Because the Faraday cage would prevent the phone from RECEIVING calls? Likewise, shutting off digital data stops text messages, doesn't it?
Sure, but that's the point. You turn your phone off and put it in a Faraday cage - doing this you will know that even if the phone is not really off, it won't be able to communicate or use radio signals (gps, wifi) to track your location. When you want to make a call, receive a call (at some prearranged time), or use data services, you take the phone out of the cage and power it up. This of course would make you visible, but those tracking you would only see your location at point of time of your choosing. Many of these products exist, just search for "faraday bag". I purchased one for fun and it does seem to work. Do I use it on a regular basis? Nope, too much trouble and I am not that paranoid. Okay I am a little paranoid, my current phone doesn't have a removable battery so I got the bag in case I wanted to be "off grid" (a little). More of an exercise in principle.
Personally I would think that a bot's "speech" is really just an extension of the rights to free speech of the human creator of the bot. With the human right to free speech (at least in countries that have that right), there is also the responsibility and liability for what is said. The classic example is that of yelling "Fire!" in a theater. You are free to do this, but if you do, and there is not really a fire, you can be held responsible for injuries incurred by people trying to escape the non-existent fire. If you create a bot (program / algorithm that autonomously communicates on your behalf) and that bot makes untrue speech, I would think that you should be on the hook for slander or libel.
My statement was based on the DV vs. EV thing. However you make a great point about the current lack of indication in browsers for EV certificates. I had not noticed that such indication has gone away. I looked at the Firefox, Chrome, IE, and Edge browsers on my desktop -- and in all of these you actually have to open up the certificate and look at the policy OID values to see if it is a DV or EV -- which no one would do. Thanks for the practical correction.
Putting a certificate on a website does two main things: 1) Allows the traffic to be encrypted, and 2) Provides assurance to people using the website that the website is genuine. Let's Encrypt only does the first thing - allows encryption. Let's Encrypt provides no real assurance that the website is what it claims to be. For many websites the encryption use case is sufficient, and using Let's Encrypt makes all kinds of sense both practically and economically. If you are a bank, the social security administration, a retail site that takes credit card numbers, or any site that your users may provide you with sensitive data, you really want to purchase a certificate from an authority that provides a higher level of identity assurance than does Let's Encrypt.
It isn't talking to a 5g network tho. It is lying to you. What use is information if it's false?
Because I am a nerd and this site is supposed to be news for nerds. Being a nerd, I am interested if my phone is talking on edge, 3g, 4g, LTE, 4g+, or whatever. As I travel around, I can make note of what kind of network my phone says it is on. Is this practically useful - not at all - but I am a nerd and it interests me anyway. Am I annoyed that the symbol is misleading and calls something 5g that isn't - yep I am - but I got over 4g not really being 4g and other naming problems in the past. I can translate whatever symbol the phone shows me into what it really is. I would rather have the phone show me two different "wrong" symbols, than one common or combined "right" symbol that shows up for two different network types.
Since the 5G "Evolution" protocol is in theory different from the existing 4G protocols, having the phone indicate that it is using the different protocol is useful.
Sure the icon itself implies something that isn't true (aka marketing) and we can grumble about the inaccuracies of the symbol, but having the phone indicate what kind of network it is talking to is information that I like to have.
You guys seem totally unaware that every major streaming service offers offline listening. Maybe the reason you don't like streaming services is because you haven't given them a fair chance.
Not a grandfather, but old enough to be one. I fully understand that I can listen offline. My concern is not about being able to listen offline in the short term, it is about being able to decide that I no longer want to pay the streaming service and yet still listen to the music that I have heard in the past. If I buy a CD (physical media) or an MP3 (non-DRM logical media), I can pay once and listen to it forever and no one else can decide that I can't. That freedom is important to me. If others don't want to pay a little more for that freedom and instead pay a recurring fee for a service that can be canceled, that is fine as well. Personally I do both, I subscribe to Pandora and Amazon music as a way to discover new stuff and a way to basically have commercial free radio. For the stuff I like and may want to hear again in the future, I buy the actual CD or MP3 albums. One other point that may be a generational thing (or may just be a music taste thing) - I like to listen to entire albums as opposed to single tracks in random order, this sort of listening pattern is hard to find with streaming services.
Doesn't matter, it's still DRM. Hydrian said "CDs are guaranteed to be DRM free", and as the AC pointed out, that's just not always true.
Well there is a CD as in the generic term and there is Compact Disk Digital Audio, which is an official specification that is commonly referred to as a "CD". Actual CDs that follow the official CDDA specification *are* DRM free, other formats that are just referred to as "CDs", but aren't actually CDDA may not be. So you both may be correct.
A robot operator does all that a lot better. Detecting obstructions and mechanical failures is a lot better with the right sensors. And even so, for a train it doesn't matter much what is on the tracks, by the time it's detected it's probably too late.
I don't disagree. My point is that to make the argument for automation, more meaningful statistics should be used.
Driving a train is literally just "speed up" and "slow down". That's it. Why is taking so long to automate train drivers away?
It's knowing when to speed up and more importantly slow down. It's detecting that there is something on the tracks that shouldn't be (and slowing down if so.) Granted obstacle detection is likely simpler than for a car, since the train follows a limited path and you don't need near as many "maps" that define what "normal" is as you would for automobile automation, but you still need to detect if you should perform an unscheduled stop. Driving a train also involves monitoring the mechanical performance - reporting problems (and maybe stopping the train) if there are issues with the engine or breaks. A human driver would notice the sound and maybe feel the vibrations caused by a stuck break, broken coupling, or various engine problems. I am not saying that automation could not include audio, force, and vibration monitoring, but they are not necessarily trivial, and are more than just speeding up and slowing down at preset points along the route.
While a million automated kilometers (of automated operation) may sound impressive in a headline, I doubt that the statistic really means anything. For a train running on a track, the distance traveled isn't very interesting, particularly if the track runs through the middle of nowhere. I would think statistics on numbers of automation decisions made would be more useful, particularly decisions that would have otherwise been made by a human operator. Perhaps statistics on number of grade crossings (where roads cross the tracks) traversed; counts on how many times the train sounded the warning horn, slowed down or stopped, because there were animals or people on the tracks; statistics on how the automation handled other abnormal events such as sticking breaks, loss of cargo, or other mechanical failures.
Buyback rates will have to drop at some point. How long do you think those utilities can afford to buy power at consumer rates?
Building new power generating plants is very expensive in terms of capital and regulatory expenses. It is also really difficult politically with the "not in my back yard" crowd. By encouraging consumers to generate their own power (using net metering / power buyback), utilities can delay the need to build new power plants. While this is expensive because the utilities in effect pay to act as a big battery (at minimal charge to the consumer), this cost can be less expensive than the cost to build new power plants.
The laws of supply and demand don't apply anymore. Can you actually buy what you want? What you want can probably not even be built because some corporation holds a patent hostage
I disagree - the laws of supply and demand still apply. You can buy whatever you want, but due to lack of demand, what you want may be really expensive - If you really want it, you can buy the patents, maybe buy some politicians, and pay to have what you want produced.
so you have to instead buy their inferior, spyware riddled crap
Demand isn't about what you (or I) individually want to buy, it's about what the market as a whole wants to buy. You may not want to by spyware riddled crap, but spyware riddled crap sells well because most people (the market) don't care about the spyware and most people find that the lower price (as enabled by the presence of the spyware) is preferable to paying a higher price for a product without the spyware. If enough people want to purchase and are willing to pay for systems without spyware, systems without spyware will be produced.
Or did some soda corporation decide that it's not in their interest to offer the flavor you want and they bully the local cornerstore into not offering any competing sodas if they want to get the discount they need to stay competitive?
Perhaps the soda flavors that are available are the flavors that the majority of people want to buy? Granted soda manufacturers advertise to generate demand and sway consumer opinion, but if enough people wanted a particular flavor, those people could pay to advertise as well.
I agree that it sucks to be in the minority on the demand side, because it means that I can't buy what I would like to at a reasonable price, but that doesn't mean that supply and demand is dead, it means that it is alive and well.
Sorry for the bad grammar - haven't had my caffeine yet - should have been "or was it as simple as the energy consumed by the arc being similar to the normal load going through the transformer?"
I am curious as to why the arcing lasted so long. Clearly this was a catastrophic fault where a couple of (very big) wires got too close and created a short circuit. Massive amounts of energy would about been used to maintain that arc. Should that have not tripped a circuit breaker or some other protection system upstream? or was the it as simple as the energy being consumed by the arc was similar to the normal load going through the transformer?
Anyone who has knowledge of high voltage distribution systems care to comment or provide a reference as to if this (apparent) lack of protection systems is normal or not, and in general what kind of protection systems are typically in place?
We used to use glass bottles for milk, soda, and other beverages. They were returned, cleaned, and refilled instead of recycled. Refilling uses less energy then destroying and recreating.
The fact that average age is declining in the US is a telling tale how people are litteraly dying because they can't pay for their health.
If the average age of a population is changing, it is because over time the birth and death rates are not consistent. Do you have data that shows an average US age decline is due to lack of health care *affordability*? (as opposed to other factors that could change the average US age such as change in birth rates, change of ethnic mix, new diseases, etc.)
People walk around with papers that say they do not want to be saved in case of an emergency, so they are not a financial burden on their family.
Many people have DNR papers (Do Not Resuscitate) not due to financial reasons but because they don't want to live their life hooked up to machines or in a diminished functionality after a serious medical event.
If India (or any country) wants Facebook (or any big social media platform) to do something stupid like break encryption or censor content, Facebook could rally the impacted citizens by blocking all access. On the home page or app startup screen put something like: "Your government is making an unreasonable request, because of this no citizens of India may use Facebook until this changes." Imagine if instead of removing search results for "objectionable" content Google just said, "Fine, if you don't want your citizens looking at this, your citizens can't use Google at all, and we are telling your citizens why."
In the video the faces of the perpetrators have been blurred out. Why not show and shame the guilty? Put a written warning on the package that says "by opening this box you consent to video recording" or whatever disclaimer deemed necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the Faraday cage would prevent the phone from RECEIVING calls? Likewise, shutting off digital data stops text messages, doesn't it?
Sure, but that's the point. You turn your phone off and put it in a Faraday cage - doing this you will know that even if the phone is not really off, it won't be able to communicate or use radio signals (gps, wifi) to track your location. When you want to make a call, receive a call (at some prearranged time), or use data services, you take the phone out of the cage and power it up. This of course would make you visible, but those tracking you would only see your location at point of time of your choosing. Many of these products exist, just search for "faraday bag". I purchased one for fun and it does seem to work. Do I use it on a regular basis? Nope, too much trouble and I am not that paranoid. Okay I am a little paranoid, my current phone doesn't have a removable battery so I got the bag in case I wanted to be "off grid" (a little). More of an exercise in principle.
Ding ding ding - Winner!
Well it least it gave us a punderful headline.
Personally I would think that a bot's "speech" is really just an extension of the rights to free speech of the human creator of the bot. With the human right to free speech (at least in countries that have that right), there is also the responsibility and liability for what is said. The classic example is that of yelling "Fire!" in a theater. You are free to do this, but if you do, and there is not really a fire, you can be held responsible for injuries incurred by people trying to escape the non-existent fire. If you create a bot (program / algorithm that autonomously communicates on your behalf) and that bot makes untrue speech, I would think that you should be on the hook for slander or libel.
My statement was based on the DV vs. EV thing. However you make a great point about the current lack of indication in browsers for EV certificates. I had not noticed that such indication has gone away. I looked at the Firefox, Chrome, IE, and Edge browsers on my desktop -- and in all of these you actually have to open up the certificate and look at the policy OID values to see if it is a DV or EV -- which no one would do. Thanks for the practical correction.
There is also a lot of "untouched" land surface that happens to be under an ocean.
Putting a certificate on a website does two main things: 1) Allows the traffic to be encrypted, and 2) Provides assurance to people using the website that the website is genuine. Let's Encrypt only does the first thing - allows encryption. Let's Encrypt provides no real assurance that the website is what it claims to be. For many websites the encryption use case is sufficient, and using Let's Encrypt makes all kinds of sense both practically and economically. If you are a bank, the social security administration, a retail site that takes credit card numbers, or any site that your users may provide you with sensitive data, you really want to purchase a certificate from an authority that provides a higher level of identity assurance than does Let's Encrypt.
You're an idiot.
If you don't see how the referenced xkcd is relevant to a compromised sysadmin, I doubt your qualifications to evaluate idiocy.
Obligatory xkcd
It isn't talking to a 5g network tho. It is lying to you. What use is information if it's false?
Because I am a nerd and this site is supposed to be news for nerds. Being a nerd, I am interested if my phone is talking on edge, 3g, 4g, LTE, 4g+, or whatever. As I travel around, I can make note of what kind of network my phone says it is on. Is this practically useful - not at all - but I am a nerd and it interests me anyway. Am I annoyed that the symbol is misleading and calls something 5g that isn't - yep I am - but I got over 4g not really being 4g and other naming problems in the past. I can translate whatever symbol the phone shows me into what it really is. I would rather have the phone show me two different "wrong" symbols, than one common or combined "right" symbol that shows up for two different network types.
Since the 5G "Evolution" protocol is in theory different from the existing 4G protocols, having the phone indicate that it is using the different protocol is useful. Sure the icon itself implies something that isn't true (aka marketing) and we can grumble about the inaccuracies of the symbol, but having the phone indicate what kind of network it is talking to is information that I like to have.
You guys seem totally unaware that every major streaming service offers offline listening. Maybe the reason you don't like streaming services is because you haven't given them a fair chance.
Not a grandfather, but old enough to be one. I fully understand that I can listen offline. My concern is not about being able to listen offline in the short term, it is about being able to decide that I no longer want to pay the streaming service and yet still listen to the music that I have heard in the past. If I buy a CD (physical media) or an MP3 (non-DRM logical media), I can pay once and listen to it forever and no one else can decide that I can't. That freedom is important to me. If others don't want to pay a little more for that freedom and instead pay a recurring fee for a service that can be canceled, that is fine as well. Personally I do both, I subscribe to Pandora and Amazon music as a way to discover new stuff and a way to basically have commercial free radio. For the stuff I like and may want to hear again in the future, I buy the actual CD or MP3 albums. One other point that may be a generational thing (or may just be a music taste thing) - I like to listen to entire albums as opposed to single tracks in random order, this sort of listening pattern is hard to find with streaming services.
Doesn't matter, it's still DRM. Hydrian said "CDs are guaranteed to be DRM free", and as the AC pointed out, that's just not always true.
Well there is a CD as in the generic term and there is Compact Disk Digital Audio, which is an official specification that is commonly referred to as a "CD". Actual CDs that follow the official CDDA specification *are* DRM free, other formats that are just referred to as "CDs", but aren't actually CDDA may not be. So you both may be correct.
A robot operator does all that a lot better. Detecting obstructions and mechanical failures is a lot better with the right sensors. And even so, for a train it doesn't matter much what is on the tracks, by the time it's detected it's probably too late.
I don't disagree. My point is that to make the argument for automation, more meaningful statistics should be used.
Driving a train is literally just "speed up" and "slow down". That's it. Why is taking so long to automate train drivers away?
It's knowing when to speed up and more importantly slow down. It's detecting that there is something on the tracks that shouldn't be (and slowing down if so.) Granted obstacle detection is likely simpler than for a car, since the train follows a limited path and you don't need near as many "maps" that define what "normal" is as you would for automobile automation, but you still need to detect if you should perform an unscheduled stop. Driving a train also involves monitoring the mechanical performance - reporting problems (and maybe stopping the train) if there are issues with the engine or breaks. A human driver would notice the sound and maybe feel the vibrations caused by a stuck break, broken coupling, or various engine problems. I am not saying that automation could not include audio, force, and vibration monitoring, but they are not necessarily trivial, and are more than just speeding up and slowing down at preset points along the route.
While a million automated kilometers (of automated operation) may sound impressive in a headline, I doubt that the statistic really means anything. For a train running on a track, the distance traveled isn't very interesting, particularly if the track runs through the middle of nowhere. I would think statistics on numbers of automation decisions made would be more useful, particularly decisions that would have otherwise been made by a human operator. Perhaps statistics on number of grade crossings (where roads cross the tracks) traversed; counts on how many times the train sounded the warning horn, slowed down or stopped, because there were animals or people on the tracks; statistics on how the automation handled other abnormal events such as sticking breaks, loss of cargo, or other mechanical failures.
Buyback rates will have to drop at some point. How long do you think those utilities can afford to buy power at consumer rates?
Building new power generating plants is very expensive in terms of capital and regulatory expenses. It is also really difficult politically with the "not in my back yard" crowd. By encouraging consumers to generate their own power (using net metering / power buyback), utilities can delay the need to build new power plants. While this is expensive because the utilities in effect pay to act as a big battery (at minimal charge to the consumer), this cost can be less expensive than the cost to build new power plants.
The laws of supply and demand don't apply anymore. Can you actually buy what you want? What you want can probably not even be built because some corporation holds a patent hostage
I disagree - the laws of supply and demand still apply. You can buy whatever you want, but due to lack of demand, what you want may be really expensive - If you really want it, you can buy the patents, maybe buy some politicians, and pay to have what you want produced.
so you have to instead buy their inferior, spyware riddled crap
Demand isn't about what you (or I) individually want to buy, it's about what the market as a whole wants to buy. You may not want to by spyware riddled crap, but spyware riddled crap sells well because most people (the market) don't care about the spyware and most people find that the lower price (as enabled by the presence of the spyware) is preferable to paying a higher price for a product without the spyware. If enough people want to purchase and are willing to pay for systems without spyware, systems without spyware will be produced.
Or did some soda corporation decide that it's not in their interest to offer the flavor you want and they bully the local cornerstore into not offering any competing sodas if they want to get the discount they need to stay competitive?
Perhaps the soda flavors that are available are the flavors that the majority of people want to buy? Granted soda manufacturers advertise to generate demand and sway consumer opinion, but if enough people wanted a particular flavor, those people could pay to advertise as well.
I agree that it sucks to be in the minority on the demand side, because it means that I can't buy what I would like to at a reasonable price, but that doesn't mean that supply and demand is dead, it means that it is alive and well.
Sorry for the bad grammar - haven't had my caffeine yet - should have been "or was it as simple as the energy consumed by the arc being similar to the normal load going through the transformer?"
I am curious as to why the arcing lasted so long. Clearly this was a catastrophic fault where a couple of (very big) wires got too close and created a short circuit. Massive amounts of energy would about been used to maintain that arc. Should that have not tripped a circuit breaker or some other protection system upstream? or was the it as simple as the energy being consumed by the arc was similar to the normal load going through the transformer?
Anyone who has knowledge of high voltage distribution systems care to comment or provide a reference as to if this (apparent) lack of protection systems is normal or not, and in general what kind of protection systems are typically in place?
We used to use glass bottles for milk, soda, and other beverages. They were returned, cleaned, and refilled instead of recycled. Refilling uses less energy then destroying and recreating.
The fact that average age is declining in the US is a telling tale how people are litteraly dying because they can't pay for their health.
If the average age of a population is changing, it is because over time the birth and death rates are not consistent. Do you have data that shows an average US age decline is due to lack of health care *affordability*? (as opposed to other factors that could change the average US age such as change in birth rates, change of ethnic mix, new diseases, etc.)
People walk around with papers that say they do not want to be saved in case of an emergency, so they are not a financial burden on their family.
Many people have DNR papers (Do Not Resuscitate) not due to financial reasons but because they don't want to live their life hooked up to machines or in a diminished functionality after a serious medical event.
now they removed "cellular data"
Sounds pretty courageous to me.
If India (or any country) wants Facebook (or any big social media platform) to do something stupid like break encryption or censor content, Facebook could rally the impacted citizens by blocking all access. On the home page or app startup screen put something like: "Your government is making an unreasonable request, because of this no citizens of India may use Facebook until this changes." Imagine if instead of removing search results for "objectionable" content Google just said, "Fine, if you don't want your citizens looking at this, your citizens can't use Google at all, and we are telling your citizens why."
In the video the faces of the perpetrators have been blurred out. Why not show and shame the guilty? Put a written warning on the package that says "by opening this box you consent to video recording" or whatever disclaimer deemed necessary.