The road was paved, and the shoulder unpaved. It was a gradual enough and wide enough shoulder to comfortably drive on though, which encourages people to pull around stopped traffic to make a rifght turn, so it happens frequently at that intersection and other similar intersections around town.
You most often see it when there's only a few (or one) car stopped in the right lane and someone right behind them wants to turn right, and they only go around one or two cars and turn. This was unusual because there was such a long line of cars that it made it impossible for me to see him in my rear view mirror and it limited his view of my turn signal. Then there was his assumption that no one was turning right because the line wasn't moving. His driving down the shoulder at a fairly high speed only made matters worse.
The light turning green and allowing me to pull forward to make my turn broke his assumptions. And yes, I do keep peripheral view of my mirrors. But no, I don't specifically stsop to check my right mirror for a car driving off-road to try to go around me, that's not a reasonable expectation for any driver. Drivers need to keep the majority of their attention ahead of them, where cars are expected to be. The only thing that belonged where it was would have been an emergency vehicle, which is authorized to use the shoulders. (with caution and care) And in that case, the flashing lights would easily have gotten my attention much earlier.
A poster a few down seems to think it's my responsibility to watch out for idiots breaking the traffic laws, "get out of their way", to prevent collisions. No, that's the idiot's job. People need to accept responsibility for their actions, and quit expecting me to take responsibility for their (or anyone else's) actions. I'll pay attention to what I'm doing, and you pay attention to what you're doing, and we'll all be fine. It's like these parents that think the whole world needs to watch out for their kid because they failed to teach their kid common sense. But thats another argument for another time.
He was off the road, driving on the shoulder. It was a four lane undivided road, and I was stopped in the rightmost lane, 2nd from the front. He originated from many cars back, and chose to leave the right lane and drive along the right shoulder, to bypass around a dozen cars that were in that lane waiting for the light. He probably figured that since the line wasn't moving, the person at the front of the lane (at the intersection) wasn't turning right or would have done so by now, so he was free and clear to jet around the stationary cars and get turned sooner.
But as he was approaching the intersection, the light turned green and the one car that was ahead of me (preventing me from turning right on red) departed. So I pulled ahead and tried to begin my turn, just as this other fellow got there. He was voilating several traffic laws, I was violating none and had no reason to expect or even suspect anyone coming up from behind me on my right. It was only my peripheral vision and good reaction time that allowed me to get out of his way before he ran into me as I turned in front of him.
If this goes far enough and it looks like it's going to get put up to SCOTUS, it's very likely the feds wil back down. Because then All Writs goes under the supreme microscope and may itself get ruled unconstitutional. THAT is something the FBI doesn't want to happen, because it's too useful of a law to lose. They're playing a dangerous game of chicken here. That NYC judge spelled it out, All Writs is a blank check. It's not even a matter of "inadequate protections against abuse"... it has essentially NO limits at all. The law just has to say "we need you to cooperate", and you have to do what they tell you to do, unless you can prove that it's clearly too much effort to demand. So if they can make a case that it's not too difficult for you to do, you have to do it, yours or anyone else's rights be damned. That'll make it a tough sell to keep on the books if SCOTUS gets involved.
Go look up "writ of assistance". In theory it was a "you can't interfere with my doing my govt job", but in practice it was typically applied as a "you are required to cooperate with and assist me in performing my government job, otherwise you're interfering with me". (it was a similar blank check, and was often used as a perpetual univeral search warrant for customs) That's one of a handful of principle complaints we had a few hundred years ago while living under England. I have NO idea how All Writs got on OUR books after we so clearly despised its grandfather, and it needs to go away. So I'm all for Apple talking this to the top.
3) Google car gets into right side of the double-wide lane and passes cars that are stopped for the red light.
I bet that's what settles it right there. Although it's courteous to do so, with very wide lanes "we assume are wider so we can use them as a storage lane for turning". That doesn't necessarily make it legal to do so. The google car could get ticketed for passing on the right. It could also get ticketed for improper use of parking lane.
Case in point. I was almost in a collision when I came to a stop at a red light at a 4 lane undevided. I had my right turn signal on and was going to turn right, but had to wait for the light to go green because I had one car in front of me. The light turned green, and we all pulled ahead, and I started to execute my right turn, but had to veer left out of my turn and stop suddenly becaue I saw movement in my passenger side mirror.
I narrowly avoided getting T-boned by a car that had come from several positions behind me, driving in the generously wide lane/shoulder, to make a right turn. He didn't see my signal and was assuming we were all going straight, and had reached my bind spot at just the moment I was starting my turn. It's a miracle he didn't hit me and managed to just squeak around me (at a fair speed) to make his right turn. He probably missed my signal because his attention was on the light having just turned green, negating his need to stop before turning, so he was accelerating to the intersection to turn, right as I turned in front of him.
I would expect him to receive a citation for either "passing on the right" or "improper use of shoulder" had we collided. Clearly this wasn't my fault. This isn't far from what happened with the Google car. Had it simply snugged up to the shoulder to turn, and the bus pulled up to his left then, it would be called "passing at an intersection" and the bus would receive the ticket. But in this case, the Google car was driving in a lane that didn't exist, or "passing on the right", and one way or another is probably going to be judged at-fault. This will naturally lead to Google making a change to their driving code to adjust for this possibility.
This raises an interesting question though - if we assume the car believed this was actually a three lane road at the intersection, with the "rightmost lane" being a turn-only lane, then it veering (however slowly) out of its lane and into the other lane where th bus was should be a violation for improper lane change, failure to maintain control, etc. It shoud also have its code tweaked to understand that this was NOT a 3rd lane to be driven in. If it did NOT believe there was an actual 3rd lane, it should not have been trying to drive in it, it's for parking, pulling over, etc, it's a shoulder, not a lane, and driving there without an emergency (or at least with your 4-ways on) is also a voilation.
What should it have done? I don't think it shoud have been trying to go around cars in the shoulder. That would be the first thing I'd fix in the car's coding. Second... how would it have been different if the car HAD snugged up to the right to make its turn, and the bus had then pulled along side to the left. Then we have a problem of the bus technically "passing" the google car, near an intersection, technically a violation unless the bus believed the googe car was exiting traffic and parking. (and most likely, the traffic following the bus doing the same) In that event, the car should stop and wait for all the people to finish their moving violations before it proceeds. It could just consider itself parked and wait to re-enter traffic, which would have the same effect.
It's an interesting situation though - but we all run into a handful of these every year we drive. It's difficult to code for such a wide variety of unlikely scenarios.
"destroying the relationship" between advertisers and consumers,
I wonder if they mean the love/hate relationship, where the advertisers LOVE us, and we HATE them?
This is like saying security guards are ruining the robbers' relationships with the banks.
And yes, agree 100%, quit annoying the piss out of us and we'll stop blocking the ads. There's a few easy gimmies right off the blocks, the animated ads that start talking to you or the popover ads, those are just a few asshats really dragging the advertisers' images thorugh the mud. Things get only slightly better from there, going to a page to read a short 4 paragraph article that has been carved into 9 pieces across 9 pages, and displayed in the middle of each page, surrounded by ads. I don't have much pity for them either.
Beyond that, the most bothersom thing I think are the animated banners, and the recent surge in huge clickables on mobile pages. There's a few sites I'm probably going to stop going to simply because it's getting difficult to scroll to navigate the content without accidentally clicking one of the full-page ads every other screen. Each time, I have to stop, pull up a tab list, close the popover, and go back to the artice tab again. Over and over and over. Gets tiresome.
(TV is also essentially unwatchable at this point, I've already given up completely on it, I'll get my content online or buy the discs, a total failure by the advertisers there for me, I'd be happy to watch some ads for your content, but you've made it a completely inequitable exchange at this point)
Random update? No. But, Apple can, without a doubt, force an update on this, or any iPhone, without any user intervention. It's the precedent that they are fighting...
I've been an Apple certified tech for a decade, and I currently support close to 200 iPads, among many other Apple products. No one can "force an update" on a locked iDevice, without physically tampering with the electronics. Even if they were to do that, and created custom firmware and sign it (which they could, since they have the PK) and upload that and run it. But the security enclave is protecting the key and the firmware is helpless to either extend the password guesses or forceably recover the key, so the entire point is moot. Again you get back to needing to do much more sophisticated hardware hacking, to beat the SE, which was specifically designed to preven this sort of attack. Apple, being the creators of the SE, would probably have the best shot at it, but it's not an easy nut to crack.
(I personally think the FBI already has the information and is just doing some theatrics to try to keep the bad actors convinced that they can't get at data on an iPhone, so they will continue to use it and give the FBI access in the rare cases there are no other alternatives and the need is dire)
I am one of three desktop support on a campus of 3,500 machines spread across 10 buildings with an additional ten satellite sites and we manage just fine, though we do have 2-3 interns from time to time to help. On the other hand, another campus near us has an incredible staff of over 300 to manage less than double the machines we do, and many over there consider themselve extremely overworked. "Work smarter, not harder", the job is only as difficult as you make it. Proper application of automation and central management is key.
They don't need to go that far. They just need to update the iPhone's operating system with an insecure version. The iPhone will update itself with whatever software Apple tells it to.
I support the full line of Apple prodcuts at work so I have a slightly better understanding of how this process works.
Unlike firmware updates on many devices, and older Apple iOS devies, the new ones require the firmware to be "signed", each time it is installed. This means the device will roll up its own salt, and will send a request to Apple's Firmware Signing Server. This server uses the salt and the checksum on the fimware to generate a verifiable cryptographic signature, using public key tech. iTunes sends this signature back to the phone during the restore. If it's invalid, the phone's hardware will refuse to install it. (iTunes normally will prevent it sooner, but this is assuming you have hacked iTunes, no easy task)
Around 1-2 weeks after Apple releases a new iOS, they stop signing the old one. This prevents you from downgrading your phone's firmware. It doesn't matter if you've already downloaded and kept a copy of it. Apple won't sign it with the new salt the phone is going to generate during the installation process. So users cannot hack the firmware OR install an older version to take advantage of a patched bug.
BUT... Apple has the secret part of the key for signing. They can roll their own custom firmware, sign it, and using a well-known public process, select the firmware and upload it. Their key servers will sign it, and the device will accept it. If Apple really wanted to fullly cooperate, it would be trivial to do. The new "security enclave" prevents them from simply ignoring the pin or displaying it on the screen, but it's possible that one or more of their requests could be accomodated. It really depends on how the SE is designed. If it's designed well, and I think we can assume it is, (they're not morons, and they have a functionally unlimited budget for such a minor thing) we should assume the SE does rate limiting in hardware. (usually via MANY hashes to dig down to the key) which is not bypassable unless you can rip the data from the hardware and feet it into a supercomputer. The USB/BT code entry is probably doable since its outside the scope of the SE. The master key should be stored inside the SE so software can't get around that.
End game: to give them what they want will require physical hacking of the SE, to recover the encrypted key and the internal salt the SE has generated for it, and feeding that data into an emulator for the SE (or a physically redesigned/hacked SE) that can work the passcode. The hardware on the phone itself right now CANNOT be used to recover the passcode. The FBI doesn't want to break the chip trying to recover the data. They have the techniques but (A) there's a good chance they break it and they get just one try, and (B) this will go a lot faster with Apple cooperating on bypassing the SE. (they can probably still DO it, they may even have the process already developed, but it will probably be faster with Apple's cooperation)
That leads us to another point... what if they already can access the data, or have accessed the data, and this is just a show? It's been said that the best form of deception is making your opponent believe you have fallen for his deception. Right now the terrorists are keeping a close eye on this case, trying to decide whether it's a "good idea" to use the iphone. If Apple gives them the finger, (and I hope they do) and the FBI shrugs and goes away moping, and suddenly has a breakthrough a few months from now from a "classified source", well, guess what. And that, sir, is where all my chips are placed.
Remember, this is one case. You have to think BIG. You have to think long term. This is neither of those things. The FBI either already has this data, or will have it before th
That's a huge stretch to claim removing safety markings reduces crashes.
I'd expect drivers are slowing down because the road is less safe without the lines, and are adjusting their speed to reclaim that lost safety factor. So they are making a somewhat arbitrary adjustment to reduce road safety, so that people respond by making an equally arbitrary counter-adjustment. How they figure +x-y ends up being a lower value when x and y are completely unknown, is astonishing.
At the very least, they are creating a more hazardous condition in the hopes that random drivers react by over-compensating to create a net improvement in safety. I sure don't want to be on that road when someone in oncoming traffic says "screw it I'm not slowing down" and significantly increases the odds of me colliding with them. Given that people have a reason to go faster or at least maintain their speed (to stay on time) and have essentially no reason to slow down unless you give them one, this is a setup for failure.
I feel bad about not being able to say much more than "this is fundamentally flawed". I want to say more, but it's just too simple to expand on. How they don't understand this is beyond me.
afaik, Apple has zero examples of software that phones home. A few of their products do or did collaborate over the network to enforce licensing restrictions. (Server and ARD are good examples, enterprise software)
It does get pesky about wanting to run software updates, but that can be completey turned off and stays off. There are a few software titles that will still check for new versions when launched though, (iTunes and Configurator) that cannot be turned off. That has to do with them being a bit manic about keeping their iOS devices updated. (since a security problem on them is a bit more of a problem)
But nothing that I know of that just spontaneously transmits data out your LAN. I may not be aware of something, if anyone knows of such a beaste, please chime in because I'd like to know about it too.
"because there was no other way" is arguably the worst excuse for violating someone's rights.
"You were doing something, we didn't like it, and this was the best response we could think up. And so that's our justification for doing what we did. We did it because it was the only way we could find that got results."
If this theoretically passed and you buy a cellphone from another state or country but use it on a plan in California, and the phone doesn't support decryption, would that work?
"The law would apply to phones sold in California beginning Jan. 1, 2017"
So, that'd be OK. They don't block possession, use, or carrier registration, just sales by vendors that are located in the state. This may also prevent mail-order purchase from the Apple Store in say, Michigan, because Apple has a "business presence" in California. (collection of sales tax usually works that way) OTOH if you get one off ebay from someone whose store is outside CA, you're fine.
I'd personally like to see Apple very publicly give the finger to the CA legislature and make it extremely clear in very blunt terms that iPhones not being for sale there is the direct and exclusive result of the residents of the state electing retards and shills to make their laws. Losing CA for a year or two won't hurt them much, and will pay off big in the long run for future sales in CA as the voters stomp to the polls to vote with their iphones.
This isn't like most of the "extreme" legislation they pass on things like emissions, product safety, and other consumer protection. The public gets NO direct or clear benefit from this legislation, and results in a noticeable impact to a huge portion of the voters in the state. The legislature will try to justify it of course, but there just isn't enough spin available to keep that top from falling on its face.
it doesn't look like surgery was involved. Just padding and velcro?
Awesome work though. But Derby still seems to lack lateral control, the attachments don't seem to anchor well laterally so he walks with a lot of sway. (and I didn't see any videos of him running with them)
Gotta wonder how abrastive (painful?) that is on his stubs, that weren't designed to take his weight and force in that way.
There are three problems here all working at once: 1. it's legal (marginally) 2. its very profitable 3. it's difficult to catch 4. although the public hates it, most of them continue to facillitate it anyway
You won't see any serious progress until you scratch off at least two items off that list. Honestly, #4 isn't likely to go away ever simply because as another poster roughly put it, there are enough stupid or fanatical people out there to keep them in business even if you try to "vote with your wallet". It just doesn't work in a limited edition, fan-based market. If the scalpers can manage to sell even just half the tickets they bought, for four times the price they paid, they're totally ok with that.
So going after #1 is currently the "low hanging fruit" and is the logical first step, to get the law's assistance. As the number of problems get taken care of, the remaining problems become a much more powerful point of leverage. So despite all the people grousing about how "this doesn't solve the problem!", yeah, we know that. But you've got to start somewhere, there is no one-step miracle cure.
Except that GPS coordinates require 16 digits, 2 characters (+/-/N/S/E/W), 2 decimal points, space and comma, to specify a location of the size of a housing block," writes Filloux.
I hope you don't have a title in front of your name (other than maybe "head idiot") because otherwise you're gonna need to lose it. Telling us we have to store and send GPS coordinates in human readable format is beyond laughable. It's like needing to call the library and have them fax you a page from a book because there's no better alternative.
I recently had to write software for an Arduino that interacts with a GPS and needs to track many waypoints. Anyone that works with those knows memory is extremely tight, and onboard eeprom is even worse. (most units have 1024 bytes TOTAL eeprom to use for powered-off storage) I also needed to store with good precision, at least as good as the GPS, which is substantially better than a city block. The format I settled on is total number of centiseconds. That fit the longigute and latitude into a pair of 32 bit unsigned longs, and had precision measured in centimeters. (varies on location)
But then I suppose you're trying to store that string data in unicode too, huh? "Dr."? God help us.
The vast majority of science agrees that people can neither detect nor be physically affected by EMI. That being said, if a person BELIEVES they can be and are being affected by it, their mind can create a physical response in their bodies. This needs to be handled like any other mental illness. There's no need to test for this any further, it's been done many times, and the result is almost alway that they are sensitive to blinking lights. (ie the belief that there is EMI)
If a person firmly believes that there are worms in their head and they need to dig them out, and nothing you do can change their mind, you either have to get them some psychiatric trreatment or wait for them to dig their eardrums out with a spoon.
So yes, in a roundabouts sort of way, the mother might be correct. Her daughter may have indeed committed suicide as a result of her "wifi allergy". But it had nothing to actually do with the EMR being produced by the transmitter. She believed she was being affected, and so her body manifested symptoms in response to her psychological reaction. At that point I'd be redirecting the blame to the parent for not getting their kid the mental health treatment she obviously was needing.
DV cameras were the one and only practical consumer application of firewire,
For years, firewire buried usb in terms of hard drive transfer speeds. (solid 800mbps vs laggy 480mbps) But it was during this time that PC motherboard manufacturers stubbornly refused to put firewire ports on their boards. Also during this time, it was difficult to impossible to boot a windows computer from an external drive. These factors led to almost a decade of time where the macs were the only computers that commonly used high performing external storage. (and not just for video) The windows users literally didn't know what they were missing, and most remained blissfully unaware. A few I know installed firewire cards and talked to me like they'd just discovered this amazing hidden technology that nobody else knew about.
Processor and controller advances (both in the computer and in the external drive controllers) during this time slowly removed the lag, and I suspect that's why it took so long to get USB3 out the door, they just weren't in enough of a rush to innovate. There was no push from the consumer side, and no one wanted to be the first to add FW as a standard option. The benchmarks I ran as early as 2012 were still running into slow controllers. There were a specific set of common speeds, determined by which chipset the manufacturer happened to be using. Speeds were now usually either 26 or 36 MB/sec, although there were a small number of them running at 39 and unbelievably still at 18. During this entire time, firewire 400 has been running at a consistent 39MB/sec, (fw800 at 79MB/sec!) and at the end there was about a 50/50 split between 36 and 39MB/sec on new USB adapters.
So then USB3 is announced and the world is buzzing. So I asked, "If you wanted higher speeds why didn't you just get firewire?" "Firewire? What's that?" "Nevermind...." But by the time USB3 came out, thunderbolt was hitting the stage to be the new usb dominator. USB seems to be doomed to be a generation behind. For the first year and a half it was almost impossible to find a USB3 drive that actually performed at speeds substantially faster than firewire 800, because most of them were trying to keep costs down after changing to USB3 by using slower hard drives. 90 and 130MB/sec HDDs were the norm in most of the early USB3 enclosures, but hey, they got to stamp "USB3!!!" all over the box and get the suckers to buy them without reading the fine print. The enclosures that had actual fast drives in them were more expensive and so were mostly overlooked. We had to endure years of "USB3 speed" flash drives that were below USB2's maximum speeds for exactly the same reason. The "premium high speed" flash drives cost 2-3x as much, and while they read faster, they still had slower write speeds.
There's just a large chunk of the demographic that wasn't seeing the faster alternatives. But at this point the storage, even though it's much faster, has been surpassed finally by the interface. I have a Lacie 500gb ssd with dual USB3/TB interface, and both of them top out at the same speed of 438MB/sec, which appears to be the SSD's maximum speed. I'd need to have an SSD raid with fiber-channel grade speeds to do a comparison now, which I don't have. So for now, for me at least, they're effectively the same. The speed of home-grade networking (gigabit ethernet) has become the bottleneck now, but this time it's affecting us all equally. (438MB/sec requires about a 4gbps connection to properly saturate, even dual-link gig ethernet just isn't up to the task)
Everyone whinges about Uber undermining the taxi monopoly... the reality is, Uber is pretty much ignoring laws around proper licensing, insurance, background checks, and anything else.
The biggest (and arguably most legitimate) excuse I see given is simply that the laws were written not to serve the public good, but to reinforce the monopoly the local cabl companies have, and has in many cases lead to a profound drop in service without the expected drop in cost that you find in a free market.
It's well-established that most successful companies exploit any advantage they can, so it's not the least bit surprising that they lower quality of service to cut costs because it has no net impact on their revenue, which can only serve to increase proffits. This only encourages a drop in quality of service, relative to cost.
In SOME respects I can understand why there are laws that encourage the monopolies. There are certain markets where competition can lead to a drop in average quality due to redundant overhead, such as power companies. I can also see where this could apply to some extend to cab service, in specific (usually small) cities. Some businesses you need to maintain a certain minimim customer base so you can do things on a profitable scale. But there's no reason for that in a big city like London.
so that communications providers can once again comply with court orders.
If the court order demands you produce the data, and it's physically impossible for you to do it, that's not non-compliance. That's "hey retards, you DO realize you just demanded we do the impossible, go take a hike!".
There's absolutely nothing wrong (or unexpected) to do with refusing to do the impossible. Quit twisting words, the internet's pretty good at seeing through that crap.
I find it entirely gratifying to see companies that in the past have been getitng forced to cooperate with the government ignoring the people's rights finally being able to tell the criminals wearing the badges to get lost, without risk of arrest or prossicution.
last I heard, shows were shot to 52 minute lengths, and had initially designated certain unnecessary scenes that could be cut to drop the runtime to 48 minutes. Additional allowance was added to cut to 46, and finally to 42 minutes. But cutting 10 minutes out of an hour long show was starting to have serious effect on the shows. It was getting common to have scenes that weren't properly set up and left viewers confused about what was happening becuse needed shots were being replaced with more ads.
And who remembers back in what was it... 1987 or so, when the rules on commercials got removed "because they weren't necessary" claimed the advertisers. And within months commercials per hour roughly doubled and pissed off pretty much everyone. I remember a period of a few months where TV was essentially unwatchable, with a 2 minute break every 4 minutes or so. Some of that got put back but I didn't keep track of it much back then. Just goes to show, they'll be greedy clods every last minute they think they can get away with it.
It DOES surprise me here though that they appear to be somewhat proactive, if not at least fast-reactive, with regard to the public (who has been sick-n-tired of tv commercial onslaught for years now) who's finally got alternatives and is abandoning "free" broadcast tv in leu of "paying for less pain". Normally you'd expect the greedy fatcats to lawn-dart their industry before realizing at the end "maybe we went too far?" But they seem to be coming to their senses and acquiring a grip on reality much faster than usual now?
Slashdot Mirror
The road was paved, and the shoulder unpaved. It was a gradual enough and wide enough shoulder to comfortably drive on though, which encourages people to pull around stopped traffic to make a rifght turn, so it happens frequently at that intersection and other similar intersections around town.
You most often see it when there's only a few (or one) car stopped in the right lane and someone right behind them wants to turn right, and they only go around one or two cars and turn. This was unusual because there was such a long line of cars that it made it impossible for me to see him in my rear view mirror and it limited his view of my turn signal. Then there was his assumption that no one was turning right because the line wasn't moving. His driving down the shoulder at a fairly high speed only made matters worse.
The light turning green and allowing me to pull forward to make my turn broke his assumptions. And yes, I do keep peripheral view of my mirrors. But no, I don't specifically stsop to check my right mirror for a car driving off-road to try to go around me, that's not a reasonable expectation for any driver. Drivers need to keep the majority of their attention ahead of them, where cars are expected to be. The only thing that belonged where it was would have been an emergency vehicle, which is authorized to use the shoulders. (with caution and care) And in that case, the flashing lights would easily have gotten my attention much earlier.
A poster a few down seems to think it's my responsibility to watch out for idiots breaking the traffic laws, "get out of their way", to prevent collisions. No, that's the idiot's job. People need to accept responsibility for their actions, and quit expecting me to take responsibility for their (or anyone else's) actions. I'll pay attention to what I'm doing, and you pay attention to what you're doing, and we'll all be fine. It's like these parents that think the whole world needs to watch out for their kid because they failed to teach their kid common sense. But thats another argument for another time.
He was off the road, driving on the shoulder. It was a four lane undivided road, and I was stopped in the rightmost lane, 2nd from the front. He originated from many cars back, and chose to leave the right lane and drive along the right shoulder, to bypass around a dozen cars that were in that lane waiting for the light. He probably figured that since the line wasn't moving, the person at the front of the lane (at the intersection) wasn't turning right or would have done so by now, so he was free and clear to jet around the stationary cars and get turned sooner.
But as he was approaching the intersection, the light turned green and the one car that was ahead of me (preventing me from turning right on red) departed. So I pulled ahead and tried to begin my turn, just as this other fellow got there. He was voilating several traffic laws, I was violating none and had no reason to expect or even suspect anyone coming up from behind me on my right. It was only my peripheral vision and good reaction time that allowed me to get out of his way before he ran into me as I turned in front of him.
If this goes far enough and it looks like it's going to get put up to SCOTUS, it's very likely the feds wil back down. Because then All Writs goes under the supreme microscope and may itself get ruled unconstitutional. THAT is something the FBI doesn't want to happen, because it's too useful of a law to lose. They're playing a dangerous game of chicken here. That NYC judge spelled it out, All Writs is a blank check. It's not even a matter of "inadequate protections against abuse"... it has essentially NO limits at all. The law just has to say "we need you to cooperate", and you have to do what they tell you to do, unless you can prove that it's clearly too much effort to demand. So if they can make a case that it's not too difficult for you to do, you have to do it, yours or anyone else's rights be damned. That'll make it a tough sell to keep on the books if SCOTUS gets involved.
Go look up "writ of assistance". In theory it was a "you can't interfere with my doing my govt job", but in practice it was typically applied as a "you are required to cooperate with and assist me in performing my government job, otherwise you're interfering with me". (it was a similar blank check, and was often used as a perpetual univeral search warrant for customs) That's one of a handful of principle complaints we had a few hundred years ago while living under England. I have NO idea how All Writs got on OUR books after we so clearly despised its grandfather, and it needs to go away. So I'm all for Apple talking this to the top.
I bet that's what settles it right there. Although it's courteous to do so, with very wide lanes "we assume are wider so we can use them as a storage lane for turning". That doesn't necessarily make it legal to do so. The google car could get ticketed for passing on the right. It could also get ticketed for improper use of parking lane.
Case in point. I was almost in a collision when I came to a stop at a red light at a 4 lane undevided. I had my right turn signal on and was going to turn right, but had to wait for the light to go green because I had one car in front of me. The light turned green, and we all pulled ahead, and I started to execute my right turn, but had to veer left out of my turn and stop suddenly becaue I saw movement in my passenger side mirror.
I narrowly avoided getting T-boned by a car that had come from several positions behind me, driving in the generously wide lane/shoulder, to make a right turn. He didn't see my signal and was assuming we were all going straight, and had reached my bind spot at just the moment I was starting my turn. It's a miracle he didn't hit me and managed to just squeak around me (at a fair speed) to make his right turn. He probably missed my signal because his attention was on the light having just turned green, negating his need to stop before turning, so he was accelerating to the intersection to turn, right as I turned in front of him.
I would expect him to receive a citation for either "passing on the right" or "improper use of shoulder" had we collided. Clearly this wasn't my fault. This isn't far from what happened with the Google car. Had it simply snugged up to the shoulder to turn, and the bus pulled up to his left then, it would be called "passing at an intersection" and the bus would receive the ticket. But in this case, the Google car was driving in a lane that didn't exist, or "passing on the right", and one way or another is probably going to be judged at-fault. This will naturally lead to Google making a change to their driving code to adjust for this possibility.
This raises an interesting question though - if we assume the car believed this was actually a three lane road at the intersection, with the "rightmost lane" being a turn-only lane, then it veering (however slowly) out of its lane and into the other lane where th bus was should be a violation for improper lane change, failure to maintain control, etc. It shoud also have its code tweaked to understand that this was NOT a 3rd lane to be driven in. If it did NOT believe there was an actual 3rd lane, it should not have been trying to drive in it, it's for parking, pulling over, etc, it's a shoulder, not a lane, and driving there without an emergency (or at least with your 4-ways on) is also a voilation.
What should it have done? I don't think it shoud have been trying to go around cars in the shoulder. That would be the first thing I'd fix in the car's coding. Second... how would it have been different if the car HAD snugged up to the right to make its turn, and the bus had then pulled along side to the left. Then we have a problem of the bus technically "passing" the google car, near an intersection, technically a violation unless the bus believed the googe car was exiting traffic and parking. (and most likely, the traffic following the bus doing the same) In that event, the car should stop and wait for all the people to finish their moving violations before it proceeds. It could just consider itself parked and wait to re-enter traffic, which would have the same effect.
It's an interesting situation though - but we all run into a handful of these every year we drive. It's difficult to code for such a wide variety of unlikely scenarios.
I wonder if they mean the love/hate relationship, where the advertisers LOVE us, and we HATE them?
This is like saying security guards are ruining the robbers' relationships with the banks.
And yes, agree 100%, quit annoying the piss out of us and we'll stop blocking the ads. There's a few easy gimmies right off the blocks, the animated ads that start talking to you or the popover ads, those are just a few asshats really dragging the advertisers' images thorugh the mud. Things get only slightly better from there, going to a page to read a short 4 paragraph article that has been carved into 9 pieces across 9 pages, and displayed in the middle of each page, surrounded by ads. I don't have much pity for them either.
Beyond that, the most bothersom thing I think are the animated banners, and the recent surge in huge clickables on mobile pages. There's a few sites I'm probably going to stop going to simply because it's getting difficult to scroll to navigate the content without accidentally clicking one of the full-page ads every other screen. Each time, I have to stop, pull up a tab list, close the popover, and go back to the artice tab again. Over and over and over. Gets tiresome.
(TV is also essentially unwatchable at this point, I've already given up completely on it, I'll get my content online or buy the discs, a total failure by the advertisers there for me, I'd be happy to watch some ads for your content, but you've made it a completely inequitable exchange at this point)
I've been an Apple certified tech for a decade, and I currently support close to 200 iPads, among many other Apple products. No one can "force an update" on a locked iDevice, without physically tampering with the electronics. Even if they were to do that, and created custom firmware and sign it (which they could, since they have the PK) and upload that and run it. But the security enclave is protecting the key and the firmware is helpless to either extend the password guesses or forceably recover the key, so the entire point is moot. Again you get back to needing to do much more sophisticated hardware hacking, to beat the SE, which was specifically designed to preven this sort of attack. Apple, being the creators of the SE, would probably have the best shot at it, but it's not an easy nut to crack.
(I personally think the FBI already has the information and is just doing some theatrics to try to keep the bad actors convinced that they can't get at data on an iPhone, so they will continue to use it and give the FBI access in the rare cases there are no other alternatives and the need is dire)
I am one of three desktop support on a campus of 3,500 machines spread across 10 buildings with an additional ten satellite sites and we manage just fine, though we do have 2-3 interns from time to time to help. On the other hand, another campus near us has an incredible staff of over 300 to manage less than double the machines we do, and many over there consider themselve extremely overworked. "Work smarter, not harder", the job is only as difficult as you make it. Proper application of automation and central management is key.
I support the full line of Apple prodcuts at work so I have a slightly better understanding of how this process works.
Unlike firmware updates on many devices, and older Apple iOS devies, the new ones require the firmware to be "signed", each time it is installed. This means the device will roll up its own salt, and will send a request to Apple's Firmware Signing Server. This server uses the salt and the checksum on the fimware to generate a verifiable cryptographic signature, using public key tech. iTunes sends this signature back to the phone during the restore. If it's invalid, the phone's hardware will refuse to install it. (iTunes normally will prevent it sooner, but this is assuming you have hacked iTunes, no easy task)
Around 1-2 weeks after Apple releases a new iOS, they stop signing the old one. This prevents you from downgrading your phone's firmware. It doesn't matter if you've already downloaded and kept a copy of it. Apple won't sign it with the new salt the phone is going to generate during the installation process. So users cannot hack the firmware OR install an older version to take advantage of a patched bug.
BUT... Apple has the secret part of the key for signing. They can roll their own custom firmware, sign it, and using a well-known public process, select the firmware and upload it. Their key servers will sign it, and the device will accept it. If Apple really wanted to fullly cooperate, it would be trivial to do. The new "security enclave" prevents them from simply ignoring the pin or displaying it on the screen, but it's possible that one or more of their requests could be accomodated. It really depends on how the SE is designed. If it's designed well, and I think we can assume it is, (they're not morons, and they have a functionally unlimited budget for such a minor thing) we should assume the SE does rate limiting in hardware. (usually via MANY hashes to dig down to the key) which is not bypassable unless you can rip the data from the hardware and feet it into a supercomputer. The USB/BT code entry is probably doable since its outside the scope of the SE. The master key should be stored inside the SE so software can't get around that.
End game: to give them what they want will require physical hacking of the SE, to recover the encrypted key and the internal salt the SE has generated for it, and feeding that data into an emulator for the SE (or a physically redesigned/hacked SE) that can work the passcode. The hardware on the phone itself right now CANNOT be used to recover the passcode. The FBI doesn't want to break the chip trying to recover the data. They have the techniques but (A) there's a good chance they break it and they get just one try, and (B) this will go a lot faster with Apple cooperating on bypassing the SE. (they can probably still DO it, they may even have the process already developed, but it will probably be faster with Apple's cooperation)
That leads us to another point... what if they already can access the data, or have accessed the data, and this is just a show? It's been said that the best form of deception is making your opponent believe you have fallen for his deception. Right now the terrorists are keeping a close eye on this case, trying to decide whether it's a "good idea" to use the iphone. If Apple gives them the finger, (and I hope they do) and the FBI shrugs and goes away moping, and suddenly has a breakthrough a few months from now from a "classified source", well, guess what. And that, sir, is where all my chips are placed.
Remember, this is one case. You have to think BIG. You have to think long term. This is neither of those things. The FBI either already has this data, or will have it before th
I'd expect drivers are slowing down because the road is less safe without the lines, and are adjusting their speed to reclaim that lost safety factor. So they are making a somewhat arbitrary adjustment to reduce road safety, so that people respond by making an equally arbitrary counter-adjustment. How they figure +x-y ends up being a lower value when x and y are completely unknown, is astonishing.
At the very least, they are creating a more hazardous condition in the hopes that random drivers react by over-compensating to create a net improvement in safety. I sure don't want to be on that road when someone in oncoming traffic says "screw it I'm not slowing down" and significantly increases the odds of me colliding with them. Given that people have a reason to go faster or at least maintain their speed (to stay on time) and have essentially no reason to slow down unless you give them one, this is a setup for failure.
I feel bad about not being able to say much more than "this is fundamentally flawed". I want to say more, but it's just too simple to expand on. How they don't understand this is beyond me.
afaik, Apple has zero examples of software that phones home. A few of their products do or did collaborate over the network to enforce licensing restrictions. (Server and ARD are good examples, enterprise software)
It does get pesky about wanting to run software updates, but that can be completey turned off and stays off. There are a few software titles that will still check for new versions when launched though, (iTunes and Configurator) that cannot be turned off. That has to do with them being a bit manic about keeping their iOS devices updated. (since a security problem on them is a bit more of a problem)
But nothing that I know of that just spontaneously transmits data out your LAN. I may not be aware of something, if anyone knows of such a beaste, please chime in because I'd like to know about it too.
"why this again?"
"please turn off your antivirus software, we promise not to give you anything too nasty!
"because there was no other way" is arguably the worst excuse for violating someone's rights.
"You were doing something, we didn't like it, and this was the best response we could think up. And so that's our justification for doing what we did. We did it because it was the only way we could find that got results."
"The law would apply to phones sold in California beginning Jan. 1, 2017"
So, that'd be OK. They don't block possession, use, or carrier registration, just sales by vendors that are located in the state. This may also prevent mail-order purchase from the Apple Store in say, Michigan, because Apple has a "business presence" in California. (collection of sales tax usually works that way) OTOH if you get one off ebay from someone whose store is outside CA, you're fine.
I'd personally like to see Apple very publicly give the finger to the CA legislature and make it extremely clear in very blunt terms that iPhones not being for sale there is the direct and exclusive result of the residents of the state electing retards and shills to make their laws. Losing CA for a year or two won't hurt them much, and will pay off big in the long run for future sales in CA as the voters stomp to the polls to vote with their iphones.
This isn't like most of the "extreme" legislation they pass on things like emissions, product safety, and other consumer protection. The public gets NO direct or clear benefit from this legislation, and results in a noticeable impact to a huge portion of the voters in the state. The legislature will try to justify it of course, but there just isn't enough spin available to keep that top from falling on its face.
it doesn't look like surgery was involved. Just padding and velcro?
Awesome work though. But Derby still seems to lack lateral control, the attachments don't seem to anchor well laterally so he walks with a lot of sway. (and I didn't see any videos of him running with them)
Gotta wonder how abrastive (painful?) that is on his stubs, that weren't designed to take his weight and force in that way.
that's the wonderful thing about standards, there's so many to choose from!
Oblg XKCD: https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/s...
There are three problems here all working at once:
1. it's legal (marginally)
2. its very profitable
3. it's difficult to catch
4. although the public hates it, most of them continue to facillitate it anyway
You won't see any serious progress until you scratch off at least two items off that list. Honestly, #4 isn't likely to go away ever simply because as another poster roughly put it, there are enough stupid or fanatical people out there to keep them in business even if you try to "vote with your wallet". It just doesn't work in a limited edition, fan-based market. If the scalpers can manage to sell even just half the tickets they bought, for four times the price they paid, they're totally ok with that.
So going after #1 is currently the "low hanging fruit" and is the logical first step, to get the law's assistance. As the number of problems get taken care of, the remaining problems become a much more powerful point of leverage. So despite all the people grousing about how "this doesn't solve the problem!", yeah, we know that. But you've got to start somewhere, there is no one-step miracle cure.
I hope you don't have a title in front of your name (other than maybe "head idiot") because otherwise you're gonna need to lose it. Telling us we have to store and send GPS coordinates in human readable format is beyond laughable. It's like needing to call the library and have them fax you a page from a book because there's no better alternative.
I recently had to write software for an Arduino that interacts with a GPS and needs to track many waypoints. Anyone that works with those knows memory is extremely tight, and onboard eeprom is even worse. (most units have 1024 bytes TOTAL eeprom to use for powered-off storage) I also needed to store with good precision, at least as good as the GPS, which is substantially better than a city block. The format I settled on is total number of centiseconds. That fit the longigute and latitude into a pair of 32 bit unsigned longs, and had precision measured in centimeters. (varies on location)
But then I suppose you're trying to store that string data in unicode too, huh? "Dr."? God help us.
The vast majority of science agrees that people can neither detect nor be physically affected by EMI. That being said, if a person BELIEVES they can be and are being affected by it, their mind can create a physical response in their bodies. This needs to be handled like any other mental illness. There's no need to test for this any further, it's been done many times, and the result is almost alway that they are sensitive to blinking lights. (ie the belief that there is EMI)
If a person firmly believes that there are worms in their head and they need to dig them out, and nothing you do can change their mind, you either have to get them some psychiatric trreatment or wait for them to dig their eardrums out with a spoon.
So yes, in a roundabouts sort of way, the mother might be correct. Her daughter may have indeed committed suicide as a result of her "wifi allergy". But it had nothing to actually do with the EMR being produced by the transmitter. She believed she was being affected, and so her body manifested symptoms in response to her psychological reaction. At that point I'd be redirecting the blame to the parent for not getting their kid the mental health treatment she obviously was needing.
For years, firewire buried usb in terms of hard drive transfer speeds. (solid 800mbps vs laggy 480mbps) But it was during this time that PC motherboard manufacturers stubbornly refused to put firewire ports on their boards. Also during this time, it was difficult to impossible to boot a windows computer from an external drive. These factors led to almost a decade of time where the macs were the only computers that commonly used high performing external storage. (and not just for video) The windows users literally didn't know what they were missing, and most remained blissfully unaware. A few I know installed firewire cards and talked to me like they'd just discovered this amazing hidden technology that nobody else knew about.
Processor and controller advances (both in the computer and in the external drive controllers) during this time slowly removed the lag, and I suspect that's why it took so long to get USB3 out the door, they just weren't in enough of a rush to innovate. There was no push from the consumer side, and no one wanted to be the first to add FW as a standard option. The benchmarks I ran as early as 2012 were still running into slow controllers. There were a specific set of common speeds, determined by which chipset the manufacturer happened to be using. Speeds were now usually either 26 or 36 MB/sec, although there were a small number of them running at 39 and unbelievably still at 18. During this entire time, firewire 400 has been running at a consistent 39MB/sec, (fw800 at 79MB/sec!) and at the end there was about a 50/50 split between 36 and 39MB/sec on new USB adapters.
So then USB3 is announced and the world is buzzing. So I asked, "If you wanted higher speeds why didn't you just get firewire?" "Firewire? What's that?" "Nevermind...." But by the time USB3 came out, thunderbolt was hitting the stage to be the new usb dominator. USB seems to be doomed to be a generation behind. For the first year and a half it was almost impossible to find a USB3 drive that actually performed at speeds substantially faster than firewire 800, because most of them were trying to keep costs down after changing to USB3 by using slower hard drives. 90 and 130MB/sec HDDs were the norm in most of the early USB3 enclosures, but hey, they got to stamp "USB3!!!" all over the box and get the suckers to buy them without reading the fine print. The enclosures that had actual fast drives in them were more expensive and so were mostly overlooked. We had to endure years of "USB3 speed" flash drives that were below USB2's maximum speeds for exactly the same reason. The "premium high speed" flash drives cost 2-3x as much, and while they read faster, they still had slower write speeds.
There's just a large chunk of the demographic that wasn't seeing the faster alternatives. But at this point the storage, even though it's much faster, has been surpassed finally by the interface. I have a Lacie 500gb ssd with dual USB3/TB interface, and both of them top out at the same speed of 438MB/sec, which appears to be the SSD's maximum speed. I'd need to have an SSD raid with fiber-channel grade speeds to do a comparison now, which I don't have. So for now, for me at least, they're effectively the same. The speed of home-grade networking (gigabit ethernet) has become the bottleneck now, but this time it's affecting us all equally. (438MB/sec requires about a 4gbps connection to properly saturate, even dual-link gig ethernet just isn't up to the task)
No, he was told by his content management software "experts" that his experts are incompetent (they just worded it differently)
The biggest (and arguably most legitimate) excuse I see given is simply that the laws were written not to serve the public good, but to reinforce the monopoly the local cabl companies have, and has in many cases lead to a profound drop in service without the expected drop in cost that you find in a free market.
It's well-established that most successful companies exploit any advantage they can, so it's not the least bit surprising that they lower quality of service to cut costs because it has no net impact on their revenue, which can only serve to increase proffits. This only encourages a drop in quality of service, relative to cost.
In SOME respects I can understand why there are laws that encourage the monopolies. There are certain markets where competition can lead to a drop in average quality due to redundant overhead, such as power companies. I can also see where this could apply to some extend to cab service, in specific (usually small) cities. Some businesses you need to maintain a certain minimim customer base so you can do things on a profitable scale. But there's no reason for that in a big city like London.
If the court order demands you produce the data, and it's physically impossible for you to do it, that's not non-compliance. That's "hey retards, you DO realize you just demanded we do the impossible, go take a hike!".
There's absolutely nothing wrong (or unexpected) to do with refusing to do the impossible. Quit twisting words, the internet's pretty good at seeing through that crap.
I find it entirely gratifying to see companies that in the past have been getitng forced to cooperate with the government ignoring the people's rights finally being able to tell the criminals wearing the badges to get lost, without risk of arrest or prossicution.
That sounds eerily close to how my memory works. Books are useless to me, but I learn well from AV sources.
last I heard, shows were shot to 52 minute lengths, and had initially designated certain unnecessary scenes that could be cut to drop the runtime to 48 minutes. Additional allowance was added to cut to 46, and finally to 42 minutes. But cutting 10 minutes out of an hour long show was starting to have serious effect on the shows. It was getting common to have scenes that weren't properly set up and left viewers confused about what was happening becuse needed shots were being replaced with more ads.
And who remembers back in what was it... 1987 or so, when the rules on commercials got removed "because they weren't necessary" claimed the advertisers. And within months commercials per hour roughly doubled and pissed off pretty much everyone. I remember a period of a few months where TV was essentially unwatchable, with a 2 minute break every 4 minutes or so. Some of that got put back but I didn't keep track of it much back then. Just goes to show, they'll be greedy clods every last minute they think they can get away with it.
It DOES surprise me here though that they appear to be somewhat proactive, if not at least fast-reactive, with regard to the public (who has been sick-n-tired of tv commercial onslaught for years now) who's finally got alternatives and is abandoning "free" broadcast tv in leu of "paying for less pain". Normally you'd expect the greedy fatcats to lawn-dart their industry before realizing at the end "maybe we went too far?" But they seem to be coming to their senses and acquiring a grip on reality much faster than usual now?