The FBI has arrested Volkswagen executive Oliver Schmidt . . . is he the highest ranking executive who demonstrably knew what was going on? Anything less amounts to convicting a torpedo for doing a contract hit, or convicting the capo that made the arrangements, but never going after the boss who's actually getting people killed.
And - no - this is not hyperbolic. That's my air those VW's are polluting. I've often been asked if I would just stop breathing and my answer has always been "no, thank you". I'm really addicted to breathing. It's a shame I can't get the same high-quality air I used to get last century.
It got worse. There were two ways to get quadrophonic stereo (talk about an oxymoron!) - you could either capture from four separate inputs (and lay down four separate audio tracks), or you could cheat - take your two-channel stereo signal, attenuate it, delay it a few dozen milliseconds and then pump it out as your back pair of channels. Despite only having two ears, most people could still tell the difference which meant it sounded like crap.
The reason that most home theaters have a switch between 2.0 and 5.1 is because for music purposes, there are generally only two channels of data present. Modern video has multiple channels, properly mastered to support audio equipment capable of playing it. Here, try this: next time you're listening to music through your home theater switch between 2.0 and 5.1 on your equipment. See what you think of the difference.
. . . to just station an observer within line of sight of your monitor? Or tap the stray EM coming off of monitor, keyboard and mouse? Or physically tap your hardware? Or ensure you've bought pre-compromised hardware? Or . . .
COOL! I see we're getting to know each other . . . we're on a first-name basis. Now, we need to work on those people skills.
But to clear up a point . . . I'be noticed you like to accuse everyone in sight of being exactly what you are. A shame . . . I even tried to treat you civilly here on more than one occasion (even apologizing for my own mistakes made in anger), but you seem unable to recognize such a gesture. You apparently have no emotional background upon which to base adult interaction.
In closing . . . I'm sorry to see that doctors have been unable to identify or cure whatever's wrong with you. Let us all know when you mature. Until then, please feel free to follow-post me; your derision is as much a badge of honor as a +5 post here on Slashdot.
First - as has been pointed out repeatedly already - you need to wear special glasses. Even if those glasses look like any other pair of horn-rimmed glasses, they're still not quite comfortable for those of us who don't regularly wear glasses - and an impediment for those who do. In either event, uncomfortable and only slightly less embarrassing than wearing Google Glass.
Second - as has been pointed out repeatedly already - most people using the current state of the art in 3D viewing can only handle limited exposure before suffering multiple deficits - headaches, nausea, mild visual deficits upon removing the 3D glasses and reentering meatspace.
Third - as has been pointed out repeatedly already - the majority of viewers already own reasonably new technology just so they can watch the new digital format broadcasts. This includes technology which can accommodate HD or even 4K resolution as well as natively supporting the now standard widescreen format which modern media are designed to use. Incidentally, this has been partially responsible for the persistence of DVD when Blu-Ray (with Sony DRM) is Hollyweird's current media of choice for home video.
Fourth - as has been pointed out repeatedly already - even if all media were presented in a 3D ready format (preferably one which would auto-detect and smartly select 2D or 3D presentation based on the technology in use on the viewing end of the pipe, rather than requiring user intervention to tune to a different channel), some media simply does not translate well. Only new productions (or those previously mastered for 3D presentation) could even be sent this way, and I can think of a great many things I don't want to see in that much detail in any event. News articles prefaced with the disclaimer "this video may be shocking or disturbing to some viewers" or containing our current PEOTUS come screaming to mind here.
Fifth - those glasses cost money. Sheesh! I already laid out big bucks to make sure my video systems can accommodate all these gimmicks, now I have to spend extra if I want more than a couple of people to be able to watch simultaneously?
Sixth - where's the content? I think this'd be cool for watching football games, but I don't see the NFL going down this road just yet. Come to think of it, I can't recall seeing any sports which I can routinely watch in 4K 3D, or HD 3D. Even if all of the above reasons were addressed, it's annoying to have to actively do something - anything - to watch flatscreen, then 3D, then flatscreen.
When full-motion, full-color solid appearing holography is a thing, call me. Until then, 3D is a step along the way but we're not even up to the Model-T automobile yet - current 3D efforts are more along the lines of steam-powered. It's klunky, kludgy, and generally more of an annoyance than a benefit. I know people that own the current state of the art in 3D and even they find it inconvenient. To them, useful and fun but inconvenient (the biggest reason 3D is not catching on, IMHO).
Serious thwappage with a +5 Louisville Slugger should do the stunt nicely!
I suspect the moron actually believes he's doing someone a favor - but there is never an ethically appropriate way to damage or steal information that isn't yours on equipment that isn't yours. As I recall, wasn't there some clod that released a virus a decade back that actively (attempted to) hunt down and remove other virii from infected computers, ostensibly as a public service? The idea ended up conceptually integrated into other exploits as a way to ensure that a given bot was only enslaved by one botnet at a time, a very valuable idea for botnet operators but hardly a public service.
After all, the wires are all there, right? All that's required is to inject a signal into 'em at one end and take it off at the other - and I happen to know that the technology can handle gigabit network speed, certainly up to most home user needs.
I wonder what else this router will do? Phone home? Monitor and report (Symantec's definition of) suspicious network traffic? Throttle/block hardware/software that Symantec or their Redmond-based business partner hasn't blessed?
Yeah, I'm just being paranoid. Just 'cuz I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me.
I own precisely such a weapon, a double action revolver. Uncocked, it has a trigger pull tension sufficient to make accidental discharge highly unlikely.
BTW, I'm still waiting for you here. Still waiting for that libel suit you keep promising to bring.
Of course (based on your comments) I'm beginning to suspect you're just a piece of LISA code gone horribly wrong. You don't seem to be able to pass the Turing test.
Um, speaking as a UNIX head for nearly three decades now (yes, I understand TIP consoles, UUCP and good old fashioned modem telephony) - what's wrong with Windows? It's not perfect, but frankly neither is Solaris, AIX or any Linux variant I'm familiar with. The associate UI is reasonably usable and readily understood by a great many users - not bad for a photocopier interface, eh?
Come to think of it - while there are many underlying design differences between MS-Windows and UNIX/X, at the end the presentation isn't all that different. This is a natural function of using the same I/O devices (same monitor, same mouse, same keyboard - you get the same paradigm). Reliability? I've had data loss result from SIGSEGV. I'll grant you that I've seen a lot less kernel crashes under 'NIX than under Windows - but then again, I've seen Windows do some pretty fun and useful things before we UNIX heads managed to keep up.
So if Windows is a turd of an OS, is Linux just a polished-up turd?
Instead of building the limiting technology into the telephone, build it into the car? A gradual power-down to halt (like a bait car) might cause some problems, but not as much as a full-speed MVA, and (to my mind) the technology ought to be no more difficult to develop - and we can limit it to the vehicle operator.
Problem is, auto insurance isn't infinite. Each US state sets a requirement (say, $50,000 or $100,00) on the liability insurance I must carry in order to register and operate a motor vehicle. Under most circumstances, the damage I can cause while lawfully operating my motor vehicle will be less than that limit. Also, there are often clauses which specifically exempt the insurance company from liability if the vehicle is intentionally being unlawfully operated (by an unlicensed operator, for example). Liability in such cases reverts completely to the registered owner of the vehicle.
End result - the victims may well become the de facto owners of an indentured money source - and probably a very crappy one - but their ability to collect from an insurance company's perceived deep pockets is, in fact, limited by law. Insurance is intended to spread the risk of unforeseeable circumstances, not to pay for willfully neglectful, indifferent, or outright illegal acts. This accident wasn't so much an accident as it was the foreseeable result of an intentional violation of a law with disregard for the potential consequences.
Yes - never mind that Apple didn't drive the car, nor did they actively encourage the car's driver to violate the law and disregard common sense.
Better they should sue the car manufacturer, for not installing a cutoff device to detect when the driver is distracted and summarily shut down the vehicle (possibly requiring service at an authorized dealer center to reactivate the vehicle?). I know - maybe they can sue Colt, Smith & Wesson and Charter Arms for not sending someone to shoot the registered owner of the car before he could permit it to be driven (perhaps by himself) by some idiot who thought texting and driving at the same time made sense?
Just because a stick of dynamite looks kinda like a short club does not mean you should use one to drive nails into wood.
The signals don't generally recur in the same place because all of the aliens testing an EM drive that failed so spectacularly are usually dead afterward. These are obviously smarter than your average LGM.
Slashdot Mirror
And - no - this is not hyperbolic. That's my air those VW's are polluting. I've often been asked if I would just stop breathing and my answer has always been "no, thank you". I'm really addicted to breathing. It's a shame I can't get the same high-quality air I used to get last century.
(N/T)
The reason that most home theaters have a switch between 2.0 and 5.1 is because for music purposes, there are generally only two channels of data present. Modern video has multiple channels, properly mastered to support audio equipment capable of playing it. Here, try this: next time you're listening to music through your home theater switch between 2.0 and 5.1 on your equipment. See what you think of the difference.
. . . to just station an observer within line of sight of your monitor? Or tap the stray EM coming off of monitor, keyboard and mouse? Or physically tap your hardware? Or ensure you've bought pre-compromised hardware? Or . . .
"A single hit" . . . headshot, or center of visible target?
But to clear up a point . . . I'be noticed you like to accuse everyone in sight of being exactly what you are. A shame . . . I even tried to treat you civilly here on more than one occasion (even apologizing for my own mistakes made in anger), but you seem unable to recognize such a gesture. You apparently have no emotional background upon which to base adult interaction.
In closing . . . I'm sorry to see that doctors have been unable to identify or cure whatever's wrong with you. Let us all know when you mature. Until then, please feel free to follow-post me; your derision is as much a badge of honor as a +5 post here on Slashdot.
Hey Al . . . You do realize you're talking to yourself, right? Never a good sign . . .
Second - as has been pointed out repeatedly already - most people using the current state of the art in 3D viewing can only handle limited exposure before suffering multiple deficits - headaches, nausea, mild visual deficits upon removing the 3D glasses and reentering meatspace. Third - as has been pointed out repeatedly already - the majority of viewers already own reasonably new technology just so they can watch the new digital format broadcasts. This includes technology which can accommodate HD or even 4K resolution as well as natively supporting the now standard widescreen format which modern media are designed to use. Incidentally, this has been partially responsible for the persistence of DVD when Blu-Ray (with Sony DRM) is Hollyweird's current media of choice for home video.
Fourth - as has been pointed out repeatedly already - even if all media were presented in a 3D ready format (preferably one which would auto-detect and smartly select 2D or 3D presentation based on the technology in use on the viewing end of the pipe, rather than requiring user intervention to tune to a different channel), some media simply does not translate well. Only new productions (or those previously mastered for 3D presentation) could even be sent this way, and I can think of a great many things I don't want to see in that much detail in any event. News articles prefaced with the disclaimer "this video may be shocking or disturbing to some viewers" or containing our current PEOTUS come screaming to mind here.
Fifth - those glasses cost money. Sheesh! I already laid out big bucks to make sure my video systems can accommodate all these gimmicks, now I have to spend extra if I want more than a couple of people to be able to watch simultaneously?
Sixth - where's the content? I think this'd be cool for watching football games, but I don't see the NFL going down this road just yet. Come to think of it, I can't recall seeing any sports which I can routinely watch in 4K 3D, or HD 3D. Even if all of the above reasons were addressed, it's annoying to have to actively do something - anything - to watch flatscreen, then 3D, then flatscreen.
When full-motion, full-color solid appearing holography is a thing, call me. Until then, 3D is a step along the way but we're not even up to the Model-T automobile yet - current 3D efforts are more along the lines of steam-powered. It's klunky, kludgy, and generally more of an annoyance than a benefit. I know people that own the current state of the art in 3D and even they find it inconvenient. To them, useful and fun but inconvenient (the biggest reason 3D is not catching on, IMHO).
I suspect the moron actually believes he's doing someone a favor - but there is never an ethically appropriate way to damage or steal information that isn't yours on equipment that isn't yours. As I recall, wasn't there some clod that released a virus a decade back that actively (attempted to) hunt down and remove other virii from infected computers, ostensibly as a public service? The idea ended up conceptually integrated into other exploits as a way to ensure that a given bot was only enslaved by one botnet at a time, a very valuable idea for botnet operators but hardly a public service.
After all, the wires are all there, right? All that's required is to inject a signal into 'em at one end and take it off at the other - and I happen to know that the technology can handle gigabit network speed, certainly up to most home user needs.
I wonder how much fellatio DJT had to give to make that happen? Surely a massive tax break of some kind.
Oh, wait . . . never mind.
Of course, with so many fat kids living in/governing New Jersey, how could we tell (unless we caught them in the act, of course)?
Yeah, I'm just being paranoid. Just 'cuz I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me.
I own precisely such a weapon, a double action revolver. Uncocked, it has a trigger pull tension sufficient to make accidental discharge highly unlikely.
You still haven't sought out psychiatric help, have you? Really, there are medications that can help you. Just sayin'.
Of course (based on your comments) I'm beginning to suspect you're just a piece of LISA code gone horribly wrong. You don't seem to be able to pass the Turing test.
The least you could do is threaten to sue him for libel. What happened Al, run out of small children to abuse?
Letting programmers name a software product makes as much sense as letting marketers write it.
FTFY
Come to think of it - while there are many underlying design differences between MS-Windows and UNIX/X, at the end the presentation isn't all that different. This is a natural function of using the same I/O devices (same monitor, same mouse, same keyboard - you get the same paradigm). Reliability? I've had data loss result from SIGSEGV. I'll grant you that I've seen a lot less kernel crashes under 'NIX than under Windows - but then again, I've seen Windows do some pretty fun and useful things before we UNIX heads managed to keep up.
So if Windows is a turd of an OS, is Linux just a polished-up turd?
Instead of building the limiting technology into the telephone, build it into the car? A gradual power-down to halt (like a bait car) might cause some problems, but not as much as a full-speed MVA, and (to my mind) the technology ought to be no more difficult to develop - and we can limit it to the vehicle operator.
End result - the victims may well become the de facto owners of an indentured money source - and probably a very crappy one - but their ability to collect from an insurance company's perceived deep pockets is, in fact, limited by law. Insurance is intended to spread the risk of unforeseeable circumstances, not to pay for willfully neglectful, indifferent, or outright illegal acts. This accident wasn't so much an accident as it was the foreseeable result of an intentional violation of a law with disregard for the potential consequences.
Better they should sue the car manufacturer, for not installing a cutoff device to detect when the driver is distracted and summarily shut down the vehicle (possibly requiring service at an authorized dealer center to reactivate the vehicle?). I know - maybe they can sue Colt, Smith & Wesson and Charter Arms for not sending someone to shoot the registered owner of the car before he could permit it to be driven (perhaps by himself) by some idiot who thought texting and driving at the same time made sense?
Just because a stick of dynamite looks kinda like a short club does not mean you should use one to drive nails into wood.
The signals don't generally recur in the same place because all of the aliens testing an EM drive that failed so spectacularly are usually dead afterward. These are obviously smarter than your average LGM.
It's not just Slashdot, but the whole world that's getting dumber. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing.