I don't understand how someone could ever think this could work. Of course they can't keep this up where someone could go see 30 movies a month for $10. It almost makes me think there is some kind of shadiness going on. Someone create a big company that people love... knowing that it is not sustainable... get financial backing because of how popular it certainly would be... cash out before it tanks... go to Disney World.
Spooky action at a distance boils down to a simple thing really. Take a coin and slice it in half so that heads is on one piece and tails is on the other and don't look at it. Now put one piece in an envelope and send it to person A. Put the second piece in a second envelope and send it to the second person B. Now when person A opens the envelope and reads the value, They will also know the value that was sent to A. The information was encoded in the envelope before it left so it is not a mystery how they both get the values.
The fingerprint information is only stored on your device and does not get sent to the website you are logging into. Someone cannot use your thumbprint to get access to the website from another device. They would have to login to your specific device and use your thumbprint on it to get access. Essentially the website login information is just stored inside a security container that gets unlocked with your fingerprint. Think of it kind of like a password manager but using your thumbprint to use it. The thumbprint is only used locally and not part of the login information for the website.
I think you are misunderstanding how this could be implemented. The fingerprint is not sent to the site you are authenticating too. The site would likely create a very long cookie or auth code once you log in normally. To access that auth code to send to the website you would use the biometric login which would then send that encrypted auth code to the website. This is similar to how thumbprint works on existing phones. The thumbprint isn't sent outside the security context of the phone. It only unlocks the real code that gets sent to the website.
I always used either Spotify or Google Play as I could get them at cheaper pricing. I finally switched to Apple Music for one reason. Quite often when I got into my car, Apple Music would play the same song every time. It wasn't even a song that I liked. It was a song that was free that they offered at some point. It seems like if you have a third party music app and you get out of the car with that music playing, You later inside the house stop playing that third party app and launch other games and such, When you get back into the car, The car tries to continue playing music. Because that third party app was not the last thing to play audio, Apple Music gets chosen as the music player by default. Well... I only have those few songs that I got for free on that service so it picks the same one every single time to play when it can't determine that I was using Google Play or Spotify. I don't even like the music it is playing. I tried to disable music downloads over cellular and cleared my download cache so that Apple Music couldn't download the song but I was till in WiFi range when leaving so it still ended up playing that song. I finally gave up and just subscribed to Apple Music. Now it at least picks the correct music streaming app.
The solution to this seems obvious to me. Apple should allow setting a default music streaming app so that when you get into a car that tries to resume playing music and the phone can't determine what you used to stream music last, The phone will choose the music app that you actually use.
You can buy 2000 souls for $99. Average cost of gold characters is about 390 souls. Each character can be fused to upgrade it 7 times (8 total purchases). There are almost 60 gold characters. So for $99 you can't even buy 1 character and upgrade him to max .
60 * 390 / 2000 * $100
$11,000 to buy every character and upgrade them to max level. That is if you could directly buy all characters which you can't.
Some characters can only be obtained through packs (lootboxes per say) and they are random when you get a rare carachter out of them. You don't get them very often at all. To get every character and upgrade the to max, I don't know how much it would take but if I were to guess I would bet it is probably over $80,000. This is not including silver characters some of which are also only obtainable in packs.
and destroys all the solar panels... you get to buy them again. Any solutions put in place must be spec'd to survive cat 5 hurricanes or we are just wasting money. Build a solution now that will cost more but survive the future and the long term costs will be significantly reduced.
Ummm. No? Do people in government really believe this is a good idea? The government shouldn't be doing things like this. Foxconn could be out of business before they even see a profit.
I am surprised that anyone serious about security would ever install a web browser password plugin for their password management software. It seems logical that it is just a bug away from password compromise.
The government should be looking at regulating assisted flight like GPS and autonomous type of models and not regular RC airplanes and helicopters. As you mentioned... They are the source of the problems when it comes to the public. Anyone can buy one and fly it wherever without any experience. Joe public can't just go buy a normal RC airplane or helicopter (without GPS) and go fly it over a public gathering. They would crash it before it even got off the ground without a lot of practice or help from others more experienced which might introduce them to the AMA.
I have a 290 gram hand launch glider which does not have any propulsion system. You throw it and find thermals to go higher. I will now need to register it.
Drones should be defined as devices that can act autonomously or be guided remotely through a live video stream all of which done without line of sight flying. I can certainly see the risks with these devices.
Model aircraft should be defined as radio control aircraft that does not have autonomous or first person view features and is flown line of sight. The risks with "model aircraft" are much lower than "Drones" as defined above. The model aircraft hobbyist that have been flying for many decades safely should not be clumped in with drones when it comes to regulations. There are already regulations for "Model aircraft" defined by the FAA which AMA helps to define for hobbyists.
With that said there still should be a minimum drone size that would not be regulated. A $15 drone that you can buy at walmwart and only fly within about 100 feet before going out of range and not have GPS should not be burdened with registration or any such restrictions.
LA county just passed a low restricting flying to 400 feet in that city for all unmanned aircraft clumping in "model aircraft" that the RC hobbyist use including sailplanes that do not have motors. That pretty much kills the sailplane hobby where you fly a non motorized aircraft and try to find thermals to climb up higher. The launch heights are around 500 to 600 feet when launched by a winch from the ground. They wouldn't even be able to launch their model aircraft.
I mainly fly Discus Hand Launch Gilders (DLG) that do not have motors to propel them. You spin around while grabbing the wing and release it like a discus which launches the aircraft to around 130 to 280 feet. Once gravity kicks in you flatten out and then search for thermals to take you higher. The thermals are just forming around that height and require flying to around 500 to 800 feet to get to the best air for thermals. Keep in mind DLGs do not have motors so we completely depend on the air heating up and going up taking our glider with it. We always have line of sight when flying and there are no special electronics on them. No GPS, etc. There are dozens of competitions every year in the US (f3k) and it would be very sad for us to lose the hobby because of these new "Drones" that are becoming popular that have GPS and autonomous features. My fear is that by clumping all the hobby aircraft like sailplanes into the "Drone" definition they will be restricted too and ruin this great hobby.
So what would happen if this happened without digital means? What would happen if a boy at age 14 for instance exposed himself to a girl that was 14. What would happen if a girl exposed herself to a boy that was 14. What would happen if the same sex exposed themself to the same sex? What would happen if they both did it at the same time (boy/girl boy/boy girl/girl)? Normally I would think this would be a family issue where the two families would deal with it privately. If there is some conflict and it can not get worked out then the law should be involved.
Whatever the answer is to that it should be the same thing regardless of the medium that it was done.
There is a similar app on iOS that I have played with. It does work a little differently though. I takes 4 pictures of an object up close to the camera by moving a white light around the edges of the screen (while the camera stays in one place) in a dark room and uses the shadows to map the 3d object. Seems to work ok but does require a dark room and the object to be very close to the camera. This one works entirely on the phone and doesn't involve a cloud.
http://www.trimensional.com/
A drone is supposed to be an unmanned aircraft that can fly autonomously. RC model airplanes/helicopters can be designed or equipment added to make them fit that description but most RC model aircraft do not fit that description at all and are not drones. RC Model aircraft tend to be flown within the visual line of sight and always actively controlled the entire time by the RC pilot while watching the airspace around them. Drones on the other hand have features that allow the drone to take over controls at times and some can be flown out of the controllers sight either by GPS waypoints or FPV.
People flying RC model aircraft can see a big patch of sky at once when higher up. We can hear commercial airplanes or helicopters and see them coming even at 5000 feet and above (I have never flown more than 2500 feet) so even if we were to be close to their path we can easily move away from their path in plenty of time to avoid any issues. It is really a non-issue unless someone deliberately wanted to cause problems (which legislation couldn't stop anyway). I have been flying RC since 1992 even around my home up to 2400 feet and have never been anywhere near the path of a commercial helicopter or airplane and I live near the city. I never fly when I hear an aircraft approaching. If you are up flying then any low (300 to 800 feet) commercial aircraft you can hear way ahead of time and bring it down or move it far away from them before they get close. Most other airplanes are in the 5000 feet range where I live. I tend to fly my motorless Discus Hand Launch Glider (DLG) usually around 150 to 1500 feet (when I catch thermals). At that altitude you can see and still hear airplanes approach miles away and easily not be anywhere near them when they approach overhead just in case they are around your RC model's altitude.
I have been flying RC model aircraft since 1992 and the biggest trouble spot that I can think of is drones (or RC model aircraft) that are flown via first person view (FPV) far away from the viewer or up high. People looking at a video monitor or video goggles have a much harder time seeing other objects around them. People tend to fly them much further away too (some are flying them miles away). While a few more expensive models have a VR type control to move your head left/right/up/down to look around while flying, that still is not as good as viewing from the ground and always keeping the model within eye sight from the ground so that you (or a friend) can look out for other air traffic. Some are only flown within line of sight so it shouldn't be a problem but for those flying further away it can be an issue.
While RC gliders are not drones I am concerned that they be clumped into these drone restrictions.
DLG RC gliders are 1.5m sailplanes without motors. They are thrown like a discus with a peg in the wing to hold onto for the spin and release. They do have servos to control the surfaces but they do not have a motor to propel them. Once they are thrown you must search for thermals to keep them up and go higher. Top DLG RC pilots can throw them 240 to 280 feet right from the ground which is already over their highly restrictive limit. It is ridiculous that some commercial company comes by and tries to dictate that we now must fly below 200 feet so that they can use the space above that for their commercial drone use.
I doubt even 0.001% of Apple users have ever read the EULA and those that have probably 0.01% of those that have actually understand what is actually being restricted. You will never get the public to care about EULAs. They know they just click ACCEPT and it goes away.
Countries (including US) are actively doing things to adjust the climate already.
The sad part is we are already doing things to influence the climate that we have no clue how we are affecting things in the long term. We can't even come to a real conclusion on global warming and what is causing it... let alone figuring out what would happen if we try to correct it or adjust it purposefully. Even if we could adjust the climate temperature it could just be building us up for a much bigger natural adjustment to compensate.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand how someone could ever think this could work. Of course they can't keep this up where someone could go see 30 movies a month for $10. It almost makes me think there is some kind of shadiness going on. Someone create a big company that people love... knowing that it is not sustainable... get financial backing because of how popular it certainly would be... cash out before it tanks... go to Disney World.
The second to last sentence was supposed to read...
Now when person A opens the envelope and reads the value, They will also know the value that was sent to B (B not A).
Spooky action at a distance boils down to a simple thing really. Take a coin and slice it in half so that heads is on one piece and tails is on the other and don't look at it. Now put one piece in an envelope and send it to person A. Put the second piece in a second envelope and send it to the second person B. Now when person A opens the envelope and reads the value, They will also know the value that was sent to A. The information was encoded in the envelope before it left so it is not a mystery how they both get the values.
The fingerprint information is only stored on your device and does not get sent to the website you are logging into. Someone cannot use your thumbprint to get access to the website from another device. They would have to login to your specific device and use your thumbprint on it to get access. Essentially the website login information is just stored inside a security container that gets unlocked with your fingerprint. Think of it kind of like a password manager but using your thumbprint to use it. The thumbprint is only used locally and not part of the login information for the website.
Indeed... this is how it is recommended to get implemented...
https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/CR-...
I think you are misunderstanding how this could be implemented. The fingerprint is not sent to the site you are authenticating too. The site would likely create a very long cookie or auth code once you log in normally. To access that auth code to send to the website you would use the biometric login which would then send that encrypted auth code to the website. This is similar to how thumbprint works on existing phones. The thumbprint isn't sent outside the security context of the phone. It only unlocks the real code that gets sent to the website.
I always used either Spotify or Google Play as I could get them at cheaper pricing. I finally switched to Apple Music for one reason. Quite often when I got into my car, Apple Music would play the same song every time. It wasn't even a song that I liked. It was a song that was free that they offered at some point. It seems like if you have a third party music app and you get out of the car with that music playing, You later inside the house stop playing that third party app and launch other games and such, When you get back into the car, The car tries to continue playing music. Because that third party app was not the last thing to play audio, Apple Music gets chosen as the music player by default. Well... I only have those few songs that I got for free on that service so it picks the same one every single time to play when it can't determine that I was using Google Play or Spotify. I don't even like the music it is playing. I tried to disable music downloads over cellular and cleared my download cache so that Apple Music couldn't download the song but I was till in WiFi range when leaving so it still ended up playing that song. I finally gave up and just subscribed to Apple Music. Now it at least picks the correct music streaming app.
The solution to this seems obvious to me. Apple should allow setting a default music streaming app so that when you get into a car that tries to resume playing music and the phone can't determine what you used to stream music last, The phone will choose the music app that you actually use.
Mortal Kombat X mobile is even more expensive.
You can buy 2000 souls for $99. Average cost of gold characters is about 390 souls. Each character can be fused to upgrade it 7 times (8 total purchases). There are almost 60 gold characters. So for $99 you can't even buy 1 character and upgrade him to max .
60 * 390 / 2000 * $100
$11,000 to buy every character and upgrade them to max level. That is if you could directly buy all characters which you can't.
Some characters can only be obtained through packs (lootboxes per say) and they are random when you get a rare carachter out of them. You don't get them very often at all. To get every character and upgrade the to max, I don't know how much it would take but if I were to guess I would bet it is probably over $80,000. This is not including silver characters some of which are also only obtainable in packs.
and destroys all the solar panels... you get to buy them again. Any solutions put in place must be spec'd to survive cat 5 hurricanes or we are just wasting money. Build a solution now that will cost more but survive the future and the long term costs will be significantly reduced.
Ummm. No? Do people in government really believe this is a good idea? The government shouldn't be doing things like this. Foxconn could be out of business before they even see a profit.
You should not use autofill for other reasons... Hidden fields can be passed to websites without you knowing it... http://www.digitaltrends.com/c...
I am surprised that anyone serious about security would ever install a web browser password plugin for their password management software. It seems logical that it is just a bug away from password compromise.
People are capable of Spontaneous Human Combustion without a source of fire too. I guess we should ban them too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Sounds like it was setup to be hacked... No firewall...
The government should be looking at regulating assisted flight like GPS and autonomous type of models and not regular RC airplanes and helicopters. As you mentioned... They are the source of the problems when it comes to the public. Anyone can buy one and fly it wherever without any experience. Joe public can't just go buy a normal RC airplane or helicopter (without GPS) and go fly it over a public gathering. They would crash it before it even got off the ground without a lot of practice or help from others more experienced which might introduce them to the AMA.
I meant un-powered flight too.
I have a 290 gram hand launch glider which does not have any propulsion system. You throw it and find thermals to go higher. I will now need to register it.
Drones should be defined as devices that can act autonomously or be guided remotely through a live video stream all of which done without line of sight flying. I can certainly see the risks with these devices. Model aircraft should be defined as radio control aircraft that does not have autonomous or first person view features and is flown line of sight. The risks with "model aircraft" are much lower than "Drones" as defined above. The model aircraft hobbyist that have been flying for many decades safely should not be clumped in with drones when it comes to regulations. There are already regulations for "Model aircraft" defined by the FAA which AMA helps to define for hobbyists. With that said there still should be a minimum drone size that would not be regulated. A $15 drone that you can buy at walmwart and only fly within about 100 feet before going out of range and not have GPS should not be burdened with registration or any such restrictions. LA county just passed a low restricting flying to 400 feet in that city for all unmanned aircraft clumping in "model aircraft" that the RC hobbyist use including sailplanes that do not have motors. That pretty much kills the sailplane hobby where you fly a non motorized aircraft and try to find thermals to climb up higher. The launch heights are around 500 to 600 feet when launched by a winch from the ground. They wouldn't even be able to launch their model aircraft. I mainly fly Discus Hand Launch Gilders (DLG) that do not have motors to propel them. You spin around while grabbing the wing and release it like a discus which launches the aircraft to around 130 to 280 feet. Once gravity kicks in you flatten out and then search for thermals to take you higher. The thermals are just forming around that height and require flying to around 500 to 800 feet to get to the best air for thermals. Keep in mind DLGs do not have motors so we completely depend on the air heating up and going up taking our glider with it. We always have line of sight when flying and there are no special electronics on them. No GPS, etc. There are dozens of competitions every year in the US (f3k) and it would be very sad for us to lose the hobby because of these new "Drones" that are becoming popular that have GPS and autonomous features. My fear is that by clumping all the hobby aircraft like sailplanes into the "Drone" definition they will be restricted too and ruin this great hobby.
So what would happen if this happened without digital means? What would happen if a boy at age 14 for instance exposed himself to a girl that was 14. What would happen if a girl exposed herself to a boy that was 14. What would happen if the same sex exposed themself to the same sex? What would happen if they both did it at the same time (boy/girl boy/boy girl/girl)? Normally I would think this would be a family issue where the two families would deal with it privately. If there is some conflict and it can not get worked out then the law should be involved.
Whatever the answer is to that it should be the same thing regardless of the medium that it was done.
There is a similar app on iOS that I have played with. It does work a little differently though. I takes 4 pictures of an object up close to the camera by moving a white light around the edges of the screen (while the camera stays in one place) in a dark room and uses the shadows to map the 3d object. Seems to work ok but does require a dark room and the object to be very close to the camera. This one works entirely on the phone and doesn't involve a cloud. http://www.trimensional.com/
A drone is supposed to be an unmanned aircraft that can fly autonomously. RC model airplanes/helicopters can be designed or equipment added to make them fit that description but most RC model aircraft do not fit that description at all and are not drones. RC Model aircraft tend to be flown within the visual line of sight and always actively controlled the entire time by the RC pilot while watching the airspace around them. Drones on the other hand have features that allow the drone to take over controls at times and some can be flown out of the controllers sight either by GPS waypoints or FPV.
People flying RC model aircraft can see a big patch of sky at once when higher up. We can hear commercial airplanes or helicopters and see them coming even at 5000 feet and above (I have never flown more than 2500 feet) so even if we were to be close to their path we can easily move away from their path in plenty of time to avoid any issues. It is really a non-issue unless someone deliberately wanted to cause problems (which legislation couldn't stop anyway). I have been flying RC since 1992 even around my home up to 2400 feet and have never been anywhere near the path of a commercial helicopter or airplane and I live near the city. I never fly when I hear an aircraft approaching. If you are up flying then any low (300 to 800 feet) commercial aircraft you can hear way ahead of time and bring it down or move it far away from them before they get close. Most other airplanes are in the 5000 feet range where I live. I tend to fly my motorless Discus Hand Launch Glider (DLG) usually around 150 to 1500 feet (when I catch thermals). At that altitude you can see and still hear airplanes approach miles away and easily not be anywhere near them when they approach overhead just in case they are around your RC model's altitude.
I have been flying RC model aircraft since 1992 and the biggest trouble spot that I can think of is drones (or RC model aircraft) that are flown via first person view (FPV) far away from the viewer or up high. People looking at a video monitor or video goggles have a much harder time seeing other objects around them. People tend to fly them much further away too (some are flying them miles away). While a few more expensive models have a VR type control to move your head left/right/up/down to look around while flying, that still is not as good as viewing from the ground and always keeping the model within eye sight from the ground so that you (or a friend) can look out for other air traffic. Some are only flown within line of sight so it shouldn't be a problem but for those flying further away it can be an issue.
While RC gliders are not drones I am concerned that they be clumped into these drone restrictions. DLG RC gliders are 1.5m sailplanes without motors. They are thrown like a discus with a peg in the wing to hold onto for the spin and release. They do have servos to control the surfaces but they do not have a motor to propel them. Once they are thrown you must search for thermals to keep them up and go higher. Top DLG RC pilots can throw them 240 to 280 feet right from the ground which is already over their highly restrictive limit. It is ridiculous that some commercial company comes by and tries to dictate that we now must fly below 200 feet so that they can use the space above that for their commercial drone use.
I doubt even 0.001% of Apple users have ever read the EULA and those that have probably 0.01% of those that have actually understand what is actually being restricted. You will never get the public to care about EULAs. They know they just click ACCEPT and it goes away.
Because if this causes an upswing in network traffic we have to make sure the network still functions :).
Countries (including US) are actively doing things to adjust the climate already. The sad part is we are already doing things to influence the climate that we have no clue how we are affecting things in the long term. We can't even come to a real conclusion on global warming and what is causing it... let alone figuring out what would happen if we try to correct it or adjust it purposefully. Even if we could adjust the climate temperature it could just be building us up for a much bigger natural adjustment to compensate.