That more likely to bring fresh ideas than reply using the phrase "Passive-aggressive". Seriously, every time I hear that phrase I want to grab the speaker by the wattles and slap them till they spit.
Have you grabbed the speaker by the wattles and slap them till they spit? Until then you are just being passive-aggressive.
except it doesn't record 24/7 only when you tell it to and it only has a 5 hour battery life anyway very unlikely to be used the way you suggest.
Hint: Try to look beyond today.
Does it have an "one the air" indicator so others in the room know they are being recorded? Do you see in your wildest dreams a solution to short battery life? Do you think it will always look like it does today?
Look at this picture of the first Cell Phone. Now look at your current cell phone. Now look back at the picture.
See any difference in form or functionality? Now project similar reductions in size and additional functionality onto Google Glass.
Unfortunately, elegant has been re-defined by many a geek as being the shortest possible line of code, regardless of how obtuse it is to read and understand. You can still see people spouting shell scripts or C statements designed solely to show how clever they are, at the expense of readability or maintainability.
Passive-aggressive complaints in a public forum looks like a good choice.
That more likely to bring fresh ideas than reply using the phrase "Passive-aggressive". Seriously, every time I hear that phrase I want to grab the speaker by the wattles and slap them till they spit.
And yet this is more or less the same thing they said about mobile phones in the early 80's. No more than a few k needed in the world or something similarly stupid.
Except that mobile phones filled an obvious need, one that had been long recognized.
Being part of the borg doesn't.
The current implementation of Google Glass is like those ridiculously large cell phones of 1973. People laughed at those too.
Google Glass will not survive in its current form. That is the only certain thing about it. But that doesn't mean it won't survive in some other form. I doubt it will always have a camera, because people won't tolerate being recorded 24/7 by everyone they encounter. People will insist you take them off when entering businesses, stores, and meetings.
It will probably revert to only being a display device, a personal HUD.
Go read the story. They were given a password and authority to access the data.
Only later was it discovered they were not eligible to be granted access. They didn't hack anything. They logged in with credentials they had been given.
Even if the culprit turned out to be a person with Chinese citizenship, it could very well be the same thing as some pimply faced youth somewhere in a fly-over state hacking into a Chinese database. It does not have to be related to the government. However, if it is, China has some explanation to do.
The great firewall of china won't allow any access to foreign sites that they don't like, but turns a blind eye to wholesale hacking by pimply faced kids? Who is THAT naive any more?
That it came from their IP and means nothing in and of itself. Especially when you RTFA and find this nugget
“The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is aware that access to the National Inventory of Dams (NID), to include sensitive fields of information not generally available to the public, was GIVEN to an unauthorized individual in January 2013 who was subsequently determined to not to have proper level of access for the information,” Pierce said in a statement.
“[U.S. Army Corps of Engineers] immediately revoked this user’s access to the database upon learning that the individual was not, in fact, authorized full access to the NID,” he said.
So there was no hacking involved. Simply someone handing out a password to a database to someone else who was not authorized. Since someone in the US Army or someone the Army authorized handed over the credentials you can hardly call it an act of war.
Someone screwed up, and it took months to find out about it. It may well have been something entirely innocent (if ill advised) as allowing hydrological engineers to compare notes on some aspect of dam construction or dam safety.
So new super computer managed to "achieve a blistering 504 billion events per second". All the summery says is the computer normally does "classified nuclear simulations". So These events are what? What is is simulating?
The summary said the "coordinated 2 million cores", without saying where they were, or why they needed two labs from opposite sides of the country to do so. The summary seems long on self promotion and short on details if you ask me.
Anything less than equal treatment is discrimination.
Men are being discriminated against by not getting the same amount of leave to spend with their newborn children.
This has both physical and psychological effects on all parties involved.
I suspect the source of the discrimination is that Men don't provide natural lactation. Perhaps work on that problem first, then worry about the problem of male availability for a baby that sleeps 90% of the time for the first 16 weeks.
Since nuclear test bans have been in effect, all new nuclear weapon development relies primarily on computer simulation. And given Germany is in NATO and Taiwan is heavily dependent on US aid in order remain independent from China, it makes perfect sense that the US would consider assistance of companies in their countries to Russian weapons development contrary to US (and therefore NATO and Taiwanese) security.
The thing here is that T-Platforms is a Russian Supercomputer company. They have plenty of capabilities all on their own. The US is worried about western companies assisting the Russians, but also worried about having these very capable Russian systems installed in sensitive western computational facilities.
Everything T-Platforms install is turn-key, meaning that they really don't sell off the shelf. They come in and build/install custom high-power systems on your site. There would, in all probability, be some reverse technology transfer leakage and espionage opportunity that the US is not eager to see happen. Therefore they don't really want western companies installing this gear.
I'm sure they don't want western companies assisting T-Platforms in improving their product either, but I didn't see that is the major issue here. Putin is whining about loss of sales, (publicly at least).
But he fails to realize that the money (and access to technology) that these euro colleagues may lose by falling into disfavor of US Commerce exceeds what he is willing to pay for their cooperation.
Because Putin took such a light-handed and round-about way of chiding these "colleagues" suggests he had to say something to the issue, but didn't want to piss them off. Most likely because there is some back channel cooperation going on which is not visible to US Commerce.
As for "Political Levers for unfair competition" everybody does that, and Russian trade decisions are felt in Europe as well as ex-Russian/Soviet states like Georgia on everything from vegetables to wine to gas.
The most surprising thing is that Australia has a Privacy Commissioner. From what I read in the press that is the exact opposite of what I would expect from that government.
As a paramedic, let me point out that you're perhaps the four hundredth person I've known who took that attitude. I just hope that you're more fortunate than the majority of these.
As a normal human being, let me point out that you are delusional.
Next time you drive to work, when you get there, turn off the car, and ask yourself if you listened to the radio, though about work, saw any cute girls/guys, saw any advertising signs, notices a cool car, waved to a friend, hummed a tune, had a sip of coffee, munched a snack, snuffed out a cigarette, looked at your gps, checked your gas gage.
If you answer NO, then carry on.
But since you can't answer NO to every part of that question stop pontificating on the internet just because you have a patch sewn to your shirt. It doesn't make you an expert on human cognition.
I call B.S. on you. I work in cellular, and I know for fact that audio is down sampled to 12.2kbps, and it's not using what one would call an elaborate compression routine as it was put in to use in the 1980s, and god only knows when it was developed. It's called vocoding.
Let me guess, you worked for verizon...
For the record, I get phenomenal voice quality calling GSM to GSM on the same network. But if either end is Verizon, call quality goes to total rubbish.
I listen to sports talk radio a lot. You can tell the calls coming from Verizon. Total crap.
Anyone who claims you have to devote 100% of your faculties to driving probably doesn't drive much.
Anyone who thinks you dont need to devote 100% of your attention to driving obviously hasn't driven much.
Its idiotic to think that you are good enough to be able to text and drive.
Where did I say anything about being able to text and drive?
The next time you drive to work, as you shut off the car, ask yourself: Did my mind wander at all during the trip, did I think about work, or the weekend? Was the radio off all the time?
Did I see any advertising signs along the way? Did I see any cool cars or good looking girls along the way? Did I have coffee or anything to eat?
If you answer yes to any of these, (and even if you lie to yourself and answer no) then I guarantee you that you did not devote 100% of your attention to driving. People don't operate that way. Nobody does. Not even posers on the internet.
First, i didn't find the difference that great in your linked page. Second, I routinely get excellent sound on my android as long as the call is all on the same network. If either end is on a different network sound is totally crappie. Especially if the other end is verizon. I've called all the way to Australia and had better calls then calling across town to a Verizon customer.
I've had one caller who i call frequently to discuss technical software issues, where no amount of shouting could be understood. We bboth installed a sip client where the call quality is phenomenal.
People un-used to city traffic probably DO have to concentrate 100% on driving.
However this is not the norm for most people. You can drive down the freeway in light to moderate traffic and not have much of your conscious brain involved at all. You can arrive at your destination and not recall a single thing about the trip.
In anything but rush hour traffic or high density traffic on a crowded freeway, driving simply isn't that difficult. If it was, we wouldn't hand out driving licenses to anyone with a pulse. Because an awfully large percentage of people just don't have 100% to devote to the task.
There are times when everyone has to pay attention. But the vast majority of my driving, and probably most people's driving, can be managed almost automatically, leaving plenty of time to listen to the radio, or the person on the next seat, or the person on the bluetooth.
Anyone who claims you have to devote 100% of your faculties to driving probably doesn't drive much.
Yes and talking to someone in the car is distracting too.
Actually, its not that distracting.
Other people in the car are aware of traffic conditions, they actually stop talking, they even point out dangerous situations (even fi from the back seat). Talking to a person in the passenger seat may actually be beneficial to driver safety.
Having a conversation on the phone, that requires concentration, can certainly be distracting, but even the simplest text message is far more distracting. All of the tests of this kind of stuff were done asking people to solve simple math problems or word games on the phone while driving over a challenging course in an unfamiliar vehicle.
Yaking on the bluetooth about nothing in particular while stuck in stop and go traffic simply isn't that dangerous as long as its hands free. The studies suggesting talking on the phone (hands free) is dangerous simply isn't born out by accident statistics. Texting while driving is born out by accident statistics.
You don't even have to remove the chemicals from the environment. They aren't used around bee pollinated crops anyway. The chemicals come from thousands of miles away.
Beekeeper greed induced them to winter their bees using corn syrup so that they could sell off more honey. The production of corn syrup did not remove the pesticides completely, and beekeepers started feeding that to their colonies.
Long life pesticides should not survive food production, but because it was harmless to humans, nobody was watching too closely when beekeepers started raiding the honey and substituting corn syrup.
Slashdot Mirror
That more likely to bring fresh ideas than reply using the phrase "Passive-aggressive".
Seriously, every time I hear that phrase I want to grab the speaker by the wattles and slap them till they spit.
Have you grabbed the speaker by the wattles and slap them till they spit? Until then you are just being passive-aggressive.
Apparently you missed my last sentence.
Says you.
I often record calls on my phone.
Probably some three letter agency does as well.
except it doesn't record 24/7 only when you tell it to and it only has a 5 hour battery life anyway very unlikely to be used the way you suggest.
Hint: Try to look beyond today.
Does it have an "one the air" indicator so others in the room know they are being recorded?
Do you see in your wildest dreams a solution to short battery life?
Do you think it will always look like it does today?
Look at this picture of the first Cell Phone.
Now look at your current cell phone.
Now look back at the picture.
See any difference in form or functionality? Now project similar reductions in size and additional functionality onto Google Glass.
Think beyond the end of your nose.
Unfortunately, elegant has been re-defined by many a geek as being the shortest possible line of code, regardless of how obtuse it is to read and understand. You can still see people spouting shell scripts or C statements designed solely to show how clever they are, at the expense of readability or maintainability.
Passive-aggressive complaints in a public forum looks like a good choice.
That more likely to bring fresh ideas than reply using the phrase "Passive-aggressive".
Seriously, every time I hear that phrase I want to grab the speaker by the wattles and slap them till they spit.
(And yes, this post is self referential.)
And yet this is more or less the same thing they said about mobile phones in the early 80's. No more than a few k needed in the world or something similarly stupid.
Except that mobile phones filled an obvious need, one that had been long recognized.
Being part of the borg doesn't.
The current implementation of Google Glass is like those ridiculously large cell phones of 1973. People laughed at those too.
Google Glass will not survive in its current form. That is the only certain thing about it. But that doesn't mean it won't survive in some other form. I doubt it will always have a camera, because people won't tolerate being recorded 24/7 by everyone they encounter. People will insist you take them off when entering businesses, stores, and meetings.
It will probably revert to only being a display device, a personal HUD.
The Russian story is apocryphal, snd there is not a shred of evidence of social engineering in the story.
In fact it seems to be a simple screw up on the part of someone in the Army.
Go read the story.
They were given a password and authority to access the data.
Only later was it discovered they were not eligible to be granted access. They didn't hack anything. They logged in with credentials they had been given.
Reading is fundamental. Stay in school.
Something happens in US, initial reports point to China
IT CAN'T BE CHINA
In this case it was china, but they were GIVEN access to the data, they didn't steal it.
RTFA.
Even if the culprit turned out to be a person with Chinese citizenship, it could very well be the same thing as some pimply faced youth somewhere in a fly-over state hacking into a Chinese database. It does not have to be related to the government. However, if it is, China has some explanation to do.
The great firewall of china won't allow any access to foreign sites that they don't like, but turns a blind eye to wholesale hacking by pimply faced kids? Who is THAT naive any more?
That it came from their IP and means nothing in and of itself. Especially when you RTFA and find this nugget
“The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is aware that access to the National Inventory of Dams (NID), to include sensitive fields of information not generally available to the public, was GIVEN to an unauthorized individual in January 2013 who was subsequently determined to not to have proper level of access for the information,” Pierce said in a statement.
“[U.S. Army Corps of Engineers] immediately revoked this user’s access to the database upon learning that the individual was not, in fact, authorized full access to the NID,” he said.
So there was no hacking involved. Simply someone handing out a password to a database to someone else who was not authorized. Since someone in the US Army or someone the Army authorized handed over the credentials you can hardly call it an act of war.
Someone screwed up, and it took months to find out about it. It may well have been something entirely innocent (if ill advised) as allowing hydrological engineers to compare notes on some aspect of dam construction or dam safety.
So new super computer managed to "achieve a blistering 504 billion events per second". All the summery says is the computer normally does "classified nuclear simulations". So These events are what? What is is simulating?
The summary said the "coordinated 2 million cores", without saying where they were, or why they needed two labs from opposite sides of the country to do so. The summary seems long on self promotion and short on details if you ask me.
Anything less than equal treatment is discrimination.
Men are being discriminated against by not getting the same amount of leave to spend with their newborn children.
This has both physical and psychological effects on all parties involved.
I suspect the source of the discrimination is that Men don't provide natural lactation.
Perhaps work on that problem first, then worry about the problem of male availability for a baby that sleeps 90% of the time for the first 16 weeks.
He's commenting on the fact that after the sanction, the company is barred from doing business with him.
What company is barred from doing business with Putin/Russia? You may want to check your facts.
Since nuclear test bans have been in effect, all new nuclear weapon development relies primarily on computer simulation. And given Germany is in NATO and Taiwan is heavily dependent on US aid in order remain independent from China, it makes perfect sense that the US would consider assistance of companies in their countries to Russian weapons development contrary to US (and therefore NATO and Taiwanese) security.
The thing here is that T-Platforms is a Russian Supercomputer company. They have plenty of capabilities all on their own. The US is worried about western companies assisting the Russians, but also worried about having these very capable Russian systems installed in sensitive western computational facilities.
Everything T-Platforms install is turn-key, meaning that they really don't sell off the shelf. They come in and build/install custom high-power systems on your site. There would, in all probability, be some reverse technology transfer leakage and espionage opportunity that the US is not eager to see happen. Therefore they don't really want western companies installing this gear.
I'm sure they don't want western companies assisting T-Platforms in improving their product either, but I didn't see that is the major issue here. Putin is whining about loss of sales, (publicly at least).
Well I imagine Standard Oil is pretty much frozen out of Russian Gas and Oil market....
That's the way I read it as well.
But he fails to realize that the money (and access to technology) that these euro colleagues may lose by falling into disfavor of US Commerce exceeds what he is willing to pay for their cooperation.
Because Putin took such a light-handed and round-about way of chiding these "colleagues" suggests he had to say something to the issue, but didn't want to piss them off. Most likely because there is some back channel cooperation going on which is not visible to US Commerce.
As for "Political Levers for unfair competition" everybody does that, and Russian trade decisions are felt in Europe as well as ex-Russian/Soviet states like Georgia on everything from vegetables to wine to gas.
The most surprising thing is that Australia has a Privacy Commissioner.
From what I read in the press that is the exact opposite of what I would expect from that government.
As a paramedic, let me point out that you're perhaps the four hundredth person I've known who took that attitude. I just hope that you're more fortunate than the majority of these.
As a normal human being, let me point out that you are delusional.
Next time you drive to work, when you get there, turn off the car, and ask yourself if you listened to the radio, though about work, saw any cute girls/guys, saw any advertising signs, notices a cool car, waved to a friend, hummed a tune, had a sip of coffee, munched a snack, snuffed out a cigarette, looked at your gps, checked your gas gage.
If you answer NO, then carry on.
But since you can't answer NO to every part of that question stop pontificating on the internet just because you have a patch sewn to your shirt. It doesn't make you an expert on human cognition.
I call B.S. on you. I work in cellular, and I know for fact that audio is down sampled to 12.2kbps, and it's not using what one would call an elaborate compression routine as it was put in to use in the 1980s, and god only knows when it was developed. It's called vocoding.
Let me guess, you worked for verizon...
For the record, I get phenomenal voice quality calling GSM to GSM on the same network. But if either end is Verizon, call quality goes to total rubbish.
I listen to sports talk radio a lot.
You can tell the calls coming from Verizon. Total crap.
Anyone who claims you have to devote 100% of your faculties to driving probably doesn't drive much.
Anyone who thinks you dont need to devote 100% of your attention to driving obviously hasn't driven much.
Its idiotic to think that you are good enough to be able to text and drive.
Where did I say anything about being able to text and drive?
The next time you drive to work, as you shut off the car, ask yourself:
Did my mind wander at all during the trip, did I think about work, or the weekend?
Was the radio off all the time?
Did I see any advertising signs along the way?
Did I see any cool cars or good looking girls along the way?
Did I have coffee or anything to eat?
If you answer yes to any of these, (and even if you lie to yourself and answer no) then I guarantee you that you did
not devote 100% of your attention to driving. People don't operate that way. Nobody does.
Not even posers on the internet.
First, i didn't find the difference that great in your linked page.
Second, I routinely get excellent sound on my android as long as the call is all on the same network.
If either end is on a different network sound is totally crappie. Especially if the other end is verizon.
I've called all the way to Australia and had better calls then calling across town to a Verizon customer.
I've had one caller who i call frequently to discuss technical software issues, where no amount of shouting could be understood. We bboth installed a sip client where the call quality is phenomenal.
The research is still valid in the sense that most people probably have no idea about "car mode" and "no-eyes" mode.
Hmmm, seems a little shallow to claim the research is valid when it blames the device for ignorance of the operator.
The real problem is something like 60 or 70% of the people have given up on SIRI all together because it just doesn't work all that well.
People un-used to city traffic probably DO have to concentrate 100% on driving.
However this is not the norm for most people. You can drive down the freeway in light to moderate traffic and not have much of your conscious brain involved at all. You can arrive at your destination and not recall a single thing about the trip.
In anything but rush hour traffic or high density traffic on a crowded freeway, driving simply isn't that difficult. If it was, we wouldn't hand out driving licenses to anyone with a pulse. Because an awfully large percentage of people just don't have 100% to devote to the task.
There are times when everyone has to pay attention. But the vast majority of my driving, and probably most people's driving, can be managed almost automatically, leaving plenty of time to listen to the radio, or the person on the next seat, or the person on the bluetooth.
Anyone who claims you have to devote 100% of your faculties to driving probably doesn't drive much.
Yes and talking to someone in the car is distracting too.
Actually, its not that distracting.
Other people in the car are aware of traffic conditions, they actually stop talking, they even point out dangerous situations (even fi from the back seat). Talking to a person in the passenger seat may actually be beneficial to driver safety.
Having a conversation on the phone, that requires concentration, can certainly be distracting, but even the simplest text message is far more distracting. All of the tests of this kind of stuff were done asking people to solve simple math problems or word games on the phone while driving over a challenging course in an unfamiliar vehicle.
Yaking on the bluetooth about nothing in particular while stuck in stop and go traffic simply isn't that dangerous as long as its hands free. The studies suggesting talking on the phone (hands free) is dangerous simply isn't born out by accident statistics. Texting while driving is born out by accident statistics.
You don't even have to remove the chemicals from the environment. They aren't used around bee pollinated crops anyway. The chemicals come from thousands of miles away.
Beekeeper greed induced them to winter their bees using corn syrup so that they could sell off more honey. The production of corn syrup did not remove the pesticides completely, and beekeepers started feeding that to their colonies.
Long life pesticides should not survive food production, but because it was harmless to humans, nobody was watching too closely when beekeepers started raiding the honey and substituting corn syrup.