Why don't we have a genderless way to refer to people? Its is for objects, their is for groups.
In spite of what your English teacher may have said, the pronouns they, their, them have long been used for gender non-specific reference to individuals in the English language.. Much less clumsy than he/she or any made-up pronouns.
They, their, them work naturally for groups of people, but they are awkward for individuals. We don't seem to have an established genderless way to refer to *individuals* - or genderless singular pronouns.
If you save your password on the phone (so that it gets entered automatically on an app or website), then you are not really adding a second factor by proving that you have the device. For the password to be the "something you know" factor, the something needs to be something in your brain, not something stored the same device that is the "something you have" factor. Does this new setup ensure that passwords can not be saved?
This is for logging into a web site on a separate computer. Google doesn't provide any way to save your Google password on your phone and have it automatically sent to your computer, AFAIK.
Thanks for the clarification. That being said, if you save your password on your computer then your "factor strength" would be two things you have and zero things you know. The strength of "two factor" comes from having two different factor types, not just two different authentication checks.
If you save your password on the phone (so that it gets entered automatically on an app or website), then you are not really adding a second factor by proving that you have the device. For the password to be the "something you know" factor, the something needs to be something in your brain, not something stored the same device that is the "something you have" factor. Does this new setup ensure that passwords can not be saved?
Few are buying EVs douche. And those that buy them are regretting the decision.
You are misinformed. But hilarious as always to harass and demean you.
I bought an EV and I am not regretting that decision. I don't know if I am representative or not, but your statement seems to imply that all who purchase EVs regret the decision. Perhaps you are the one who is misinformed.
While you probably can't prove that the compiler will do what you think it will do, and you probably can't prove that the CPU will execute the compiled code the way you think it will, could you prove that your source code does not have a specific set of common developer introduced programming errors? A quick scan of the article seemed to indicate that this was the actual claim. While not earth shattering, it does seem useful.
It's time for Facebook to be eliminated. Burn it to the ground. Every hard drive, every SSD, every backup tape. Drop Zuckerberg into an oubliette. Enough is enough.
We should also eliminate drugs, alcohol, tobacco, gambling, and a lot of other things that are risky and ruin lives. The problem is that people want these things and are willing to accept the risks involved (perhaps unknowingly accept the risks, but still accept nonetheless.) Facebook really isn't any different.
A plastic bag over a stop-sign should work too and it would get the non-Tesla drivers as well.
Would it? I suspect it could trip up a bad driver, but any decent driver should be able handle the situation safely.
When I approach an uncontrolled intersection (one without a traffic light or a stop sign / other signage) I look for cross traffic and be prepared to stop. Part of my evaluation as to if an intersection is uncontrolled or not is to look at both the signage intended for me AND the signage intended for the cross traffic. If I don't have a stop sign and the cross traffic doesn't have a stop sign, then the intersection is uncontrolled and I have be prepared to follow the rules for an uncontrolled intersection (which here means be prepared to stop; first at the intersection has a right of way; in the case of a tie the person on the right has priority.)
If I were to note that there was a plastic bag over a sign where a stop sign would typically be, I would either think "construction" or "prank" - and I would look around for other indications of construction to evaluate this. Either way I would be considering if I need to treat the intersection specially or as uncontrolled.
Of course if I am driving on a major arterial where there is not likely to be a stop sign (traffic lights would be expected), I am not looking for covered up stop signs and I am not examining the signage for minor cross streets and driveways, but I am looking for vehicles approaching from the side that don't appear to be stopping.
I assume that good drivers think and drive this way. I get that bad drivers may not pay attention and or follow this thought process and that bad drivers tend to be the cause of accidents. The question I have is if the Tesla system (or any automated driving system for that matter) is sophisticated enough to perform this level of "thought" in a weird situation such as a plastic bag over a stop sign. I suspect that the answer is "no" and that would put such systems in the "bad driver" category in my opinion.
We accept this stupidly high number of deaths and injuries because we don't see an easy way out.
Or we as a society accept it because we consider driving our own cars to be a form of freedom. Freedom always has a cost, and today we are willing to pay this cost. The question in my mind is if society will change to the point where the cost of (self driving) freedom becomes too expensive (in terms of accidents) and we decide to give up this freedom. Personally I place a very high value on this freedom - the idea that a government or company at a whim could prevent my car from going where I want it to go makes me very uncomfortable.
I don't know about in Britain, but here in the US there is significant more risk in using a debit card that there is a using credit card. If a debit card is misused, your money is gone or tied up until the situation is resolved, whereas with a credit card, the credit card company's money is tied up. In the case of a misuse or compromise of a card, you have a lot more consumer protection with a credit card. You have a better chance of conveniently getting a dispute resolved with a credit card. I would worry that in the case of a dispute on a card with a fingerprint sensor, you would have fewer options to contest a charge because the biometrics would be perceived as strong (even if they aren't actually.) I would hate to lose the consumer credit card protections I have due to biometrics.
If your job includes doing work at home (either officially or unofficially), perhaps you need supplies at home to do so. Now I would hope that taking such needed supplies home would be approved by the company - and I am fortunate enough to work for a company that feels this way - I can take home pretty much anything I need to for my job, but for companies that don't, perhaps asking people to extend their work lives into their home lives is a driver for physical parts of the office "migrating" to the home "office".
Exactly. In the debate about drivers being employees vs. contractors or some other non-employee legal status that these companies want to think they are (in order to get out of paying benefits and other requirements that are involved with having employees), it would seem that offering access to the IPO would be an argument that they are in fact employees.
So if we could tax Amazon without the cost being passed to everyone else, would you support it?
I am not against taxing Amazon, I am just saying that if we make a "simple" change to the tax law and require companies like Amazon to pay income taxes, there will be side effects such as price increases. There are no "simple" fixes to our taxing structure because things are complex and interrelated. I don't know how you would craft tax code to say "we are going to tax you more and you can't raise prices to compensate". To answer your question if there was a way to ensure companies like Amazon paid a fairer share taxes with no negative side effects, sure I would be for that - I don't see how it would be done though.
Since apparently Amazon pays little or no income tax, the rest of us end up paying a bigger share in our income taxes. However if we forced Amazon to pay income taxes, Amazon would just raise prices to cover that cost - and we end up paying anyway. Granted the "we" in the first case is most everyone (in the US) and is just Amazon customers in the second case. Either way Amazon is not likely to make less money over all.
This submission is fake news. There was a reported sighting in 2013.
There are reported sightings of thylacines as well, but they are still officially considered extinct. In this case, the last documented (not reported) sighting was 110 years ago. However, reported sightings are what led the researchers to this discovery as it gave them a good idea of where to look.
Although unlike the thylacine, the black panther is not (and has not been) considered extinct. A black panther (leopard) is not a different species than regular leopard is. Black leopards are a normal, but rare minor genetic variation of "regular" leopards. It has been theorized that they are rare because their camouflage doesn't work as well, giving them a lower survival rate. All black jaguars also exist, and can also be referred to as black panthers.
"Researchers Use Intel SGX To Put Malware Beyond the Reach of Antivirus Software" actually sounds pretty cool from a technical point of view. Terrifying, but also cool. It would have been way cooler if the headline was "Researchers use Intel SGX to Put Operating Systems and their Associated Software Beyond the Reach of Malware" or even better, "Operating System Vendors use Intel SGX to Protect their Users from Malware"
what damages did they incur by the passenger breaching their contract?
If a passenger doesn't show up for the last segment of a flight, the airline has to make the decision that the passenger is not going to show up and act the airline has to act on that decision before the plane departs. The decision involves if the airline should wait for the passenger and potentially delay the flight, give or sell the seat to a standby passenger, or leave the seat empty. The airline also as to check to ensure that no bags were checked, as if there were bags checked they generally have to be removed from the plane (security rules say in most cases a bag may not fly without its passenger.) Making that decision that the passenger isn't going to fly may delay the flight and inconvenience other customers both on the plane and in the case a delay cascades throughout the system on other flights as well. Making the decision and potentially delaying flights has costs in terms of airline personnel time and customer goodwill. Granted it is hard to put numbers on those costs, and a bunch of those costs should already be baked into the system, but a passenger skipping a flight is not without impact or cost to the airline.
"To do this you could stage software inside and outside of Russia that attempted pings in each direction. You would track any pings actually received and track down the path they took. This could be coordinated with non-Internet based data connections."
Why would they go to that much effort for such poor info if they could just subscribe to BGPMon (bgpmon.net) for a month ($13)?
To look for unexpected paths? BGP certainly drives the bulk of routing configuration but is it guaranteed that *all* routes are manged via BGP? Granted that a small number observation points are unlikely to find rogue routes, but there may be other tests that could be done to find them. Sometimes it is worth testing the "impossible".
Pulling the plug on all known connections is a way to find unknown connections. If after pulling the plug, any packets find their way in or out, they will know that they haven't found all the connections. To do this you could stage software inside and outside of Russia that attempted pings in each direction. You would track any pings actually received and track down the path they took. This could be coordinated with non-Internet based data connections.
isn't a photograph biometric information? Or is the law specific about it's definition?
That's a fair and interesting question.
From a practical point of view the photo they take and print on the pass is poor quality, black and white (barely even gray scale), and low resolution, so I doubt it is has much practical biometric value
I have no idea on the legal distinction between a photo and a fingerprint scan. As an aside, by entering a Six Flags park (as well as the other major amusement part chains) you usually also agree to be photographed and used in marketing materials. This kind of photo isn't tied to your identity, but in theory could be used to track guest movements in the park. Some parks are offering free WIFI and have an App for you phone - which of course allows them to track your movements in the park (but not via biometrics)
As a season pass holder at Six Flags, you can opt out of the fingerprint scanner. You have to ask for a pass with a picture when you process your season pass. You may have to escalate your request to a manager. I am a pass holder and have opted out every year since they added the scanners. That being said, the kid in this story may not have known he had this option and being a minor may not have been capable of making such a decision (to opt out.) I am not disputing that there is a case here, but the fingerprinting process isn't actually "mandatory" at Six Flags.
Slashdot Mirror
In spite of what your English teacher may have said, the pronouns they, their, them have long been used for gender non-specific reference to individuals in the English language.. Much less clumsy than he/she or any made-up pronouns.
They, their, them work naturally for groups of people, but they are awkward for individuals. We don't seem to have an established genderless way to refer to *individuals* - or genderless singular pronouns.
We could just not save advertiser IDs at all.
If you save your password on the phone (so that it gets entered automatically on an app or website), then you are not really adding a second factor by proving that you have the device. For the password to be the "something you know" factor, the something needs to be something in your brain, not something stored the same device that is the "something you have" factor. Does this new setup ensure that passwords can not be saved?
This is for logging into a web site on a separate computer. Google doesn't provide any way to save your Google password on your phone and have it automatically sent to your computer, AFAIK.
Thanks for the clarification. That being said, if you save your password on your computer then your "factor strength" would be two things you have and zero things you know. The strength of "two factor" comes from having two different factor types, not just two different authentication checks.
If you save your password on the phone (so that it gets entered automatically on an app or website), then you are not really adding a second factor by proving that you have the device. For the password to be the "something you know" factor, the something needs to be something in your brain, not something stored the same device that is the "something you have" factor. Does this new setup ensure that passwords can not be saved?
Few are buying EVs douche. And those that buy them are regretting the decision.
You are misinformed. But hilarious as always to harass and demean you.
I bought an EV and I am not regretting that decision. I don't know if I am representative or not, but your statement seems to imply that all who purchase EVs regret the decision. Perhaps you are the one who is misinformed.
Even most electric cars are capable of using powertrain waste heat to heat the cabin, supplemented by the heat pump system when necessary.
Hybrid maybe, electric no.
While you probably can't prove that the compiler will do what you think it will do, and you probably can't prove that the CPU will execute the compiled code the way you think it will, could you prove that your source code does not have a specific set of common developer introduced programming errors? A quick scan of the article seemed to indicate that this was the actual claim. While not earth shattering, it does seem useful.
It's time for Facebook to be eliminated. Burn it to the ground. Every hard drive, every SSD, every backup tape. Drop Zuckerberg into an oubliette. Enough is enough.
We should also eliminate drugs, alcohol, tobacco, gambling, and a lot of other things that are risky and ruin lives. The problem is that people want these things and are willing to accept the risks involved (perhaps unknowingly accept the risks, but still accept nonetheless.) Facebook really isn't any different.
A plastic bag over a stop-sign should work too and it would get the non-Tesla drivers as well.
Would it? I suspect it could trip up a bad driver, but any decent driver should be able handle the situation safely.
When I approach an uncontrolled intersection (one without a traffic light or a stop sign / other signage) I look for cross traffic and be prepared to stop. Part of my evaluation as to if an intersection is uncontrolled or not is to look at both the signage intended for me AND the signage intended for the cross traffic. If I don't have a stop sign and the cross traffic doesn't have a stop sign, then the intersection is uncontrolled and I have be prepared to follow the rules for an uncontrolled intersection (which here means be prepared to stop; first at the intersection has a right of way; in the case of a tie the person on the right has priority.)
If I were to note that there was a plastic bag over a sign where a stop sign would typically be, I would either think "construction" or "prank" - and I would look around for other indications of construction to evaluate this. Either way I would be considering if I need to treat the intersection specially or as uncontrolled.
Of course if I am driving on a major arterial where there is not likely to be a stop sign (traffic lights would be expected), I am not looking for covered up stop signs and I am not examining the signage for minor cross streets and driveways, but I am looking for vehicles approaching from the side that don't appear to be stopping.
I assume that good drivers think and drive this way. I get that bad drivers may not pay attention and or follow this thought process and that bad drivers tend to be the cause of accidents. The question I have is if the Tesla system (or any automated driving system for that matter) is sophisticated enough to perform this level of "thought" in a weird situation such as a plastic bag over a stop sign. I suspect that the answer is "no" and that would put such systems in the "bad driver" category in my opinion.
In my day we had Everquest to ruin our lives.
We accept this stupidly high number of deaths and injuries because we don't see an easy way out.
Or we as a society accept it because we consider driving our own cars to be a form of freedom. Freedom always has a cost, and today we are willing to pay this cost. The question in my mind is if society will change to the point where the cost of (self driving) freedom becomes too expensive (in terms of accidents) and we decide to give up this freedom. Personally I place a very high value on this freedom - the idea that a government or company at a whim could prevent my car from going where I want it to go makes me very uncomfortable.
A drunk toddler could make better policy decisions than most politicians.
They would have to get elected first. Oh wait. Crap.
I don't know about in Britain, but here in the US there is significant more risk in using a debit card that there is a using credit card. If a debit card is misused, your money is gone or tied up until the situation is resolved, whereas with a credit card, the credit card company's money is tied up. In the case of a misuse or compromise of a card, you have a lot more consumer protection with a credit card. You have a better chance of conveniently getting a dispute resolved with a credit card. I would worry that in the case of a dispute on a card with a fingerprint sensor, you would have fewer options to contest a charge because the biometrics would be perceived as strong (even if they aren't actually.) I would hate to lose the consumer credit card protections I have due to biometrics.
TFS and TFA do not present this as the best argument for overturning the referendum. It's presented as a consequence and a notice.
Also, this is one in a long list of consequences of Leave.
And... This is one of the consequences that is actually News for Nerds and relevant in this forum.
If your job includes doing work at home (either officially or unofficially), perhaps you need supplies at home to do so. Now I would hope that taking such needed supplies home would be approved by the company - and I am fortunate enough to work for a company that feels this way - I can take home pretty much anything I need to for my job, but for companies that don't, perhaps asking people to extend their work lives into their home lives is a driver for physical parts of the office "migrating" to the home "office".
Exactly. In the debate about drivers being employees vs. contractors or some other non-employee legal status that these companies want to think they are (in order to get out of paying benefits and other requirements that are involved with having employees), it would seem that offering access to the IPO would be an argument that they are in fact employees.
So if we could tax Amazon without the cost being passed to everyone else, would you support it?
I am not against taxing Amazon, I am just saying that if we make a "simple" change to the tax law and require companies like Amazon to pay income taxes, there will be side effects such as price increases. There are no "simple" fixes to our taxing structure because things are complex and interrelated. I don't know how you would craft tax code to say "we are going to tax you more and you can't raise prices to compensate". To answer your question if there was a way to ensure companies like Amazon paid a fairer share taxes with no negative side effects, sure I would be for that - I don't see how it would be done though.
Since apparently Amazon pays little or no income tax, the rest of us end up paying a bigger share in our income taxes. However if we forced Amazon to pay income taxes, Amazon would just raise prices to cover that cost - and we end up paying anyway. Granted the "we" in the first case is most everyone (in the US) and is just Amazon customers in the second case. Either way Amazon is not likely to make less money over all.
This submission is fake news. There was a reported sighting in 2013.
There are reported sightings of thylacines as well, but they are still officially considered extinct. In this case, the last documented (not reported) sighting was 110 years ago. However, reported sightings are what led the researchers to this discovery as it gave them a good idea of where to look.
Although unlike the thylacine, the black panther is not (and has not been) considered extinct. A black panther (leopard) is not a different species than regular leopard is. Black leopards are a normal, but rare minor genetic variation of "regular" leopards. It has been theorized that they are rare because their camouflage doesn't work as well, giving them a lower survival rate. All black jaguars also exist, and can also be referred to as black panthers.
"Researchers Use Intel SGX To Put Malware Beyond the Reach of Antivirus Software" actually sounds pretty cool from a technical point of view. Terrifying, but also cool. It would have been way cooler if the headline was "Researchers use Intel SGX to Put Operating Systems and their Associated Software Beyond the Reach of Malware" or even better, "Operating System Vendors use Intel SGX to Protect their Users from Malware"
what damages did they incur by the passenger breaching their contract?
If a passenger doesn't show up for the last segment of a flight, the airline has to make the decision that the passenger is not going to show up and act the airline has to act on that decision before the plane departs. The decision involves if the airline should wait for the passenger and potentially delay the flight, give or sell the seat to a standby passenger, or leave the seat empty. The airline also as to check to ensure that no bags were checked, as if there were bags checked they generally have to be removed from the plane (security rules say in most cases a bag may not fly without its passenger.) Making that decision that the passenger isn't going to fly may delay the flight and inconvenience other customers both on the plane and in the case a delay cascades throughout the system on other flights as well. Making the decision and potentially delaying flights has costs in terms of airline personnel time and customer goodwill. Granted it is hard to put numbers on those costs, and a bunch of those costs should already be baked into the system, but a passenger skipping a flight is not without impact or cost to the airline.
"To do this you could stage software inside and outside of Russia that attempted pings in each direction. You would track any pings actually received and track down the path they took. This could be coordinated with non-Internet based data connections."
Why would they go to that much effort for such poor info if they could just subscribe to BGPMon (bgpmon.net) for a month ($13)?
To look for unexpected paths? BGP certainly drives the bulk of routing configuration but is it guaranteed that *all* routes are manged via BGP? Granted that a small number observation points are unlikely to find rogue routes, but there may be other tests that could be done to find them. Sometimes it is worth testing the "impossible".
Pulling the plug on all known connections is a way to find unknown connections. If after pulling the plug, any packets find their way in or out, they will know that they haven't found all the connections. To do this you could stage software inside and outside of Russia that attempted pings in each direction. You would track any pings actually received and track down the path they took. This could be coordinated with non-Internet based data connections.
isn't a photograph biometric information? Or is the law specific about it's definition?
That's a fair and interesting question.
From a practical point of view the photo they take and print on the pass is poor quality, black and white (barely even gray scale), and low resolution, so I doubt it is has much practical biometric value
I have no idea on the legal distinction between a photo and a fingerprint scan. As an aside, by entering a Six Flags park (as well as the other major amusement part chains) you usually also agree to be photographed and used in marketing materials. This kind of photo isn't tied to your identity, but in theory could be used to track guest movements in the park. Some parks are offering free WIFI and have an App for you phone - which of course allows them to track your movements in the park (but not via biometrics)
As a season pass holder at Six Flags, you can opt out of the fingerprint scanner. You have to ask for a pass with a picture when you process your season pass. You may have to escalate your request to a manager. I am a pass holder and have opted out every year since they added the scanners. That being said, the kid in this story may not have known he had this option and being a minor may not have been capable of making such a decision (to opt out.) I am not disputing that there is a case here, but the fingerprinting process isn't actually "mandatory" at Six Flags.