The have an algorithm built in that detect which one you are closest to and only that one responds.
Out of curiosity: does the "skill" or whatever Google calls their speaker apps also know which speaker you are closest to? That could be useful, and it's something that's missing from the Amazon Echo. For example "Lights on" should turn the lights on in the room you are in, without having to specify the room.
As for smart appliances and the like, I would much prefer that they do not include Echo or Google Home or whatever, but have an API that plugs seamlessly into whichever home automation system I have, with or without voice control.
That sounds like a potentially risky but not wholly inreasonable approach. The risk is that the process gains access to the results of a "losing" branch, either directly by using some exploit, or indirectly by using some weird timing attack or whatever. Isn't the real issue that such an attack turns out to be feasible?
When Intel introduced speculation across protection domains everyone including Linux was happy because it reduced system call costs
Is that the case? Was this attack known, and deemed an acceptable risk because of the incredible low rate at which data could supposedly be extracted? I remember some papers around 2015 on an attack involving data leaking between processes through the cache, but that did not rely on speculative execution IIRC.
Yes to all of that. Including punching them in the mouth if you meet them. Now there's an "engaging and relevant offer" for them...
Seriously, I am silently hoping for a public backlash against advertising, including fed-up politicians proposing bills to limit advertising to print, billboards at bus stops, and text-only web banners. Not going to happen, though.
I agree. I ended up using an old school Harmony remote to control the AppleTV, since that's what I had anyway to control the TV, amp and Raspberry pi w/ Kodi
Kodi is a great solution for streaming "open" channels and stuff from your local media library, but it doesn't really do Netflix (no idea about Amazon). And by "really" I mean something that is endorsed or at least tolerated by Netflix. I use Kodi on Rasberry pies throughout the house, but I have a couple of AppleTVs for Amazon and Netflix (AppleTV is utter rubish at playing local media content)
It would be nice but in reality a lot of these bike sharing plans turn out to be a PITA to manage, causing enough nuisance for some cities to ban or curb bike sharing schemes.
Some of these schemes have bikes with locks, and they are hardly an issue. Book online and open the lock with your phone. The organisation I work for has done this with all of their pool cars as well and it works great. The point is that locks force you to check out a bike before using it, making you responsible for disposing of it properly at a depot, not in a canal or wherever you feel like.
Not really. Everyone is allowed their opinion. And if he speaks out about OS design, coding standards, or even processor architecture, I’d listen, since he knows a fair bit about those subjects. If he voices an opinion on how to manage a FOSS community, I’d still listen even though I don’t agree with his management style, because he ostensibly has experience on that front either. But if he tells others how to run their business or how to handle PR or legal matters, then yeah, he is largely irrelevant. Because he didn’t join the rat race, and those things lie outside his area of expertise.
His opinions on those matters might still be interesting and insightful, but they don’t really have any more weight than those of the rest of us.
Yes and no: punishment serves several goals of which deterrence is only one. This guy is a repeat offender, and in this case locking him up for a long time isn’t really about deterrence, and it’s about reform only to a lesser degree. It’s mostly about prevention: he will find it real hard to swat other victims while he’s in jail.
I don't think he craves attention; I think he's just a guy who speaks his mind, sometimes a little bit too much. With that said, I don't see why we need to publish so many of his brain dumps; there are many people with a way more valuable opinion on the subject, from a technical, legal or business perspective.
1) So?
2) Anyone can follow your transactions, not just the bank guys
3) Counterparty risk lies with the buyer. No fraud protection
Fiat money is hardly a scam. Central banks can and do manipulate the value of money, and generally they do so to keep inflation at healthy levels. They do not always succeed, but in general the value of your money is pretty stable when it's managed by a decent central bank.
frankly innovation came from lots more people than Jobs (Ives for one) so I don't think that is changing much
I think it has changed, but that change did already start under Jobs. Innovation isn't coming up with ideas; it's turning those ideas into prototypes and subsequently selecting viable ones to turn into products. Ensuring that the company does this well comes down to the allocation of funds and the right resources (and to a much lesser extent corporate culture). That's very much the domain of top level management, and something Jobs was pretty good at. Jobs drove innovation, though in the end he is just one guy and he couldn't handle all of it. And with Jobs gone, that drive seems to be gone as well
Take HomeKit. Has a lot of potential as an individual product line as well as something to augment Apple's "vertical", if it gets developed into a mature home automation solution. So where is it? It appears to be neither abandonded nor being developed further. Same as Siri, another promising product that appears to be in limbo while voice activated assistants are becoming all the rage. All we got is an announcement about a somewhat lacklustre smart speaker. You'd expect Apple to take ideas such as these and develop them into best-of-class products that everybody wants - with $250B in the bank, they could - but it appears that anything besides the physical iPhone suffers from a distinct lack of loving attention.
Interesting. I can see why the speculative instruction to read a memory location wouldn't be subject to all checks, but in that case why does the parent process even have access to the prefetch cache? Either that access needs to go, or the speculative memory read needs to be subject to all regular controls.
Whether you buy their house brand stuff or some 3rd party product through Amazon, they make money in either case. The strategy for Amazon to follow is not to maximize short term profit, it's to "own the vertical". And that goal is best served in this case by offering suggestions for all popular brands on offer rather than only their own. Each Echo ad for 3rd party brand products is still an ad to buy through Amazon. By not narrowing suggestions to their own presumably less popular) brands, they ensure people will continue to use the Echo to find and order stuff. And that means they'll continue to garner more valuable data to feed back to their advertisers.
That all-encompassing data extraction is why I used to hate such vertically integrated companies. Yes, used to. Because in today's economic model in tech it doesn't really matter if your smart voice assistant comes from a behemoth like Google or Amazon, or from some clever Silicon Valley startup: you data is going to be collected, misused and sold anyway. Because when it comes to attracting capital from VCs or through an IPO (or god forbid an ICO), what matters not is how good your product is or how many units you can expect to sell; it's how many eyeballs - or eardrums as the case may be - you can keep glued to your device, and what data you can squeeze from them.
A great example of that is what happened to Sarah Champion and Naz Shah, both MPs for Labour commenting on the widespread practise of grooming young girls for prostitution. One stated that “we cannot separate these acts from the culture of the perpetrators.” The other retweeted a statement that said that “these girls [the victims] should keep their mouths shut in the name of diversity”. Follow these statements, one MP was forced to resign, the other is now Corbyn’s darling. Guess who got which reward?
There’s a danger in these “hate speech” laws that are open for interpretation. Even if you believe that the judicial system will eventually render a fair verdict. Here in the Netherlands, a cartoonist by the pseudoniem of Nekschot was accused of inciting hatred. He was arrested in his home, at night, by a 10 man strong SWAT team, who took him and seized his computers. After a few days he was released... but he stopped drawing cartoons altogether after this event. I don’t think he got convicted in the end, but whoever ordered that arrest sure got what they wanted.
Even if the Nordic model is effective against human trafficking (something of which I am by no means convinced given the data on the subject... but what do I know, the fact remains that the measure criminalizes otherwise perfectly legal and moral behaviour. For example: what about sex dates with mornig after regret? If one partner claims rape, the prosecution will have to prove that rape actually took place. But a lot of people who regularly have sex(ual) dates (for instance: ask kinky communities in Sweden) are afraid that if a partner claims there was a monetary reward, the onus of proof will fall upon the accused. Good luck proving that you weren't involved in paying for sex.
purchasing sex is illegal, as is pimping, but selling sex is perfectly illegal
As a solution to human trafficking this sounds like a good solution, except that it really isn't all that. This solution fits so very nicely with today's zeitgeist, and so we are rather invested in believing that it works.
Not to mention there's an important moral issue with this solution, in that it criminalizes a transaction - and one-sidedly at that - between what in a lot of cases are consenting adults. If 9 out of 10 women work in the industry against their will, that doesn't make it right to arrest the john who bought sex from the 1 willing lady. And in countries with legalized prostitution, the ratio is a lot lower than that. I'm not too impressed either with the number of women who, when asked, stated they wanted to leave the business. Over here they asked prostitutes if they'd rather earn their money some other way, and most of them said yes. But when asked if prostitution should be made illegal they almost all answered no, and a good many of them stated they were reasonably happy in their work.
Human trafficking will not stop regardless of what laws you have in place concerning prostitution, but legalizing prostitution does equally well when it comes to protecting the rights of women in the business.
No kidding. Remember the PHB from Dilbert asking for "a database" because apparently that's what the company needs. I thought it was a great joke, but now I've heard something similar more than once, from managers and from people who really ought to know better: "We need to do something with blockchain". By the way, I found a good answer to that is not "what", but "why".
Slashdot Mirror
The have an algorithm built in that detect which one you are closest to and only that one responds.
Out of curiosity: does the "skill" or whatever Google calls their speaker apps also know which speaker you are closest to? That could be useful, and it's something that's missing from the Amazon Echo. For example "Lights on" should turn the lights on in the room you are in, without having to specify the room.
As for smart appliances and the like, I would much prefer that they do not include Echo or Google Home or whatever, but have an API that plugs seamlessly into whichever home automation system I have, with or without voice control.
Sounds like an ordinary day of trading...
Dodgycoin? That's all of them
That sounds like a potentially risky but not wholly inreasonable approach. The risk is that the process gains access to the results of a "losing" branch, either directly by using some exploit, or indirectly by using some weird timing attack or whatever. Isn't the real issue that such an attack turns out to be feasible?
When Intel introduced speculation across protection domains everyone including Linux was happy because it reduced system call costs
Is that the case? Was this attack known, and deemed an acceptable risk because of the incredible low rate at which data could supposedly be extracted? I remember some papers around 2015 on an attack involving data leaking between processes through the cache, but that did not rely on speculative execution IIRC.
Pretty much, yes. The (alleged) problem is not access, but content and context.
Yes to all of that. Including punching them in the mouth if you meet them. Now there's an "engaging and relevant offer" for them...
Seriously, I am silently hoping for a public backlash against advertising, including fed-up politicians proposing bills to limit advertising to print, billboards at bus stops, and text-only web banners. Not going to happen, though.
I agree. I ended up using an old school Harmony remote to control the AppleTV, since that's what I had anyway to control the TV, amp and Raspberry pi w/ Kodi
Kodi is a great solution for streaming "open" channels and stuff from your local media library, but it doesn't really do Netflix (no idea about Amazon). And by "really" I mean something that is endorsed or at least tolerated by Netflix. I use Kodi on Rasberry pies throughout the house, but I have a couple of AppleTVs for Amazon and Netflix (AppleTV is utter rubish at playing local media content)
It would be nice but in reality a lot of these bike sharing plans turn out to be a PITA to manage, causing enough nuisance for some cities to ban or curb bike sharing schemes.
Some of these schemes have bikes with locks, and they are hardly an issue. Book online and open the lock with your phone. The organisation I work for has done this with all of their pool cars as well and it works great. The point is that locks force you to check out a bike before using it, making you responsible for disposing of it properly at a depot, not in a canal or wherever you feel like.
Not really. Everyone is allowed their opinion. And if he speaks out about OS design, coding standards, or even processor architecture, I’d listen, since he knows a fair bit about those subjects. If he voices an opinion on how to manage a FOSS community, I’d still listen even though I don’t agree with his management style, because he ostensibly has experience on that front either. But if he tells others how to run their business or how to handle PR or legal matters, then yeah, he is largely irrelevant. Because he didn’t join the rat race, and those things lie outside his area of expertise.
His opinions on those matters might still be interesting and insightful, but they don’t really have any more weight than those of the rest of us.
What about locks on these bikes?
Yes and no: punishment serves several goals of which deterrence is only one. This guy is a repeat offender, and in this case locking him up for a long time isn’t really about deterrence, and it’s about reform only to a lesser degree. It’s mostly about prevention: he will find it real hard to swat other victims while he’s in jail.
I don't think he craves attention; I think he's just a guy who speaks his mind, sometimes a little bit too much. With that said, I don't see why we need to publish so many of his brain dumps; there are many people with a way more valuable opinion on the subject, from a technical, legal or business perspective.
1) So?
2) Anyone can follow your transactions, not just the bank guys
3) Counterparty risk lies with the buyer. No fraud protection
Fiat money is hardly a scam. Central banks can and do manipulate the value of money, and generally they do so to keep inflation at healthy levels. They do not always succeed, but in general the value of your money is pretty stable when it's managed by a decent central bank.
frankly innovation came from lots more people than Jobs (Ives for one) so I don't think that is changing much
I think it has changed, but that change did already start under Jobs. Innovation isn't coming up with ideas; it's turning those ideas into prototypes and subsequently selecting viable ones to turn into products. Ensuring that the company does this well comes down to the allocation of funds and the right resources (and to a much lesser extent corporate culture). That's very much the domain of top level management, and something Jobs was pretty good at. Jobs drove innovation, though in the end he is just one guy and he couldn't handle all of it. And with Jobs gone, that drive seems to be gone as well
Take HomeKit. Has a lot of potential as an individual product line as well as something to augment Apple's "vertical", if it gets developed into a mature home automation solution. So where is it? It appears to be neither abandonded nor being developed further. Same as Siri, another promising product that appears to be in limbo while voice activated assistants are becoming all the rage. All we got is an announcement about a somewhat lacklustre smart speaker. You'd expect Apple to take ideas such as these and develop them into best-of-class products that everybody wants - with $250B in the bank, they could - but it appears that anything besides the physical iPhone suffers from a distinct lack of loving attention.
It's not an AI, it's an algorithm. And likely not even one using machine learning.
Interesting. I can see why the speculative instruction to read a memory location wouldn't be subject to all checks, but in that case why does the parent process even have access to the prefetch cache? Either that access needs to go, or the speculative memory read needs to be subject to all regular controls.
Whether you buy their house brand stuff or some 3rd party product through Amazon, they make money in either case. The strategy for Amazon to follow is not to maximize short term profit, it's to "own the vertical". And that goal is best served in this case by offering suggestions for all popular brands on offer rather than only their own. Each Echo ad for 3rd party brand products is still an ad to buy through Amazon. By not narrowing suggestions to their own presumably less popular) brands, they ensure people will continue to use the Echo to find and order stuff. And that means they'll continue to garner more valuable data to feed back to their advertisers.
That all-encompassing data extraction is why I used to hate such vertically integrated companies. Yes, used to. Because in today's economic model in tech it doesn't really matter if your smart voice assistant comes from a behemoth like Google or Amazon, or from some clever Silicon Valley startup: you data is going to be collected, misused and sold anyway. Because when it comes to attracting capital from VCs or through an IPO (or god forbid an ICO), what matters not is how good your product is or how many units you can expect to sell; it's how many eyeballs - or eardrums as the case may be - you can keep glued to your device, and what data you can squeeze from them.
A great example of that is what happened to Sarah Champion and Naz Shah, both MPs for Labour commenting on the widespread practise of grooming young girls for prostitution. One stated that “we cannot separate these acts from the culture of the perpetrators.” The other retweeted a statement that said that “these girls [the victims] should keep their mouths shut in the name of diversity”. Follow these statements, one MP was forced to resign, the other is now Corbyn’s darling. Guess who got which reward?
There’s a danger in these “hate speech” laws that are open for interpretation. Even if you believe that the judicial system will eventually render a fair verdict. Here in the Netherlands, a cartoonist by the pseudoniem of Nekschot was accused of inciting hatred. He was arrested in his home, at night, by a 10 man strong SWAT team, who took him and seized his computers. After a few days he was released... but he stopped drawing cartoons altogether after this event. I don’t think he got convicted in the end, but whoever ordered that arrest sure got what they wanted.
Aww you're no fun...
Wait, he was arrested? Didn't get that from the summary
Even if the Nordic model is effective against human trafficking (something of which I am by no means convinced given the data on the subject... but what do I know, the fact remains that the measure criminalizes otherwise perfectly legal and moral behaviour. For example: what about sex dates with mornig after regret? If one partner claims rape, the prosecution will have to prove that rape actually took place. But a lot of people who regularly have sex(ual) dates (for instance: ask kinky communities in Sweden) are afraid that if a partner claims there was a monetary reward, the onus of proof will fall upon the accused. Good luck proving that you weren't involved in paying for sex.
purchasing sex is illegal, as is pimping, but selling sex is perfectly illegal
As a solution to human trafficking this sounds like a good solution, except that it really isn't all that. This solution fits so very nicely with today's zeitgeist, and so we are rather invested in believing that it works.
Not to mention there's an important moral issue with this solution, in that it criminalizes a transaction - and one-sidedly at that - between what in a lot of cases are consenting adults. If 9 out of 10 women work in the industry against their will, that doesn't make it right to arrest the john who bought sex from the 1 willing lady. And in countries with legalized prostitution, the ratio is a lot lower than that. I'm not too impressed either with the number of women who, when asked, stated they wanted to leave the business. Over here they asked prostitutes if they'd rather earn their money some other way, and most of them said yes. But when asked if prostitution should be made illegal they almost all answered no, and a good many of them stated they were reasonably happy in their work.
Human trafficking will not stop regardless of what laws you have in place concerning prostitution, but legalizing prostitution does equally well when it comes to protecting the rights of women in the business.
No kidding. Remember the PHB from Dilbert asking for "a database" because apparently that's what the company needs. I thought it was a great joke, but now I've heard something similar more than once, from managers and from people who really ought to know better: "We need to do something with blockchain". By the way, I found a good answer to that is not "what", but "why".