The free version on PC's has just as many commercials (AFAICT) as the $7.99/month version on TV connected systems (roku, appletv, firetv, xbox, ps3/ps4, etc). IMO, they're charging because they can get away with it on those systems, and they don't feel they could get away with it on the PC. They even made a hulu desktop version that had built in support for remotes and was free, but so few people have media centers, and those that do are usually capable of finding the programs elsewhere for free (pirate), so they don't charge them.
Why not an intermediate option with fewer commercials but that has a low subscriber fee?
That'd be swell, but that's not what's happening. For it to be an intermediate option, there would have to be a lower option, but they don't provide a 100% ad supported version for streaming devices (roku/etc).
And considering Hulu is upfront about this (it's the article from the Verge that uses the phrasing you find deceptive), not sure what the problem is in any case
IMO, the problem is that many of us are sick of shitty editorials that not only add no value, but get worse because they provide misleading or incorrect information.
Someone took time to write, "Coincidentally, as Netflix raised their prices last week, Hulu decided to lower theirs", as a summary of some points from the article, but that's wrong. It leads those with existing Hulu contracts to expect to pay less for the next year, which will drive far more interest into the article than if it read, "Coincidentally, as Netflix raised their prices last week, Hulu announced a short-term promotional sale for new or returning Hulu subscriptions".
No wonder they didn't phrase it correctly... it's barely news. Passing on "news" of a promotional sale is just advertising (or a slashvertisment, as it's known here).
I like this site, a lot, but crap like this should be corrected ASAP. I know I can't really trust Variety to get all their facts straight, but I do expect the one or two phrases that slashdot adds in summaries to at least be accurate (grammar, spelling, jokes, opinions... I can deal with all those).
HAHHAHAHA, BarbaraHudson can be an idiot. That doesn't prevent anyone from doing anything. Bios passwords and encrypted root partitions prevent others from being able to boot into my laptop OS of choice. I'll pass on the magic key that can erase all of my stuff, since I can easily buy a more capable machine for less money that doesn't have this "feature".
I honestly don't have a problem with the way the Chromebooks are setup by default, even the way the developer mode works. However, I do believe that aspect should be configurable in the bios. It'd take almost no work for that feature to be added... certainly less than work than it took to add the feature, and less work than they're spending supporting and defending that feature, and I'd buy one if that was possible.
You cannot get Linux to run all the hardware on recent MacBooks.
While that's true, it's a driver issue, rather than a purposeful lock out. Stuff that is/isn't working on the 2016/2017 MBP's: https://github.com/Dunedan/mbp...
The Chromebooks all have to be put into developer mode to boot another OS, and a bad button press can wipe out the system. So, while you can still put Linux on them, it's certainly not ideal.
I find it difficult to believe that two COMPLETELY SEPARATE subsystems (left brand with right eye vs. right brain with left eye) somehow "magically" communicate.
They're not "COMPLETELY SEPARATE". I'm no brain scientist, but I know the brain works somewhat like a very complex network. If a network had a multi-master core, and you severed the large interconnect between them, the network would be degraded but would be (generally speaking) be able to route around the problem.
Furthermore, in patients with half a brain, generally speaking, they are eventually able to regain control of both sides of their body, at least to some extent. In Dr. Gary Mathern's TEDx talk, he noted that the tracks from the motor cortex shift in the brain stem such that 90% go to the other side... so there's still 10% going to the same side.
IMO, the premise of the test is flawed. The test assumes a stimuli is only received on one side. To ensure that, we'd have to have a more direct interface to one side of the brain, and it'd have to be smart enough to send/receive intelligible signals. We should retest when we get to that point:-)
Not to mention the enormous cost of travelling by rocket. A plane ticket to the other side of the world is maybe $1000-$1500 round trip and will still get you there the same day. It's not remotely worth the extra cost just to save a few hours.
Summary and article say it'll be "around the same price as an economy airline ticket". I find that not only difficult, but nearly impossible to believe.
Currently, a SpaceX Falcon 9 launch costs an average of $57 million (from some random article I found). A 747-400 costs about $39 - $44 per mile for airborne operating cost, and it's about 6700 miles from NYC to Tokyo, so that would be around $300,000.
Seems like they have a REALLY REALLY long way to go in reducing operating costs if they're going to hit that goal of an economy airline ticket.
Aircraft rarely hit anything in transit. They're not traveling through a confined space where a few feet of movement would mean disaster. Many mid-air accidents are survivable. There are solid statistics on it, but there are no real world stats on the hyperloop in this regard, obviously.
I think it's a very valid question, and it would be my primary concern as well. Traditional trains are very safe for their passengers, with very low occurrences of fatalities (the number of people killed by trains or in train related issues is much higher (people/cars stuck at crossings/stops, trespassing casualties, etc) than the number of passenger deaths). In the hyperloop scenario, I would expect far fewer related deaths, but if there is a collision/derailment/etc, what then!?!? I can't imagine it'd be pretty, and I'd be surprised if it didn't cause catastrophic damage to the tube as well.
FWIW, I'm sure the people involved are aware and/or have thought about this. I'm just curious what the result was.
We know the echo isn't sending everything, even at the end of the day, because there are enough people out there logging its traffic that we know it's not sending that much data. The hardware has been broken down as well, and it does not have sufficient storage to queue everything for the whole day either. You can tell when it sends a stream by just watching packet counts/sizes.
I'm not claiming it will never happen, or couldn't happen, but it's not happening.
My TV has no internet connectivity. My cellphone has closely monitored data usage, though it's possible it could sneak a stream though cause it's doing so much other stuff and I don't own the next hop except when it's on wifi. Laptop has mic physically disabled, but even if it were plugged in, it'd be easy to determine when in use. Xbox/playstation have no mic's hooked up.
That said, I think it'd be kinda nice if the next version of the echo/google home/etc would have a hardware disable slider for the mics. That way, you could slide it off as you leave home, and back on when you come back. Might be nice reassurance for those with the home automation stuff hooked up who may also have an IoT door lock.
I'm not trying to change your mind, nor that of the GP, but there is *some* security built in.
For starters, it's not a simple hot mic. The audio is only sent anywhere if the keyword is first heard. It does audio recognition only of the keyword(s) locally, and the rest of it is done remotely if that keyword gets picked up. That said, I'd be surprised if a software update or bug couldn't cause it to stream all data, but it's not doing so all day long.
For certain actions (ex. purchases done through it), it can be setup to require an additional pin code, or those actions can be disabled altogether. This limits the potential impact of someone saying stuff to it. They can mess up your shopping list, play music, have it answer dumb questions, etc, but they can't (easily) have it make purchases.
They also have different models of them. For example, if you wanted one that isn't always listening, but you wanted the rest of the features, you could get the "Amazon Tap", which requires you to tap a button before it'll listen. I'm not well versed in the other providers (google home, etc), but amazon has:
* echo : has 7 mics that use beam-forming stuff, and a nice speaker. * echo dot : just that nice mic array, no speaker. You provide your own speaker, otherwise it's basically the same as the echo. * tap : it's basically just the speaker part of the echo, and you can tap it to speak to one mic. It's also portable (has battery) and works as a bluetooth speaker (as does the echo). * echo show : 8 mics, speaker, camera, and a screen so it can show you stuff too, and do video calls. * echo look : (this one seems weird IMO) mics, camera, led lighting (for camera), speaker, and a mic&camera off button (kinda like the show without a screen). * alexa voice remote : This can connect to the echo or echo dot. There's a mic in the remote, and some buttons. IMO, it'd be nice if this worked with the tap, so you wouldn't have to stand next to it. It provides a way to have a hardware button control a mic though, so this could provide added security if your echo dot was shielded from external audio.
Some day, voice recognition stuff might provide some more security to the echo/echo dot/echo show/etc, but I don't think that would really change anybodies mind... recording someone elses voice is pretty easy. It would prevent a TV show from triggering every device out there though. So, if you don't want the risk, there are other options... but you probably just don't like any of them.
I just thought people might want to know that they've really covered just about every combo of hardware features that one of these could have.
Holy crap. From that link, "96 million black balls"... "10-centimetre-diameter plastic balls"... "The 36-cent balls"... You mean to tell me they couldn't get a better bulk deal than 100 for $36 on 96 million 10cm plastic balls ($34.56 million total)?!?! I really hope some of those figures are wrong.
It's because as the number of lines goes up, the amount used per line tends to drop.
I think that's the rhetoric, but I don't believe that's the reason... it doesn't make sense as a reason. Those other lines are not just extra lines the same person is (not) using, they're other people. They'll average the same amount of usage as single customers would average.
Regardless of how much they use, IMO it's more about customer retention. I'm fairly certain that customer turn over is the more expensive part, and the more folks you can get them to add in on the same plan, the less chance anyone in that group will be able to convince everyone else to go to a new carrier (which usually means new device as well, which means moving all contacts/apps/etc, and the cost to move, and the headache, and coordinating a date when everyone can make that move... it's just not going to happen).
Disclaimer: I didn't RTFA, but I did RTFS(ummary).
The summary says they "cycle through all 10,000 possible values for the four random digits at the end of the card's number". AFAICT, that's the last 4 of the card number - like the part that gets printed on receipts. He's cycling through those numbers, not the CSC (Car Security Code) nor CVV (Card Verification Value).
FWIW, while I did find pages labeled CSV in relation to that value (ex. https://www.teamline.cc/static...), I didn't find what that stood for. Even wikipedia page for that feature does not include CSV (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_security_code). So, just to confirm... you were referring to he CSC/CVD/CVV/CV2/CVC/V-code/SPC thing, right? (my gut/guess is that CSV is the abbreviation in some non-English language, which would make perfect sense).
Ignoring the TSA part, I'd definitely rather be on a plane going 500mph than anything else. There's so little to run into up there. That said, the lines, tsa, taxiing, landing, taxiing, etc... I'll take the train, but that's only because people ruined a good thing.
Your nuts. A train going 60mph (I'm assuming it's not going through some tube) that crashes is going to be survivable for nearly everyone on board. A train going 600mph through a tube (partial vacuum no less) that crashes (and I assume that means some sort of derailment) is going to be a disaster.
My internet is just barely faster than a T1. How ever will I cope?!?!?
I don't know why most of the replies to you imply that you must be joking, or that's not sufficient anymore. I came here expecting to find most people saying that.
Way way back, nearly 2 decades ago, I had lost my cable internet service. My cell phone, a motorola flip phone through nextel, had the ability to hook to the computer as a serial device, and you could dial out that way. Using a special prefix got you a modem bank at Nextel. For 3 months, I did all my home browsing using that. It was stuck at a max of 9600 baud.
That sucked, but I was still able to work fine (ssh), and browse the internet, and even browse photo galleries (albeit slowly.. open up a bunch of them, go do something, come back a bit later when they start completing). It wasn't acoustic coupler slow (it was enough I could still do work over ssh without much of an issue), but it was as slow as was manageable at the time. A T1 would have been a dream, and would have been way faster than my cable at the time.
If they're actually delivering T1 speeds, and its priced accordingly, I don't see an issue. That's enough to watch normal video online anywhere, and do all the normal online activities people do. It's only not enough for edge cases (Oh no, 12 people can't all watch different videos at the same time). I doubt they're actually getting 1.5Mbps though (if they are, I might revisit ADSL and sign up as a backup link to my cable, which flops several times a day).
Portland, OH to Seatle, WA is about 170 miles, ONE WAY. A vehicle that gets 200-300 miles on a charge will only make it one way before needing to charge, and that's only a 3hr trip.
IMO, this thing needs to safely go a full truckers working day. If they limit themselves to 8hr/day of driving, and only do 60mph, that's 480 miles, and it needs some extra headroom to get to/from charging stations and to allow for reduced battery life, which will happen quickly. That means more than double the range (400-600 has a low end that won't complete a days work).
Though I could probably just RTFA, I'm curious what the curb weight of the truck is versus a comparable diesel truck (ie. how much do the batteries weight).
Long term, I think these have a great opportunity for long haul trucking in convoys. They should be able to employ some of that fancy self driving stuff to make a train of trucks, which would greatly reduce overall energy use... not sure how they'll work out who leads though.
Thank you. I initially thought you were mistaken, cause I'm familiar with ETags, but I hadn't thought it all the way through. Those are some sneaky buggers.
FWIW for others, ETags are optional, and generated server side per resource. They are used to determine if an item you have cached needs refreshed (if the etag you have differs, you need the updated version). That happens to be done server side... if you already have a resource, you send an HTTP request to the server, and your request headers include "If-None-Match", which has the ETag. If you send an ETag to the advertising server, they can misuse that feature and just send you back the same tag... this is how they end up tracking you (or part of it), as they can associate a unique ID with you because you always send them that same ETag.
I don't think Linux is becoming Windows like - it is more like Windows is coming around to the fact that the UNIX model is in fact the better one.
They both borrow features from each other. However, there have been some pretty big changes to Linux that would have sounded like the signs of the apocalypse. For example (in no particular order): * ACL's * selinux * systemd init * dbus * gconf (and gsettings / dconf) * pulse audio * graphical boot *.NET from Microsoft (not just mono, which I equate to wine, but provided by Microsoft and shipped with RHEL!?!?!) * merged desktop displays (instead of 0.0 and 0.1; aka xinerama, etc) * binary logs (systemd) * etc
Sadly, I think it's inevitable. In the early days of Linux, most, if not all, of the devs were coming from the UNIX world, or at least had some time on those other systems (I actively used SunOS, IRIX, HPUX, Solaris, FreeBSD, and Linux, all around the time of the release of version 2 of the Linux kernel). Now, most of those are dead, and the others are far more rare. Our younger devs may grow up using Linux, but they're also using Windows, and rarely any other unix-like OS.... so of course we get many mannerisms and such from Windows:-(
.. because that article ranked CrashPlan as #1, and Backblaze as the runner up, but it doesn't support Linux, so we're right back to where we started with TFS.
Curious: why would you not want to backup your whole computer?
Size of backup set, bandwidth, temp files, confidential files, external drives, etc. I have decent service, did the math, and I can not back up all my data over my connection in a reasonable amount of time, or even in an unreasonable amount of time.
Your question isn't even a complete question. You either mean whole computer to include partition tables, MBR, etc, in which case there are loads of good reasons not to want that (or to want a file based backup and recover more), or you are already excluding items in the assumption that what filesystems are currently mounted is what I want backed up.
Regardless, there are very very good reasons to have support for excluding files and directories.
If you're streaming video over https and Verizon throttles it, then that throttling decision was made based on very limited data: * source (youtube/etc) * destination (you) * port (443 / HTTPS, which does not signify "video") * connection age (how long the connection has been established... but this would actually be easy to work around by just re-establishing the connection every few minutes) * usage (how much has been transferred in how much time)
I take issue with anyone saying they throttle video streams. They're guessing, and how they make that decision should be made known because it's not because it is "video". They're (almost certainly) throttling based on bandwidth, but they don't want to say, "Unlimited high speed, except when you use it for more than a minute, then we throttle it down to 3g speeds".
On the off chance they're not throttling if the traffic is over HTTPS, then that should be a big bold phrase in the summary, cause it makes this nearly a non-issue:-)
I see no part of the two factor scheme that failed. The title is misleading, at best.
This was password recovery/reset that was exploited, not the two factor auth. In fact, this sort of issue is PRECISELY why two factor should be used, because one of the factors may be compromised, and the account would still be secure. The auth still was secure, but the attackers exploited the weak password reset security - weakest link and all that.
I agree regarding roku, but you yourself said, "The only thing keeping them on cable is obscure speciality content they can't get from a streaming service". That's the point. That's the same stupid point keeping people on Windows. Many people are not willing to sacrifice one iota of what they already have, even if there is a wealth of other benefits.
I also think roku (and similar products) would go much further with cord cutting if they included the ability to play broadcast TV, and more-so if they had a beefier version with some basic DVR capabilities. I've got an HD Homerun I don't even use anymore cause I don't run my homemade DVR anymore... it'd be wonderful if one of these little media players (ex. roku) could pick up the digital streams from that (their FAQ says the roku can't decode that format of audio/video).
Slashdot Mirror
The free version on PC's has just as many commercials (AFAICT) as the $7.99/month version on TV connected systems (roku, appletv, firetv, xbox, ps3/ps4, etc). IMO, they're charging because they can get away with it on those systems, and they don't feel they could get away with it on the PC. They even made a hulu desktop version that had built in support for remotes and was free, but so few people have media centers, and those that do are usually capable of finding the programs elsewhere for free (pirate), so they don't charge them.
Why not an intermediate option with fewer commercials but that has a low subscriber fee?
That'd be swell, but that's not what's happening. For it to be an intermediate option, there would have to be a lower option, but they don't provide a 100% ad supported version for streaming devices (roku/etc).
And considering Hulu is upfront about this (it's the article from the Verge that uses the phrasing you find deceptive), not sure what the problem is in any case
IMO, the problem is that many of us are sick of shitty editorials that not only add no value, but get worse because they provide misleading or incorrect information.
Someone took time to write, "Coincidentally, as Netflix raised their prices last week, Hulu decided to lower theirs", as a summary of some points from the article, but that's wrong. It leads those with existing Hulu contracts to expect to pay less for the next year, which will drive far more interest into the article than if it read, "Coincidentally, as Netflix raised their prices last week, Hulu announced a short-term promotional sale for new or returning Hulu subscriptions".
No wonder they didn't phrase it correctly... it's barely news. Passing on "news" of a promotional sale is just advertising (or a slashvertisment, as it's known here).
I like this site, a lot, but crap like this should be corrected ASAP. I know I can't really trust Variety to get all their facts straight, but I do expect the one or two phrases that slashdot adds in summaries to at least be accurate (grammar, spelling, jokes, opinions... I can deal with all those).
HAHHAHAHA, BarbaraHudson can be an idiot. That doesn't prevent anyone from doing anything. Bios passwords and encrypted root partitions prevent others from being able to boot into my laptop OS of choice. I'll pass on the magic key that can erase all of my stuff, since I can easily buy a more capable machine for less money that doesn't have this "feature".
I honestly don't have a problem with the way the Chromebooks are setup by default, even the way the developer mode works. However, I do believe that aspect should be configurable in the bios. It'd take almost no work for that feature to be added... certainly less than work than it took to add the feature, and less work than they're spending supporting and defending that feature, and I'd buy one if that was possible.
You cannot get Linux to run all the hardware on recent MacBooks.
While that's true, it's a driver issue, rather than a purposeful lock out. Stuff that is/isn't working on the 2016/2017 MBP's: https://github.com/Dunedan/mbp...
The Chromebooks all have to be put into developer mode to boot another OS, and a bad button press can wipe out the system. So, while you can still put Linux on them, it's certainly not ideal.
I find it difficult to believe that two COMPLETELY SEPARATE subsystems (left brand with right eye vs. right brain with left eye) somehow "magically" communicate.
They're not "COMPLETELY SEPARATE". I'm no brain scientist, but I know the brain works somewhat like a very complex network. If a network had a multi-master core, and you severed the large interconnect between them, the network would be degraded but would be (generally speaking) be able to route around the problem.
Furthermore, in patients with half a brain, generally speaking, they are eventually able to regain control of both sides of their body, at least to some extent. In Dr. Gary Mathern's TEDx talk, he noted that the tracks from the motor cortex shift in the brain stem such that 90% go to the other side... so there's still 10% going to the same side.
IMO, the premise of the test is flawed. The test assumes a stimuli is only received on one side. To ensure that, we'd have to have a more direct interface to one side of the brain, and it'd have to be smart enough to send/receive intelligible signals. We should retest when we get to that point :-)
Not to mention the enormous cost of travelling by rocket. A plane ticket to the other side of the world is maybe $1000-$1500 round trip and will still get you there the same day. It's not remotely worth the extra cost just to save a few hours.
Summary and article say it'll be "around the same price as an economy airline ticket". I find that not only difficult, but nearly impossible to believe.
Currently, a SpaceX Falcon 9 launch costs an average of $57 million (from some random article I found).
A 747-400 costs about $39 - $44 per mile for airborne operating cost, and it's about 6700 miles from NYC to Tokyo, so that would be around $300,000.
Seems like they have a REALLY REALLY long way to go in reducing operating costs if they're going to hit that goal of an economy airline ticket.
Aircraft rarely hit anything in transit. They're not traveling through a confined space where a few feet of movement would mean disaster. Many mid-air accidents are survivable. There are solid statistics on it, but there are no real world stats on the hyperloop in this regard, obviously.
I think it's a very valid question, and it would be my primary concern as well. Traditional trains are very safe for their passengers, with very low occurrences of fatalities (the number of people killed by trains or in train related issues is much higher (people/cars stuck at crossings/stops, trespassing casualties, etc) than the number of passenger deaths). In the hyperloop scenario, I would expect far fewer related deaths, but if there is a collision/derailment/etc, what then!?!? I can't imagine it'd be pretty, and I'd be surprised if it didn't cause catastrophic damage to the tube as well.
FWIW, I'm sure the people involved are aware and/or have thought about this. I'm just curious what the result was.
Bullshit, to both you and your AC parent.
We know the echo isn't sending everything, even at the end of the day, because there are enough people out there logging its traffic that we know it's not sending that much data. The hardware has been broken down as well, and it does not have sufficient storage to queue everything for the whole day either. You can tell when it sends a stream by just watching packet counts/sizes.
I'm not claiming it will never happen, or couldn't happen, but it's not happening.
My TV has no internet connectivity. My cellphone has closely monitored data usage, though it's possible it could sneak a stream though cause it's doing so much other stuff and I don't own the next hop except when it's on wifi. Laptop has mic physically disabled, but even if it were plugged in, it'd be easy to determine when in use. Xbox/playstation have no mic's hooked up.
That said, I think it'd be kinda nice if the next version of the echo/google home/etc would have a hardware disable slider for the mics. That way, you could slide it off as you leave home, and back on when you come back. Might be nice reassurance for those with the home automation stuff hooked up who may also have an IoT door lock.
I'm not trying to change your mind, nor that of the GP, but there is *some* security built in.
For starters, it's not a simple hot mic. The audio is only sent anywhere if the keyword is first heard. It does audio recognition only of the keyword(s) locally, and the rest of it is done remotely if that keyword gets picked up. That said, I'd be surprised if a software update or bug couldn't cause it to stream all data, but it's not doing so all day long.
For certain actions (ex. purchases done through it), it can be setup to require an additional pin code, or those actions can be disabled altogether. This limits the potential impact of someone saying stuff to it. They can mess up your shopping list, play music, have it answer dumb questions, etc, but they can't (easily) have it make purchases.
They also have different models of them. For example, if you wanted one that isn't always listening, but you wanted the rest of the features, you could get the "Amazon Tap", which requires you to tap a button before it'll listen. I'm not well versed in the other providers (google home, etc), but amazon has:
* echo : has 7 mics that use beam-forming stuff, and a nice speaker.
* echo dot : just that nice mic array, no speaker. You provide your own speaker, otherwise it's basically the same as the echo.
* tap : it's basically just the speaker part of the echo, and you can tap it to speak to one mic. It's also portable (has battery) and works as a bluetooth speaker (as does the echo).
* echo show : 8 mics, speaker, camera, and a screen so it can show you stuff too, and do video calls.
* echo look : (this one seems weird IMO) mics, camera, led lighting (for camera), speaker, and a mic&camera off button (kinda like the show without a screen).
* alexa voice remote : This can connect to the echo or echo dot. There's a mic in the remote, and some buttons. IMO, it'd be nice if this worked with the tap, so you wouldn't have to stand next to it. It provides a way to have a hardware button control a mic though, so this could provide added security if your echo dot was shielded from external audio.
Some day, voice recognition stuff might provide some more security to the echo/echo dot/echo show/etc, but I don't think that would really change anybodies mind... recording someone elses voice is pretty easy. It would prevent a TV show from triggering every device out there though. So, if you don't want the risk, there are other options... but you probably just don't like any of them.
I just thought people might want to know that they've really covered just about every combo of hardware features that one of these could have.
Holy crap. From that link, "96 million black balls" ... "10-centimetre-diameter plastic balls" ... "The 36-cent balls"...
You mean to tell me they couldn't get a better bulk deal than 100 for $36 on 96 million 10cm plastic balls ($34.56 million total)?!?! I really hope some of those figures are wrong.
It's because as the number of lines goes up, the amount used per line tends to drop.
I think that's the rhetoric, but I don't believe that's the reason... it doesn't make sense as a reason. Those other lines are not just extra lines the same person is (not) using, they're other people. They'll average the same amount of usage as single customers would average.
Regardless of how much they use, IMO it's more about customer retention. I'm fairly certain that customer turn over is the more expensive part, and the more folks you can get them to add in on the same plan, the less chance anyone in that group will be able to convince everyone else to go to a new carrier (which usually means new device as well, which means moving all contacts/apps/etc, and the cost to move, and the headache, and coordinating a date when everyone can make that move... it's just not going to happen).
Disclaimer: I didn't RTFA, but I did RTFS(ummary).
The summary says they "cycle through all 10,000 possible values for the four random digits at the end of the card's number". AFAICT, that's the last 4 of the card number - like the part that gets printed on receipts. He's cycling through those numbers, not the CSC (Car Security Code) nor CVV (Card Verification Value).
FWIW, while I did find pages labeled CSV in relation to that value (ex. https://www.teamline.cc/static...), I didn't find what that stood for. Even wikipedia page for that feature does not include CSV (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_security_code). So, just to confirm... you were referring to he CSC/CVD/CVV/CV2/CVC/V-code/SPC thing, right? (my gut/guess is that CSV is the abbreviation in some non-English language, which would make perfect sense).
English isn't everyone's first language. But when it is, I prefer Dos Equis.
Ignoring the TSA part, I'd definitely rather be on a plane going 500mph than anything else. There's so little to run into up there. That said, the lines, tsa, taxiing, landing, taxiing, etc... I'll take the train, but that's only because people ruined a good thing.
Your nuts. A train going 60mph (I'm assuming it's not going through some tube) that crashes is going to be survivable for nearly everyone on board. A train going 600mph through a tube (partial vacuum no less) that crashes (and I assume that means some sort of derailment) is going to be a disaster.
My internet is just barely faster than a T1. How ever will I cope?!?!?
I don't know why most of the replies to you imply that you must be joking, or that's not sufficient anymore. I came here expecting to find most people saying that.
Way way back, nearly 2 decades ago, I had lost my cable internet service. My cell phone, a motorola flip phone through nextel, had the ability to hook to the computer as a serial device, and you could dial out that way. Using a special prefix got you a modem bank at Nextel. For 3 months, I did all my home browsing using that. It was stuck at a max of 9600 baud.
That sucked, but I was still able to work fine (ssh), and browse the internet, and even browse photo galleries (albeit slowly.. open up a bunch of them, go do something, come back a bit later when they start completing). It wasn't acoustic coupler slow (it was enough I could still do work over ssh without much of an issue), but it was as slow as was manageable at the time. A T1 would have been a dream, and would have been way faster than my cable at the time.
If they're actually delivering T1 speeds, and its priced accordingly, I don't see an issue. That's enough to watch normal video online anywhere, and do all the normal online activities people do. It's only not enough for edge cases (Oh no, 12 people can't all watch different videos at the same time). I doubt they're actually getting 1.5Mbps though (if they are, I might revisit ADSL and sign up as a backup link to my cable, which flops several times a day).
Portland, OH to Seatle, WA is about 170 miles, ONE WAY.
A vehicle that gets 200-300 miles on a charge will only make it one way before needing to charge, and that's only a 3hr trip.
IMO, this thing needs to safely go a full truckers working day. If they limit themselves to 8hr/day of driving, and only do 60mph, that's 480 miles, and it needs some extra headroom to get to/from charging stations and to allow for reduced battery life, which will happen quickly. That means more than double the range (400-600 has a low end that won't complete a days work).
Though I could probably just RTFA, I'm curious what the curb weight of the truck is versus a comparable diesel truck (ie. how much do the batteries weight).
Long term, I think these have a great opportunity for long haul trucking in convoys. They should be able to employ some of that fancy self driving stuff to make a train of trucks, which would greatly reduce overall energy use... not sure how they'll work out who leads though.
Thank you. I initially thought you were mistaken, cause I'm familiar with ETags, but I hadn't thought it all the way through. Those are some sneaky buggers.
FWIW for others, ETags are optional, and generated server side per resource. They are used to determine if an item you have cached needs refreshed (if the etag you have differs, you need the updated version). That happens to be done server side... if you already have a resource, you send an HTTP request to the server, and your request headers include "If-None-Match", which has the ETag. If you send an ETag to the advertising server, they can misuse that feature and just send you back the same tag... this is how they end up tracking you (or part of it), as they can associate a unique ID with you because you always send them that same ETag.
Uh, what the hell is wrong with Paint.NET???
Maybe because it won't run on Linux, even using Microsoft .NET Core 2.0?
I don't think Linux is becoming Windows like - it is more like Windows is coming around to the fact that the UNIX model is in fact the better one.
They both borrow features from each other. However, there have been some pretty big changes to Linux that would have sounded like the signs of the apocalypse. For example (in no particular order): .NET from Microsoft (not just mono, which I equate to wine, but provided by Microsoft and shipped with RHEL!?!?!)
* ACL's
* selinux
* systemd init
* dbus
* gconf (and gsettings / dconf)
* pulse audio
* graphical boot
*
* merged desktop displays (instead of 0.0 and 0.1; aka xinerama, etc)
* binary logs (systemd)
* etc
Sadly, I think it's inevitable. In the early days of Linux, most, if not all, of the devs were coming from the UNIX world, or at least had some time on those other systems (I actively used SunOS, IRIX, HPUX, Solaris, FreeBSD, and Linux, all around the time of the release of version 2 of the Linux kernel). Now, most of those are dead, and the others are far more rare. Our younger devs may grow up using Linux, but they're also using Windows, and rarely any other unix-like OS.... so of course we get many mannerisms and such from Windows :-(
.. because that article ranked CrashPlan as #1, and Backblaze as the runner up, but it doesn't support Linux, so we're right back to where we started with TFS.
Curious: why would you not want to backup your whole computer?
Size of backup set, bandwidth, temp files, confidential files, external drives, etc.
I have decent service, did the math, and I can not back up all my data over my connection in a reasonable amount of time, or even in an unreasonable amount of time.
Your question isn't even a complete question. You either mean whole computer to include partition tables, MBR, etc, in which case there are loads of good reasons not to want that (or to want a file based backup and recover more), or you are already excluding items in the assumption that what filesystems are currently mounted is what I want backed up.
Regardless, there are very very good reasons to have support for excluding files and directories.
THIS. Thank you.
If you're streaming video over https and Verizon throttles it, then that throttling decision was made based on very limited data:
* source (youtube/etc)
* destination (you)
* port (443 / HTTPS, which does not signify "video")
* connection age (how long the connection has been established... but this would actually be easy to work around by just re-establishing the connection every few minutes)
* usage (how much has been transferred in how much time)
I take issue with anyone saying they throttle video streams. They're guessing, and how they make that decision should be made known because it's not because it is "video". They're (almost certainly) throttling based on bandwidth, but they don't want to say, "Unlimited high speed, except when you use it for more than a minute, then we throttle it down to 3g speeds".
On the off chance they're not throttling if the traffic is over HTTPS, then that should be a big bold phrase in the summary, cause it makes this nearly a non-issue :-)
I see no part of the two factor scheme that failed. The title is misleading, at best.
This was password recovery/reset that was exploited, not the two factor auth. In fact, this sort of issue is PRECISELY why two factor should be used, because one of the factors may be compromised, and the account would still be secure. The auth still was secure, but the attackers exploited the weak password reset security - weakest link and all that.
I agree regarding roku, but you yourself said, "The only thing keeping them on cable is obscure speciality content they can't get from a streaming service". That's the point. That's the same stupid point keeping people on Windows. Many people are not willing to sacrifice one iota of what they already have, even if there is a wealth of other benefits.
I also think roku (and similar products) would go much further with cord cutting if they included the ability to play broadcast TV, and more-so if they had a beefier version with some basic DVR capabilities. I've got an HD Homerun I don't even use anymore cause I don't run my homemade DVR anymore... it'd be wonderful if one of these little media players (ex. roku) could pick up the digital streams from that (their FAQ says the roku can't decode that format of audio/video).