you do realise Apple has also had multiple breaches yet you trust them?
So why don't the people doing all the bitching utilize one of those breach methods to insert their data into the Apple Pay wallet? Problem solved, right?
Compared to what? I personally find it much more convenient that my non-Apple mobile phone works absolutely everywhere which has an NFC reader without a specific negotiation between a bank or merchant benefiting only Apple.
I find it convenient that your NFC phone works that way, too.
I'm the person sitting in the car across the parking lot, staging a pre-play attack against your NFC device while you are doing your transaction, because there's not a one time cryptographic nonce, like in the Apple Pay system, which would prevent the attack.
That's me waving at you now.
Yes, your latest purchase is going to show up twice on your statement, and the amount deducted twice. Thanks for your contribution! You can take it up with your merchant when the bill comes; your money is already in a bank halfway across the planet.
By the way: I also plan on an attack on the chip-and-pin system at the same store, if you switch back to using cards, but I'm going to have to actually sit down and case the joint a bit, before I decide which of the 9 identified (so far) ways to hack a chip-and-pin transaction.
Don't you wish you could go back to the days of the old fashioned skimmers, where instead of you eating the losses (because "the new system is so much more secure"), the banks and credit card companies had to eat them?
It isn't always "Homework", sometimes the seemingly arbitrary artificial constraints are there for legitimate reasons and it would just take too long to explain them all, especially since why they are constraints is irrelevant. If you've ever been in this situation, you know to expect a lot of "well why are you doing X? Just do Y instead, that's the right way". I know that's the right way, and if I could do it that way I wouldn't be asking the question and specifically including the conditions that prevent Y from being possible.
I believe the correct response would have been for you to provide the constraints anyway.
You may have arrived at 'X', which is an incredibly ass way of doing the job, instead of 'Y' because of your constraints.
But given your constraints, perhaps a better answer than 'X' or 'Y' would be 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D', 'E', 'F', 'G', 'H', 'I', 'J', 'K', or 'L'.
By limiting yourself to "how do I make 'X' work for this situation (I am unable to figure this out myself)?" type questions, you are robbing yourself of better answers than bludgeoning 'X' into a 'Y'-shaped hole.
If you answer even idiots politely and properly you increase the signal to noise on the internet. If the answer is simply "Go f'n google it" then the next person Googling it may just end up with your unhelpful response, get frustrated, and go find an internet forum.
One would hope that the impolite responses would be moderated away -- in the same way as hoping the stupid questions are moderated away.
LinkedIn has historically had the "fire and forget" problem: someone comes on, ask a question, and then disappears off the face of the Earth. Did they read one of the answers, and get utility out of it? Did Dementors fly off with them, and they are now trapped in Azakaban, in desperate need of someone from the Wizarding World of Harry Potter to rescue them? Who the heck knows?!?!
The other problem is when someone asks a question, it provokes a long discussion, with a large number of thoughtful -- and presumably, time consuming posts -- and then comes back and deletes the whole thing, so that their boss doesn't discover that they are getting their answers from the Internet.
Perhaps the correct answer is: most Internet forums really, really suck, and are managed badly by the people who create them.
1. They have a problem they want to solve 2. They arrive at a solution they want to implement 3. They fail at the implementation -- perhaps because it's an inappropriate one for the original problem 4. They go on a forum 5. They request help on how to implement their solution, giving no context, and leaving the original problem out entirely
This. Is. Major. F'ing. Annoying.
If they simply told us what problem they were trying to solve, rather than asking how to implement their particularly bad approach to solving the problem, they'd likely get a large number of helpful answers.
Case 2: The mysterious homework I don't want to do myself
1. They get a homework assignment 2. They have some constraints 3. They arrive at a particularly bad implementation based on those constraints 4. They fail at the implementation 5. They go on a forum 6. They actually communicate the problem they are trying to solve (miracle of miracles!), but they won't talk about other solutions to the problem, because other solutions won't fit the artificial constraints placed on the problem as part of it being a homework assignment
This. Is. Major. F'ing. Annoying.
We suspect it's a homework problem; the professor at IIT gives the same problem to their class each year, and it's that time of year again. They won't confirm this, because we know they are supposed to do their own F'ing homework, and won't help them cheat, if we know for sure they are asking a homework question.
Case 3: The googles, they do nothingk!
1. The solution is well known 2. You are too lazy to look it up using google 3. Instead you go on a forum and ask the question 4. Even though if you asked google the same question, the first hit you'd get is something from two years ago, in that very forum 5. Anyone who was around two years ago realizes you are using the forum as your own personal search engine 6. They give you shit for it -- shit you actually deserve, for being a lazy ass
---
Look:
* Do a little research before you ask; someone else has probably had the same problem before, and the answer is already out there * If not, communicate the problem you are trying to solve * Your solution is obviously not working, or you wouldn't be asking: it's not interesting, because it doesn't work: don't ask us to fix it * Don't be so married to your solution that you are unwilling to communicate the problem, and consider alternate solutions
If it's homework:
* Some people (10%) will actually help you with these -- they are being assholes by robbing you of a learning opportunity * They figure it's a win-win * You get the homework solution so you get a passing grade * You don't actually learn anything in the process * You are not competition for jobs which would require an actual ability to solve this kind of problem * Most people (90%), will give you shit for being a lazy ass and not doing your own homework
---
The negative reactions you are getting: maybe it's not them; maybe it's you.
Watch the scene with Charlie Sheen giving advice to Jennifer Grey in the police station in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" again. Seriously: it's probably you.
Given the huge amount of money India extorted out of Microsoft after Microsoft bought Nokia, "Oh, we found a bunch of taxes you didn't pay...", anyone with deep pockets, like Apple, would have to be incredibly stupid to manufacture phones in India.
"Attenuated S4" means you get less S4 sleep (the kind you need).
"not statistically significant" -- removing the blue did nothing useful -- "exposure to the computer monitor only was reduced slightly relative to the dark control condition" -- the computer monitor putting out the blue light was the same as not having the thing on at all: blocking the blue did nothing useful.
" lower color temperature bright light exposure during a night rest break led to a reduction of subjects' arousal level during the subsequent work." -- you have to intentionally get up in the *middle* of a sleep cycle for there to be any effect; prior to a sleep cycle, there was no effect. This is basically "If you wake up in the middle of the night, you are less alert the next day". That's a big "duh".
Here's 3; the rest are, IMO, not citable, since they use weasel words, such as "may", "might", "could", "should be studied more thoroughly" -- although they do stop just short of "hey, give us a grant, our graduate students are starving, and can't think up anything original".
"In the early phase of the sleep period, the amount of stage-4 sleep (S4-sleep) was significantly attenuated under the higher color temperature of 6700 K compared with the lower color temperature of 3000 K."
"Melatonin concentrations after exposure to the blue-light goggle experimental condition were significantly reduced compared to the dark control and to the computer monitor only conditions. Although not statistically significant, the mean melatonin concentration after exposure to the computer monitor only was reduced slightly relative to the dark control condition."
"After exposure to bright light of 3000 K but not at other color temperatures, the EEG alpha1 band ratio and the beta band ratio at 02:00 h were higher and lower, respectively, than that at 01:00 h. These findings indicated that lower color temperature bright light exposure during a night rest break led to a reduction of subjects' arousal level during the subsequent work."
== color shift by fl.ux and others: bad for sleep...many of the other articles were self-published by companies and associates selling products like fl.ux and "Blue Blockers". I'm not going to link to them, because IMO, they are snake oil.
What would be even better would be... links to medline/NIH/NEJM/Lancet papers indicating that the changing of colors is anything other than snake oil being manufactured by the people who brought you "Blue Blockers" sunglasses.
"Blue Blockers: For when you turn 50, take up golf, and wear white polyester pants pulled up to your armpits".
I found 15 medline articles on the idea -- all concluding that thecolor changes don't do dick. The one really reliable study -- the one on Navy pilots -- concluded that the color change *increased* alertness. Good luck getting to sleep more easily with *increased alertness*. Luckily, the same study also indicated that the effect was very short term.
Parallelism -- the problem with parallelism is that everyone assumes that all problems can be decomposed into problems which can be solved in parallel. This is the "I all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" problem. There hasn't been a lot of progress on the P vs. NP front, nor does it look like there's likely to be one soon, short of true quantum computing. And no, D-Wave fans: quantum annealing is not the same thing as collapsing the composite wave for into the correct answer because you happen to own the computer in "the most sincere universe".
Productive programming -- It's amusing that a semiconductor vendor would complain about programming productivity. The main barrier to programming productivity is that the silicon doesn't think about problem solving the way you have to think about problem solving in order to get a stepwise improvement. In other words: the chip vendors are making the wrong chips. This is really easy to see if you've done VLSI design in Verilog or VHDL, or even if you've only had to deal with an FPGA. The primary difference is that the chip folks never have to deal with "can't happen" states -- so their silicon compilers simply ignore them, because you on'y ever correctly hook up a chip one way. Take a software engineer and have them code up a bit decoder in VHDL -- it's going to be 10 times larger than what a chip designer would produce because of collapsing "don't care" to something reasonable.
Other than that... interesting interview, even if it doesn't cover a lot of ground, overall.
Oh no, a system makes an improvement, but not a perfect, 100 percent improvement, so what, lets throw out the improvement it *does* make?
It's not an improvement across the board. It's likely not an improvement at all, if you are listening to elevator music to make you calm enough to drive in the first place, and suddenly there's a startling "BRAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTT!" that could just as easily come out of the ambulances horn, but didn't, it came out of your radio.
Also: call me back when it can turn an off radio to on, or force your stereo away from whatever you're listening to, over to the FM band so the ambulance can scream at you more than the flashing lights, siren, and horn are already screaming at you.
Also also: so I assume the computer in self driving cars will now listen to NPR most of the time so that the FM radio will alert the car's driver -- a computer that apparently likes "Lake Woebegone Tales" -- will "hear" the ambulance.
It doesn't. Someone has to authorize it with the admin password.
Is this based on anything, or are you just guessing?
The article makes it clear that in order to extract and run the malware, you have to extract and install other malware named "Java".
This "Java" is apparently malware developed by a large database company in order to install security holes in otherwise secure computers, and is so named to trick tired programmers into believing that they are installing coffee.
As of 2004, there were ~530,000 deaf and hard-of-hearing people in Sweden (Encyclopedia of Deafness and Hearing Disorders, p.197.)
So basically 5% of the population isn't going to hear the radio announcements, even if they have their radio on. Which they probably don't, or it's tuned to Sirius Satellite or plugged into their iPod/iPhone.
About as useful as touch screens for amputees whose prosthetic hands can't capacitively couple with trackpads or iPhones...
Currently, that means smarter robots in space. Like Curiosity. Astronaut, like slide rules, are quaint but obsolete technology for space travel.
Not to be too impolite about things... but I kind of don't really give a sh*t about you putting a box with blinky lights on Mars. I have one of those in my closet, it's called an "Arris WiFi Cable Modem".
Unless there are people there to watch it blink, it might as well be a frigging brick.
I watched every damn Apollo launch. When I started school, and there was a launch, I had a note from my mother the next day: "Stayed home to watch the launch". I was always given makeup tests, but since 1/3 of the kids stayed out for the same reason, they eventually interrupted classes for the launches, even if they were "uninteresting" ones.
Who the heck stays home from school to watch the live video of a launch for a little box? Pretty much no one. If you care (which you likely don't, because no one cares about a brick), you watch the video later, on YouTube.
I think one of the reasons SpaceX tried to "stick" the water landing was that no one had done it before, and so the intent was to get people excited about watching things again.
It didn't really work, because it wasn't that exciting, after they blew the first one up.
Send a human to Ceres: my nieces and nephews are going to be staying home and watching the launch with me, even if I have to hog-tie their mother. They will also be watching the approach and landing on the asteroid itself.
Send humans to Phobos, or Mars itself: same thing.
Humans doing things is exciting. Robots operating as they are designed to operate is intensely boring.
The ESA robot mission to Mars has a malfunction? Who gives a crap. Apollo 13 has a malfunction? OMG, I don't know how I did it, but I'm pretty sure I was away like 76 hours straight, glued to the screen.
The incrementalists can all go scr*w themselves: If you all want to take "baby steps" to get from point A to point B, like NBill Murray in "What About Bob?": feel free to fund it yourself.
If, on the other hand, you want to make a "giant leap for mankind", we'll get behind you with the $$$.
P.S.: You can also fund yourself for a "giant leap for a brick"; no one cares if you put a Raspberry Pi on Mars. Really.
It is important to learn to walk before you attempt to run. In case you cannot wait, we'd be happy to strap your ass to rocket and send you to the nearest star. Please write often, we'd love to hear how it is going.
We already learned to walk... you're probably a millennial who was not there on July 20th, 1969 when we took our first steps. That almost 50 years ago this year. Guess what we were learning to do in 1919, 50 years before that? We had just completed the first non-stop transatlantic flight.
50 years before that, the biggest deal in 1869 was closing on the funding for the Beach Pneumatic railway... and it was 10 years before Edison demonstrated his electric light bulb in Menlo Park.
We are sitting around these days, mostly staring at our belly button lint. But we are proud of ourselves, for using robots to do it. It turns out it's the same belly button lint that was there in 1969.
We seem to be saddled with an overabundance of one of:
1. Caution 2. Roboticists, sucking the funding out of everything interesting 3. People with sticks up their asses
Pick one, but we should have a colony on the moon already, if not Mars (at least a Phobos base for the asteroid mining fleet).
In states that have sales tax. Which is not all of them.
The majority do. You are going to be hard pressed to find an example where an enormous % of the working poor truly do not pay any.
Not to mention that local, state and federal governments get their revenue not just from personal income taxes, but also from payroll taxes, corporate taxes, excise licenses, tariffs, etc.
Payroll taxes are paid by the employer, and are almost all federal, with the exception of worker's comp. No working poor there.
Corporate taxes are income taxes paid by corporations. Most working poor do not create corporations.
Excise taxes are on alcohol and gas. Primarily on people who drink, or people who drive cars instead of taking public transportation. Unlike most working poor.
Tariffs are not charged individuals, and the interstate commerce clause prohibits anyone but the federal government regulating interstate commerce via tariff. Which it does not do.
So out of your list we have:
- Poor alcoholics who can apparently still afford alcohol - Poor drivers who can apparently still afford to avoid public transport and own a private vehicle
Slashdot Mirror
People last, right?
I mean otherwise, how will you know the other predators are gone first?
Don't let the cultures that kill of girl children because they all want sons get a hold of this...
you do realise Apple has also had multiple breaches yet you trust them?
So why don't the people doing all the bitching utilize one of those breach methods to insert their data into the Apple Pay wallet? Problem solved, right?
Compared to what? I personally find it much more convenient that my non-Apple mobile phone works absolutely everywhere which has an NFC reader without a specific negotiation between a bank or merchant benefiting only Apple.
I find it convenient that your NFC phone works that way, too.
I'm the person sitting in the car across the parking lot, staging a pre-play attack against your NFC device while you are doing your transaction, because there's not a one time cryptographic nonce, like in the Apple Pay system, which would prevent the attack.
That's me waving at you now.
Yes, your latest purchase is going to show up twice on your statement, and the amount deducted twice. Thanks for your contribution! You can take it up with your merchant when the bill comes; your money is already in a bank halfway across the planet.
By the way: I also plan on an attack on the chip-and-pin system at the same store, if you switch back to using cards, but I'm going to have to actually sit down and case the joint a bit, before I decide which of the 9 identified (so far) ways to hack a chip-and-pin transaction.
Don't you wish you could go back to the days of the old fashioned skimmers, where instead of you eating the losses (because "the new system is so much more secure"), the banks and credit card companies had to eat them?
Cheers!
It isn't always "Homework", sometimes the seemingly arbitrary artificial constraints are there for legitimate reasons and it would just take too long to explain them all, especially since why they are constraints is irrelevant. If you've ever been in this situation, you know to expect a lot of "well why are you doing X? Just do Y instead, that's the right way". I know that's the right way, and if I could do it that way I wouldn't be asking the question and specifically including the conditions that prevent Y from being possible.
I believe the correct response would have been for you to provide the constraints anyway.
You may have arrived at 'X', which is an incredibly ass way of doing the job, instead of 'Y' because of your constraints.
But given your constraints, perhaps a better answer than 'X' or 'Y' would be 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D', 'E', 'F', 'G', 'H', 'I', 'J', 'K', or 'L'.
By limiting yourself to "how do I make 'X' work for this situation (I am unable to figure this out myself)?" type questions, you are robbing yourself of better answers than bludgeoning 'X' into a 'Y'-shaped hole.
If you answer even idiots politely and properly you increase the signal to noise on the internet. If the answer is simply "Go f'n google it" then the next person Googling it may just end up with your unhelpful response, get frustrated, and go find an internet forum.
One would hope that the impolite responses would be moderated away -- in the same way as hoping the stupid questions are moderated away.
LinkedIn has historically had the "fire and forget" problem: someone comes on, ask a question, and then disappears off the face of the Earth. Did they read one of the answers, and get utility out of it? Did Dementors fly off with them, and they are now trapped in Azakaban, in desperate need of someone from the Wizarding World of Harry Potter to rescue them? Who the heck knows?!?!
The other problem is when someone asks a question, it provokes a long discussion, with a large number of thoughtful -- and presumably, time consuming posts -- and then comes back and deletes the whole thing, so that their boss doesn't discover that they are getting their answers from the Internet.
Perhaps the correct answer is: most Internet forums really, really suck, and are managed badly by the people who create them.
Some people ask intrinsically annoying questions.
Case 1: The case of the missing context
1. They have a problem they want to solve
2. They arrive at a solution they want to implement
3. They fail at the implementation -- perhaps because it's an inappropriate one for the original problem
4. They go on a forum
5. They request help on how to implement their solution, giving no context, and leaving the original problem out entirely
This. Is. Major. F'ing. Annoying.
If they simply told us what problem they were trying to solve, rather than asking how to implement their particularly bad approach to solving the problem, they'd likely get a large number of helpful answers.
Case 2: The mysterious homework I don't want to do myself
1. They get a homework assignment
2. They have some constraints
3. They arrive at a particularly bad implementation based on those constraints
4. They fail at the implementation
5. They go on a forum
6. They actually communicate the problem they are trying to solve (miracle of miracles!), but they won't talk about other solutions to the problem, because other solutions won't fit the artificial constraints placed on the problem as part of it being a homework assignment
This. Is. Major. F'ing. Annoying.
We suspect it's a homework problem; the professor at IIT gives the same problem to their class each year, and it's that time of year again. They won't confirm this, because we know they are supposed to do their own F'ing homework, and won't help them cheat, if we know for sure they are asking a homework question.
Case 3: The googles, they do nothingk!
1. The solution is well known
2. You are too lazy to look it up using google
3. Instead you go on a forum and ask the question
4. Even though if you asked google the same question, the first hit you'd get is something from two years ago, in that very forum
5. Anyone who was around two years ago realizes you are using the forum as your own personal search engine
6. They give you shit for it -- shit you actually deserve, for being a lazy ass
---
Look:
* Do a little research before you ask; someone else has probably had the same problem before, and the answer is already out there
* If not, communicate the problem you are trying to solve
* Your solution is obviously not working, or you wouldn't be asking: it's not interesting, because it doesn't work: don't ask us to fix it
* Don't be so married to your solution that you are unwilling to communicate the problem, and consider alternate solutions
If it's homework:
* Some people (10%) will actually help you with these -- they are being assholes by robbing you of a learning opportunity
* They figure it's a win-win
* You get the homework solution so you get a passing grade
* You don't actually learn anything in the process
* You are not competition for jobs which would require an actual ability to solve this kind of problem
* Most people (90%), will give you shit for being a lazy ass and not doing your own homework
---
The negative reactions you are getting: maybe it's not them; maybe it's you.
Watch the scene with Charlie Sheen giving advice to Jennifer Grey in the police station in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" again. Seriously: it's probably you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Please report to the local health center Monday.
We will be distributing anal plugs with catalytic converters to eliminate CO2 and CH4 emissions.
Consumption of beans and other legumes is now prohibited.
This is highly doubtful.
Given the huge amount of money India extorted out of Microsoft after Microsoft bought Nokia, "Oh, we found a bunch of taxes you didn't pay...", anyone with deep pockets, like Apple, would have to be incredibly stupid to manufacture phones in India.
I have to say... my surgeon wearing a VR headset during the surgery would distract the bejesus out of me, too!
Oh.
The patient wears it?
Never mind.
I think you are failing to understand:
"Attenuated S4" means you get less S4 sleep (the kind you need).
"not statistically significant" -- removing the blue did nothing useful -- "exposure to the computer monitor only was reduced slightly relative to the dark control condition" -- the computer monitor putting out the blue light was the same as not having the thing on at all: blocking the blue did nothing useful.
" lower color temperature bright light exposure during a night rest break led to a reduction of subjects' arousal level during the subsequent work." -- you have to intentionally get up in the *middle* of a sleep cycle for there to be any effect; prior to a sleep cycle, there was no effect. This is basically "If you wake up in the middle of the night, you are less alert the next day". That's a big "duh".
Here's 3; the rest are, IMO, not citable, since they use weasel words, such as "may", "might", "could", "should be studied more thoroughly" -- although they do stop just short of "hey, give us a grant, our graduate students are starving, and can't think up anything original".
"In the early phase of the sleep period, the amount of stage-4 sleep (S4-sleep) was significantly attenuated under the higher color temperature of 6700 K compared with the lower color temperature of 3000 K."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
== color shift by fl.ux and others: bad for sleep
"Melatonin concentrations after exposure to the blue-light goggle experimental condition were significantly reduced compared to the dark control and to the computer monitor only conditions. Although not statistically significant, the mean melatonin concentration after exposure to the computer monitor only was reduced slightly relative to the dark control condition."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
== color shift by fl.ux and others: bad for sleep
"After exposure to bright light of 3000 K but not at other color temperatures, the EEG alpha1 band ratio and the beta band ratio at 02:00 h were higher and lower, respectively, than that at 01:00 h. These findings indicated that lower color temperature bright light exposure during a night rest break led to a reduction of subjects' arousal level during the subsequent work."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
== color shift by fl.ux and others: bad for sleep ...many of the other articles were self-published by companies and associates selling products like fl.ux and "Blue Blockers". I'm not going to link to them, because IMO, they are snake oil.
Your turn.
What would be even better would be... links to medline/NIH/NEJM/Lancet papers indicating that the changing of colors is anything other than snake oil being manufactured by the people who brought you "Blue Blockers" sunglasses.
"Blue Blockers: For when you turn 50, take up golf, and wear white polyester pants pulled up to your armpits".
I found 15 medline articles on the idea -- all concluding that thecolor changes don't do dick. The one really reliable study -- the one on Navy pilots -- concluded that the color change *increased* alertness. Good luck getting to sleep more easily with *increased alertness*. Luckily, the same study also indicated that the effect was very short term.
Two comments
Parallelism -- the problem with parallelism is that everyone assumes that all problems can be decomposed into problems which can be solved in parallel. This is the "I all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" problem. There hasn't been a lot of progress on the P vs. NP front, nor does it look like there's likely to be one soon, short of true quantum computing. And no, D-Wave fans: quantum annealing is not the same thing as collapsing the composite wave for into the correct answer because you happen to own the computer in "the most sincere universe".
Productive programming -- It's amusing that a semiconductor vendor would complain about programming productivity. The main barrier to programming productivity is that the silicon doesn't think about problem solving the way you have to think about problem solving in order to get a stepwise improvement. In other words: the chip vendors are making the wrong chips. This is really easy to see if you've done VLSI design in Verilog or VHDL, or even if you've only had to deal with an FPGA. The primary difference is that the chip folks never have to deal with "can't happen" states -- so their silicon compilers simply ignore them, because you on'y ever correctly hook up a chip one way. Take a software engineer and have them code up a bit decoder in VHDL -- it's going to be 10 times larger than what a chip designer would produce because of collapsing "don't care" to something reasonable.
Other than that... interesting interview, even if it doesn't cover a lot of ground, overall.
So?
Oh no, a system makes an improvement, but not a perfect, 100 percent improvement, so what, lets throw out the improvement it *does* make?
It's not an improvement across the board. It's likely not an improvement at all, if you are listening to elevator music to make you calm enough to drive in the first place, and suddenly there's a startling "BRAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTT!" that could just as easily come out of the ambulances horn, but didn't, it came out of your radio.
Also: call me back when it can turn an off radio to on, or force your stereo away from whatever you're listening to, over to the FM band so the ambulance can scream at you more than the flashing lights, siren, and horn are already screaming at you.
Also also: so I assume the computer in self driving cars will now listen to NPR most of the time so that the FM radio will alert the car's driver -- a computer that apparently likes "Lake Woebegone Tales" -- will "hear" the ambulance.
5G: 0 to data cap in 30 seconds! Now that's a fast connection!
It doesn't. Someone has to authorize it with the admin password.
Is this based on anything, or are you just guessing?
The article makes it clear that in order to extract and run the malware, you have to extract and install other malware named "Java".
This "Java" is apparently malware developed by a large database company in order to install security holes in otherwise secure computers, and is so named to trick tired programmers into believing that they are installing coffee.
As of 2004, there were ~530,000 deaf and hard-of-hearing people in Sweden (Encyclopedia of Deafness and Hearing Disorders, p.197.)
So basically 5% of the population isn't going to hear the radio announcements, even if they have their radio on. Which they probably don't, or it's tuned to Sirius Satellite or plugged into their iPod/iPhone.
About as useful as touch screens for amputees whose prosthetic hands can't capacitively couple with trackpads or iPhones...
In other news... boomers 20% more valuable at every stage of life than millennials.
}B^)
LOL!
"Obama Promises, Including Whistleblower Protections, Disappear From Website"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Who else read this as... "Obama OK's 16 more agencies to engage in domestic spying, in addition to the NSA, which already engaged in the practice"?
Currently, that means smarter robots in space. Like Curiosity. Astronaut, like slide rules, are quaint but obsolete technology for space travel.
Not to be too impolite about things... but I kind of don't really give a sh*t about you putting a box with blinky lights on Mars. I have one of those in my closet, it's called an "Arris WiFi Cable Modem".
Unless there are people there to watch it blink, it might as well be a frigging brick.
I watched every damn Apollo launch. When I started school, and there was a launch, I had a note from my mother the next day: "Stayed home to watch the launch". I was always given makeup tests, but since 1/3 of the kids stayed out for the same reason, they eventually interrupted classes for the launches, even if they were "uninteresting" ones.
Who the heck stays home from school to watch the live video of a launch for a little box? Pretty much no one. If you care (which you likely don't, because no one cares about a brick), you watch the video later, on YouTube.
I think one of the reasons SpaceX tried to "stick" the water landing was that no one had done it before, and so the intent was to get people excited about watching things again.
It didn't really work, because it wasn't that exciting, after they blew the first one up.
Send a human to Ceres: my nieces and nephews are going to be staying home and watching the launch with me, even if I have to hog-tie their mother. They will also be watching the approach and landing on the asteroid itself.
Send humans to Phobos, or Mars itself: same thing.
Humans doing things is exciting. Robots operating as they are designed to operate is intensely boring.
The ESA robot mission to Mars has a malfunction? Who gives a crap. Apollo 13 has a malfunction? OMG, I don't know how I did it, but I'm pretty sure I was away like 76 hours straight, glued to the screen.
The incrementalists can all go scr*w themselves: If you all want to take "baby steps" to get from point A to point B, like NBill Murray in "What About Bob?": feel free to fund it yourself.
If, on the other hand, you want to make a "giant leap for mankind", we'll get behind you with the $$$.
P.S.: You can also fund yourself for a "giant leap for a brick"; no one cares if you put a Raspberry Pi on Mars. Really.
It is important to learn to walk before you attempt to run. In case you cannot wait, we'd be happy to strap your ass to rocket and send you to the nearest star. Please write often, we'd love to hear how it is going.
We already learned to walk... you're probably a millennial who was not there on July 20th, 1969 when we took our first steps. That almost 50 years ago this year. Guess what we were learning to do in 1919, 50 years before that? We had just completed the first non-stop transatlantic flight.
50 years before that, the biggest deal in 1869 was closing on the funding for the Beach Pneumatic railway... and it was 10 years before Edison demonstrated his electric light bulb in Menlo Park.
We are sitting around these days, mostly staring at our belly button lint. But we are proud of ourselves, for using robots to do it. It turns out it's the same belly button lint that was there in 1969.
We seem to be saddled with an overabundance of one of:
1. Caution
2. Roboticists, sucking the funding out of everything interesting
3. People with sticks up their asses
Pick one, but we should have a colony on the moon already, if not Mars (at least a Phobos base for the asteroid mining fleet).
This is truly great news!
At the rate NASA is making progress, it will only be 1,000 years after we are all dead that mankind will go to the stars!
In states that have sales tax. Which is not all of them.
The majority do. You are going to be hard pressed to find an example where an enormous % of the working poor truly do not pay any.
Not to mention that local, state and federal governments get their revenue not just from personal income taxes, but also from payroll taxes, corporate taxes, excise licenses, tariffs, etc.
Payroll taxes are paid by the employer, and are almost all federal, with the exception of worker's comp. No working poor there.
Corporate taxes are income taxes paid by corporations. Most working poor do not create corporations.
Excise taxes are on alcohol and gas. Primarily on people who drink, or people who drive cars instead of taking public transportation. Unlike most working poor.
Tariffs are not charged individuals, and the interstate commerce clause prohibits anyone but the federal government regulating interstate commerce via tariff. Which it does not do.
So out of your list we have:
- Poor alcoholics who can apparently still afford alcohol
- Poor drivers who can apparently still afford to avoid public transport and own a private vehicle
That seems to about cover it.
In states that have sales tax. Which is not all of them.