First off, don't even bring the fascists into this. You Godwin, you lose---especially when you do it badly. The US government isn't doing the silencing, so your analogy doesn't apply.
If no one wants to listen to you, the government doesn't have the authority to broadcast your message into people's faces. Private citizens and organizations can decide what speech they accept on their property.
Make your beliefs credible and palatable to your audience, or find another audience. Nobody is sticking a gun in your face.
So if I'm granted access to manage the accounts payable system of a company I can give out any amount to anybody I wish?
That's fraud. It's a crime. You can do it on a computer, or you can do it with cash or checks.
Or block payments to valid vendors until the company gets sued?
Purchase orders are legally binding. Not criminal, but I'd expect the company to get sued.
You may actually get off without legal repercussions though. Fired? Yes, probably.
But jail? Not so sure---I doubt you've actually committed a crime, but if you have its commerce code stuff. If there were a criminal complaint, the fact that you did it on a computer makes it really easy to dump the logs for investigators though.
You're in the wrong place -the DeVry J.D. reunion is over there:
Sure, get mouthy just because you have no clue what you're talking about.
I have limited familiarity with the computer crime laws in the US, and I've restricted my comments to that small area. I would be absolutely shocked if that guy ends up in prison.
I'm pretty sure that if I as a DBA "accidentally" dropped the production database on my last day of work there'd be some kind of criminal law on the books.
I work in IT, not in the court system, so I'll take a lawyer's word on that. Not yours though, unless you have the credentials. I work on the security side of the profession now, and I understand the legal stuff at a basic level.
Federal law has the CFAA, which generally does not apply if you exercised permissions you were legitimately granted. Unless there are state/local or industry-specific rules in place, there is no basis for criminal prosecution. Not from I've seen, anyway.
My employer has seen deliberate malicious action, and there is little point in criminal prosecution or civil suit. The time and money it takes to gather evidence, lawyer up, and go through a trial offers zero financial return. Termination for-cause usually suffices as a deterrent, and in most states it is also punitive due to the loss of unemployment benefits.
I really don't see why so many here is so quick to defend malice.
There's a difference between defending malice and pointing out triviality. There are accidental outages of web sites that have a larger impact than this act. People are talking about prison time, and the impact was equivalent to littering or TP'ing a house. At most.
I'd have no problem sentencing the guy to a few hours of community service as punishment, but I'm not sure there's a law that covers this situation.
If there's a meeting and someone isn't present, you can usually find them pretty easily when they're at the office. Forgetfulness, distraction, short notice, emergency, whatever---you have fairly reliable access to the people you want.
Teleworking is a bit more complicated. If there are physical documents, specimens, or diagrams, you're going to have limited contributions from the teleworkers.
Tech plays a role too. In an office meeting, you only need one working PC to display videos, designs, documents, etc. That is easy to arrange ahead of time or correct on the fly when you're in a office building full of equipment. With teleworkers, you lose out if everything is not working perfectly for everyone.
And finally, communication. Conferences are always more tedious than meetings---whether phone or video is worse probably comes down to individual preference, but they're both awful once you have more than 2-3 participants. Lost inflection, missing visual cues, and limitations on having brief "side conversations". Plus, there is always the guy with the magical drifting microphone that fluctuates in volume for no apparent reason.
People often cite "teamwork" and "collaboration", which are vague and unsatisfying answers. But underneath those labels, there are some definite shortcomings that are almost impossible to address.
American telcos generally lock up equipment, largely due to risk of theft. Concerns are justified, by the way---I've seen a box of F-pin connectors get stolen. Who has a hundred coax cables they need to put ends on?
If birds chew on the cables, then why not run buried lines and store spare cable in sealed containers?
"The company says it is currently installing protective casing which costs just A$14 each, that will protect the wires from birds in future and save their three billion dollar network."
Oh wait, they already figured out how to deal with it. The article is pointless. "Business is inconvenienced and decides to deal with it." Wildlife has always been a nuisance for utilities; in America, it's the squirrels.
you're probably bang-on with your target audience of Millennial Ameritards.
Stop being a Boomer twat. (Normally I wouldn't be so blunt, but if you're going to start with generational ageism then I'm sure you can cope.)
Conspicuous consumption has a long history and is not limited to the Millennial generation. There are entire classes of vehicles that exist primarily to serve as status symbols, and those cost considerably more to produce or purchase. Arguably, the same is true of houses... and let's not forget the yachts.
So before you blame this waste on the new generation, maybe look to see if their parent generation did the same thing. Of course they did.
So, by all means, stop pointing to a young generation as the harbinger of civilization's end when their behavior is nothing more than a new tune on an old harp.
Those who enjoy legal protections as members of the press incur an obligation to be honest and to disclose all the facts regardless of whether they like them. I don't see why any other kind of media should have any obligation to its users.
Everyone can freely associate or communicate as they see fit---or refuse to associate, if they object to someone else. That's the default; that's protected by the Constitution. If a social platform wants to remove content or ban users based on their content, they are entitled to do exactly that. The users are likewise entitled to leave social media platforms that engage in such behavior if they so choose.
That's how freedom works. Both sides are free to walk away from each other.
I've noticed the people who demand platforms are usually the losers who no one wants to listen to. If you're getting banned, voted/moderated down, or seeing your posts removed constantly, then your attitude and your ideas are just not acceptable to that community. Take the hint and move on.
Jail time incoming for this illegal misuse of corporate services and computers.
That is extremely unlikely to happen. If a user cannot sue Twitter for deleting his account, who is going to bother with the ex-employee?
As far as "illegal misuse", this employee was apparrently granted access to manage user accounts. Unless he circumvented security measures to get that access, he didn't break the law. Firing an employee for misuse is certainly reasonable, but Twitter doesn't need to bother if he already left the company.
I anticipate no legal consequences. Is 11 minutes without Twitter even justification for a torte?
Another libtard is about to realise the world isn't like their faggy echo-chamber they create for themselves.
Ah, so we have a reason for your rush to authoritative, punitive judgment: partisan politics.
Methane contains carbon (CH4), and its combustion produces carbon dioxide and water.
We already burn methane---that's what natural gas is made of, mostly.
And methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, so if this is an area where the methane might be released due to rising sea temperatures, it will be better to burn it for energy before that happens.
Japan is aggressively expanding wind and solar, but it looks like they need to do more than that. Especially if they want to keep their nuclear reactors idle without relying on imports of foreign fossil fuels.
In addition to that, natural gas power plants are already widely established. Natural gas is primarily methane, so the distribution and production technology is already very mature. They only have to worry about the extraction technology, and there is robust infrastructure for everything after that point.
They won't be dumping it directly into the atmosphere, at least not intentionally. When they burn it, it releases carbon dioxide (and water).
Bear in mind that natural gas is predominantly methane, and it is already cleaner than coal and oil. Being virtually pure methane, this should be slightly better than natural gas. This is definitely better than another mine or oil well.
But if they do release it, it will contribute to global warming.
They won't just release the methane, they will burn it to generate power. The by-products are water and carbon dioxide. In climate terms, this is effectively comparable to fossil fuels, except cleaner due to the absence of particulates. This is most noticeably an improvement over coal.
Per the EIA, natural gas gives off about 1/2 the carbon dioxide of coal for the same amount of energy: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs...
Since natural gas is basically methane with some miscellaneous natural contaminants, methane should be approximately the same as natural gas---or slightly better. While it won't eliminate greenhouse gases entirely, methane is preferable to coal, oil, and gasoline.
The glut of academics happens when a field goes from hot to not-hot. In 10-20 years, a lot of people will be "studying to work in AI".
By then, there will be quite a few lower-level jobs and a fairly saturated job market. The hardest parts of the new field will solved, and the bulk of the work will be applying those solutions to a business- or industry-specific function. The same thing happened with robotics/automation over the last 20 years.
There will still be high end work, of course, but the distribution will resemble the legal profession---a few rock stars will make high-six figures or even millions per year, but the vast majority of jobs will support an upper middle class lifestyle. At this point, the relatively secure and relaxed academic environment will become an appealing alternative to the rat race, and the glut will become the status quo once again.
Smokers die young. Their lifetime healthcare costs are _lower_.
Their lifetime contributions are also lower---due to the shorter lifetime. "Contributions" in this case includes health care premiums or taxes, as well as productive labor.
The study itself addresses the overall effect, which you conveniently seem to ignore:
"However, when a monetary value for life years lost was taken into account, the beneficial net effect of non-smoking to society was about €70000 per individual."
That's about $80,0000 in Real Money.
Also, note that they include reduced pensions in their estimate. In the US, we don't get government pensions like they do, so we save even less on those smokers' "lost years" than they do.
I don't know if that bumps it up to $85K, $90K, $100K, or even higher, but they save more on dead smokers because they provide more services to their people.
Are non-smokers going to have to pay for smokers' healthcare too or will the smokers pay a premium to cover the extra burden they place on the healthcare system?
A gloriously simple-minded comment. It's almost like you're letting political tribalism blind you.
If the private healthcare industry isn't adjusting rates for smokers, then non-smokers are already paying too much. On the other hand, if private insurance is already imposing higher rates on smokers, then a social system can simply do the same thing.
Thus, there is no inherent difference between private and social medicine in this respect. You are just a partisan troll.
Also telemetry data relies on customers wanting to allow access to the data and that the data shows problems.
Telemetry is on by default, and it will send some information even at the lowest settings with Home/Professional editions (which are what ship on Surface devices). Telemetry can be disabled completely on Enterprise only.
For example if a device's wifi goes out, how will it report it has a problem with wifi?
Realistically, the telemetry should only have persistent problems reporting severe failures related to network, power, and storage. In all of those cases, it is reasonable to assume the user will report.
Now, I absolutely believe MS is cherry-picking statistics. At the same time, I'm fairly sure they have solid data and a very good idea of how widespread the problems are.
In fact, if the problems are as common as they seem, MS must have a substantial amount of data if they can find something that supports their claimed failure rate of 0.001%---which is so far ahead of typical failure rates that I know it's bullshit.
They didn't collect it for free. They built, advertised, and maintained a significant social networking site. The information may be freely given, but it still cost money for the company to collect it.
If LinkedIn had a meaningful security model, this wouldn't be possible in the first place.
As much as I hate the dissemination of personal information, I'd prefer LinkedIn to lose this case so that social networks are forced to build secure services.
Plus, we'd need a legal standard for acceptable scraping if LinkedIn wins. As things stand, you can scrape almost anything as long as you don't exploit/circumvent your target---which is how I think it should be.
That is a remarkably fast response to a systematic vulnerability by the government.
Assuming this is related to the recently disclosed Infineon vulnerability, less than a month has lapsed between public disclosure of the vulnerability and a formal announcement of their affected assets and remediation process.
I have seen places that would take twice as long just to figure out what is affected in the first place.
The Federal Government, btw, is fully within its rights to regulate "interstate commerce"; so, on this issue, state rights are subservient to the Federal Government's enumerated powers.
Absolutely correct.
And I believe the federal government should mandate robust privacy protections on all providers of telecommunications and information services.
If a large corporation is requesting specific regulations, the best course of action for the average American is to give them the opposite.
Most of the basic rules for fairness have been in place for years; new requests usually lead to profiteering, abuse of customers, or restriction of competition. It looks like Verizon is aiming for two of those things.
I was hoping to see a bunch of pictures of the normal people. Not a bunch of models.
You might want to retract that criticism. The article says they trained the network with celebrity photos, most of which benefit from professional makeup, lighting, and retouching.
If they trained it with regular family photos instead, I assume the output would be more in line with your expectations.
From the evolution point of view, suicidal thoughts would be selected against.
Not necessarily. A tribe member which is effectively a burden on the population can be purged to benefit the group as a whole. Abortion (both natural and intentional) as well as infanticide have been present across a wide swath of human history. Pro-social behaviors, including altruism, are present as well, even in lower species.
Many tribes have extended familial relationships, which could encourage selection for tribal altruism. Once selected, the trait would take quite some time to die out even if our communities are no longer tribal today; if our communities are merely less tribal than before, the trait might still be advantageous or neutral.
But, a mammal, primate like us still having suicidal thoughts in our gene pool is inexplicable.
This is not true. It is widely accepted that parents risking death to save their offspring is normal and likely adaptive behavior. Sometimes, parents will face certain death to save their offspring---yet, human offspring only share half of their DNA with each parent. The ability to choose death is built in somewhere, and the only question is whether non-coerced suicide is ever an efficient use of that capacity.
In the end, all humans die, so it makes sense that we provide for future generations even at a personal cost. Your genes will not live on through you; the DNA inside your body is doomed. Those genes will only live on through your offspring, your extended family, and your tribe. Their material success is essential to your long-term genetic success.
At some point, if your reproductive opportunities, contribution to group survival, and your individual cost of continued survival are all tallied up, it is possible that the cost of individual survival outweighs the other factors. In this case, suicide would be the most effective option.
Remember that natural selection operates on the genetic level, not the individual organism. Even bacteria commit suicide under stressful conditions, so it's not like humans are unique in this respect.
It's just we haven't found a "cheap and economic" solution to resolve 'how' to stop batteries from failing.
It's a good thing they're trying to figure that out instead of being a smug asshole on the internet. Someone has to do the hard work.
Step 1 is figuring out exactly how the dendrites form. That information can lead to some guesses on how to reduce or prevent it. Current methods are basically a shot in the dark that happened to work.
For example, it helps to know that the dendrites are nearly perfect crystals, not the root-like tendrils they originally appeared to be. From the article, this is likely due to corrosion from exposure to air associated with older methods of observation:
"The new images reveal that each lithium metal dendrite is a long, beautifully formed six-sided crystal – not the irregular, pitted shape depicted in previous electron microscope shots."
But hey, if you already got that figured out, why not blast them an email real quick? Once you get them sorted out, we can all enjoy safer and more durable batteries.
Does this also mean they can "unlock" the soft-locked downgrades on the cheaper processor series to make them full strength?
Long story short, no. The IME interacts with the machine's firmware and can be killed that way. The thermal and frequency limits are untouchable and look likely to remain that way.
So if the management engine isn't actually necessary what actually does it provide?
Legacy device emulation, out of band management, health status and alerting. It offers a lot of functionality; the only problem is that the code is so privileged that the OS cannot even detect it.
Is this new one open source? or have we met the new boss, same as the old boss?
They are simply disabling IME. There is no replacement; your machine doesn't need it to operate.
Someone isn't using the new.NET calculator. You still on Win7 by any chance?
On the bright side, -8.1648465955514287168521180122928e-39 is much more accurate than -1.068281969439142e-19, and I mean that both sarcastically and not sarcastically.
I understand returning a FLOAT from a square root operation. Kind of funny in this case, but the real question is: Does this follow IEEE rounding guidelines?
Slashdot Mirror
First off, don't even bring the fascists into this. You Godwin, you lose---especially when you do it badly. The US government isn't doing the silencing, so your analogy doesn't apply.
If no one wants to listen to you, the government doesn't have the authority to broadcast your message into people's faces. Private citizens and organizations can decide what speech they accept on their property.
Make your beliefs credible and palatable to your audience, or find another audience. Nobody is sticking a gun in your face.
So if I'm granted access to manage the accounts payable system of a company I can give out any amount to anybody I wish?
That's fraud. It's a crime. You can do it on a computer, or you can do it with cash or checks.
Or block payments to valid vendors until the company gets sued?
Purchase orders are legally binding. Not criminal, but I'd expect the company to get sued.
You may actually get off without legal repercussions though. Fired? Yes, probably.
But jail? Not so sure---I doubt you've actually committed a crime, but if you have its commerce code stuff. If there were a criminal complaint, the fact that you did it on a computer makes it really easy to dump the logs for investigators though.
You're in the wrong place -the DeVry J.D. reunion is over there:
Sure, get mouthy just because you have no clue what you're talking about.
I have limited familiarity with the computer crime laws in the US, and I've restricted my comments to that small area. I would be absolutely shocked if that guy ends up in prison.
I'm pretty sure that if I as a DBA "accidentally" dropped the production database on my last day of work there'd be some kind of criminal law on the books.
I work in IT, not in the court system, so I'll take a lawyer's word on that. Not yours though, unless you have the credentials. I work on the security side of the profession now, and I understand the legal stuff at a basic level.
Federal law has the CFAA, which generally does not apply if you exercised permissions you were legitimately granted. Unless there are state/local or industry-specific rules in place, there is no basis for criminal prosecution. Not from I've seen, anyway.
My employer has seen deliberate malicious action, and there is little point in criminal prosecution or civil suit. The time and money it takes to gather evidence, lawyer up, and go through a trial offers zero financial return. Termination for-cause usually suffices as a deterrent, and in most states it is also punitive due to the loss of unemployment benefits.
I really don't see why so many here is so quick to defend malice.
There's a difference between defending malice and pointing out triviality. There are accidental outages of web sites that have a larger impact than this act. People are talking about prison time, and the impact was equivalent to littering or TP'ing a house. At most.
I'd have no problem sentencing the guy to a few hours of community service as punishment, but I'm not sure there's a law that covers this situation.
If there's a meeting and someone isn't present, you can usually find them pretty easily when they're at the office. Forgetfulness, distraction, short notice, emergency, whatever---you have fairly reliable access to the people you want.
Teleworking is a bit more complicated. If there are physical documents, specimens, or diagrams, you're going to have limited contributions from the teleworkers.
Tech plays a role too. In an office meeting, you only need one working PC to display videos, designs, documents, etc. That is easy to arrange ahead of time or correct on the fly when you're in a office building full of equipment. With teleworkers, you lose out if everything is not working perfectly for everyone.
And finally, communication. Conferences are always more tedious than meetings---whether phone or video is worse probably comes down to individual preference, but they're both awful once you have more than 2-3 participants. Lost inflection, missing visual cues, and limitations on having brief "side conversations". Plus, there is always the guy with the magical drifting microphone that fluctuates in volume for no apparent reason.
People often cite "teamwork" and "collaboration", which are vague and unsatisfying answers. But underneath those labels, there are some definite shortcomings that are almost impossible to address.
spare cables chewed and frayed
American telcos generally lock up equipment, largely due to risk of theft. Concerns are justified, by the way---I've seen a box of F-pin connectors get stolen. Who has a hundred coax cables they need to put ends on?
If birds chew on the cables, then why not run buried lines and store spare cable in sealed containers?
"The company says it is currently installing protective casing which costs just A$14 each, that will protect the wires from birds in future and save their three billion dollar network."
Oh wait, they already figured out how to deal with it. The article is pointless. "Business is inconvenienced and decides to deal with it." Wildlife has always been a nuisance for utilities; in America, it's the squirrels.
you're probably bang-on with your target audience of Millennial Ameritards.
Stop being a Boomer twat. (Normally I wouldn't be so blunt, but if you're going to start with generational ageism then I'm sure you can cope.)
Conspicuous consumption has a long history and is not limited to the Millennial generation. There are entire classes of vehicles that exist primarily to serve as status symbols, and those cost considerably more to produce or purchase. Arguably, the same is true of houses... and let's not forget the yachts.
So before you blame this waste on the new generation, maybe look to see if their parent generation did the same thing. Of course they did.
So, by all means, stop pointing to a young generation as the harbinger of civilization's end when their behavior is nothing more than a new tune on an old harp.
Those who enjoy legal protections as members of the press incur an obligation to be honest and to disclose all the facts regardless of whether they like them. I don't see why any other kind of media should have any obligation to its users.
Everyone can freely associate or communicate as they see fit---or refuse to associate, if they object to someone else. That's the default; that's protected by the Constitution. If a social platform wants to remove content or ban users based on their content, they are entitled to do exactly that. The users are likewise entitled to leave social media platforms that engage in such behavior if they so choose.
That's how freedom works. Both sides are free to walk away from each other.
I've noticed the people who demand platforms are usually the losers who no one wants to listen to. If you're getting banned, voted/moderated down, or seeing your posts removed constantly, then your attitude and your ideas are just not acceptable to that community. Take the hint and move on.
Jail time incoming for this illegal misuse of corporate services and computers.
That is extremely unlikely to happen. If a user cannot sue Twitter for deleting his account, who is going to bother with the ex-employee?
As far as "illegal misuse", this employee was apparrently granted access to manage user accounts. Unless he circumvented security measures to get that access, he didn't break the law. Firing an employee for misuse is certainly reasonable, but Twitter doesn't need to bother if he already left the company.
I anticipate no legal consequences. Is 11 minutes without Twitter even justification for a torte?
Another libtard is about to realise the world isn't like their faggy echo-chamber they create for themselves.
Ah, so we have a reason for your rush to authoritative, punitive judgment: partisan politics.
Methane contains carbon (CH4), and its combustion produces carbon dioxide and water.
We already burn methane---that's what natural gas is made of, mostly.
And methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, so if this is an area where the methane might be released due to rising sea temperatures, it will be better to burn it for energy before that happens.
What's wrong with wind and solar?
Japan is aggressively expanding wind and solar, but it looks like they need to do more than that. Especially if they want to keep their nuclear reactors idle without relying on imports of foreign fossil fuels.
In addition to that, natural gas power plants are already widely established. Natural gas is primarily methane, so the distribution and production technology is already very mature. They only have to worry about the extraction technology, and there is robust infrastructure for everything after that point.
They won't be dumping it directly into the atmosphere, at least not intentionally. When they burn it, it releases carbon dioxide (and water).
Bear in mind that natural gas is predominantly methane, and it is already cleaner than coal and oil. Being virtually pure methane, this should be slightly better than natural gas. This is definitely better than another mine or oil well.
But if they do release it, it will contribute to global warming.
They won't just release the methane, they will burn it to generate power. The by-products are water and carbon dioxide. In climate terms, this is effectively comparable to fossil fuels, except cleaner due to the absence of particulates. This is most noticeably an improvement over coal.
Per the EIA, natural gas gives off about 1/2 the carbon dioxide of coal for the same amount of energy:
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs...
Since natural gas is basically methane with some miscellaneous natural contaminants, methane should be approximately the same as natural gas---or slightly better. While it won't eliminate greenhouse gases entirely, methane is preferable to coal, oil, and gasoline.
The glut of academics happens when a field goes from hot to not-hot. In 10-20 years, a lot of people will be "studying to work in AI".
By then, there will be quite a few lower-level jobs and a fairly saturated job market. The hardest parts of the new field will solved, and the bulk of the work will be applying those solutions to a business- or industry-specific function. The same thing happened with robotics/automation over the last 20 years.
There will still be high end work, of course, but the distribution will resemble the legal profession---a few rock stars will make high-six figures or even millions per year, but the vast majority of jobs will support an upper middle class lifestyle. At this point, the relatively secure and relaxed academic environment will become an appealing alternative to the rat race, and the glut will become the status quo once again.
Smokers die young. Their lifetime healthcare costs are _lower_.
Their lifetime contributions are also lower---due to the shorter lifetime. "Contributions" in this case includes health care premiums or taxes, as well as productive labor.
The study itself addresses the overall effect, which you conveniently seem to ignore:
"However, when a monetary value for life years lost was taken into account, the beneficial net effect of non-smoking to society was about €70000 per individual."
That's about $80,0000 in Real Money.
Also, note that they include reduced pensions in their estimate. In the US, we don't get government pensions like they do, so we save even less on those smokers' "lost years" than they do.
I don't know if that bumps it up to $85K, $90K, $100K, or even higher, but they save more on dead smokers because they provide more services to their people.
Are non-smokers going to have to pay for smokers' healthcare too or will the smokers pay a premium to cover the extra burden they place on the healthcare system?
A gloriously simple-minded comment. It's almost like you're letting political tribalism blind you.
If the private healthcare industry isn't adjusting rates for smokers, then non-smokers are already paying too much. On the other hand, if private insurance is already imposing higher rates on smokers, then a social system can simply do the same thing.
Thus, there is no inherent difference between private and social medicine in this respect. You are just a partisan troll.
Also telemetry data relies on customers wanting to allow access to the data and that the data shows problems.
Telemetry is on by default, and it will send some information even at the lowest settings with Home/Professional editions (which are what ship on Surface devices). Telemetry can be disabled completely on Enterprise only.
For example if a device's wifi goes out, how will it report it has a problem with wifi?
Realistically, the telemetry should only have persistent problems reporting severe failures related to network, power, and storage. In all of those cases, it is reasonable to assume the user will report.
Now, I absolutely believe MS is cherry-picking statistics. At the same time, I'm fairly sure they have solid data and a very good idea of how widespread the problems are.
In fact, if the problems are as common as they seem, MS must have a substantial amount of data if they can find something that supports their claimed failure rate of 0.001%---which is so far ahead of typical failure rates that I know it's bullshit.
They didn't collect it for free. They built, advertised, and maintained a significant social networking site. The information may be freely given, but it still cost money for the company to collect it.
If LinkedIn had a meaningful security model, this wouldn't be possible in the first place.
As much as I hate the dissemination of personal information, I'd prefer LinkedIn to lose this case so that social networks are forced to build secure services.
Plus, we'd need a legal standard for acceptable scraping if LinkedIn wins. As things stand, you can scrape almost anything as long as you don't exploit/circumvent your target---which is how I think it should be.
That is a remarkably fast response to a systematic vulnerability by the government.
Assuming this is related to the recently disclosed Infineon vulnerability, less than a month has lapsed between public disclosure of the vulnerability and a formal announcement of their affected assets and remediation process.
I have seen places that would take twice as long just to figure out what is affected in the first place.
The Federal Government, btw, is fully within its rights to regulate "interstate commerce"; so, on this issue, state rights are subservient to the Federal Government's enumerated powers.
Absolutely correct.
And I believe the federal government should mandate robust privacy protections on all providers of telecommunications and information services.
If a large corporation is requesting specific regulations, the best course of action for the average American is to give them the opposite.
Most of the basic rules for fairness have been in place for years; new requests usually lead to profiteering, abuse of customers, or restriction of competition. It looks like Verizon is aiming for two of those things.
I was hoping to see a bunch of pictures of the normal people. Not a bunch of models.
You might want to retract that criticism. The article says they trained the network with celebrity photos, most of which benefit from professional makeup, lighting, and retouching.
If they trained it with regular family photos instead, I assume the output would be more in line with your expectations.
From the evolution point of view, suicidal thoughts would be selected against.
Not necessarily. A tribe member which is effectively a burden on the population can be purged to benefit the group as a whole. Abortion (both natural and intentional) as well as infanticide have been present across a wide swath of human history. Pro-social behaviors, including altruism, are present as well, even in lower species.
Many tribes have extended familial relationships, which could encourage selection for tribal altruism. Once selected, the trait would take quite some time to die out even if our communities are no longer tribal today; if our communities are merely less tribal than before, the trait might still be advantageous or neutral.
But, a mammal, primate like us still having suicidal thoughts in our gene pool is inexplicable.
This is not true. It is widely accepted that parents risking death to save their offspring is normal and likely adaptive behavior. Sometimes, parents will face certain death to save their offspring---yet, human offspring only share half of their DNA with each parent. The ability to choose death is built in somewhere, and the only question is whether non-coerced suicide is ever an efficient use of that capacity.
In the end, all humans die, so it makes sense that we provide for future generations even at a personal cost. Your genes will not live on through you; the DNA inside your body is doomed. Those genes will only live on through your offspring, your extended family, and your tribe. Their material success is essential to your long-term genetic success.
At some point, if your reproductive opportunities, contribution to group survival, and your individual cost of continued survival are all tallied up, it is possible that the cost of individual survival outweighs the other factors. In this case, suicide would be the most effective option.
Remember that natural selection operates on the genetic level, not the individual organism. Even bacteria commit suicide under stressful conditions, so it's not like humans are unique in this respect.
It's just we haven't found a "cheap and economic" solution to resolve 'how' to stop batteries from failing.
It's a good thing they're trying to figure that out instead of being a smug asshole on the internet. Someone has to do the hard work.
Step 1 is figuring out exactly how the dendrites form. That information can lead to some guesses on how to reduce or prevent it. Current methods are basically a shot in the dark that happened to work.
For example, it helps to know that the dendrites are nearly perfect crystals, not the root-like tendrils they originally appeared to be. From the article, this is likely due to corrosion from exposure to air associated with older methods of observation:
"The new images reveal that each lithium metal dendrite is a long, beautifully formed six-sided crystal – not the irregular, pitted shape depicted in previous electron microscope shots."
But hey, if you already got that figured out, why not blast them an email real quick? Once you get them sorted out, we can all enjoy safer and more durable batteries.
Does this also mean they can "unlock" the soft-locked downgrades on the cheaper processor series to make them full strength?
Long story short, no. The IME interacts with the machine's firmware and can be killed that way. The thermal and frequency limits are untouchable and look likely to remain that way.
So if the management engine isn't actually necessary what actually does it provide?
Legacy device emulation, out of band management, health status and alerting. It offers a lot of functionality; the only problem is that the code is so privileged that the OS cannot even detect it.
Is this new one open source? or have we met the new boss, same as the old boss?
They are simply disabling IME. There is no replacement; your machine doesn't need it to operate.
Someone isn't using the new .NET calculator. You still on Win7 by any chance?
On the bright side, -8.1648465955514287168521180122928e-39 is much more accurate than -1.068281969439142e-19, and I mean that both sarcastically and not sarcastically.
I understand returning a FLOAT from a square root operation. Kind of funny in this case, but the real question is: Does this follow IEEE rounding guidelines?