Removing the standard 9-5 working hours would be a far more sensible thing to do. Having everyone trying to get to and from work at the same time causes peak loads on roads and public transport and often results in lots of stationary cars sitting and polluting but not moving anywhere. In the UK, it's particularly stupid synchronisation because most shops use it as well and so ensure that they're open only when people with jobs can't go to them because they're at work.
The real news is that a Google product lasted for more than 5 years without being cancelled or changed into something completely different that all of the users hated.
It will be more interesting to see if the same thing is true in six more years. The original Google Maps API was as simple as the GP says, so there's no reason that Google would break it because it's trivial. It's also largely independent of the internal format for the data: as long as they have a rasteriser, they can keep supporting it. More recent versions are a lot more complex and Google is notoriously bad at maintaining stable APIs for complex things because their entire internal development model is to change APIs and apply automated refactoring tools to all users (which doesn't work so well with third-party users).
Why didn't the person who was leaking just leave his phone at home, then Facebook would have seen the journalist in one place and the leaker in another and not been concerned. Either turning off the phone is enough to disable the tracking, in which case either party can do it because the thing they're worried about is being seen together, or it isn't in which case why ask the reporter to do it?
I'm not sure about the ones in TFA, because they don't operate here, but Deliveroo is not a '0-value-adding middleman', they also organise the delivery. A lot of restaurants here don't offer their own delivery service, but you can still order things from them with Deliveroo.
I have 'food' at home, but only in the sense that I have a bunch of ingredients that can be assembled into a meal if I can be bothered. I have wine and beer at home, which don't require any preparation other than opening he bottles and pouring into glasses (somewhat optional) - the same preparation that would be required if the bottle were delivered. Additionally, the drinks I have keep for months or years and so I can buy them in sufficient bulk that I get a reasonable discount, whereas if I try to keep a meal in a cupboard for a few months it's probably not going to be nice (and if I keep it in the freezer then it's going to require nontrivial amounts of preparation that reduce the value of the delivery).
The complaints about Groupon are from people who misunderstand it. They expect to make money from the promotion. That's not how most promotional deals work: the point of Groupon is to give you wide advertising for a loss leader. Once Groupon has got the people into your establishment, it's your responsibility to figure out how to make money out of them. If the loss leader is the only thing that people want from your shop, then no amount of marketing will help you.
15 minutes sounds a little bit fast, but if you boil the pasta for 2-3 minutes to soften it and prepare the filling in a saucepan (at the same time, while preheating the oven) then you can assemble it and bake it for 5 minutes in a preheated oven for the suace to soak into the pasta and then use the grill for a minute or two to make the top crispy. I hate making bechamel sauce, so that would probably push it over the 15 minute line for me (unless I just topped it with cheese, which I probably would because I'm lazy, and a little bit of roquefort crumbled into the topping makes it so much nicer), but aside from that 15 minutes seems quite plausible.
I've never tried this with lasagne, but a pasta bake with similar ingredients is on my list of things I cook when I'm too lazy to spend more than about 10-15 minutes cooking.
Do you sleep with your analog watch on every night?
I used to, but I stopped a few years ago. I often take it off downstairs and leave it on the side somewhere in the evenings, rather than putting it on my bedside table though, so it would be annoying to have to plug it in. Oh, and it's about a quarter the thickness and weight of most 'smart' watches.
Or sleeping pills, which were tested and calibrated entirely on men because the post-Thalidomide regulator climate made it incredibly hard to add women to clinical trials, which ended up with recommended doses that were too high for women.
Diversity in your test group is even more important than diversity in your design group. A group of right-handed people could have designed a good ambidextrous trackball if they'd seen videos of left- and right-handed people trying their prototype and wondered why around 12% found it completely unusable.
You don't need it to be verified, you need it to be consistent. You are not verifying that the author of X is a specific individual, you are verifying that the author of X version 1.1 is the same as the author of X version 1.0. If both are signed with the same key, then you can be fairly confident of this (not completely, because the key may still have been compromised, but a lot more so than with two unsigned binaries).
Hosting videos was really expensive when YouTube launched, but it's pretty cheap now. The hosting company that I use includes 2TB/month free. For a 200MB video (around 5 minutes at 720p), that's 10,000 downloads per month, which is more than a lot of things on YouTube. Above that, it's about €0.1/GB, or about €0.02 per complete view of the video. If you're dealing with the kinds of volume where that gets expensive, then CDNs like Cloudflare kick in and charge based on the largest file, rather than on the number of downloads. YouTube offers convenience.
That's largely irrelevant though. Advertisers are free to contact video creators directly embed product placements and other ads directly into the videos. The value of Google to the advertisers is that they don't have to do this, Google will pick videos that are likely to have a good return for them. If Google isn't doing a good job at this, then there's no incentive for them to keep using Google.
Do that, and what value does Google have? Their entire value comes from being an intermediary between ad buyers and ad viewers that choses where to place the ads to maximise return. If the ad buyers are choosing where to put their ads, then they don't need Google.
Let's Encrypt implements the ACME protocol. You are free to choose any client for the ACME protocol that you wish. If you don't trust any of the third-party implementations then you are free to either use theirs or write your own, but unless you're using your own implementation of the HTTP, TLS, and TCP/IP protocols for the rest of your web server then you really can't complain that you need to use an implementation of another protocol from a third party.
I prefer to use acme-client than the certbot (the EFF / Let's Encrypt recommended client), because it's written by paranoid people and runs as a bunch of processes with privilege separation between them. It has fairly simple configuration, including a deploy script that is run after fetching the new certificates, so you can move them to the correct locations and restart the relevant services.
The two concepts are separate in TSL. The encryption and the certificate verification are entirely separable concepts within the protocol and within most implementations.
In use, they are usually conflated because encryption by itself is meaningless. As a client, I care that I have a secure connection to a specific server. A secure connection to somewhere random, which may or may not be the server that I expected, is not a secure connection in any meaningful sense.
You don't seem to understand how TLS certs work. The encryption and the signing are different parts of the security model. If I want to provide TLS connections, I generate public and private key pair. The private key is basically a random number that only I know. The certificate is a combination of the public key and some information (for example, my organisation name, the relevant domain name, and so on). When I ask a CA to sign the certificate, the create a cryptographic signature from their private key and my certificate.
The encryption happens using my key pair. The client receives my public key and uses this to encrypt traffic to my domain. The decision to trust the certificate rests with the client, not with me. The fact that a CA has signed the certificate says that the CA believes that it applies to my domain (and, with an EV cert, to my organisation), but the client doesn't have to trust that: it's just another piece of information that they have available.
For a corporate Intranet, you probably want to set up your own CA and install its public signing certificate on all corporate machines, so that you know that no one can forge the certificates.
I suspect that 45 is probably around the age at which most people stop improving. Young people are often motivated but ignorant. Older people are more experienced, but past a certain point (particularly in a tech field) experience doesn't add much because things have changed. Most of the things that you learn in 10 years of experience will be beneficial. In 20 years, a load of the stuff you learned early on will be either irrelevant or actively harmful. In 30 years, a lot of the stuff that you learned early on will be counterproductive (seriously, try reading code from someone who still thinks that a modern processor behaves like a fast 386 - you can often make it much faster by just stripping out the optimisations). If you think that the last 20 years of experience are the most useful, then someone aged 55 doesn't have much of an advantage over someone aged 45, unless they happen to have specialised in something particularly useful.
I'm not even 40 yet, and a load of the stuff that I learned early on in my career is now painfully obsolete to the degree that if I made decisions based on it then they'd be exactly the opposite of the sensible course and most of the things that people are willing to pay me for relate to things I've learned in the last 10 years.
They may have cost less than a totally unrelated piece of hardware, but they cost far more than simpler rockets that could do the same thing. The 'reusable' promise wasn't really delivered: the cost of refitting the space shuttle after each mission was more than the cost of building an entirely new rocket. The complexity from being able to collect a satellite and bring it back from orbit was hugely expensive, for a mission profile that was never used. The space shuttle is a big part of the reason that the Russians were able to massively undercut NASA for launch costs: they built cheap rockets that did one thing well, NASA built an expensive shuttle that did a load of things badly.
It demonstrates that you can train a neural network to recognise certain kinds of pattern, but that those patterns even if they correlate strongly may not be the same ones that another neural network is recognising. I recently saw a presentation about a neural network that had been trained to recognise 'beauty' in urban scenes: it turned out that it was counting the number of discrete trees (take a tree and splodge some grey in the middle and it detects it as two trees and thinks the scene is more beautiful). It happened to give scenes a similar rating to humans, because humans also like trees and the scenes with fewer trees but that humans liked more were statistical outliers.
It also hints at a bunch of the current adversarial work being done on deep learning systems: if you can identify some aspect of the pattern that they were recognising that is distinct from the real solution then you can make them identify things incorrectly (for example, the work last year that was able to make Google's image recognition system switch between 'dog' and 'car' for identifying some images based on changing a single pixel).
This kind of thing may also lead to a better kind of CAPTCHA if you can permute the images in such a way that a neural network trained on harvested and human-categorised CAPTCHA images will make one decision but a neural network that's had a few decades being exposed to human sensory input will make a different decision. For example, what you really want to be able to do with a CAPTCHA is split the responses into definitely-human and definitely-bots and might-be-either accurately, so that you can send the bots to some honeypot but give possible humans a second try. If someone is using a spam bot, then you can redirect them to a playground where they can post spam that only they can read.
Presumably he's talking about the impact, not the size. What did people do with the Windows source code? The governments that had the resources to look for security exploits in a codebase that large already had it, and everyone else was using binary fuzzing tools and didn't care about the source code. In contrast, this is the core of the trusted computing base for an iOS device: it's the thing that ensures that everything loaded subsequently is what the user expects. That said, it doesn't sound like it includes the signing keys, so isn't that interesting.
This story isn't really news. Chinese companies have been turning up at the top computer science conferences (not just AI) for years and recruiting. So have US companies, though they've been doing it longer. It might have been news 10 years ago when companies like Huawei first started appearing at the recruitment desks, but it's been going on so long now that the only way that it pretends to be news is that someone has noticed that AI conferences are treated like the rest of computer science now.
The only way I can conceive of a university without a campus would be if the university activities (classes, etc) were carried out in a distributed collection of random private offices all over the place or something, but I imagine that that is probably not what you mean?
Pretty much. Most of the older universities such as Cambridge and Oxford are scattered over a large part of their host city. I suppose you can think of them as a large campus that someone has built a town in the middle of. Oxford and Cambridge run a collegiate system, so they're actually federated institutions with students being admitted and awarded degrees by colleges, which are independent of the university, but primarily taught in departments, which are part of the university. Each college will have its own (fairly small) campus, but often departments are individual buildings scattered throughout the town. Each department will have some lecture halls for teaching their students. Colleges run supervisions (small group tuition with 2-3 students) and, in humanities, they'll also run seminars with around 10 students. Departments provide lectures and set exams.
This decentralisation means that some college may invite a speaker that another wouldn't tolerate. It also means that you get quite a spectrum of political affiliations, though several Oxford colleges have close ties to the Conservative party and their PPE degree produces more conservative MPs than any other university in the UK.
In Cambridge (and, presumably, Oxford), it's common to see American tourists get onto a bus and ask to be taken to the university, not realising that this makes absolutely no sense as a request.
A much more valid argument again crypto currencies being securities is that they don't have anything of real value behind them, unlike real securities.
Even that's not the case for some ICOs. They're effectively selling shares in a thing, along with embedded rules for how the total number of shares is allowed to grow, but without any of the regulations that they'd have to deal with if they did a conventional fund offering backed by the same thing.
My only real complaint about Apple's new model is that they didn't do it from the start. I don't have any issues with them throttling performance to prevent instability, I do have a problem with them throttling performance to hide the fact that batteries are dying early and avoid replacing them under warranty. Now that a user can notice slower performance and see that they're experiencing it because their battery is dying, they can have a conversation with Apple about whether their battery replacement should be covered by the warranty. Before that, they would likely have thought that their phone needed replacing.
Slashdot Mirror
Removing the standard 9-5 working hours would be a far more sensible thing to do. Having everyone trying to get to and from work at the same time causes peak loads on roads and public transport and often results in lots of stationary cars sitting and polluting but not moving anywhere. In the UK, it's particularly stupid synchronisation because most shops use it as well and so ensure that they're open only when people with jobs can't go to them because they're at work.
The only thing I can think of better than that would be for Sony to buy Facebook and limit access to FB with non-Sony hardware.
The real news is that a Google product lasted for more than 5 years without being cancelled or changed into something completely different that all of the users hated.
It will be more interesting to see if the same thing is true in six more years. The original Google Maps API was as simple as the GP says, so there's no reason that Google would break it because it's trivial. It's also largely independent of the internal format for the data: as long as they have a rasteriser, they can keep supporting it. More recent versions are a lot more complex and Google is notoriously bad at maintaining stable APIs for complex things because their entire internal development model is to change APIs and apply automated refactoring tools to all users (which doesn't work so well with third-party users).
Why didn't the person who was leaking just leave his phone at home, then Facebook would have seen the journalist in one place and the leaker in another and not been concerned. Either turning off the phone is enough to disable the tracking, in which case either party can do it because the thing they're worried about is being seen together, or it isn't in which case why ask the reporter to do it?
I'm not sure about the ones in TFA, because they don't operate here, but Deliveroo is not a '0-value-adding middleman', they also organise the delivery. A lot of restaurants here don't offer their own delivery service, but you can still order things from them with Deliveroo.
I have 'food' at home, but only in the sense that I have a bunch of ingredients that can be assembled into a meal if I can be bothered. I have wine and beer at home, which don't require any preparation other than opening he bottles and pouring into glasses (somewhat optional) - the same preparation that would be required if the bottle were delivered. Additionally, the drinks I have keep for months or years and so I can buy them in sufficient bulk that I get a reasonable discount, whereas if I try to keep a meal in a cupboard for a few months it's probably not going to be nice (and if I keep it in the freezer then it's going to require nontrivial amounts of preparation that reduce the value of the delivery).
The complaints about Groupon are from people who misunderstand it. They expect to make money from the promotion. That's not how most promotional deals work: the point of Groupon is to give you wide advertising for a loss leader. Once Groupon has got the people into your establishment, it's your responsibility to figure out how to make money out of them. If the loss leader is the only thing that people want from your shop, then no amount of marketing will help you.
15 minutes sounds a little bit fast, but if you boil the pasta for 2-3 minutes to soften it and prepare the filling in a saucepan (at the same time, while preheating the oven) then you can assemble it and bake it for 5 minutes in a preheated oven for the suace to soak into the pasta and then use the grill for a minute or two to make the top crispy. I hate making bechamel sauce, so that would probably push it over the 15 minute line for me (unless I just topped it with cheese, which I probably would because I'm lazy, and a little bit of roquefort crumbled into the topping makes it so much nicer), but aside from that 15 minutes seems quite plausible.
I've never tried this with lasagne, but a pasta bake with similar ingredients is on my list of things I cook when I'm too lazy to spend more than about 10-15 minutes cooking.
Do you sleep with your analog watch on every night?
I used to, but I stopped a few years ago. I often take it off downstairs and leave it on the side somewhere in the evenings, rather than putting it on my bedside table though, so it would be annoying to have to plug it in. Oh, and it's about a quarter the thickness and weight of most 'smart' watches.
Diversity in your test group is even more important than diversity in your design group. A group of right-handed people could have designed a good ambidextrous trackball if they'd seen videos of left- and right-handed people trying their prototype and wondered why around 12% found it completely unusable.
You don't need it to be verified, you need it to be consistent. You are not verifying that the author of X is a specific individual, you are verifying that the author of X version 1.1 is the same as the author of X version 1.0. If both are signed with the same key, then you can be fairly confident of this (not completely, because the key may still have been compromised, but a lot more so than with two unsigned binaries).
Hosting videos was really expensive when YouTube launched, but it's pretty cheap now. The hosting company that I use includes 2TB/month free. For a 200MB video (around 5 minutes at 720p), that's 10,000 downloads per month, which is more than a lot of things on YouTube. Above that, it's about €0.1/GB, or about €0.02 per complete view of the video. If you're dealing with the kinds of volume where that gets expensive, then CDNs like Cloudflare kick in and charge based on the largest file, rather than on the number of downloads. YouTube offers convenience.
That's largely irrelevant though. Advertisers are free to contact video creators directly embed product placements and other ads directly into the videos. The value of Google to the advertisers is that they don't have to do this, Google will pick videos that are likely to have a good return for them. If Google isn't doing a good job at this, then there's no incentive for them to keep using Google.
Do that, and what value does Google have? Their entire value comes from being an intermediary between ad buyers and ad viewers that choses where to place the ads to maximise return. If the ad buyers are choosing where to put their ads, then they don't need Google.
I prefer to use acme-client than the certbot (the EFF / Let's Encrypt recommended client), because it's written by paranoid people and runs as a bunch of processes with privilege separation between them. It has fairly simple configuration, including a deploy script that is run after fetching the new certificates, so you can move them to the correct locations and restart the relevant services.
The two concepts are separate in TSL. The encryption and the certificate verification are entirely separable concepts within the protocol and within most implementations.
In use, they are usually conflated because encryption by itself is meaningless. As a client, I care that I have a secure connection to a specific server. A secure connection to somewhere random, which may or may not be the server that I expected, is not a secure connection in any meaningful sense.
You don't seem to understand how TLS certs work. The encryption and the signing are different parts of the security model. If I want to provide TLS connections, I generate public and private key pair. The private key is basically a random number that only I know. The certificate is a combination of the public key and some information (for example, my organisation name, the relevant domain name, and so on). When I ask a CA to sign the certificate, the create a cryptographic signature from their private key and my certificate.
The encryption happens using my key pair. The client receives my public key and uses this to encrypt traffic to my domain. The decision to trust the certificate rests with the client, not with me. The fact that a CA has signed the certificate says that the CA believes that it applies to my domain (and, with an EV cert, to my organisation), but the client doesn't have to trust that: it's just another piece of information that they have available.
For a corporate Intranet, you probably want to set up your own CA and install its public signing certificate on all corporate machines, so that you know that no one can forge the certificates.
I suspect that 45 is probably around the age at which most people stop improving. Young people are often motivated but ignorant. Older people are more experienced, but past a certain point (particularly in a tech field) experience doesn't add much because things have changed. Most of the things that you learn in 10 years of experience will be beneficial. In 20 years, a load of the stuff you learned early on will be either irrelevant or actively harmful. In 30 years, a lot of the stuff that you learned early on will be counterproductive (seriously, try reading code from someone who still thinks that a modern processor behaves like a fast 386 - you can often make it much faster by just stripping out the optimisations). If you think that the last 20 years of experience are the most useful, then someone aged 55 doesn't have much of an advantage over someone aged 45, unless they happen to have specialised in something particularly useful.
I'm not even 40 yet, and a load of the stuff that I learned early on in my career is now painfully obsolete to the degree that if I made decisions based on it then they'd be exactly the opposite of the sensible course and most of the things that people are willing to pay me for relate to things I've learned in the last 10 years.
They may have cost less than a totally unrelated piece of hardware, but they cost far more than simpler rockets that could do the same thing. The 'reusable' promise wasn't really delivered: the cost of refitting the space shuttle after each mission was more than the cost of building an entirely new rocket. The complexity from being able to collect a satellite and bring it back from orbit was hugely expensive, for a mission profile that was never used. The space shuttle is a big part of the reason that the Russians were able to massively undercut NASA for launch costs: they built cheap rockets that did one thing well, NASA built an expensive shuttle that did a load of things badly.
It demonstrates that you can train a neural network to recognise certain kinds of pattern, but that those patterns even if they correlate strongly may not be the same ones that another neural network is recognising. I recently saw a presentation about a neural network that had been trained to recognise 'beauty' in urban scenes: it turned out that it was counting the number of discrete trees (take a tree and splodge some grey in the middle and it detects it as two trees and thinks the scene is more beautiful). It happened to give scenes a similar rating to humans, because humans also like trees and the scenes with fewer trees but that humans liked more were statistical outliers.
It also hints at a bunch of the current adversarial work being done on deep learning systems: if you can identify some aspect of the pattern that they were recognising that is distinct from the real solution then you can make them identify things incorrectly (for example, the work last year that was able to make Google's image recognition system switch between 'dog' and 'car' for identifying some images based on changing a single pixel).
This kind of thing may also lead to a better kind of CAPTCHA if you can permute the images in such a way that a neural network trained on harvested and human-categorised CAPTCHA images will make one decision but a neural network that's had a few decades being exposed to human sensory input will make a different decision. For example, what you really want to be able to do with a CAPTCHA is split the responses into definitely-human and definitely-bots and might-be-either accurately, so that you can send the bots to some honeypot but give possible humans a second try. If someone is using a spam bot, then you can redirect them to a playground where they can post spam that only they can read.
Presumably he's talking about the impact, not the size. What did people do with the Windows source code? The governments that had the resources to look for security exploits in a codebase that large already had it, and everyone else was using binary fuzzing tools and didn't care about the source code. In contrast, this is the core of the trusted computing base for an iOS device: it's the thing that ensures that everything loaded subsequently is what the user expects. That said, it doesn't sound like it includes the signing keys, so isn't that interesting.
This story isn't really news. Chinese companies have been turning up at the top computer science conferences (not just AI) for years and recruiting. So have US companies, though they've been doing it longer. It might have been news 10 years ago when companies like Huawei first started appearing at the recruitment desks, but it's been going on so long now that the only way that it pretends to be news is that someone has noticed that AI conferences are treated like the rest of computer science now.
The only way I can conceive of a university without a campus would be if the university activities (classes, etc) were carried out in a distributed collection of random private offices all over the place or something, but I imagine that that is probably not what you mean?
Pretty much. Most of the older universities such as Cambridge and Oxford are scattered over a large part of their host city. I suppose you can think of them as a large campus that someone has built a town in the middle of. Oxford and Cambridge run a collegiate system, so they're actually federated institutions with students being admitted and awarded degrees by colleges, which are independent of the university, but primarily taught in departments, which are part of the university. Each college will have its own (fairly small) campus, but often departments are individual buildings scattered throughout the town. Each department will have some lecture halls for teaching their students. Colleges run supervisions (small group tuition with 2-3 students) and, in humanities, they'll also run seminars with around 10 students. Departments provide lectures and set exams.
This decentralisation means that some college may invite a speaker that another wouldn't tolerate. It also means that you get quite a spectrum of political affiliations, though several Oxford colleges have close ties to the Conservative party and their PPE degree produces more conservative MPs than any other university in the UK.
In Cambridge (and, presumably, Oxford), it's common to see American tourists get onto a bus and ask to be taken to the university, not realising that this makes absolutely no sense as a request.
A much more valid argument again crypto currencies being securities is that they don't have anything of real value behind them, unlike real securities.
Even that's not the case for some ICOs. They're effectively selling shares in a thing, along with embedded rules for how the total number of shares is allowed to grow, but without any of the regulations that they'd have to deal with if they did a conventional fund offering backed by the same thing.
My only real complaint about Apple's new model is that they didn't do it from the start. I don't have any issues with them throttling performance to prevent instability, I do have a problem with them throttling performance to hide the fact that batteries are dying early and avoid replacing them under warranty. Now that a user can notice slower performance and see that they're experiencing it because their battery is dying, they can have a conversation with Apple about whether their battery replacement should be covered by the warranty. Before that, they would likely have thought that their phone needed replacing.