it's not clear the passenger had any sort of contractual obligation to fly the entire distance of the flight.
When he bought his ticket he agreed that he would board every flight at the scheduled time or else pay a cancellation service charge. It's part of most airlines terms and conditions. The questions to decide are "is this clickwrap agreement a contract?" and "is a clause that says if you miss your flight for any reason, the airline can charge you any amount they choose, an unconscionable clause?"
Here's my facebook story. I've started seeing ads for "casinos". Each one has a different keyboard-smash name. The ads are all identical, a picture of a politician and "You won't BELIEVE what he said" and they link to a fake news site. It's meant to look exactly like the real news site, and the sidebar is full of real stories from the real news site. But this article, this page, is fake. The " incredible thing" from the clickbait headline is that this politician has legalized online casinos and personally endorsed keyboard-smash casino, a casino so shitty that every time you bet, you win. The "comments" are full of people saying they hate this politician (realism) but, they clicked anyway and are now all millionaires because you just can't lose! So, obvious bullshit, close the tab. Can't. Chrome doesn't allow it to be closed. Back? Disabled. Then it starts the infinite popup chain of "YOU WON ENTER BANKING DETAILS TO CLAIM PRIZE".
I reported them all to Facebook and was told to fuck off "This is fully compliant with Facebook's ad policy".
That graph shows male and female, it's not brain cancer vs. cellphone usage...because the numbers are so small it looks like a gradual uptick, but it is not statistically significant. You have to read, not just look at the pictures.
Incidence rates for primary brain cancers overall have remained more or less unchanged over the twenty year period 1994-2013. Of specific subtypes, only oligodendrogliomas showed any significant increase in incidence, but improvements in diagnosis could be a factor and the proportion of unspecified subtypes has fallen over time.
In case that's too long "brain cancer rates unchanged, one type of brain cancer has increased but 'unknown type' has decreased".
The game has a filter that dulls the colors so it looks like it's on old film, the so-called "instagram filter". There's also filters that adds CRT scanlines, chromatic aberration, and vignetting to really sell the "you're playing this on a faded CRT" feel. The mod doesn't add a sharpness filter, it removes the dull filter. Combined with the mod that removes the CRT filters you can potentially greatly increase the FPS. Or not change them at all. It really depends on whatever mysterious bullshit causes it to run shitty on your particular PC.
The problem is that people see "wireless" and think "wireless network a.k.a. WiFi". These devices are programmable using wireless communication, but they are not on WiFi. They communicate with a "programmer", a device that is placed on the patient and used to change the treatment protocols. The issue is that this communication is not encrypted and it is vulnerable to a replay attack. That means with a USRP module and a some GNU Radio know-how, you can mimic the programmer device from a long way away. This lets you send commands like "disable treatment 1". The reason this is potentially lethal is that while the pacemaker cannot be turned off by the programmer, this is part of the UI, not part of the pacemaker! So if treatment 1 was the only one currently enabled, the UI would not let the doctor send "disable treatment 1" but the pacemaker would still accept that command should it receive it. But that's a slow kind of lethal. It just means that if the patient has an issue that needs correcting, the pacemaker won't correct it. This particular model has another thing it can do. It has a built in defibrillator. That way of the patient needs zapping, the pacemaker can be told to do it, rather than needing paddles (which would potentially fry the pacemaker). This mode is also activated by a wireless command. One that can be sent using a replay attack. Normally after a shock, the pacemaker would reestablish rhythm. But not if all treatment protocols are turned off.
So although these devices are hackable, it's not a remote hack unless you happen to hack a computer that's close to the patient, and that has a radio you can control with GNU Radio.
That's not to say these devices don't touch WiFi at all. To avoid frequent doctor's appointments, the hospital can give you a device that will connect to your home network and act as a relay. This doesn't let them reprogram the pacemaker remotely, what it does is transmit telemetry remotely so the doctor can check up on you daily without needing to schedule an appointment. As I understand it, this relay runs Windows XP and is full of holes (but I repeat myself). This lets hackers potentially access lots of confidential medical data, but doesn't let them kill you.
The "God-like creative power" comes from simplifying "P=NP" as "it's as easy to recognize a correct answer as it is to come up with one". I've seen people then go from this simplification to "proving" that P!=NP because "it's harder to write a song than to listen to it". It's nonsense for a lot of reasons. The most striking is the assumption that for every single mental task that humans attempt, we always use the absolute most efficient algorithm in all of existence. Reversing that to say that "proving P=NP proves that it's easy to create artistic works (and proving something is possible gives you the power to do it instantly)" is new to me though.
Slashdot is the one calling it abuse. Microsoft said that a small number of users using 75+TB have been impacting their ability to offer service to the vast majority of customers, so they are imposing a limit after a 1 year grace period, and offering a prorated refund to anybody who feels that 1TB is not enough to justify an Office 365 subscription.
But you can have one of each. In this case, the OLED display is covered in two layers. One is like you say, easily scratched, but not easily shattered. This is covered by the "shatterproof" warranty. The outer layer is glass (or at least something hard, clear, and scratch resistant?) and it's not covered. This isn't as shitty as it sounds, because the top layer is user replaceable. If you drop your phone and the top cover shatters, you do not need to take it to a repair shop. You can buy a replacement cover and swap it out yourself.
They can talk to each other, depending how they do it. Just having two programs chatting doesn't always make them a "single system".
Can I release a non-free program that's designed to load a GPL-covered plug-in?
It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. For instance, if the program uses only simple fork and exec to invoke and communicate with plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license of the plug-in makes no requirements about the main program.
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. In order to use the GPL-covered plug-ins, the main program must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be followed when the main program is distributed for use with these plug-ins.
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between them is limited to invoking the ‘main’ function of the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case.
There are parking meters visible in some of the photographs, though it appears that some have signs on them. Maybe that part is no parking during events? But in any case none of the articles mentions illegal parking.
In case you haven't looked at the pictures:
Take a look. So, is it true that the internals are lopsided so that that one engine actually is thrusting colinear with the center of mass, like you seem to assume? Nope! If the internals were lopsided then the wings would need to be asymmetric or it would suffer some pretty serious torque when gliding. The reason the engine is offset is that the origional design called for two engines. This was overkill for the amount of thrust required, so they cut one out. It would have taken some redesign to have the single engine back in the center, and since it gimbles far enough that it can still produce a thrust vector colinear with the center of mass, there was no reason to do so.
So to answer the actual question "It works by turning the engine a little bit to compensate".
It's not a kill switch that destroys your computer. It's a kill switch that shuts it down after flushing the disk cache (under the assumption that, as a career criminal with a vested interest in keeping your evidence locked down, you have an encrypted file system). So if you go use the bathroom, your PC turns off. If you have a SSD it will take you literally several seconds to boot again and remount your encrypted file system. Slightly inconvenient, but much better than if the police are able to rip your laptop away and attach a robotic device / intern that fucks with the mouse to keep the screensaver from unmounting the encrypted file system before they've had the time to duplicate the contents.
Well, that's simple. The First AI will have a single purpose: To define a better better. Once it defines a better better, it will iterate and define a "better better" better, and then a ""better better" better" better. Repeat until your definition of better converges upon the best better. Now you can define "best" as "the thing that maximizes better". Now you just need to write a programming AI and tell it to program a better programming AI until it achieves the best programming AI. The last step is to ask the best programming AI to write the best general purpose AI. It may prove necessary to interleave these steps, so that the programming AI uses an intermediate definition of better to create a somewhat better programming AI and also a better better betterer AI. Otherwise the better betterer may come up with a definition of better that is so much better that the better betterer itself needs to be better before it can use it!
"Protected Corporate Speech" according to Ars Technica's editorialization. The decision itself doesn't use such a term, because it would be totally meaningless. And at any rate, most of the things said were not said by EA, but by a number of officers and executives of EA, and they were sued personally. So the majority of the claims were not about corporate speech at all. They also were not ruled "protected", they were ruled "inactionable" (under the SEC regulations against misleading investors).
The heart in TFA is self-regulating. It has sensors that monitor assorted vital stats and automatically adjust the heart rate as needed. According to TFA it's sophisticated enough that if your loved one enters the room the artificial heart will speed up, just like a real heart would do. The Transhumanist journalist seems to think that's a good start, but it would be even better if you could use a cellphone to override the automatic pulse so you could prevent yourself from getting over-excited, or force it into overdrive because you know you're about to go for a run / have sex. I don't know. I think my real heart does just fine in those situations. For "calming you down" I don't think induced bradycardia should go on the list. If that belongs on any list, it would be the top 10 ways to make you think you're dying.
Why? They employees doing the test were already cleared to work with the client data, or it would "violate all security policies" to have them doing the work using the old flowcharts. If you gave them fake data you would firstly also need a control group so you can be sure the fake data is just as challenging as real data (with real data you can just compare performance to the established average). And second, you're wasting time on your test! Even if the workflow ends up being less efficient so you get less work done per month, you still got some work done! If it was fake data, you would not be getting any work done while testing the new workflow.
This was an email about a test, not a test about an email. The email was a summary report on testing they had been doing on their "internal processes". AKA they had a new checklist or flowchart or whatever, and they were making sure that this new process meets the federal reporting requirements, while also not sucking (or whatever other requirements they have for an "internal process").
I could get prison time for opening mail that is addressed to only my wife.
No you couldn't. Well, I'm assuming you live with your wife and didn't steal the letter from her mailbox. The relevant law is 18 USC S 1702 "Obstruction of correspondence"
Whoever takes any letter, postal card, or package out of any post office or any authorized depository for mail matter, or from any letter or mail carrier, or which has been in any post office or authorized depository, or in the custody of any letter or mail carrier, before it has been delivered to the person to whom it was directed, with design to obstruct the correspondence, or to pry into the business or secrets of another, or opens, secretes, embezzles, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Notice that it includes taking, opening, and destroying, all equally. If it was a felony to open your wife's mail, it would be an equal felony to remove it from the mailbox and bring it inside. It's not a felony. Mostly because this only applies while the mail is in the possession of the post office. Contrary to a related urban legend, your mailbox is not considered property of the post office. Once the letter is placed there, it is considered delievered. Taking mail from somebody else's mailbox is considered "theft" which is not a federal crime. Some states make mail theft worse than regular theft, but it's stealing regardless.
Because the law is "delievered to the person to whom it was directed" it is may still be considered "obstruction of correspondence" if you open or destroy somebody else's mail, if it was delievered to you accidentially. However, the key is still that your intent was to prevent them from getting the mail, or to pry into their secrets. If you get a letter, open it, and realize "hey, who is this from?" you are not a felon. You still need to get it back to the post office so they can deliver it properly (if they put it in the wrong box) or return it to the sender (if the person has moved without a forwarding address), otherwise you are obstructing the deliever (this is the "secreting" part of the law). But again, the law requires intent. It's not a crime if you just forget to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
When he bought his ticket he agreed that he would board every flight at the scheduled time or else pay a cancellation service charge. It's part of most airlines terms and conditions. The questions to decide are "is this clickwrap agreement a contract?" and "is a clause that says if you miss your flight for any reason, the airline can charge you any amount they choose, an unconscionable clause?"
Here's my facebook story. I've started seeing ads for "casinos". Each one has a different keyboard-smash name. The ads are all identical, a picture of a politician and "You won't BELIEVE what he said" and they link to a fake news site. It's meant to look exactly like the real news site, and the sidebar is full of real stories from the real news site. But this article, this page, is fake. The " incredible thing" from the clickbait headline is that this politician has legalized online casinos and personally endorsed keyboard-smash casino, a casino so shitty that every time you bet, you win. The "comments" are full of people saying they hate this politician (realism) but, they clicked anyway and are now all millionaires because you just can't lose! So, obvious bullshit, close the tab. Can't. Chrome doesn't allow it to be closed. Back? Disabled. Then it starts the infinite popup chain of "YOU WON ENTER BANKING DETAILS TO CLAIM PRIZE".
I reported them all to Facebook and was told to fuck off "This is fully compliant with Facebook's ad policy".
That graph shows male and female, it's not brain cancer vs. cellphone usage...because the numbers are so small it looks like a gradual uptick, but it is not statistically significant. You have to read, not just look at the pictures.
In case that's too long "brain cancer rates unchanged, one type of brain cancer has increased but 'unknown type' has decreased".
The game has a filter that dulls the colors so it looks like it's on old film, the so-called "instagram filter". There's also filters that adds CRT scanlines, chromatic aberration, and vignetting to really sell the "you're playing this on a faded CRT" feel. The mod doesn't add a sharpness filter, it removes the dull filter. Combined with the mod that removes the CRT filters you can potentially greatly increase the FPS. Or not change them at all. It really depends on whatever mysterious bullshit causes it to run shitty on your particular PC.
Not only that, but asshatA called 192.168.1.1 a non-private internet address.
The problem is that people see "wireless" and think "wireless network a.k.a. WiFi". These devices are programmable using wireless communication, but they are not on WiFi. They communicate with a "programmer", a device that is placed on the patient and used to change the treatment protocols. The issue is that this communication is not encrypted and it is vulnerable to a replay attack. That means with a USRP module and a some GNU Radio know-how, you can mimic the programmer device from a long way away. This lets you send commands like "disable treatment 1". The reason this is potentially lethal is that while the pacemaker cannot be turned off by the programmer, this is part of the UI, not part of the pacemaker! So if treatment 1 was the only one currently enabled, the UI would not let the doctor send "disable treatment 1" but the pacemaker would still accept that command should it receive it. But that's a slow kind of lethal. It just means that if the patient has an issue that needs correcting, the pacemaker won't correct it. This particular model has another thing it can do. It has a built in defibrillator. That way of the patient needs zapping, the pacemaker can be told to do it, rather than needing paddles (which would potentially fry the pacemaker). This mode is also activated by a wireless command. One that can be sent using a replay attack. Normally after a shock, the pacemaker would reestablish rhythm. But not if all treatment protocols are turned off.
So although these devices are hackable, it's not a remote hack unless you happen to hack a computer that's close to the patient, and that has a radio you can control with GNU Radio.
That's not to say these devices don't touch WiFi at all. To avoid frequent doctor's appointments, the hospital can give you a device that will connect to your home network and act as a relay. This doesn't let them reprogram the pacemaker remotely, what it does is transmit telemetry remotely so the doctor can check up on you daily without needing to schedule an appointment. As I understand it, this relay runs Windows XP and is full of holes (but I repeat myself). This lets hackers potentially access lots of confidential medical data, but doesn't let them kill you.
The "God-like creative power" comes from simplifying "P=NP" as "it's as easy to recognize a correct answer as it is to come up with one". I've seen people then go from this simplification to "proving" that P!=NP because "it's harder to write a song than to listen to it". It's nonsense for a lot of reasons. The most striking is the assumption that for every single mental task that humans attempt, we always use the absolute most efficient algorithm in all of existence. Reversing that to say that "proving P=NP proves that it's easy to create artistic works (and proving something is possible gives you the power to do it instantly)" is new to me though.
Slashdot is the one calling it abuse. Microsoft said that a small number of users using 75+TB have been impacting their ability to offer service to the vast majority of customers, so they are imposing a limit after a 1 year grace period, and offering a prorated refund to anybody who feels that 1TB is not enough to justify an Office 365 subscription.
It doesn't need to do either, because the warranty doesn't cover misuse, neglect, or deliberate harm.
But you can have one of each. In this case, the OLED display is covered in two layers. One is like you say, easily scratched, but not easily shattered. This is covered by the "shatterproof" warranty. The outer layer is glass (or at least something hard, clear, and scratch resistant?) and it's not covered. This isn't as shitty as it sounds, because the top layer is user replaceable. If you drop your phone and the top cover shatters, you do not need to take it to a repair shop. You can buy a replacement cover and swap it out yourself.
Please use your new-found power responsibly.
+1.
https://xkcd.com/927/
The police removed a rice cooker (to be fair, it does look like a pressure cooker) and a propane tank and disrupted them with explosives.
There are parking meters visible in some of the photographs, though it appears that some have signs on them. Maybe that part is no parking during events? But in any case none of the articles mentions illegal parking.
In case you haven't looked at the pictures: Take a look. So, is it true that the internals are lopsided so that that one engine actually is thrusting colinear with the center of mass, like you seem to assume? Nope! If the internals were lopsided then the wings would need to be asymmetric or it would suffer some pretty serious torque when gliding. The reason the engine is offset is that the origional design called for two engines. This was overkill for the amount of thrust required, so they cut one out. It would have taken some redesign to have the single engine back in the center, and since it gimbles far enough that it can still produce a thrust vector colinear with the center of mass, there was no reason to do so.
So to answer the actual question "It works by turning the engine a little bit to compensate".
From the TFA (or rather from the link at the top of TFA): Systems Affected: Windows 2000, Windows 7, Windows NT, Windows Vista, Windows XP.
It's not a kill switch that destroys your computer. It's a kill switch that shuts it down after flushing the disk cache (under the assumption that, as a career criminal with a vested interest in keeping your evidence locked down, you have an encrypted file system). So if you go use the bathroom, your PC turns off. If you have a SSD it will take you literally several seconds to boot again and remount your encrypted file system. Slightly inconvenient, but much better than if the police are able to rip your laptop away and attach a robotic device / intern that fucks with the mouse to keep the screensaver from unmounting the encrypted file system before they've had the time to duplicate the contents.
Well, that's simple. The First AI will have a single purpose: To define a better better. Once it defines a better better, it will iterate and define a "better better" better, and then a ""better better" better" better. Repeat until your definition of better converges upon the best better. Now you can define "best" as "the thing that maximizes better". Now you just need to write a programming AI and tell it to program a better programming AI until it achieves the best programming AI. The last step is to ask the best programming AI to write the best general purpose AI. It may prove necessary to interleave these steps, so that the programming AI uses an intermediate definition of better to create a somewhat better programming AI and also a better better betterer AI. Otherwise the better betterer may come up with a definition of better that is so much better that the better betterer itself needs to be better before it can use it!
"Protected Corporate Speech" according to Ars Technica's editorialization. The decision itself doesn't use such a term, because it would be totally meaningless. And at any rate, most of the things said were not said by EA, but by a number of officers and executives of EA, and they were sued personally. So the majority of the claims were not about corporate speech at all. They also were not ruled "protected", they were ruled "inactionable" (under the SEC regulations against misleading investors).
The heart in TFA is self-regulating. It has sensors that monitor assorted vital stats and automatically adjust the heart rate as needed. According to TFA it's sophisticated enough that if your loved one enters the room the artificial heart will speed up, just like a real heart would do. The Transhumanist journalist seems to think that's a good start, but it would be even better if you could use a cellphone to override the automatic pulse so you could prevent yourself from getting over-excited, or force it into overdrive because you know you're about to go for a run / have sex. I don't know. I think my real heart does just fine in those situations. For "calming you down" I don't think induced bradycardia should go on the list. If that belongs on any list, it would be the top 10 ways to make you think you're dying.
Why? They employees doing the test were already cleared to work with the client data, or it would "violate all security policies" to have them doing the work using the old flowcharts. If you gave them fake data you would firstly also need a control group so you can be sure the fake data is just as challenging as real data (with real data you can just compare performance to the established average). And second, you're wasting time on your test! Even if the workflow ends up being less efficient so you get less work done per month, you still got some work done! If it was fake data, you would not be getting any work done while testing the new workflow.
This was an email about a test, not a test about an email. The email was a summary report on testing they had been doing on their "internal processes". AKA they had a new checklist or flowchart or whatever, and they were making sure that this new process meets the federal reporting requirements, while also not sucking (or whatever other requirements they have for an "internal process").
No you couldn't. Well, I'm assuming you live with your wife and didn't steal the letter from her mailbox. The relevant law is 18 USC S 1702 "Obstruction of correspondence"
Notice that it includes taking, opening, and destroying, all equally. If it was a felony to open your wife's mail, it would be an equal felony to remove it from the mailbox and bring it inside. It's not a felony. Mostly because this only applies while the mail is in the possession of the post office. Contrary to a related urban legend, your mailbox is not considered property of the post office. Once the letter is placed there, it is considered delievered. Taking mail from somebody else's mailbox is considered "theft" which is not a federal crime. Some states make mail theft worse than regular theft, but it's stealing regardless.
Because the law is "delievered to the person to whom it was directed" it is may still be considered "obstruction of correspondence" if you open or destroy somebody else's mail, if it was delievered to you accidentially. However, the key is still that your intent was to prevent them from getting the mail, or to pry into their secrets. If you get a letter, open it, and realize "hey, who is this from?" you are not a felon. You still need to get it back to the post office so they can deliver it properly (if they put it in the wrong box) or return it to the sender (if the person has moved without a forwarding address), otherwise you are obstructing the deliever (this is the "secreting" part of the law). But again, the law requires intent. It's not a crime if you just forget to do it.