wrong, so did every other part in the process, from network providers, hosting partners and server manufacturers to each and every users own ISPs. They are no more a part in any offenses than the roads criminals use to get to and from the scenes of their crimes.
Why would they want to track immigrants? - Perhaps they're only interested in ILLEGAL immigrants? - That would make sense.
Most piracy is all about access to releases. If you live the wrong place you are discriminated against when it comes to legal access to movies, tv-shows and music. Pirates have long ago stepped up to fill this gap. The only valid path is to release globally on all forms of media every single time. The cinemas then would need to wake up and devise a concept people would want to pay extra for - sound, picture, environment... Upgrade the hard gun-filled seats and the overpriced popcorn and be vigilant so that noisy guests (talking, on the phone etc.) are kicked out immedately.
There's a huge market for apps like this and the void left by Retina-X will quickly be filled by someone else - or the same company under a new name and with better security staff (or they'll be attacked again).
I don't like surveillance any more than most, but the need is there when it comes to parents and kids, and probably also between employers and employees.
If you allow your spouse/significant other full access to your smartphone for the 20-30 minutes apps like this takes to install, you're sort of asking for it. Physical access is still king and smartphones are no exception. Trust no one.
...it's useless.
So repair techs had a number for the FBI to call if they find kiddie porn on a computer. Are they just supposed to ignore it?
What's the issue here?
Yes, they are supposed to ignore it. They are not supposed to look at anything on the devices they repair except technical stuff. No browsing into picture folders and especially not opening any files.
Anything else is an invasion of privacy.
You could say that anyone storing illegal stuff in plain sight on their computer is asking for it. Free encryption software has been around for ages.
Almost as efficient as the military style back-to-front column loading were the back-to-front row loading. As families usually sit in the same row or clustered around a few rows, they would be able to board almost as the same time, and exceptions to the boarding order could be made with very little cost. Flight attendants would be on hand ensuring that people stow the carry-on either at their seat or further back. This way the usual road blocks could be avoided: The people boarding early due to special seating (business, children etc.) blocking the rest with oversized luggage, obnoxious children, excessive comfort maneuvers with coats (taking several layers of coats off one at a time, folding, and storing in various bins) etc. and similar when deplaning where the same people either run around looking for their extra luggage stored in bins several rows back or forward.
My usual boarding method is this: Go to seat, put carry-on nearest overhead bin. I've already taken out the stuff I'll need on the plane and put it into my coat pockets at the gate, so I just sit down with my coat on. When all has boarded, I stand up, take out the stuff I needed from my pockets, take off the coat and put it in the bin. If I'm not at the aisle I'll ask for the aisle person to help. There's almost always room in the nearest bin as a coat is much more flexible than a bag.
Copyright Infringement is a victimless crime.
Example: A is copied and becomes A2.
Facts:
1) The owner of A still has A and A is the exactly the same as A before it was copied.
2) The owner of A may never know that A was copied. There is zero impact on A and its owner as a result of the copying.
The owner of A may claim that the person holding A2 would (with 100% certainty) have bought a legal copy of A if A2 wasn't available. This claim requires:
1) The holder of A2 would have legal access to buy A.
2) The holder of A2 would to able to afford A.
3) The holder of A2 wants to buy A if A2 wasn't available.
None of these three has ever been validated in court. Lots of piracy is about availability and cheaper alternatives, yet holders of A2 would be prosecuted even if A isn't available for legal purchase and/or is so expensive that it is impossible for the holder of A2 to afford A.
Final fact: The creation of A2 has not cost the owner of A anything in most cases, simply because almost no sale of A is replaced by getting A2 elsewhere.
Somedays I think photographers and publishers have no idea how the internet works.
Around 95% of the world population don't know how the internet works, especially so-called 'experts' commenting on hacking, malware or similar. They obviously don't know what they're talking about and they have no clue how to be critical of their sources.
Just yesterday the danish secretary of defense claimed that the WannaCry attack was the work of Russian government hackers (his source: NATO experts). No it wasn't. It was the work of a Russian cyber criminal, nothing more.
I have to agree here. This is the usual anti-tech can't-we-just-get-in-touch-with-our-human-side-again stuff.
Inquiring minds wants to know. I'm not entirely sure that the origin defined the content, i.e. the stories might be true despite coming from Russia, especially if the content reported is being suppressed elsewhere in the world.
They can't stop progress. Driverless trucks are coming and so are drone deliveries, just like trucks replaced horses and so on.
They should rather be figuring out what to do when their jobs gets obsoleted.
"Global Thermonuclear War. Strange game. The only way to win is not to play."
I used to work for the company making the EasyViz dicom/mint medical image reader used by many hospitals and image reading facilities, and apart from the workstation edition (everything in a desktop application) it requires "rendernodes" placed in a datacenter from where the images are streamed to a thin client. All these rendernodes are equipped with high-end consumer NVidia cards. EasyViz can use any NVidia card but absolutely everybody uses a consumer version due to cost.
The "hate speech" laws are designed to crack down on "extremists" but of course they'll be used to crack down on "dissenting opinion" soon enough as the concept of hate speech is ill-defined and open to interpretation.
This is exactly why the US Supreme Court struck down the updates to the CDA twice. It talks about 'obscene' and similar without a single attempt at defining them. Doesn't work the court said - people need to be able to know if they violate the law or not, and the judgements based on the law must be consistent and not subject to random interpretation.