Of course no one forced anyone to do this. We've been conditioned and then raised our kids in the same way. Sweatshop workers aren't (always) forced to work there but if they want a job so that they can eat then they put up with it anyway. All of the other sweatshop workers do.
Obviously objectification isn't as bad as that hyperbole. I honestly don't think we as a society should do anything other than strive to be more self-aware and teach our kids to be better people than we are.
People have kids and then pierce their kid's ears before the kid is even old enough to make a choice and dress the little girls in frilly dresses and tell the boys that "girly" things are "gay". Then all of the media the kid sees reinforces that gender stereotyping.
I'm fine with sexy and impractical clothing. I just wish people wore it out of rational choice or from experimenting with what they like and not because it's a conditioned response and what they think other people expect them to do.
I'd also love to see men's ties burn in hell. Also, maybe we'll stop performing surgery on babies for no statistically significant reason. At least let them make the choice as a teenager or adult...
And it's possible that in 100 years we'll figure out that we're just hyper sexual primates and that trying to prevent objectification is a form of denial.
If you can read a 300 page book in 20 minutes then you're reading at something like 4500 words per minute and are quite possibly the fastest reader in the world if you're not skimming/speed reading.
And that's a potentially crazy good speed reading value as well. A quick google search showed 4251 to 4700 wpm for the World Champion from some organization though Guinness and other sources seem to have claims from 25,000 to 80,000. But even with the champion comprehension is under 70%.
And e-ink readers still have a page turn speed limitation. I personally find Kindles an equivalent reading experience to a paperback but a much better experience than a hardcover. The only thing I miss is when a hardcover has any sort of graphics (such as maps) but that loss is worth not having to hold a 1,000+ page hardcover.
I'll buy hardcovers sometimes to support the author because it matters more for bestseller lists and just because they make good keepsakes. That's about it for me with dead tree. Mass market paperbacks use shitty paper and ink and don't keep well. Trade paperbacks are usually hard to find and cost as much as the hardcover anyway.
I think the point is that it sexually objectifies the women. Aka it says the burgers are the objects to sate your hunger just like these attractive women are the objects to sate your horniness (ardor?)
Granted, the guys are being stereotyped as well. And then we're making assumptions about gender all over the place because who really knows?
I don't know that I'd call it misogyny. I get that the modern definition equates sexual objectification with hatred/dislike but that seems a little illogical to me. Certainly it's still negative because people are more than their sexual characteristics.
And why not call out all of western culture with regards to women then? Shoes, clothing, jewelry, makeup, etc are almost all aimed at enhancing women as sexual objects...
You're actually wrong. For example, with something like pgp: if someone owned the server and intercepted the message, sent or received, they wouldn't have the private key to decrypt the message and so all of the intercepted messages would be useless.
At worst they could block messages by not passing them along to her client/the next server but that's not really a sensitive information risk.
And the open ports deal (assuming there are actual services running on these open ports) would matter regardless of her using an email server or not -- in the sense that it could be used a foothold to get to her client computer. If her network was insecure and her email client machine vulnerable then using a government email server wouldn't have helped matters at all.
My point is that there is no innate security with email servers and it all comes down to having a secure client and encrypted messages for any security over that medium. Most of us don't actually care that email is like this because our emails aren't sensitive and no one is going to die if someone reads it.
Celsius is just as arbitrary as Fahrenheit and both are base 10.
Kelvin is the only true logical temperature system given that 0 K is absolute zero but it might be impractical to use up to five digits for half (or quarter) degree increments on thermostats to handle the hundreds of degrees kelvin that room temperature is at.
In my opinion it's not possible to use email in a way where hosting your own server is responsible for mishandling of classified information.
Either the classified message is encrypted and the email server's security is moot or the classified message is not encrypted and the sender is mishandling the information in the first place by sending it in clear text over the internet, regardless of where the server is hosted.
I would not be surprised if she used her own email server to get around government record keeping but that's the only issue I see here.
And why is anyone making a fuss over email "security" since email is inherently insecure? It's like sending a postcard via snail mail.
The only way to secure that is to encrypt the message client side with something like pgp and so even if someone hacks the server and gets the encrypted message it doesn't matter.
The only real complaint about a private server at all is that she could have potentially avoided government record keeping. Which I consider likely but, as you pointed out, business as usual. It's bizarre to me that people make a bigger issue out of an email server than they did over the State Department illegally spying on U.N. officials (including stealing credit card numbers) under her name even if she didn't write the order.
Most people already have a computer or phone and so you could, in theory, use the $15 wi-fi dongle and your computer/phone to do the attack as well. Though I guess you could nitpick about the need for a USB otg cable if all you own is a phone.
The guy is a scumbag objectifying sexual predator and possibly did rape her but the whole point of "innocent until proven guilty" means that I'm obliged to believe him until proven otherwise. In my mind it is better that some bad guys get away, to get caught another day, than to ruin the lives of innocent people.
If I'm obliged to believe that he's innocent then logically I have to consider that her claim might not be provable. That obviously doesn't mean she has to be lying but it doesn't mean I should flat out believe her either. At least until I hear about convincing evidence otherwise.
Hell, it's the same reason I'm against the death penalty. I don't have an issue with, given current technological limits, killing murderers who can't be rehabilitated. I do have an issue with the fact that we can't be certain that said murderer isn't actually innocent because time and evidence have proven that sometimes we fuck up and get it wrong and put innocent people to death.
That seems to be pretty much what the jury and prosecution were saying here when they found him guilty of "lesser" crimes that will still probably see his life ruined (sex offender registration, prison time, being a convicted felon.) It seems to me they basically said, "Well, we can't find him guilty of rape but if I any adult exhibited this behavior then we'd obviously call him a sexual predator and we can use the same laws we would for that."
Now, I could see an argument that teenagers shouldn't be held to the same standards as adults because hormones, brain development, and a lack of experience make them into irrational sexual predators but, personally, I don't buy that. These kids were systematically luring younger people to have sex with them as part of a competition. At some level they had to know that was wrong. You don't use people like that and you don't facilitate others to use people like that. I think everyone proven to be involved in that scheme needs mandatory therapy.
In a perfect world we would wipe the event from the victim's mind and wipe the guy's mind of his behavior and rehabilitate him so that he wouldn't be an objectifying sexual predator and could continue on to be a contributing member of society. We can't do that though so I don't really know what the right answer is. It seems to me like everyone loses: the victim, the scumbag, and society.
Chrome dev doesn't autoplay videos that are in the background unless they have already been rendered once. See this commit
I'm sure if you really want to stop autoplay that you can find a userscript or extension out there or make your own that stops it on youtube (or even all websites that use html5.) Sadly chrome devs seem to think that user configurability like Firefox has is a bad thing and so I doubt you'll ever see a default option for it.
Your kid forgot his key and he doesn't have a phone or he lost it and he usually calls you when he gets home from school (because you require that) so you're worried that he's locked out of the house and you remotely unlock your back door for fifteen minutes so he can get in. Maybe it can warn you that someone tried the lock or the doorknob when you weren't home? Or maybe having an eletronic lock means carrying around less stuff because you could just use your phone or the same "key fob" you use for your car. I dunno, tbh, electronic locks seem weird to me given that house locks in general are just there to make you Feel Good(TM) and don't really provide much security.
You (your phone) can tell your thermostat that you're on the way home so your house can start cooling down. Or that you're not going home so your house can stay warm and save energy. It can track statistics and you can see if there's a problem before you're even home and you can call someone to fix it while you're out, etc. It can remind you to change the filter. It can look up the temperature and humidity online without needing an outdoor thermostat to help it figure out complicated thermostat things.
Your fridge could track what food is actually in it and when it's going to spoil and what you need to buy and that could all sync with your phone with an automated grocery list when you go to the grocery store. Or it could automatically buy the food online and save you man hours of effort over your lifespan increasing the time you have to do other things. It can remind you to buy a water filter. It can automatically buy a new water filter.
There's no reason most connected devices need to expose anything to bored script kiddies because as long as your router has a stateful firewall for IPv6 then it will effectively be the same result as when everything was hidden behind NAT and so it would need a grossly incompetent programmer to make your device vulnerable. And, honestly, everything you do is already tracked by marketers anyway. Hell, Target knows when women are pregnant before the women do based on purchasing habits.
Not that I'm advocating killing babies (for the same reason that I wouldn't advocate killings dogs) but even a living, breathing baby isn't a "person" by any objective measurement.
An adult dog, on average, has more intelligence and personality than a one year old human baby -- let alone a newborn. And that's plainly obvious to anyone who has been around babies. So, if we apply that morality/logic equally then killing a dog, or an ape, or a dolphin should be considered murder. The only difference is that a human baby has the potential to be more than said dogs, apes, and dolphins. But if loss of potential is the moral issue then all sorts of choices, even in ignorance, would effectively be murder before conception actually begins!
As an aside, I personally think it's wrong to bring intelligent life into the world at all. My reason for that opinion is that being a conscious, thinking creature can be a pretty heavy burden for some people and we can't exactly ask our kids ahead of time if they want to exist or not. And most countries in the world don't allow for comfortable, legal avenues for people to choose if they want to live either, so it's not like our kids can kindly opt-out.
Procreation in general seems arrogant to me. People talk about scientists playing god but they seem to have no issue with doing it themselves... But if I were going to procreate then I would do the best that I could. It would be planned. Money would be saved ahead of time. Parenting classes would be taken. And if I were unsure then I would abort at the earliest possible point in the process. Abortion is not perfect but the world isn't.
What someone does with the tissue afterwards is completely irrelevant. The moral trap there would be people getting pregnant specifically to have abortions and "donate" tissue but, see, that can be wrong without even considering the morality of abortion itself. Thus the issue is the same as selling human organs -- which is obviously wrong as patients shouldn't be allowed to damage themselves for profit.
You do remember that Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated, right? He was under surveillance by the FBI, the NSA, and police in order to undermine his civil rights movement -- as he was killed.
A 1999 civil court case decided that government agencies were liable for participation in the conspiracy to assassinate him.
Sure, that's not proof but the fact that the guy died standing up for what he believes in kind of says that the danger was as real as it is for Snowden...
In some ways, biologically, he is still a kid. The part of your brain that does risk management doesn't mature for most people until around 25. You'll notice your car insurance rates went down a lot around that age.
Just because there's some arbitrary legal age for adulthood doesn't mean reality actually reflects that.
I think the refund system will actually drive more sales -- even for small games because it might reduce risk enough for people to be willing to try games that they wouldn't otherwise buy.
Making a game interesting enough for 2 hours of gameplay really isn't that hard. That's a VERY low bar.
Isn't this just plain photoelectric effect but the novel thing is that thrust is generated because the electrons are apparently all released in the same direction?
So I imagine it isn't really 'fuel free' in the sense of that it would still need some source of electrons eventually.
It's not like convicts get out of prison and they're reset to a neutral state and can try hard and do ok in life.
Ex-convicts are actively persecuted by society. It'd be like if you fell off the wagon and then a buffalo decided to sit on you. It's not just "on you" to get back on the wagon.
And a significant portion of the population is now an ex-prisoner or ex-felon. "In 2008, about one in 33 working-age adults was an ex-prisoner, and about one in 15 working-age adults was an ex-felon. Among working-age men in that same year, about one in 17 was an ex-prisoner and one in eight was an ex-felon." http://www.cepr.net/press-cent...
Millions of people. Your short sighted "I personally don't care about your well being because you fucked up and I'm scared of you" mentality would be like saying, "Why should I pay taxes for public schools if I don't have kids?"
But see the thing is that it doesn't have to be perfect (though people have the unreasonable expectation that it should be.) Autonomous cars just have to be safer than people driving cars... which is a pretty low standard.
And it's not like people can't take over driving the car for edge cases. They're supposed to be paying attention the whole time they're driving anyway (even though humans suck at focused attention.) Planes have autopilot but pilots are still responsible for staying in the cockpit and monitoring so that they can take over as needed.
I might be wrong but isn't it also when the SSD is stored at 55C AFTER having been stress tested at 55C to their endurance rating in terabytes written (page 39) under a given workload? And even then the cherry picked value was in example data submitted by Intel for unknown hardware and very likely extrapolated and quite possibly meaningless because it wasn't part of the chart targeted for the standard.
The article seems to have totally misrepresented the presentation's purpose: which is to lay out endurance testing methodology/standards.
The only important values were on page 26 where they set the minimum requirements of 40C 8hr/day load/30C 1 year retention for consumer (with a higher error ratio) and 55C 24hr/day load/40C 3 months retention for enterprise (with a lower error ratio.) And it looks like they haven't actually worked out the consumer workload for testing yet.
We’re boosting the ranking of mobile-friendly pages on mobile search results. This update: Affects only search rankings on mobile devices Affects search results in all languages globally Applies to individual pages, not entire websites
A whole bunch of ignorant nonsense of slashdot this morning.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course no one forced anyone to do this. We've been conditioned and then raised our kids in the same way.
Sweatshop workers aren't (always) forced to work there but if they want a job so that they can eat then they put up with it anyway. All of the other sweatshop workers do.
Obviously objectification isn't as bad as that hyperbole. I honestly don't think we as a society should do anything other than strive to be more self-aware and teach our kids to be better people than we are.
People have kids and then pierce their kid's ears before the kid is even old enough to make a choice and dress the little girls in frilly dresses and tell the boys that "girly" things are "gay". Then all of the media the kid sees reinforces that gender stereotyping.
I'm fine with sexy and impractical clothing. I just wish people wore it out of rational choice or from experimenting with what they like and not because it's a conditioned response and what they think other people expect them to do.
I'd also love to see men's ties burn in hell. Also, maybe we'll stop performing surgery on babies for no statistically significant reason. At least let them make the choice as a teenager or adult...
And it's possible that in 100 years we'll figure out that we're just hyper sexual primates and that trying to prevent objectification is a form of denial.
If you can read a 300 page book in 20 minutes then you're reading at something like 4500 words per minute and are quite possibly the fastest reader in the world if you're not skimming/speed reading.
And that's a potentially crazy good speed reading value as well. A quick google search showed 4251 to 4700 wpm for the World Champion from some organization though Guinness and other sources seem to have claims from 25,000 to 80,000. But even with the champion comprehension is under 70%.
And e-ink readers still have a page turn speed limitation.
I personally find Kindles an equivalent reading experience to a paperback but a much better experience than a hardcover. The only thing I miss is when a hardcover has any sort of graphics (such as maps) but that loss is worth not having to hold a 1,000+ page hardcover.
I'll buy hardcovers sometimes to support the author because it matters more for bestseller lists and just because they make good keepsakes. That's about it for me with dead tree. Mass market paperbacks use shitty paper and ink and don't keep well. Trade paperbacks are usually hard to find and cost as much as the hardcover anyway.
I think the point is that it sexually objectifies the women. Aka it says the burgers are the objects to sate your hunger just like these attractive women are the objects to sate your horniness (ardor?)
Granted, the guys are being stereotyped as well. And then we're making assumptions about gender all over the place because who really knows?
I don't know that I'd call it misogyny. I get that the modern definition equates sexual objectification with hatred/dislike but that seems a little illogical to me. Certainly it's still negative because people are more than their sexual characteristics.
And why not call out all of western culture with regards to women then? Shoes, clothing, jewelry, makeup, etc are almost all aimed at enhancing women as sexual objects...
You're actually wrong. For example, with something like pgp: if someone owned the server and intercepted the message, sent or received, they wouldn't have the private key to decrypt the message and so all of the intercepted messages would be useless.
At worst they could block messages by not passing them along to her client/the next server but that's not really a sensitive information risk.
And the open ports deal (assuming there are actual services running on these open ports) would matter regardless of her using an email server or not -- in the sense that it could be used a foothold to get to her client computer.
If her network was insecure and her email client machine vulnerable then using a government email server wouldn't have helped matters at all.
My point is that there is no innate security with email servers and it all comes down to having a secure client and encrypted messages for any security over that medium. Most of us don't actually care that email is like this because our emails aren't sensitive and no one is going to die if someone reads it.
Celsius is just as arbitrary as Fahrenheit and both are base 10.
Kelvin is the only true logical temperature system given that 0 K is absolute zero but it might be impractical to use up to five digits for half (or quarter) degree increments on thermostats to handle the hundreds of degrees kelvin that room temperature is at.
Imperial is shit but metric isn't perfect either.
In my opinion it's not possible to use email in a way where hosting your own server is responsible for mishandling of classified information.
Either the classified message is encrypted and the email server's security is moot or the classified message is not encrypted and the sender is mishandling the information in the first place by sending it in clear text over the internet, regardless of where the server is hosted.
I would not be surprised if she used her own email server to get around government record keeping but that's the only issue I see here.
And why is anyone making a fuss over email "security" since email is inherently insecure? It's like sending a postcard via snail mail.
The only way to secure that is to encrypt the message client side with something like pgp and so even if someone hacks the server and gets the encrypted message it doesn't matter.
The only real complaint about a private server at all is that she could have potentially avoided government record keeping. Which I consider likely but, as you pointed out, business as usual.
It's bizarre to me that people make a bigger issue out of an email server than they did over the State Department illegally spying on U.N. officials (including stealing credit card numbers) under her name even if she didn't write the order.
Most people already have a computer or phone and so you could, in theory, use the $15 wi-fi dongle and your computer/phone to do the attack as well. Though I guess you could nitpick about the need for a USB otg cable if all you own is a phone.
I think the $15 claim is fine.
The OP doesn't believe in human error. He certainly never typed "your department is being ran by idiots."
Past participle, your time is now.
The guy is a scumbag objectifying sexual predator and possibly did rape her but the whole point of "innocent until proven guilty" means that I'm obliged to believe him until proven otherwise. In my mind it is better that some bad guys get away, to get caught another day, than to ruin the lives of innocent people.
If I'm obliged to believe that he's innocent then logically I have to consider that her claim might not be provable. That obviously doesn't mean she has to be lying but it doesn't mean I should flat out believe her either. At least until I hear about convincing evidence otherwise.
Hell, it's the same reason I'm against the death penalty. I don't have an issue with, given current technological limits, killing murderers who can't be rehabilitated.
I do have an issue with the fact that we can't be certain that said murderer isn't actually innocent because time and evidence have proven that sometimes we fuck up and get it wrong and put innocent people to death.
That seems to be pretty much what the jury and prosecution were saying here when they found him guilty of "lesser" crimes that will still probably see his life ruined (sex offender registration, prison time, being a convicted felon.)
It seems to me they basically said, "Well, we can't find him guilty of rape but if I any adult exhibited this behavior then we'd obviously call him a sexual predator and we can use the same laws we would for that."
Now, I could see an argument that teenagers shouldn't be held to the same standards as adults because hormones, brain development, and a lack of experience make them into irrational sexual predators but, personally, I don't buy that.
These kids were systematically luring younger people to have sex with them as part of a competition. At some level they had to know that was wrong.
You don't use people like that and you don't facilitate others to use people like that.
I think everyone proven to be involved in that scheme needs mandatory therapy.
In a perfect world we would wipe the event from the victim's mind and wipe the guy's mind of his behavior and rehabilitate him so that he wouldn't be an objectifying sexual predator and could continue on to be a contributing member of society.
We can't do that though so I don't really know what the right answer is. It seems to me like everyone loses: the victim, the scumbag, and society.
Chrome dev doesn't autoplay videos that are in the background unless they have already been rendered once. See this commit
I'm sure if you really want to stop autoplay that you can find a userscript or extension out there or make your own that stops it on youtube (or even all websites that use html5.)
Sadly chrome devs seem to think that user configurability like Firefox has is a bad thing and so I doubt you'll ever see a default option for it.
Your kid forgot his key and he doesn't have a phone or he lost it and he usually calls you when he gets home from school (because you require that) so you're worried that he's locked out of the house and you remotely unlock your back door for fifteen minutes so he can get in.
Maybe it can warn you that someone tried the lock or the doorknob when you weren't home? Or maybe having an eletronic lock means carrying around less stuff because you could just use your phone or the same "key fob" you use for your car.
I dunno, tbh, electronic locks seem weird to me given that house locks in general are just there to make you Feel Good(TM) and don't really provide much security.
You (your phone) can tell your thermostat that you're on the way home so your house can start cooling down. Or that you're not going home so your house can stay warm and save energy. It can track statistics and you can see if there's a problem before you're even home and you can call someone to fix it while you're out, etc.
It can remind you to change the filter. It can look up the temperature and humidity online without needing an outdoor thermostat to help it figure out complicated thermostat things.
Your fridge could track what food is actually in it and when it's going to spoil and what you need to buy and that could all sync with your phone with an automated grocery list when you go to the grocery store. Or it could automatically buy the food online and save you man hours of effort over your lifespan increasing the time you have to do other things. It can remind you to buy a water filter. It can automatically buy a new water filter.
There's no reason most connected devices need to expose anything to bored script kiddies because as long as your router has a stateful firewall for IPv6 then it will effectively be the same result as when everything was hidden behind NAT and so it would need a grossly incompetent programmer to make your device vulnerable.
And, honestly, everything you do is already tracked by marketers anyway. Hell, Target knows when women are pregnant before the women do based on purchasing habits.
Not that I'm advocating killing babies (for the same reason that I wouldn't advocate killings dogs) but even a living, breathing baby isn't a "person" by any objective measurement.
An adult dog, on average, has more intelligence and personality than a one year old human baby -- let alone a newborn. And that's plainly obvious to anyone who has been around babies. So, if we apply that morality/logic equally then killing a dog, or an ape, or a dolphin should be considered murder.
The only difference is that a human baby has the potential to be more than said dogs, apes, and dolphins.
But if loss of potential is the moral issue then all sorts of choices, even in ignorance, would effectively be murder before conception actually begins!
As an aside, I personally think it's wrong to bring intelligent life into the world at all. My reason for that opinion is that being a conscious, thinking creature can be a pretty heavy burden for some people and we can't exactly ask our kids ahead of time if they want to exist or not.
And most countries in the world don't allow for comfortable, legal avenues for people to choose if they want to live either, so it's not like our kids can kindly opt-out.
Procreation in general seems arrogant to me. People talk about scientists playing god but they seem to have no issue with doing it themselves...
But if I were going to procreate then I would do the best that I could. It would be planned. Money would be saved ahead of time. Parenting classes would be taken.
And if I were unsure then I would abort at the earliest possible point in the process. Abortion is not perfect but the world isn't.
What someone does with the tissue afterwards is completely irrelevant. The moral trap there would be people getting pregnant specifically to have abortions and "donate" tissue but, see, that can be wrong without even considering the morality of abortion itself.
Thus the issue is the same as selling human organs -- which is obviously wrong as patients shouldn't be allowed to damage themselves for profit.
You do remember that Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated, right? He was under surveillance by the FBI, the NSA, and police in order to undermine his civil rights movement -- as he was killed.
A 1999 civil court case decided that government agencies were liable for participation in the conspiracy to assassinate him.
Sure, that's not proof but the fact that the guy died standing up for what he believes in kind of says that the danger was as real as it is for Snowden...
You just used a lot of acronyms and I have no idea what any of them stand for.
In some ways, biologically, he is still a kid. The part of your brain that does risk management doesn't mature for most people until around 25.
You'll notice your car insurance rates went down a lot around that age.
Just because there's some arbitrary legal age for adulthood doesn't mean reality actually reflects that.
That isn't actually from Microsoft. That's a volunteer (aka random guy) who, I believe, is quoting a mixture of the Microsoft FAQ and ToS.
The legality of Microsoft licenses doesn't always follow how they actually work on computers.
I think the refund system will actually drive more sales -- even for small games because it might reduce risk enough for people to be willing to try games that they wouldn't otherwise buy.
Making a game interesting enough for 2 hours of gameplay really isn't that hard. That's a VERY low bar.
Isn't this just plain photoelectric effect but the novel thing is that thrust is generated because the electrons are apparently all released in the same direction?
So I imagine it isn't really 'fuel free' in the sense of that it would still need some source of electrons eventually.
Actually, it's Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R, WI-5), the same guy who sponsored the Patriot Act.
I'm not a fan of political parties as a concept but just saying...
It's not like convicts get out of prison and they're reset to a neutral state and can try hard and do ok in life.
Ex-convicts are actively persecuted by society. It'd be like if you fell off the wagon and then a buffalo decided to sit on you.
It's not just "on you" to get back on the wagon.
And a significant portion of the population is now an ex-prisoner or ex-felon. "In 2008, about one in 33 working-age adults was an ex-prisoner, and about one in 15 working-age adults was an ex-felon. Among working-age men in that same year, about one in 17 was an ex-prisoner and one in eight was an ex-felon." http://www.cepr.net/press-cent...
Millions of people. Your short sighted "I personally don't care about your well being because you fucked up and I'm scared of you" mentality would be like saying, "Why should I pay taxes for public schools if I don't have kids?"
Indeed. Since the U.S. Court of Appeals already found NSA mass phone data collection to be illegal why would they need a new law to end it?
Sounds fishy.
But see the thing is that it doesn't have to be perfect (though people have the unreasonable expectation that it should be.)
Autonomous cars just have to be safer than people driving cars... which is a pretty low standard.
And it's not like people can't take over driving the car for edge cases. They're supposed to be paying attention the whole time they're driving anyway (even though humans suck at focused attention.)
Planes have autopilot but pilots are still responsible for staying in the cockpit and monitoring so that they can take over as needed.
I might be wrong but isn't it also when the SSD is stored at 55C AFTER having been stress tested at 55C to their endurance rating in terabytes written (page 39) under a given workload?
And even then the cherry picked value was in example data submitted by Intel for unknown hardware and very likely extrapolated and quite possibly meaningless because it wasn't part of the chart targeted for the standard.
The article seems to have totally misrepresented the presentation's purpose: which is to lay out endurance testing methodology/standards.
The only important values were on page 26 where they set the minimum requirements of 40C 8hr/day load/30C 1 year retention for consumer (with a higher error ratio) and 55C 24hr/day load/40C 3 months retention for enterprise (with a lower error ratio.)
And it looks like they haven't actually worked out the consumer workload for testing yet.
That's what they are doing?
We’re boosting the ranking of mobile-friendly pages on mobile search results.
This update:
Affects only search rankings on mobile devices
Affects search results in all languages globally
Applies to individual pages, not entire websites
A whole bunch of ignorant nonsense of slashdot this morning.