... different experimenters can reach opposite conclusions about what the physicist in the box has measured.
Einstein introduced us to the fact that the universe can appear very different from different points of view. For example, if explosions of supernova "A" and supernova "B" occur, it may be observed that "A" occurred before "B", or that "B" occurred before "A", depending on where the observation was made. Either observation is equally valid, even though the conclusions are logically opposite.
Once one accepts the notion that physical observations are "relative", why is it so shocking that quantum mechanical observations might also be logically opposite, depending on who is observing?
I'm not so sure it's the same. Yes, photos can be edited with Photoshop - quite realistically if the operator is skilled. But, as I understand it, manipulation by Photoshop can be detected by various means.
What we're talking about here is manipulation by artificial intelligence, not by a human working with keyboard and mouse. The implication is that as AI becomes increasingly more sophisticated, AI generated fakes will also become more sophisticated, perhaps to the point where humans can no longer tell the difference.
In my experience, "www" is not typically a subdomain. It is a host name. For example, in your DNS you might have an A record that resolves "www" to the IP address of your web server, just as you might have an A record that resolves "ftp" to your FTP server, or whatever.
The interesting thing about DNS, however, is that you can create an A record for a subdomain. This means you can make the "www" part of a URL optional by having "www.mydomain.com" and "mydomain.com" resolve to the same IP address (or group of addresses).
So, Google, kindly do not fuck with my DNS naming preferences. When I pay to register a domain, that includes the right to determine what I do (and don't do) with the DNS for my domain. If I want to show "www" in my URLs, that's my bloody business, not yours.
One women said that she almost hit one of the company's minivans because it suddenly stopped while trying to make a right turn.
Zero sympathy for that. People may need to make a sudden stop for any number of reasons. If you hit them from behind, you are at fault. Every day on my commute I see people driving too close to the vehicle in front of them for the speed they're going. It is, quite literally, an accident waiting to happen.
When I look at reviews on RT, I'm generally most interested in reviews by professional critics rather than by the general public. This is no guarantee of a rating I would agree with. Many of the highest critics ratings are for documentaries, for example. Also, a mediocre aggregate critics rating along with a high aggregate audience rating often signals a less serious movie that I might find amusing. But for insightful, specific observations about a movie, I look to critics whose opinions I tend to agree with.
When it come to TV shows, however, are there many professional critics writing reviews?
After domain names started to be worth big money, registrars came up with an added protection against people stealing your domain registration. IIRC they call this "Domain Lock, or "Registrar Lock" or something like that. So perhaps cellular service providers need to implement some form of "SIM Lock".
A number of comments here discuss firewalls, VLANs, etc. as a means to segregate equipment that doesn't need to be on the Internet. Another very simple way to segregate a device is to manually configure the TCP/IP settings and leave the default gateway address blank.
Not knowing much about mirrorless cameras, I thought perhaps the linked "teaser" video would be informative. Wrong. The video is one and a half minutes of flashy, animated nonsense. Why bother linking it? What a waste of time.
There are multiple reasons why a certificate might trigger a warning. Being self-signed is only one of them. Another reason is when the server name on the certificate does not match the URL you typed in your browser. That is one example I consider a legitimate warning, and one that a user might just ignore if they become conditioned to just click "proceed".
The upshot of this is that users are going to become accustomed to ignore all such warnings and proceed to the site anyway. Rendering even legitimate warnings basically useless.
The problem is created by the supposed victim businesses making dunderheaded design decisions...
They are not supposed victims. They are victims.
You might as well argue that if someone robs my house I'm to blame because I could have purchased a stronger lock for my door. Or that I'm causing crime by keeping possessions in a house because no lock is infallible.
In today's world, it is not "gross negligence" to connect a business system to the Internet. It's a typical requirement. Nobody is going back to paper-based systems, and if you would seriously advocate that you are out of touch.
Yes, protecting sensitive data is an important corporate responsibility, but you seem to be placing 100% of the blame on the victim.
Having worked as a System Administrator, I can tell you it's not easy to make anything completely secure. There are zero-day exploits. There are hackers who reverse engineer the latest security patches before you arrive at work and have a chance to evaluate & install them. There are extremely talented individuals who work relentlessly, day and night, to find new ways to circumvent your defenses.
So when, inevitably, someone's security is breached, save a bit of your condemnation for the person(s) committing the crime. There are people holding companies for ransom with no regard for the amount of damage they create. This is what's truly reprehensible.
3) This requires the virus to be running ON your fucking computer!! If you are running ANY virus on your computer, you're hosed.
You're not thinking about the countless virtual machines running on someone else's hardware (i.e. "The Cloud"). It's not "your" computer that must be compromised. It's the hypervisor that it's running on, or possibly someone else's VM running on the same hypervisor.
Spending one day looking into something is now called "researching heavily".
On the serious side, I've often been annoyed by Windows 10 aggressively pushing updates, but there have been some interesting security features added to recent builds. Microsoft has a demo website with some good information, along with some tools for testing your configuration.
There is also a video online that details the new features.
The OP was complaining that his Mac couldn't "run a couple of VM's". That doesn't mean the Mac is "useless". It means it's not the right tool for the job he is trying to do.
At home I have a battery powered circular saw. I can't use it to cut down trees, but that doesn't make it useless.
Slashdot Mirror
... different experimenters can reach opposite conclusions about what the physicist in the box has measured.
Einstein introduced us to the fact that the universe can appear very different from different points of view. For example, if explosions of supernova "A" and supernova "B" occur, it may be observed that "A" occurred before "B", or that "B" occurred before "A", depending on where the observation was made. Either observation is equally valid, even though the conclusions are logically opposite.
Once one accepts the notion that physical observations are "relative", why is it so shocking that quantum mechanical observations might also be logically opposite, depending on who is observing?
I'm not so sure it's the same. Yes, photos can be edited with Photoshop - quite realistically if the operator is skilled. But, as I understand it, manipulation by Photoshop can be detected by various means. What we're talking about here is manipulation by artificial intelligence, not by a human working with keyboard and mouse. The implication is that as AI becomes increasingly more sophisticated, AI generated fakes will also become more sophisticated, perhaps to the point where humans can no longer tell the difference.
What happens if you use test1.www.domain.org test2.www.domain.org ?
In that example, test1 and test 2 are (presumably) host names, and www,domain.org is a subdomain.
Remember when? They STILL DO.
To the person at Google who stated that www is now considered a 'trivial' subdomain":
In my experience, "www" is not typically a subdomain. It is a host name. For example, in your DNS you might have an A record that resolves "www" to the IP address of your web server, just as you might have an A record that resolves "ftp" to your FTP server, or whatever.
The interesting thing about DNS, however, is that you can create an A record for a subdomain. This means you can make the "www" part of a URL optional by having "www.mydomain.com" and "mydomain.com" resolve to the same IP address (or group of addresses).
So, Google, kindly do not fuck with my DNS naming preferences. When I pay to register a domain, that includes the right to determine what I do (and don't do) with the DNS for my domain. If I want to show "www" in my URLs, that's my bloody business, not yours.
No kidding. The real waste of time was how long it took for this person to post their rant.
Just because a tool isn't ideal for YOUR circumstances, don't extrapolate that to everybody else.
I was a kid when these calculators came out. As an adult, I'm more into 5637.
(To be read upside down on an old calculator)
One women said that she almost hit one of the company's minivans because it suddenly stopped while trying to make a right turn.
Zero sympathy for that. People may need to make a sudden stop for any number of reasons. If you hit them from behind, you are at fault. Every day on my commute I see people driving too close to the vehicle in front of them for the speed they're going. It is, quite literally, an accident waiting to happen.
When I look at reviews on RT, I'm generally most interested in reviews by professional critics rather than by the general public. This is no guarantee of a rating I would agree with. Many of the highest critics ratings are for documentaries, for example. Also, a mediocre aggregate critics rating along with a high aggregate audience rating often signals a less serious movie that I might find amusing. But for insightful, specific observations about a movie, I look to critics whose opinions I tend to agree with.
When it come to TV shows, however, are there many professional critics writing reviews?
I'm a fan of the "68". You do me and I owe you one.
... most of the windows in any of those buildings would cost over $200 to replace
I'm not defending Apple's tax shenanigans, but one should not confuse the concepts of replacement value and resale value.
My paper supply in my main printer is getting low. Could you fax me a few blank sheets? :D
I could fax you a few black sheets. Then your toner will also be low.
Saying that he "rigged" the game makes the scheme sound more clever than it was. He simply stole the winning tickets.
After domain names started to be worth big money, registrars came up with an added protection against people stealing your domain registration. IIRC they call this "Domain Lock, or "Registrar Lock" or something like that. So perhaps cellular service providers need to implement some form of "SIM Lock".
A number of comments here discuss firewalls, VLANs, etc. as a means to segregate equipment that doesn't need to be on the Internet. Another very simple way to segregate a device is to manually configure the TCP/IP settings and leave the default gateway address blank.
Not knowing much about mirrorless cameras, I thought perhaps the linked "teaser" video would be informative. Wrong. The video is one and a half minutes of flashy, animated nonsense. Why bother linking it? What a waste of time.
There are multiple reasons why a certificate might trigger a warning. Being self-signed is only one of them. Another reason is when the server name on the certificate does not match the URL you typed in your browser. That is one example I consider a legitimate warning, and one that a user might just ignore if they become conditioned to just click "proceed".
The upshot of this is that users are going to become accustomed to ignore all such warnings and proceed to the site anyway. Rendering even legitimate warnings basically useless.
The problem is created by the supposed victim businesses making dunderheaded design decisions...
They are not supposed victims. They are victims.
You might as well argue that if someone robs my house I'm to blame because I could have purchased a stronger lock for my door. Or that I'm causing crime by keeping possessions in a house because no lock is infallible.
In today's world, it is not "gross negligence" to connect a business system to the Internet. It's a typical requirement. Nobody is going back to paper-based systems, and if you would seriously advocate that you are out of touch.
Yes, protecting sensitive data is an important corporate responsibility, but you seem to be placing 100% of the blame on the victim.
Having worked as a System Administrator, I can tell you it's not easy to make anything completely secure. There are zero-day exploits. There are hackers who reverse engineer the latest security patches before you arrive at work and have a chance to evaluate & install them. There are extremely talented individuals who work relentlessly, day and night, to find new ways to circumvent your defenses.
So when, inevitably, someone's security is breached, save a bit of your condemnation for the person(s) committing the crime. There are people holding companies for ransom with no regard for the amount of damage they create. This is what's truly reprehensible.
How are roads that bend represented in the histogram? For example, a road that follows an arc?
3) This requires the virus to be running ON your fucking computer!! If you are running ANY virus on your computer, you're hosed.
You're not thinking about the countless virtual machines running on someone else's hardware (i.e. "The Cloud"). It's not "your" computer that must be compromised. It's the hypervisor that it's running on, or possibly someone else's VM running on the same hypervisor.
Some viruses are hard to remove
Spending one day looking into something is now called "researching heavily".
On the serious side, I've often been annoyed by Windows 10 aggressively pushing updates, but there have been some interesting security features added to recent builds. Microsoft has a demo website with some good information, along with some tools for testing your configuration.
There is also a video online that details the new features.
The OP was complaining that his Mac couldn't "run a couple of VM's". That doesn't mean the Mac is "useless". It means it's not the right tool for the job he is trying to do.
At home I have a battery powered circular saw. I can't use it to cut down trees, but that doesn't make it useless.