Again I don't question theoretically you can "stack" them. I question that with cars fixed to the road, today's drivers have a habit of hitting things not on the road. Like homes and lawns.
Apple revenue is down something like $18billion from last year.
What the hell are you smoking? Apple quarterly earningsreported on Feb 1. that revenue ending Dec 31, 2017 was up $10B from previous year, and increase of 13%. How do confuse up $10B with down $18B? The iPhone alone was up $7B.
Other than the sci-fi appeal, I don't see that flying cars being more practical than regular cars. First of which is that they are less fuel efficient. You can go anywhere in a flying car which is a problem as you'll see them crashing into homes and lawns, etc.
I think the main issue is not CGI can't be great but that the short timelines don't always allow for perfection. Superman's moustache is a prime example. You'd think that it's trivial for a special effects company in general to remove his moustache but why was the effect so bad? Someone looking at the timing of film argued that given the change in directors, story, and re-shoots, the CGI company might have had a few weeks at best to do all the new CGI that was required including removing the moustache.
That would be the case if owners of Windows Phone 7.5 and 8.0 could update to newer versions. My understanding is that not all of them can. Heck some Windows 7.5 owners couldn't even upgrade to 8.0
There's considerable evidence to suggest that there's plenty of asteroids out there that are nearly pure iron - as in all we have to do is chop it up, hammer it out, or melt it down and cast/print with it.
And how do you propose to do that in a zero G environment? All those processes here on Earth depend on gravity. If you try to "chop" or "hammer" something in space, it doesn't work given Newton's laws of motions . Melting ore on Earth specifically requires separation of impurities to "float" to the top of the smelt based on densities. Casting requires pouring melt into a cast using gravity, etc.
I fail to see what's the gain between launching a rocket with 1 ton of preassembled componned or 1 ton of materia used by a space 3D printer to build those component.
The major gain is self sufficiency. What is the current process today if a part breaks on a station like the ISS? The best case scenario is that there is a spare part already on the station and that it can be replaced right away. However, the station doesn't keep a spare of every single part and they have to wait until the next launch to replace it. That could be a minor inconvenience or a major problem depending what part needs to be replaced.
The second gain is that some parts can be fabricated that are too large to be pre-assembled. Many components are limited by size that can be sent up without being folded or compacted somehow. That is currently is a major limitation of what can be sent in space in that payloads must not only be under a certain weight by also volume so that the payload fits.
Why? The guy at the 7-eleven who rings up your beer purchase isn't licensed.
As far as I know the guy at 7-eleven doesn't open my beer nor can make mixed drinks for me. A bartender can. In fact the 7-Eleven is required to have a food serving license if it serves food as opposed to merely selling prepackaged food.
Home brewers aren't licensed. A friend who has you over for a couple beers isn't licensed.
So my friend is a home brewer is operating a business which sells beer for money? Wouldn't he require a license to do so?
1. The government developed the system. Specifically the NSA. That includes the Skipjack algorithm.
2. The government namely the Clinton administration proposed and promoted the system.
3. At the hardware level chips were designed by Mykotronx and fabricated by VLSI.
But according to you, the government didn't "try". So in other words you want to make up your own definitions.
Do you have a different definition of "tried" than that you used yourself? The government proposed, promoted, and had chips made for the system. Thus they "tried to implement" the system. Manufacturers did not adopt or implement the system and I never said that they did. Unless you want to redefine all the steps that the government did as not "trying".
I would also argue that an additional reason to oppose a backdoor is that it cannot be kept secret for very long. Russians stole NSA hacking software. How much easier would it be to steal secret keys?
It's not just experts merely telling them the dangers. The government tried to implement this back in the 1990s with a backdoor on computers. Security experts found flaws almost immediately with the system and showed how easily the backdoor keys could be found.
Because Apple has said that other than a security flaw, they cannot decrypt the phones if the owner has properly secured it. What they have told law enforcement repeatedly that older versions can be hacked that have unpatched security flaws. If the phone is fully patched, these flaws cannot be exploited.
In fact when dealing specifically with the San Bernandino phone, Apple said one way to access the phone was to wait for the phone to back up to the cloud which Apple controls and could grant access. Instead the FBI told the local police to try to circumvent the iCloud access which then destroyed all access.
No what the rebuttal misconstrues and gets wrong from Consumer Reports criticism is not that Roku has an API for 3rd party developers but that the API itself is unsecured.
The problem we found involved the application programming interface, or API, the program that lets developers make their own products work with the Roku platform. “Roku devices have a totally unsecured remote control API enabled by default,” says Eason Goodale, Disconnect’s lead engineer. “This means that even extremely unsophisticated hackers can take control of Rokus. It’s less of a locked door and more of a see-through curtain next to a neon ‘We’re open!’ sign.”
And, it turned out we weren’t the first to notice this: The unsecured API had been discussed in online programming forums since 2015.
Also the advice given by Roku is already addressed in the article. Disabling External Control will prevent hacking however it also disables Roku's own app.
A Roku spokeswoman said via email, “There is no security risk to our customers’ accounts or the Roku platform with the use of this API,” and pointed out that the External Control feature can be turned off in the settings. However, this will also disable control of the device through Roku’s own app.
You wanted code. I linked it. Now you are saying that it's not "good enough" for you. That's shifting the burden. Here's what I see: Security professionals working with all the major OS consider this a major threat . Yet you keep on insisting on a LIVE demo. Maybe your level of security proficiency is so low that any burden of proof will never be enough. If someone showed you a live demo, will you assert that it could have been faked?
So you want someone to perform a live demo for your satisfaction even though numerous people have published code and analysis? No one owes you anything.
Well you asserting an all or nothing scenario. Certainly Pornhub will never be 100% effective at eliminating all deep fakes. But they can be good at removing the obvious ones. Also technology can be developed that detects these fakes not on facial recognition but detecting the techniques used. Detecting fake images using image analysis has long relied on clues in the data of the image not on a visual scan per se.
So it was never officially or unofficially called "Mojave" then. And again, MS carefully selecting the hardware and software in their Mojave Experiment doesn't mean that consumers didn't have issues with Vista when it launched. They tried to game the results but nobody was really fooled by that.
Not to mention that MS very late in the development cycle allowed Intel GMA 950 video chip to be "Vista Capable"**. I think emails showed later that they did this to appease Intel who would have had millions of computers with chipsets that they couldn't sell if MS had kept with the original hardware requirements.
HP was particularly upset at this decision as they had purposely decided to focus on newer and more expensive chipsets for customers when Vista was launched. The late change meant that their competitors who didn't bother using newer chipsets could and would beat HP on pricing alone and still advertise they could run Vista^^
**For very low values of "Capable"
^^Vista Home Basic only
I don't remember SP1 being called Mojave, but here's the reason SP1 fixed a lot of problems: It was released more than a year after Vista launched. By that time, a lot of other things had been addressed by vendors and drivers and MS. Also one of the glaring shortcomings of Vista was the video card situation where a large percentage of PCs sold around Vista's launch could only run Vista Home Basic and this wasn't clear to many people. So when a consumer bought a new PC that Christmas or early that fall, they were assured they could upgrade to Vista. In many cases that meant only the most basic version that lacked a lot of features. More than a year later, the hardware was actually Vista compatible and not "Vista Capable" as MS tried to sell it.
What I remember about Mojave was the bungled attempt by MS called the Mojave Experiment. The jist of it was that the negativity of Vista was merely perception. It was supposed to be like a blind taste test reminiscent of the Coke vs Pepsi tests where consumers were shown Windows "Mojave" and gave their feedback about it. Not surprisingly it was mostly positive reviews. However, most critics pointed out that with MS not only selected the hardware and software in the experiment, consumers were shown "Mojave" by a demonstrator and not really allowed to play with it or run their own software. As such it missed the major criticisms of Vista by consumers who experience problems on their hardware with their software.
You know this thing called Google exists right? It took me literally 2 seconds to do a search. This was the first result
So we're you not just wrong but also so lazy you couldn't spend 2 seconds to do a search?
Slashdot Mirror
Again I don't question theoretically you can "stack" them. I question that with cars fixed to the road, today's drivers have a habit of hitting things not on the road. Like homes and lawns.
Apple revenue is down something like $18billion from last year.
What the hell are you smoking? Apple quarterly earningsreported on Feb 1. that revenue ending Dec 31, 2017 was up $10B from previous year, and increase of 13%. How do confuse up $10B with down $18B? The iPhone alone was up $7B.
The rest of your statement is at best, fake news.
I'm afraid those days are getting numbered. It's hard enough to get a dumb TV these days.
Other than the sci-fi appeal, I don't see that flying cars being more practical than regular cars. First of which is that they are less fuel efficient. You can go anywhere in a flying car which is a problem as you'll see them crashing into homes and lawns, etc.
I think the main issue is not CGI can't be great but that the short timelines don't always allow for perfection. Superman's moustache is a prime example. You'd think that it's trivial for a special effects company in general to remove his moustache but why was the effect so bad? Someone looking at the timing of film argued that given the change in directors, story, and re-shoots, the CGI company might have had a few weeks at best to do all the new CGI that was required including removing the moustache.
That would be the case if owners of Windows Phone 7.5 and 8.0 could update to newer versions. My understanding is that not all of them can. Heck some Windows 7.5 owners couldn't even upgrade to 8.0
There's considerable evidence to suggest that there's plenty of asteroids out there that are nearly pure iron - as in all we have to do is chop it up, hammer it out, or melt it down and cast/print with it.
And how do you propose to do that in a zero G environment? All those processes here on Earth depend on gravity. If you try to "chop" or "hammer" something in space, it doesn't work given Newton's laws of motions . Melting ore on Earth specifically requires separation of impurities to "float" to the top of the smelt based on densities. Casting requires pouring melt into a cast using gravity, etc.
I fail to see what's the gain between launching a rocket with 1 ton of preassembled componned or 1 ton of materia used by a space 3D printer to build those component.
The major gain is self sufficiency. What is the current process today if a part breaks on a station like the ISS? The best case scenario is that there is a spare part already on the station and that it can be replaced right away. However, the station doesn't keep a spare of every single part and they have to wait until the next launch to replace it. That could be a minor inconvenience or a major problem depending what part needs to be replaced.
The second gain is that some parts can be fabricated that are too large to be pre-assembled. Many components are limited by size that can be sent up without being folded or compacted somehow. That is currently is a major limitation of what can be sent in space in that payloads must not only be under a certain weight by also volume so that the payload fits.
Why? The guy at the 7-eleven who rings up your beer purchase isn't licensed.
As far as I know the guy at 7-eleven doesn't open my beer nor can make mixed drinks for me. A bartender can. In fact the 7-Eleven is required to have a food serving license if it serves food as opposed to merely selling prepackaged food.
Home brewers aren't licensed. A friend who has you over for a couple beers isn't licensed.
So my friend is a home brewer is operating a business which sells beer for money? Wouldn't he require a license to do so?
Clearly it needs to go to 11.
A lot of bad things we dealt with on our planet, often "belief" based, can finally be laid to rest ...
I don't know. We still have Flat Earthers trying to launch rockets to prove the Earth is flat or at least enough of them to fund a guy to do it.
Please put out which facts are manufactured.
1. The government developed the system. Specifically the NSA. That includes the Skipjack algorithm.
2. The government namely the Clinton administration proposed and promoted the system.
3. At the hardware level chips were designed by Mykotronx and fabricated by VLSI.
But according to you, the government didn't "try". So in other words you want to make up your own definitions.
Do you have a different definition of "tried" than that you used yourself? The government proposed, promoted, and had chips made for the system. Thus they "tried to implement" the system. Manufacturers did not adopt or implement the system and I never said that they did. Unless you want to redefine all the steps that the government did as not "trying".
I would also argue that an additional reason to oppose a backdoor is that it cannot be kept secret for very long. Russians stole NSA hacking software. How much easier would it be to steal secret keys?
It's not just experts merely telling them the dangers. The government tried to implement this back in the 1990s with a backdoor on computers. Security experts found flaws almost immediately with the system and showed how easily the backdoor keys could be found.
Because Apple has said that other than a security flaw, they cannot decrypt the phones if the owner has properly secured it. What they have told law enforcement repeatedly that older versions can be hacked that have unpatched security flaws. If the phone is fully patched, these flaws cannot be exploited.
In fact when dealing specifically with the San Bernandino phone, Apple said one way to access the phone was to wait for the phone to back up to the cloud which Apple controls and could grant access. Instead the FBI told the local police to try to circumvent the iCloud access which then destroyed all access.
You have to have a live demo, why? Is it because your level of proficiency isn't high enough to see the code and use it?
No what the rebuttal misconstrues and gets wrong from Consumer Reports criticism is not that Roku has an API for 3rd party developers but that the API itself is unsecured.
The problem we found involved the application programming interface, or API, the program that lets developers make their own products work with the Roku platform. “Roku devices have a totally unsecured remote control API enabled by default,” says Eason Goodale, Disconnect’s lead engineer. “This means that even extremely unsophisticated hackers can take control of Rokus. It’s less of a locked door and more of a see-through curtain next to a neon ‘We’re open!’ sign.” And, it turned out we weren’t the first to notice this: The unsecured API had been discussed in online programming forums since 2015.
Also the advice given by Roku is already addressed in the article. Disabling External Control will prevent hacking however it also disables Roku's own app.
A Roku spokeswoman said via email, “There is no security risk to our customers’ accounts or the Roku platform with the use of this API,” and pointed out that the External Control feature can be turned off in the settings. However, this will also disable control of the device through Roku’s own app.
You wanted code. I linked it. Now you are saying that it's not "good enough" for you. That's shifting the burden. Here's what I see: Security professionals working with all the major OS consider this a major threat . Yet you keep on insisting on a LIVE demo. Maybe your level of security proficiency is so low that any burden of proof will never be enough. If someone showed you a live demo, will you assert that it could have been faked?
So you want someone to perform a live demo for your satisfaction even though numerous people have published code and analysis? No one owes you anything.
Well you asserting an all or nothing scenario. Certainly Pornhub will never be 100% effective at eliminating all deep fakes. But they can be good at removing the obvious ones. Also technology can be developed that detects these fakes not on facial recognition but detecting the techniques used. Detecting fake images using image analysis has long relied on clues in the data of the image not on a visual scan per se.
So it was never officially or unofficially called "Mojave" then. And again, MS carefully selecting the hardware and software in their Mojave Experiment doesn't mean that consumers didn't have issues with Vista when it launched. They tried to game the results but nobody was really fooled by that.
Not to mention that MS very late in the development cycle allowed Intel GMA 950 video chip to be "Vista Capable"**. I think emails showed later that they did this to appease Intel who would have had millions of computers with chipsets that they couldn't sell if MS had kept with the original hardware requirements.
HP was particularly upset at this decision as they had purposely decided to focus on newer and more expensive chipsets for customers when Vista was launched. The late change meant that their competitors who didn't bother using newer chipsets could and would beat HP on pricing alone and still advertise they could run Vista^^
**For very low values of "Capable"
^^Vista Home Basic only
I don't remember SP1 being called Mojave, but here's the reason SP1 fixed a lot of problems: It was released more than a year after Vista launched. By that time, a lot of other things had been addressed by vendors and drivers and MS. Also one of the glaring shortcomings of Vista was the video card situation where a large percentage of PCs sold around Vista's launch could only run Vista Home Basic and this wasn't clear to many people. So when a consumer bought a new PC that Christmas or early that fall, they were assured they could upgrade to Vista. In many cases that meant only the most basic version that lacked a lot of features. More than a year later, the hardware was actually Vista compatible and not "Vista Capable" as MS tried to sell it.
What I remember about Mojave was the bungled attempt by MS called the Mojave Experiment. The jist of it was that the negativity of Vista was merely perception. It was supposed to be like a blind taste test reminiscent of the Coke vs Pepsi tests where consumers were shown Windows "Mojave" and gave their feedback about it. Not surprisingly it was mostly positive reviews. However, most critics pointed out that with MS not only selected the hardware and software in the experiment, consumers were shown "Mojave" by a demonstrator and not really allowed to play with it or run their own software. As such it missed the major criticisms of Vista by consumers who experience problems on their hardware with their software.
You know this thing called Google exists right? It took me literally 2 seconds to do a search. This was the first result So we're you not just wrong but also so lazy you couldn't spend 2 seconds to do a search?