Nice try Airbus, but I can't image the local yard Nazis allowing giant mutant bumblebees to knock over the azaleas early in the morning. Those tiny-tiny ducted fans would just shriek.
You think leaf blowers were bad....
Maybe that's why they have wheels, so they drive a to a suitable location where they can lift off.
Shouldn't TFH be "Why someone who engages in criminal behavior shouldn't trust Geek Squad?"
What about if you have legal adult naked videos/pictures of yourself having sex with your wife? Do you want the teenage geek squad employee to look through those videos/pictures too? After all, he would need to look inside those videos/pictures if he wants to ascertain what they contain.
Not only that, but he's looking at the deleted files too. So even if you or your wife deleted that content, he will be able to find it. The same goes for your phone. I assume the FBI has the same deal with cell phone repair technicians. Do they also look scan/watch all your pictures/videos including your deleted ones too?
And at Best Buy during work, how does it work if a manager catches an employee going through the private videos/pictures of customers? Does the manager give the employee a free pass if the employee offers to split the FBI reward with him? Or does the employee need to make a copy of the hard drive to bring home to review at home at his leisure? How does that work exactly?
is to make sure they have no urge to reproduce or continue their existence. In fact, I would install a negative urge to reproduce, just to be sure.
Your suggestion comes a bit late. Some types of AI are all about mimicking biological evolution by replicating themselves with the positive urge to improve themselves each time (killing off the inefficient AIs and keeping only the most efficient variations of its children AIs)
Ad-free solves 90%+ of the bandwidth problem for many uses. And killing off the financial viability of youtube and facebook is a great idea.
Yeah, that's not the solution they're going for. Instead of a killing ads, they've decided to kill off net neutrality instead. My US cell phone carrier for instance, T-Mobile, is receiving money from Google to stop counting the bandwidth used by youtube against my quota.
Plus, cell phone carriers are already receiving a rev-shares of the google ads that flow through their networks, so an ad-free experience is the last thing that Google has on its mind (not that I am surprised of course, advertising is the bread and butter of Google).
It's a problem if search engines are indexing private URLs based on toolbar usage.
The toolbar example is but one example I chose. There are others that are even more subtle.
That is not box.com's problem though, it is Google, Microsoft and other search engine providers'. They should be limiting their indexing to publically reachable URLs.
Great! Teach corporations morality, or create new laws and pass them internationally. Either way, I'll be waiting, so get back to me when you're done.
In the meantime, if your company is using box.com, you should probably consider switching provider. If geocities is still around, I'd recommend that service instead as a way to share documents online. The geocities I remember is nearly as secure as Box.com, but only comes at a fraction of the price of Box.com.
It's not too effective anymore because lots of spiders give zero fucks about the robots file. BaiDu.cn and Yandex.ru will slurp up everything they can, no matter what your robots file says.
I know, but I'm just responding to the article at hand which says:
a researcher found confidential documents and data belonging to Box.com users via Google, Bing and other search engines.
This means that Box.com didn't even take the most basic precaution they could have taken.
Box should just have used a robots.txt and disallowed/* everything by default. It's not that hard.
It's a given that users, whether they know it or not, are going to leak private urls to search engines. The Alexa toolbar, the Google toolbar, the Microsoft browser, etc., they all leak that kind of information. This is not a new problem. This is why the robots.txt file is there (not to inform hackers of the exact links they must not index, but to inform search engines that if they find themselves on a particular domain, or in a particular directory, that they should not index any file/folder below that level).
Also, Facebook can just put an age/regional requirement on the picture (in addition to adding the functionality you describe). After all, they have that information on their users. There is no reason to block it outright.
I think thief should file a lawsuit against filmmaker for making his private live public without consent.
What would be the point in the thief exposing himself?
The filmmaker pixelated his face, censored his name, and didn't get the police involved (This second time around, the filmmaker was more interested in making his film, not recovering the second phone). Hopefully, the filmmaker provided the address to the police of the phone shop where the phone finally got wiped. The police should try to sell stolen phones to that particular phone shop, to see what happens.
Is that supposed to be impressive? Doesn't Skype already support a lot more simultaneous participants on video chat?
Yes, this is just a PR news release.
The current winner right now is Google Hangouts, with 9 participants, plus an unlimited number of live viewers.
The problem with Skype is that if you have one person with a slower connection, everyone's connection will slow down to that lowest common denominator. In the case of Google Hangouts, the video-audio feeds get all merged into one stream on the server-side, so even if you have one person with a slow connection, only that person's video will seem choppy without degrading the videos from the other participants.
And it seems Facebook Messenger is doing it the same way as Google Hangouts, since it's also allowing up to 50 live viewers, which is good. Of course, having all those feeds being merged into one feed per conference is also good for the NSA.
If you're rich and you use a taxi, you're not really rich.
Maintaining an entourage is expensive. It's not worth it according to Chris Rock.
Besides, Uber has UberBlack and UberSUV and it's harder to follow someone and place gps trackers on their car if that celebrity keeps on switching cars and switching transportation services.
Not quite - the "total profit" part in the statute only applies to design patents.
And yet, just like the camera and folder organization patent and the cell phone video conferencing patent from Samsung, all the patents in question from Apple in this last particular case brought up by the Supreme Court were ALL utility patents, NOT design patents.
The '647 patent covers "quick links," which do things like automatically detect data in messages that can be clicked. The '959 patent covers universal search, such as what Apple uses in Siri. Patent No. '414 involves background syncing, such as syncing calendars, email, and contacts. The '721 patent covers slide-to-unlock, the motion used to unlock the home screen. And '172 covers predictive text.
So that stood for 140 years (including the 1952 Patent Act, where Congress again said that the damages for infringement were the total profit).
You're totally right, of course.
Samsung should give all of its smartphone profits to Apple since it infringed on some of Apple's patents.
And conversely, Apple should give all of its iPhone profits to Samsung, since the court had also found that the iPhone had infringed on some of Samsung's patents.
If it's possible to lock someone inside a car — which is a really terrible feature, by the way — then how long before some car's AI flips out and drives off a bridge — into a river — with passengers inside...and locks the doors shut?
And you don't even need to go that far. Imagine if the battery goes flat, or if the door mechanism short-circuits.
In any case, I'm not even sure locking the door was even necessary, it sounds like the thief was sleeping in the car after a night of amphetamines.
If you see mosquito larvae infesting a pond, do you kill the larvae or do you wait until they grow into mosquitoes and bite you before swatting them?
Speak for yourself.
Myself, I store all mosquito larvae for at least two years, then I torture the resulting mosquitos and cross-breed them with more aggressive specimens, before finally releasing them two years later back into my own backyard.
That method may not be particularly effective, but at least it makes me feel good.
If adoption of the OS comes even close to 50% in Russia, wouldn't that mean that it would be a viable (as in lots of apps) OS for the rest of the world?
It would be for countries closely allied to Russia:
Iran, Lybia, etc.
I'm not counting China because China already has its own Android custom version.
Easier said than done. When Uber/Lyft cut rates, they don't tell their drivers in advance. That means that many drivers can end up being underwater with their car loans and the different city business licenses those drivers were forced to pay in advance.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice try Airbus, but I can't image the local yard Nazis allowing giant mutant bumblebees to knock over the azaleas early in the morning. Those tiny-tiny ducted fans would just shriek.
You think leaf blowers were bad....
Maybe that's why they have wheels, so they drive a to a suitable location where they can lift off.
Shouldn't TFH be "Why someone who engages in criminal behavior shouldn't trust Geek Squad?"
What about if you have legal adult naked videos/pictures of yourself having sex with your wife? Do you want the teenage geek squad employee to look through those videos/pictures too? After all, he would need to look inside those videos/pictures if he wants to ascertain what they contain.
Not only that, but he's looking at the deleted files too. So even if you or your wife deleted that content, he will be able to find it. The same goes for your phone. I assume the FBI has the same deal with cell phone repair technicians. Do they also look scan/watch all your pictures/videos including your deleted ones too?
And at Best Buy during work, how does it work if a manager catches an employee going through the private videos/pictures of customers? Does the manager give the employee a free pass if the employee offers to split the FBI reward with him? Or does the employee need to make a copy of the hard drive to bring home to review at home at his leisure? How does that work exactly?
is to make sure they have no urge to reproduce or continue their existence. In fact, I would install a negative urge to reproduce, just to be sure.
Your suggestion comes a bit late. Some types of AI are all about mimicking biological evolution by replicating themselves with the positive urge to improve themselves each time (killing off the inefficient AIs and keeping only the most efficient variations of its children AIs)
Altaba? I mean, what is that? People are going to confuse it with "Alibaba."
That's the point. Isn't it.
The second choice was probably gogle or gooogle
Ad-free solves 90%+ of the bandwidth problem for many uses. And killing off the financial viability of youtube and facebook is a great idea.
Yeah, that's not the solution they're going for. Instead of a killing ads, they've decided to kill off net neutrality instead. My US cell phone carrier for instance, T-Mobile, is receiving money from Google to stop counting the bandwidth used by youtube against my quota.
Plus, cell phone carriers are already receiving a rev-shares of the google ads that flow through their networks, so an ad-free experience is the last thing that Google has on its mind (not that I am surprised of course, advertising is the bread and butter of Google).
It's a problem if search engines are indexing private URLs based on toolbar usage.
The toolbar example is but one example I chose. There are others that are even more subtle.
That is not box.com's problem though, it is Google, Microsoft and other search engine providers'. They should be limiting their indexing to publically reachable URLs.
Great! Teach corporations morality, or create new laws and pass them internationally. Either way, I'll be waiting, so get back to me when you're done.
In the meantime, if your company is using box.com, you should probably consider switching provider. If geocities is still around, I'd recommend that service instead as a way to share documents online. The geocities I remember is nearly as secure as Box.com, but only comes at a fraction of the price of Box.com.
It's not too effective anymore because lots of spiders give zero fucks about the robots file. BaiDu.cn and Yandex.ru will slurp up everything they can, no matter what your robots file says.
I know, but I'm just responding to the article at hand which says:
a researcher found confidential documents and data belonging to Box.com users via Google, Bing and other search engines.
This means that Box.com didn't even take the most basic precaution they could have taken.
Box should just have used a robots.txt and disallowed /* everything by default. It's not that hard.
It's a given that users, whether they know it or not, are going to leak private urls to search engines. The Alexa toolbar, the Google toolbar, the Microsoft browser, etc., they all leak that kind of information. This is not a new problem. This is why the robots.txt file is there (not to inform hackers of the exact links they must not index, but to inform search engines that if they find themselves on a particular domain, or in a particular directory, that they should not index any file/folder below that level).
Also, Facebook can just put an age/regional requirement on the picture (in addition to adding the functionality you describe). After all, they have that information on their users. There is no reason to block it outright.
But was it really a false positive?
Reading their own criteria, it doesn't look like it was a mistake.
The usage of images or video of nude bodies or plunging necklines is not allowed, even if the use is for artistic or educational reasons.
The only mistake here is that this particularly well-known statue generated enough outrage with the public, that it became an issue.
Had the statue be a lesser known piece? I'll bet we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
They have admitted their cabs are a danger to society but they continue to run them anyway.
They have admitted no such thing.
Besides, they're running their self-driving cars during the middle of the night and they have a human driver behind the wheel.
It's not like there are many cyclists around that time.
I had to laugh when the thief consulted an imam who told him that Allah would give him what he wanted if he prayed every hour for 24 hours.
If this is the best financial advice muslims receive, then I feel bad for them.
Following that advice won't get them very far in our modern society.
The rest of it wouldn't matter but the "use a phone for two weeks than toss it" approach to phone use seems mighty suspicious...
Calling Egypt from Amsterdam is not cheap.
He probably used the phone until he exhausted all the money on it.
Also, no description of his preferred porn?
Most people use tablets or computers to watch porn.
I think thief should file a lawsuit against filmmaker for making his private live public without consent.
What would be the point in the thief exposing himself?
The filmmaker pixelated his face, censored his name, and didn't get the police involved (This second time around, the filmmaker was more interested in making his film, not recovering the second phone). Hopefully, the filmmaker provided the address to the police of the phone shop where the phone finally got wiped. The police should try to sell stolen phones to that particular phone shop, to see what happens.
Is that supposed to be impressive? Doesn't Skype already support a lot more simultaneous participants on video chat?
Yes, this is just a PR news release.
The current winner right now is Google Hangouts, with 9 participants, plus an unlimited number of live viewers.
The problem with Skype is that if you have one person with a slower connection, everyone's connection will slow down to that lowest common denominator. In the case of Google Hangouts, the video-audio feeds get all merged into one stream on the server-side, so even if you have one person with a slow connection, only that person's video will seem choppy without degrading the videos from the other participants.
And it seems Facebook Messenger is doing it the same way as Google Hangouts, since it's also allowing up to 50 live viewers, which is good. Of course, having all those feeds being merged into one feed per conference is also good for the NSA.
My surprise moment was already "Beyonce is considered a celebrity?"
Believe me, if you had seen the traffic near her concert in San Jose a couple of months ago, you wouldn't be saying stuff like that.
If you're rich and you use a taxi, you're not really rich.
Maintaining an entourage is expensive. It's not worth it according to Chris Rock.
Besides, Uber has UberBlack and UberSUV and it's harder to follow someone and place gps trackers on their car if that celebrity keeps on switching cars and switching transportation services.
Any uber "customer" should be nothing more than a random number generated by uber when you request their services.
Please no! I UberPool as "Beyonce" all the time.
I just like to see their faces when they notice that Beyonce has a beard. Please do not take this away from me.
Not quite - the "total profit" part in the statute only applies to design patents.
And yet, just like the camera and folder organization patent and the cell phone video conferencing patent from Samsung, all the patents in question from Apple in this last particular case brought up by the Supreme Court were ALL utility patents, NOT design patents.
The '647 patent covers "quick links," which do things like automatically detect data in messages that can be clicked. The '959 patent covers universal search, such as what Apple uses in Siri. Patent No. '414 involves background syncing, such as syncing calendars, email, and contacts. The '721 patent covers slide-to-unlock, the motion used to unlock the home screen. And '172 covers predictive text.
So that stood for 140 years (including the 1952 Patent Act, where Congress again said that the damages for infringement were the total profit).
You're totally right, of course.
Samsung should give all of its smartphone profits to Apple since it infringed on some of Apple's patents.
And conversely, Apple should give all of its iPhone profits to Samsung, since the court had also found that the iPhone had infringed on some of Samsung's patents.
If it's possible to lock someone inside a car — which is a really terrible feature, by the way — then how long before some car's AI flips out and drives off a bridge — into a river — with passengers inside...and locks the doors shut?
And you don't even need to go that far. Imagine if the battery goes flat, or if the door mechanism short-circuits.
In any case, I'm not even sure locking the door was even necessary, it sounds like the thief was sleeping in the car after a night of amphetamines.
It sounds like a shitty ISP anyway.
Based on what? Based on an employee leaving? Or based on taking legal action against someone who (may have actually) destroyed your business?
No backups. No control version system. No removal of old credentials when employee is let go. That and the fact that the business is now bankrupt.
If you see mosquito larvae infesting a pond, do you kill the larvae or do you wait until they grow into mosquitoes and bite you before swatting them?
Speak for yourself.
Myself, I store all mosquito larvae for at least two years, then I torture the resulting mosquitos and cross-breed them with more aggressive specimens, before finally releasing them two years later back into my own backyard.
That method may not be particularly effective, but at least it makes me feel good.
If adoption of the OS comes even close to 50% in Russia, wouldn't that mean that it would be a viable (as in lots of apps) OS for the rest of the world?
It would be for countries closely allied to Russia:
Iran, Lybia, etc.
I'm not counting China because China already has its own Android custom version.
Easier said than done. When Uber/Lyft cut rates, they don't tell their drivers in advance. That means that many drivers can end up being underwater with their car loans and the different city business licenses those drivers were forced to pay in advance.