The issue is that the fingerprint sensor is trusted to neither store fingerprint data nor replay finger presses.
If you accept data from untrusted sensors, an attacker could replace the sensor with a device that will store valid finger scans and retransmit them when triggered by the attacker.
So you need both trusted firmware and a secure pairing process to ensure the device is not compromised in this manner.
While I suspect this move is mostly motivated by a desire to obstruct third-party repairs, there is also a legitimate security concern with this particular component.
they voided the warranty by taking it to an iFixit shop
This is factually incorrect.
In the US, a warranty cannot be voided due to third-party repairs.
If the third-party damages anything, those damaged components are ineligible for warranty repairs just as if the owner had damaged them. But absent any damage to the item, warranty coverage remains.
Manufacturers may authorize certain shops to perform work under their warranty and refuse to cover expenses for unauthorized work, but they cannot refuse coverage to items simply because they have been repaired elsewhere before.
E.g., if my fingerprint sensor fails and I pay iFixit to replace it, Apple is still obligated to replace the screen if it fails later. They can only refuse to fix the screen if they can demonstrate that it was damaged (and it doesn't matter whether the damage was caused by me or iFixit).
Then you must not be very important if the company can survive an entire month without you.
If the company cannot survive a month with me, they have planned very poorly and deserve to fail. I am guaranteed to either die or find another job one day.
The idea that you will hurt the company is a lie maintained by managers who want to cut costs by: (a) not hiring enough staff, (b) refusing to provide the vacation they promise, or (c) not maintain adequate coverage of essential skill sets.
This can cause continuity issues, and it is a red flag for any company. A small business or startup may have no choice but to accept the situation, but any manager who cannot avoid or plan for employee turnover is incompetent.
Since they're not fact checking, this will depend entirely on how well they oversee the organizations who do. That ought to be a fun dive into governance issues.
It is very easy to lose trust. I can understand why they would want to do this---between meaningless news and fake news, it is already hard to learn about things that matter. But they are going to encounter legitimate scandals and legit-or-not accusations of bias. I hope they have a plan for dealing with this.
Fact checking is an essential piece of journalism. It addresses the same underlying issues as the replicability requirement for science---poor data collection, fraudulent claims, bias, etc.
This is an important function, and if Google cannot deliver it then I have to wonder who can.
Competition and the desire to prove oneself are two of the defining characteristics of young adulthood. From puberty until mid-to-late 20s, those drives pop up in all aspects of life. This is true for both men and women, although their outlets vary.
Men tend to be drawn toward violent entertainment because physical prowess has always been respected, and most violent work is perceived as masculine. There may be exceptions, but they are few and far between.
Violence has been a part of nature and human culture so ages, and some video games play into those tendencies.
In Avengers, the bad guys had names. That already puts them away above the average FPS goon.
It doesn't matter. You can give the goon a name, but he's still nothing more than an obstacle.
If you want the enemies to have character and meaningful interaction, you're looking for adventure games and RPGs.
I mean, think about it: you're talking about a FPS... did you forget what the "S" stands for? The entire genre revolves around shooting things.
There are certainly action movies that have a similar feel to FPS games, e.g., Commando and Rambo II, but they have fallen out of favor with the public. This may be due, in part, to an overlapping audience that is more satisfied by playing FPSes.
1. Large screens are fairly affordable at home. In fact, with the shorter viewing distance, the screen may fill more of your field of vision.
2. Other theater-goers are more likely to be a distraction than a benefit, based on my experiences.
3. Failing to focus on the movie is a personal issue. Understandably, this can be a problem for parents---but you can have someone watch the kids whether you go out or stay in.
4. I don't know anyone this applies to. I haven't seen anyone do this as far as I remember. Seems like they're stretching.
5. It is not difficult or expensive to setup a home audio system. This one might apply to someone who views relatively few movies and doesn't want to invest in a sound system.
6. Are they seriously selling commercials as a benefit? I can find those same previews on Youtube 99% of the time, and at home I can decide whether I want to watch them.
7. This is basically the same as #3. They are padding the list.
8. The social aspects of going to the theater are available for movie nights at home---or any number of other activities, like bars and hobbyist clubs.
9. Unhealthy eating habits are a bonus now? If you're an adult, I don't understand the special appeal of drinking soda in the theater. You can buy and drink enough soda to kill yourself if you want, and no one has the authority to stop you.
10. If paying $10-$15 for a 2-hour show is something you brag about, you need to reexamine your life. Exception for enthusiastic fans---if you simply can't wait another day to see that movie, it's worth some pocket change to scratch that itch.
The switch should have no problem with 1080p, it is using the Tegra X1 chip, which is capable of 4k at 60fps.
This is so painfully wrong that I have to correct it. The Tegra has a hardware decoder that can handle 4K video. It specifically supports the H.265 and VP9 codecs, which are widely used for streaming.
I would be absolutely shocked if the Tegra can render 3D scenes at 4K and 60 Hz, given that high end desktop GPUs pulling 200W have trouble with it. In fact, the Tegra X1 has only 40% of the power of an outdated mid-level GeForce card. The Tegra X1 has 256 CUDA cores compared to the 640 cores in the GeForce 750 Ti.
And Nintendo's patch notes are so vague as to be meaningless. You can speculate on what they did all you want. But based on your gross misunderstanding of the SOC's capabilities, I do not assign much credibility to your speculation.
There are evaporation plants, but they are only feasible where solar energy is abundant. If solar concentration tech improves, the band where these plants are feasible will expand.
With the green energy focus in industrial nations including solar power plants, it is possible the desalination industry may see a fringe benefit due to the engineering of better concentrators.
The plant efficiency would drop and fresh water production would eventually cease.
The plant might see reduced efficiency, but there is a limit on how high the salinity will go since there is always some fresh water coming in. The problem is that desalination plants will remain effective in a large salinity range----a range which includes levels harmful to oceanic life.
E.g., Israel plans to desalinate water from the Red Sea, which is one of the saltiest bodies of water on Earth. Only the Dead Sea and a few obscure lakes are saltier.
Israel plans to address their problem by pumping the brine into the Dead Sea where it won't really hurt anything. The Dead Sea only has a few microscopic lifeforms that have adapted to that environment, so they don't have to worry about killing off fish, vegetation, crabs, etc.
3) Places where freshwater flows into the ocean are brackish, and the organisms there are adapted to a low-salinity environment. Increasing the salinity there can disrupt the ecosystem just the same as it would further out in the ocean.
There is really no good place to dump the excess salt. We can't just dump massive amounts of salt anywhere there is life. Maybe it could be prepared for human consumption---sea salt is often treated as a premium grocery item. I have no idea what volume to expect from a desalination plant, so it is possible the salt production could exceed our dietary needs.
As always, there are other technical solutions, but the economic viability depends on the price and availability of other inputs.
I don't really respect those kinds of degrees either, but your complaints are laughable.
If those so-called "soft degree" liberals can run a successful social media organization, they are doing their jobs effectively.
If you are opposed to their views and cannot muster a community or audience to rival theirs, they are outperforming you.
Don't waste your time going down the "you have no right to a platform" and "free speech only matters when the government is the censor" paths with this, either. Those tired old memes have been beaten to death and we all know that you really mean "I only like the concept of freedom of speech when it applies to me and those who agree with me."
If you need the government to provide you with a speaking platform, you are weak and pathetic. No handouts, buddy. Freedom of speech means the government doesn't play favorites, and the public decides what they want to believe.
So yes, you have no right to a platform. If people find you or your message repulsive, that means you need one of the following: a better opinion, better facts, or better presentation. Figure that out yourself.
But even then, the government should respect contracts and copyrights in general.
If the data providers include a non-disclosure clause (because they need to sell the data more than once to stay in business), then the government should respect that. If the data providers require confidentiality because there is medical data, the government should respect that.
This law, however, means that the government MUST disclose the data if they use it for science. If the organization supplying the data cannot authorize public disclosure, then the EPA (and other agencies) would not be able to use that data anymore.
This is one of those "sounds good" ideas that is really poisonous in practice.
Being "verified" is only derogatory from the perspective of users who believe in alternative facts. They are far from a majority, even if they are exceptionally loud.
Also, how is this newsworthy? People have unconventional opinions, and for every norm there is a small population that opposes it.
Wake me up if these people ever do anything interesting with this attitude. Something interesting means "more than dismissive or disprespectful attitudes"---those are a dime a dozen on the internet.
I worked at a large American telecom company over a decade ago, and they had a lot of Juniper gear even back then. It was mostly ERX 1440s sitting between the core and the customers.
I think it really does take a long time for most individual enterprises to move away from such an entrenched vendor, but it will happen faster if Cisco doesn't get their act together. I'm seeing reports that Dell/Force10 is capable of pushing the same data rates at half the wattage compared to Cisco (Juniper is very close to Force10). That is a huge advantage for cloud providers and big-data companies.
My employer doesn't have the kind of environment where that matters too much. We need a fast, reliable network---not necessarily the best-of-the-best. But once there is a huge pool of experienced network engineers talking up Juniper and Force10, you can bet they will convince management sooner or later.
Unless you think that only corporations want "free markets, competition, and individual freedom and liberty". Corporations typically want none of those things.
It's the corporate doubletalk that's confusing the issue.
1. ISPs selling your browsing history is the free market in action. Because they are neither a natural monopoly nor anti-competitive.
2. ISPs disclosing how much they've spent on infrastructure and how much their "partners" paid for your information is burdensome, anti-competitive, anti-job, and blatant government overreach.
Corporations always sell their legislative wishlists as some kind of gift to the public. So, yes, I would expect a corporate mouthpiece to squawk about markets, competition, and freedom because that's their normal camouflage these days.
This is only a surprise outside of large enterprises.
Open Flow (SDN) is threatening them at the high end, and there are multiple competitors at the low/mid market---including Dell, who bought Force10 and is pushing their network and storage products very seriously.
Dell now owns VMware, EMC, Compellent, and Force10. They only need power delivery and UPS to offer a complete datacenter.
Cisco cannot justify insane pricing in the face of so many capable competitors. Especially when their attempts to expand into cloud services failed so miserably. Their hardware offerings outside of network gear are almost laughable.
Cisco can probably survive another 10-20 years if they compete well with their gear. The gear has always been solid, and the problem has always been a combination of lock-in and price. Competing on price will keep them a while, especially with their track record, but they will need more than competitive network gear to survive long-term.
Unless there is a universal identity source that can have a reputation tied to it, there is no incentive for people to play nice with others.You can get a good sense of how socialable people really are by looking at their anonymous behavior.
Things do seem to be going downhill. Even the AC posts on this site have gotten worse. This suggests a new wave of miscreants. I am curious as to the nature of these miscreants.
Are they simply children coming of age and venting their angst without fear of consequences from their parents or community?
Are they social rejects who eschewed the internet until social media compelled them to choose between engagement and isolation? (I.e., non-nerdy outcasts who are building themselves a home here now that everyone is on the internet.)
Are they idiots who are now present because the technical and social barriers have been lowered?
Slashdot Mirror
The issue is that the fingerprint sensor is trusted to neither store fingerprint data nor replay finger presses.
If you accept data from untrusted sensors, an attacker could replace the sensor with a device that will store valid finger scans and retransmit them when triggered by the attacker.
So you need both trusted firmware and a secure pairing process to ensure the device is not compromised in this manner.
While I suspect this move is mostly motivated by a desire to obstruct third-party repairs, there is also a legitimate security concern with this particular component.
they voided the warranty by taking it to an iFixit shop
This is factually incorrect.
In the US, a warranty cannot be voided due to third-party repairs.
If the third-party damages anything, those damaged components are ineligible for warranty repairs just as if the owner had damaged them. But absent any damage to the item, warranty coverage remains.
Manufacturers may authorize certain shops to perform work under their warranty and refuse to cover expenses for unauthorized work, but they cannot refuse coverage to items simply because they have been repaired elsewhere before.
E.g., if my fingerprint sensor fails and I pay iFixit to replace it, Apple is still obligated to replace the screen if it fails later. They can only refuse to fix the screen if they can demonstrate that it was damaged (and it doesn't matter whether the damage was caused by me or iFixit).
Then you must not be very important if the company can survive an entire month without you.
If the company cannot survive a month with me, they have planned very poorly and deserve to fail. I am guaranteed to either die or find another job one day.
The idea that you will hurt the company is a lie maintained by managers who want to cut costs by: (a) not hiring enough staff, (b) refusing to provide the vacation they promise, or (c) not maintain adequate coverage of essential skill sets.
This can cause continuity issues, and it is a red flag for any company. A small business or startup may have no choice but to accept the situation, but any manager who cannot avoid or plan for employee turnover is incompetent.
Since they're not fact checking, this will depend entirely on how well they oversee the organizations who do. That ought to be a fun dive into governance issues.
It is very easy to lose trust. I can understand why they would want to do this---between meaningless news and fake news, it is already hard to learn about things that matter. But they are going to encounter legitimate scandals and legit-or-not accusations of bias. I hope they have a plan for dealing with this.
Fact checking is an essential piece of journalism. It addresses the same underlying issues as the replicability requirement for science---poor data collection, fraudulent claims, bias, etc.
This is an important function, and if Google cannot deliver it then I have to wonder who can.
If I had overvalued stock, I would sell it for personal reasons too. Personal masseuse, personal chaffeur, etc.
You don't have those things when reality catches up and your stock plummets loses over 90% of its value.
It's time to fold and ante into a new game.
This man needs positive moderation.
Competition and the desire to prove oneself are two of the defining characteristics of young adulthood. From puberty until mid-to-late 20s, those drives pop up in all aspects of life. This is true for both men and women, although their outlets vary.
Men tend to be drawn toward violent entertainment because physical prowess has always been respected, and most violent work is perceived as masculine. There may be exceptions, but they are few and far between.
Violence has been a part of nature and human culture so ages, and some video games play into those tendencies.
In Avengers, the bad guys had names. That already puts them away above the average FPS goon.
It doesn't matter. You can give the goon a name, but he's still nothing more than an obstacle.
If you want the enemies to have character and meaningful interaction, you're looking for adventure games and RPGs.
I mean, think about it: you're talking about a FPS... did you forget what the "S" stands for? The entire genre revolves around shooting things.
There are certainly action movies that have a similar feel to FPS games, e.g., Commando and Rambo II, but they have fallen out of favor with the public. This may be due, in part, to an overlapping audience that is more satisfied by playing FPSes.
A major multinational corporation is pushing cut-rate garbage?
Maybe if the outcry is loud enough, Samsung will either fix it or abandon it.
They built the crap in the first place, so it's clear they won't bother without some outside pressure.
How will this stop anyone besides the absolute dumbest terrorists? Won't they just start lying?
Almost anyone can lie convincingly given enough practice. Look at Congress.
1. Large screens are fairly affordable at home. In fact, with the shorter viewing distance, the screen may fill more of your field of vision.
2. Other theater-goers are more likely to be a distraction than a benefit, based on my experiences.
3. Failing to focus on the movie is a personal issue. Understandably, this can be a problem for parents---but you can have someone watch the kids whether you go out or stay in.
4. I don't know anyone this applies to. I haven't seen anyone do this as far as I remember. Seems like they're stretching.
5. It is not difficult or expensive to setup a home audio system. This one might apply to someone who views relatively few movies and doesn't want to invest in a sound system.
6. Are they seriously selling commercials as a benefit? I can find those same previews on Youtube 99% of the time, and at home I can decide whether I want to watch them.
7. This is basically the same as #3. They are padding the list.
8. The social aspects of going to the theater are available for movie nights at home---or any number of other activities, like bars and hobbyist clubs.
9. Unhealthy eating habits are a bonus now? If you're an adult, I don't understand the special appeal of drinking soda in the theater. You can buy and drink enough soda to kill yourself if you want, and no one has the authority to stop you.
10. If paying $10-$15 for a 2-hour show is something you brag about, you need to reexamine your life. Exception for enthusiastic fans---if you simply can't wait another day to see that movie, it's worth some pocket change to scratch that itch.
The Tegra X1 specs call for dual 4K @ 60 Hz outputs, but this applies to streams using H.265 and VP9 only. I assume he did not understand the specs.
The switch should have no problem with 1080p, it is using the Tegra X1 chip, which is capable of 4k at 60fps.
This is so painfully wrong that I have to correct it. The Tegra has a hardware decoder that can handle 4K video. It specifically supports the H.265 and VP9 codecs, which are widely used for streaming.
I would be absolutely shocked if the Tegra can render 3D scenes at 4K and 60 Hz, given that high end desktop GPUs pulling 200W have trouble with it. In fact, the Tegra X1 has only 40% of the power of an outdated mid-level GeForce card. The Tegra X1 has 256 CUDA cores compared to the 640 cores in the GeForce 750 Ti.
And Nintendo's patch notes are so vague as to be meaningless. You can speculate on what they did all you want. But based on your gross misunderstanding of the SOC's capabilities, I do not assign much credibility to your speculation.
There are evaporation plants, but they are only feasible where solar energy is abundant. If solar concentration tech improves, the band where these plants are feasible will expand.
With the green energy focus in industrial nations including solar power plants, it is possible the desalination industry may see a fringe benefit due to the engineering of better concentrators.
The plant efficiency would drop and fresh water production would eventually cease.
The plant might see reduced efficiency, but there is a limit on how high the salinity will go since there is always some fresh water coming in. The problem is that desalination plants will remain effective in a large salinity range----a range which includes levels harmful to oceanic life.
E.g., Israel plans to desalinate water from the Red Sea, which is one of the saltiest bodies of water on Earth. Only the Dead Sea and a few obscure lakes are saltier.
Israel plans to address their problem by pumping the brine into the Dead Sea where it won't really hurt anything. The Dead Sea only has a few microscopic lifeforms that have adapted to that environment, so they don't have to worry about killing off fish, vegetation, crabs, etc.
The real problem is:
3) Places where freshwater flows into the ocean are brackish, and the organisms there are adapted to a low-salinity environment. Increasing the salinity there can disrupt the ecosystem just the same as it would further out in the ocean.
There is really no good place to dump the excess salt. We can't just dump massive amounts of salt anywhere there is life. Maybe it could be prepared for human consumption---sea salt is often treated as a premium grocery item. I have no idea what volume to expect from a desalination plant, so it is possible the salt production could exceed our dietary needs.
As always, there are other technical solutions, but the economic viability depends on the price and availability of other inputs.
I don't really respect those kinds of degrees either, but your complaints are laughable.
If those so-called "soft degree" liberals can run a successful social media organization, they are doing their jobs effectively.
If you are opposed to their views and cannot muster a community or audience to rival theirs, they are outperforming you.
Don't waste your time going down the "you have no right to a platform" and "free speech only matters when the government is the censor" paths with this, either. Those tired old memes have been beaten to death and we all know that you really mean "I only like the concept of freedom of speech when it applies to me and those who agree with me."
If you need the government to provide you with a speaking platform, you are weak and pathetic. No handouts, buddy. Freedom of speech means the government doesn't play favorites, and the public decides what they want to believe.
So yes, you have no right to a platform. If people find you or your message repulsive, that means you need one of the following: a better opinion, better facts, or better presentation. Figure that out yourself.
The government has a limited immunity.
But even then, the government should respect contracts and copyrights in general.
If the data providers include a non-disclosure clause (because they need to sell the data more than once to stay in business), then the government should respect that. If the data providers require confidentiality because there is medical data, the government should respect that.
This law, however, means that the government MUST disclose the data if they use it for science. If the organization supplying the data cannot authorize public disclosure, then the EPA (and other agencies) would not be able to use that data anymore.
This is one of those "sounds good" ideas that is really poisonous in practice.
Being "verified" is only derogatory from the perspective of users who believe in alternative facts. They are far from a majority, even if they are exceptionally loud.
Also, how is this newsworthy? People have unconventional opinions, and for every norm there is a small population that opposes it.
Wake me up if these people ever do anything interesting with this attitude. Something interesting means "more than dismissive or disprespectful attitudes"---those are a dime a dozen on the internet.
I worked at a large American telecom company over a decade ago, and they had a lot of Juniper gear even back then. It was mostly ERX 1440s sitting between the core and the customers.
I think it really does take a long time for most individual enterprises to move away from such an entrenched vendor, but it will happen faster if Cisco doesn't get their act together. I'm seeing reports that Dell/Force10 is capable of pushing the same data rates at half the wattage compared to Cisco (Juniper is very close to Force10). That is a huge advantage for cloud providers and big-data companies.
My employer doesn't have the kind of environment where that matters too much. We need a fast, reliable network---not necessarily the best-of-the-best. But once there is a huge pool of experienced network engineers talking up Juniper and Force10, you can bet they will convince management sooner or later.
Unless you think that only corporations want "free markets, competition, and individual freedom and liberty". Corporations typically want none of those things.
It's the corporate doubletalk that's confusing the issue.
1. ISPs selling your browsing history is the free market in action. Because they are neither a natural monopoly nor anti-competitive.
2. ISPs disclosing how much they've spent on infrastructure and how much their "partners" paid for your information is burdensome, anti-competitive, anti-job, and blatant government overreach.
Corporations always sell their legislative wishlists as some kind of gift to the public. So, yes, I would expect a corporate mouthpiece to squawk about markets, competition, and freedom because that's their normal camouflage these days.
they are regulated and we all know exactly who they are.
Except Congress just voted to eliminate privacy protections, and corporate officers aren't liable for business decisions anyway.
So the company just writes another check (and probably for less than what they gave to the Congressmen).
Crypto is the only real privacy. You can see where someone truly stands on totalitarianism vs liberty by their attitude towards crypto.
This is only a surprise outside of large enterprises.
Open Flow (SDN) is threatening them at the high end, and there are multiple competitors at the low/mid market---including Dell, who bought Force10 and is pushing their network and storage products very seriously.
Dell now owns VMware, EMC, Compellent, and Force10. They only need power delivery and UPS to offer a complete datacenter.
Cisco cannot justify insane pricing in the face of so many capable competitors. Especially when their attempts to expand into cloud services failed so miserably. Their hardware offerings outside of network gear are almost laughable.
Cisco can probably survive another 10-20 years if they compete well with their gear. The gear has always been solid, and the problem has always been a combination of lock-in and price. Competing on price will keep them a while, especially with their track record, but they will need more than competitive network gear to survive long-term.
Unless there is a universal identity source that can have a reputation tied to it, there is no incentive for people to play nice with others.You can get a good sense of how socialable people really are by looking at their anonymous behavior.
Things do seem to be going downhill. Even the AC posts on this site have gotten worse. This suggests a new wave of miscreants. I am curious as to the nature of these miscreants.
Are they simply children coming of age and venting their angst without fear of consequences from their parents or community?
Are they social rejects who eschewed the internet until social media compelled them to choose between engagement and isolation? (I.e., non-nerdy outcasts who are building themselves a home here now that everyone is on the internet.)
Are they idiots who are now present because the technical and social barriers have been lowered?
The police officers are state officials, and furthermore they have the legal authority to use force against citizens.
Planned Parenthood may receive some government money, but it is a private organization with no special legal powers.
Filming police acts as a check on government abuse, and it should be a specifically enumerated constitutional right.
Too bad we didn't have video recorders back in the 1700s when the Bill of Rights was written, or else it probably would have been included.