In the 1990s, I remember us all thinking that cross-platform development was getting so easy that we couldn't see why would anyone would write an application that wasn't cross platform. We thought OSs would become irrelevant. Yet, the problem only got worse!
This is one of the worst Slashdot summaries I've ever seen. It provides almost no information as to what the case is about while slamming the company and complimenting the regulators. What the heck is his about and why is it relevant tech news? What the heck does the first amendment have to do with it?
which Wall Street knows is essentially an unregulated public utility
This statement is simply false, it is a regulated public utility.
Or it was a setup. The NSA created a fake virus, then planted it on a laptop that ran Kaspersky. Then they listened to the underground to see if someone reported finding a new NSA developed virus.
Another theory: The NSA suspected a Russian agent. They suspected someone at Kaspersky. So they setup a test: Put Kaspersky on a laptop, put something valuable on the laptop that would be found by Kaspersky AntiVirus, then wait and see what happens. The result is they successfully baited out the hacker.
Alternative theory: The NSA wanted to discredit Kaspersky, so they put something on the laptop that they new Kaspersky antivirus would find. Maybe Kaspersky automatically downloaded that file, and now the NSA can say "look, Kaspersky is a front for Russian hackers! They used it to download our secret stuff!"
I am totally confused by your post. It seems like you misread the article and took it to mean the exact opposite, based on some preconceived notion.
I bring this up every time an American points to how many new drugs they get as opposed to most single payer systems.
Your statement implies that you believe that Americans are boasting about getting more drugs. But Americans get fewer new drugs, not more.
There's a reason WHY the single payer systems aren't approving them.
The Europeans systems ARE approving them. That's the problem. And it has nothing to do with single payer or not, it has to do with the lack of regulatory oversight in some small European nations.
Those sentences are not in opposition to each other. Perhaps you are not a native English speaker? Permit me to explain. I assume your confusion is because of the words "faster" and "unresponsive." "Faster" refers to speed, whereas "unresponsive" refers to latency. Imagine that I click a button, and it gives me the result quickly. But then if I click another button, it takes a long time before it responds to my button press. The first is speed, the second is latency.
In the case of Edge, Edge is faster 1) because it has a newer JavaScript engine, and 2) since it supports newer web features applications don't have to rely on complicated workarounds like polyfills. But Edge is unresponsive and locks-up because it continues rendering a page even after the user has clicked stop or navigated to another page. So it is rendering the wrong thing, but it is rendering it very quickly.:-)
If so, what's keeping you from embracing the digital age and streaming movies via the internet?
16% of the movies in my queue are available for streaming. I pay for both services because they have 2 completely different catalogs.
Of the 280 items in my Netflix queue, 47 of them are available for streaming. And really, it is less than 16% since 13 of the items in the queue are a single series that spans 13 DVDs. I'll switch off the DVD service when they offer streaming for the other 233 titles.
Nobody uses Edge on Windows, so why would anyone use it on Android or IOS? I can back up my claim: I work at a Microsoft shop, and everyone here uses IE (for corporate stuff that doesn't work in Edge, Chrome, or FF) or they use Chrome. Our Microsoft Premier support rep doesn't use Edge. My parents got a new Windows 10 computer, and after complaining about the browser I told them to install Chrome.
Edge has all the problems that Windows 8 had. It is a desktop browser, but it works like a tablet browser. The menus are hard to find and hard to navigate. Things like "favorites" are buried. It's also unresponsive: Try visiting a slow site, then typing a new URL in while the page loads. The browser will lock-up until the slow page loads, then it will either navigate successfully to the new URL, or ignore what you typed in. It's just plain buggy. Which is a shame because it is, technologically, better than IE. It has better support for web standards and is much faster. But if Microsoft employees don't use it, then it won't improve.
I argue that A driverless car only needs to be almost as good as the average human driver, and it will take over like wildfire from humans.
Even if driverless cars increased the rate of accidents by a small percentage, it would not be enough to stop their adoption. So the question becomes, what safety level is required? The most important statistic here is really perception, not reality. Think of the people who avoid planes, even though planes are safer than cars. We will only know the true long-term safety until after they have widespread adoption. The worst-case scenario here is that 1 horrible accident causes the public to completely distrust them and laws are passed to cripple their development, evne if they are in reality safer.
It doesn't sound liek they've even proven that. Merely that the simulation would be really really complicated and need a really reall big amount of memory. More than we might have even conceived of.
Yesterday, I had this conversation with Google Assistant before I went outside to play frisbee: Me: "OK Google, what is the weather?" GA: "The current temperature is 79 degrees Fahrenheit and..." Me: "OK Google, what is the wind?" GA: "The perceptible natural movement of the air, especially in the form of a current of air blowing..." Me::-( Me: "OK Google, is it windy today?" GA: "The wind is coming from the southwest at 4 miles per hour."
Some context was lost here. "They" refers to "people with degrees and certifications." The linked BLS chart does not delineate individuals with degrees and certifications. It will take some time before we find out the real impact to the economy, in part because of the nearly-retiring baby boomers skewing the charts.
On the other hand, there has to be proof that all valid votes have been counted, no vote has been tampered with, and no additional votes have been added to ensure the equality of votes. How do you keep track of immaterial entities? You can't sign them with the voter's key, otherwise they aren't free anymore. If you sign them with another key, how do you ensure that this key is not used to add votes? And how do you ensure that the votes are really counted the way they were cast? And how do you watch the count?
You are asking the right questions, but there is indeed an answer. It's called "blind signature" AKA the "digital cash problem." There are a few researchers who posted solutions to this over a decade ago, even before blockchains. So it could be solved, but it is a significant effort and most people wouldn't understand it. So in the end, you are right that paper is the way to go.
Well, one would HOPE t-mobile wouldn't traffic-shape non-Netflix video services
We shall see, eh? They already price-shaped them. So someone explain to me: why is not okay for T-Mobile to charge *more* for some service (that wouldn't be neutral), but it is okay for T-Mobile to charge *less* for another service? Isn't that the same thing? That's like those laws that forbid a surcharge for using credit cards, but permit cash discounts.
I get your point, but T-Mobile is a monopoly. They have exclusive rights to certain frequencies, granted to them by the US government. But even if that were not the case, having 4 companies control wireless telephone system over the entire United States, and absurdly high barriers of entry, is enough to make them a monopoly IMHO.
Okay, I suppose you are right in a way that this isn't necessarily a network neutrality issue. It's just a general anticompetitive issue. I would not want my local power company offering "promos" for certain companies products. Or municipal water supplies to offer bundled discounts on Aquafina water. Monopolies shouldn't be skewing the markets like that. But I can see how you and SuperKendall say that this isn't network neutrality per se since they aren't altering the traffic, except for changing the price.
The worst-case scenario of not having network neutrality is ISPs altering or blocking content. The second worst-case scenario is ISPs partnering with web sites and offering their content for free. Amazon and Hulu should compete on product, not on having special deals with local monopolies. Can you imagine the outcry if your local power company gave free power to Kitchenaid appliances but not Whirlpool appliances, or to the PlayStation 4 but not the XBox? That would be such a clear abuse of monopoly power that we would never stand for it. We need to stop this from happening on the internet.
My son is in 3rd grade, and every year the school or the teacher has had some kind of social media account that they posted school assignments, announcements, or pictures of the classroom. On one hand, it is actually really nice to see picture of them working on a project, etc. On the other hand, I refuse to sign-up for social media account du jour. It wouldn't be so bad if they picked one, kept it closed, and used it again the next year.
Slight aside: This is why people aren't using email any longer. They have signed-up for so many social media accounts with their email address, that their inboxes are filled with junk mail. They just use email to sign-up for more stuff.
Who's DNS was poisoned? How localized was this attack? This is really key. Isn't DNS poisoning done against a LAN, or a single DNS server? It seems that this probably affected a very small number of people. It isn't really even a hack on Wikileaks, it is a hack on some ISP's DNS server. It makes you wonder what other sites they might have changed during that period of time.
I have a Vizio "Smart" TV. I didn't plug-in an ethernet cable and didn't configure a WiFi router. It is set to HDMI1 and the remote control is used for nothing other than a power switch. So long as they don't make them "require" a network they can be used as a TV. It's a shame that you can't buy one without the smart features in exchange for lower price or more reliability.
Slashdot Mirror
In the 1990s, I remember us all thinking that cross-platform development was getting so easy that we couldn't see why would anyone would write an application that wasn't cross platform. We thought OSs would become irrelevant. Yet, the problem only got worse!
This is one of the worst Slashdot summaries I've ever seen. It provides almost no information as to what the case is about while slamming the company and complimenting the regulators. What the heck is his about and why is it relevant tech news? What the heck does the first amendment have to do with it?
which Wall Street knows is essentially an unregulated public utility
This statement is simply false, it is a regulated public utility.
Or it was a setup. The NSA created a fake virus, then planted it on a laptop that ran Kaspersky. Then they listened to the underground to see if someone reported finding a new NSA developed virus.
Another theory: The NSA suspected a Russian agent. They suspected someone at Kaspersky. So they setup a test: Put Kaspersky on a laptop, put something valuable on the laptop that would be found by Kaspersky AntiVirus, then wait and see what happens.
The result is they successfully baited out the hacker.
Alternative theory: The NSA wanted to discredit Kaspersky, so they put something on the laptop that they new Kaspersky antivirus would find. Maybe Kaspersky automatically downloaded that file, and now the NSA can say "look, Kaspersky is a front for Russian hackers! They used it to download our secret stuff!"
I am totally confused by your post. It seems like you misread the article and took it to mean the exact opposite, based on some preconceived notion.
I bring this up every time an American points to how many new drugs they get as opposed to most single payer systems.
Your statement implies that you believe that Americans are boasting about getting more drugs. But Americans get fewer new drugs, not more.
There's a reason WHY the single payer systems aren't approving them.
The Europeans systems ARE approving them. That's the problem. And it has nothing to do with single payer or not, it has to do with the lack of regulatory oversight in some small European nations.
Those sentences are not in opposition to each other. Perhaps you are not a native English speaker? Permit me to explain. I assume your confusion is because of the words "faster" and "unresponsive." "Faster" refers to speed, whereas "unresponsive" refers to latency. Imagine that I click a button, and it gives me the result quickly. But then if I click another button, it takes a long time before it responds to my button press. The first is speed, the second is latency.
In the case of Edge, Edge is faster 1) because it has a newer JavaScript engine, and 2) since it supports newer web features applications don't have to rely on complicated workarounds like polyfills. But Edge is unresponsive and locks-up because it continues rendering a page even after the user has clicked stop or navigated to another page. So it is rendering the wrong thing, but it is rendering it very quickly. :-)
If so, what's keeping you from embracing the digital age and streaming movies via the internet?
16% of the movies in my queue are available for streaming. I pay for both services because they have 2 completely different catalogs.
Of the 280 items in my Netflix queue, 47 of them are available for streaming. And really, it is less than 16% since 13 of the items in the queue are a single series that spans 13 DVDs. I'll switch off the DVD service when they offer streaming for the other 233 titles.
Nobody uses Edge on Windows, so why would anyone use it on Android or IOS? I can back up my claim: I work at a Microsoft shop, and everyone here uses IE (for corporate stuff that doesn't work in Edge, Chrome, or FF) or they use Chrome. Our Microsoft Premier support rep doesn't use Edge. My parents got a new Windows 10 computer, and after complaining about the browser I told them to install Chrome.
Edge has all the problems that Windows 8 had. It is a desktop browser, but it works like a tablet browser. The menus are hard to find and hard to navigate. Things like "favorites" are buried. It's also unresponsive: Try visiting a slow site, then typing a new URL in while the page loads. The browser will lock-up until the slow page loads, then it will either navigate successfully to the new URL, or ignore what you typed in. It's just plain buggy. Which is a shame because it is, technologically, better than IE. It has better support for web standards and is much faster. But if Microsoft employees don't use it, then it won't improve.
It should have been called A Young Lady's Illustrated Primer.
I argue that A driverless car only needs to be almost as good as the average human driver, and it will take over like wildfire from humans.
Even if driverless cars increased the rate of accidents by a small percentage, it would not be enough to stop their adoption. So the question becomes, what safety level is required? The most important statistic here is really perception, not reality. Think of the people who avoid planes, even though planes are safer than cars. We will only know the true long-term safety until after they have widespread adoption. The worst-case scenario here is that 1 horrible accident causes the public to completely distrust them and laws are passed to cripple their development, evne if they are in reality safer.
It doesn't sound liek they've even proven that. Merely that the simulation would be really really complicated and need a really reall big amount of memory. More than we might have even conceived of.
Yesterday, I had this conversation with Google Assistant before I went outside to play frisbee: :-(
Me: "OK Google, what is the weather?"
GA: "The current temperature is 79 degrees Fahrenheit and..."
Me: "OK Google, what is the wind?"
GA: "The perceptible natural movement of the air, especially in the form of a current of air blowing..."
Me:
Me: "OK Google, is it windy today?"
GA: "The wind is coming from the southwest at 4 miles per hour."
They aren't
They are
Some context was lost here. "They" refers to "people with degrees and certifications." The linked BLS chart does not delineate individuals with degrees and certifications. It will take some time before we find out the real impact to the economy, in part because of the nearly-retiring baby boomers skewing the charts.
On the other hand, there has to be proof that all valid votes have been counted, no vote has been tampered with, and no additional votes have been added to ensure the equality of votes. How do you keep track of immaterial entities? You can't sign them with the voter's key, otherwise they aren't free anymore. If you sign them with another key, how do you ensure that this key is not used to add votes? And how do you ensure that the votes are really counted the way they were cast? And how do you watch the count?
You are asking the right questions, but there is indeed an answer. It's called "blind signature" AKA the "digital cash problem." There are a few researchers who posted solutions to this over a decade ago, even before blockchains. So it could be solved, but it is a significant effort and most people wouldn't understand it. So in the end, you are right that paper is the way to go.
Not in this case. T-Mobile is setting the price at 0.
I enjoyed this discussion. Thank you.
So, does net neutrality say anything about price? Is it okay to say that a certain site costs more? Or that a site costs less?
Well, one would HOPE t-mobile wouldn't traffic-shape non-Netflix video services
We shall see, eh? They already price-shaped them. So someone explain to me: why is not okay for T-Mobile to charge *more* for some service (that wouldn't be neutral), but it is okay for T-Mobile to charge *less* for another service? Isn't that the same thing? That's like those laws that forbid a surcharge for using credit cards, but permit cash discounts.
I get your point, but T-Mobile is a monopoly. They have exclusive rights to certain frequencies, granted to them by the US government. But even if that were not the case, having 4 companies control wireless telephone system over the entire United States, and absurdly high barriers of entry, is enough to make them a monopoly IMHO.
Okay, I suppose you are right in a way that this isn't necessarily a network neutrality issue. It's just a general anticompetitive issue. I would not want my local power company offering "promos" for certain companies products. Or municipal water supplies to offer bundled discounts on Aquafina water. Monopolies shouldn't be skewing the markets like that. But I can see how you and SuperKendall say that this isn't network neutrality per se since they aren't altering the traffic, except for changing the price.
The worst-case scenario of not having network neutrality is ISPs altering or blocking content. The second worst-case scenario is ISPs partnering with web sites and offering their content for free. Amazon and Hulu should compete on product, not on having special deals with local monopolies. Can you imagine the outcry if your local power company gave free power to Kitchenaid appliances but not Whirlpool appliances, or to the PlayStation 4 but not the XBox? That would be such a clear abuse of monopoly power that we would never stand for it. We need to stop this from happening on the internet.
My son is in 3rd grade, and every year the school or the teacher has had some kind of social media account that they posted school assignments, announcements, or pictures of the classroom. On one hand, it is actually really nice to see picture of them working on a project, etc. On the other hand, I refuse to sign-up for social media account du jour. It wouldn't be so bad if they picked one, kept it closed, and used it again the next year.
Slight aside: This is why people aren't using email any longer. They have signed-up for so many social media accounts with their email address, that their inboxes are filled with junk mail. They just use email to sign-up for more stuff.
Who's DNS was poisoned? How localized was this attack? This is really key. Isn't DNS poisoning done against a LAN, or a single DNS server? It seems that this probably affected a very small number of people. It isn't really even a hack on Wikileaks, it is a hack on some ISP's DNS server. It makes you wonder what other sites they might have changed during that period of time.
LAN of things? LoT?
I have a Vizio "Smart" TV. I didn't plug-in an ethernet cable and didn't configure a WiFi router. It is set to HDMI1 and the remote control is used for nothing other than a power switch. So long as they don't make them "require" a network they can be used as a TV. It's a shame that you can't buy one without the smart features in exchange for lower price or more reliability.