If shellshock lets remote users execute arbitrary shell commands, should we just run a scan of the whole internet (https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/masscan), and issue apt-get update & apt-get upgrade? Use the bug to patch the bug?
If shellshock lets remote users execute arbitrary shell commands, should we just run a scan of the whole internet (https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/masscan), and issue apt-get update & apt-get upgrade?
Use the bug to patch the bug?
Interesting. I didn't realize it was the tariff that was the issue (for the moment at least).
To be honest, I am OK with a tax of something like $1 / month that goes toward producing Canadian content. And something like an on-demand model, where my vote is recorded based on what I watch, seems like a decent way of deciding which content is supported.
I agree with you that this current business has less to do with supporting Canadian content, and more to do with the fact that incumbents are scared by Netflix. I don't have a cable subscription and never will. Most of my friends are in the same boat. Paying for low quality content mixed with commercials feels like having a newspaper delivered to my doorstep every morning. Fun if you're pretending it is 1972, but otherwise pretty silly.
Unfortunately, the CRTC, historically the place that former media executives go to retire, is unlikely to see it this way. They are basically in charge of regulating their old buddies.
In Canada it is a bit more complicated. We have a policy here which mandates that a certain percentage of all broadcast media be Canadian content (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_content).
It means that radio stations have to play Canadian music, and that television networks must show Canadian shows.
As you can imagine, there are strong opinions about this. For example, what constitutes Canadian content? If it is an American made show that is shot on Canadian soil (Toronto playing the role of Big-American-City), should that count? Or if the writers are Canadian, but the show is produced in the US, how should it be counted? What about a celebrity gossip show, primarily about Hollywood stars, that is hosted by Canadians? I'm not making these examples up by the way.
In radio, Can-con can lead to odd things too: when there is a new Canadian band, airwaves become oversaturated with their music quite quickly, to the point where the domestic audience gets tired of them. DJs want to play popular music (mostly of US origin), but must also meet Can-con rules. A new, popular Canadian band can actually be hurt by too much exposure in a short period of time.
So the CRTC here isn't just about issuing licenses for limited airwaves. It is also about enforcing rules on the content.
My personal opinion is that Can-con (mandating some % of material be broadcast) is probably not the best approach to supporting Canadian artists. I don't think it makes sense for TV, radio, or internet.
That said, it is pretty clear to me that under the current rules, Netflix and Youtube should fall under the same umbrella. I don't see an argument how the government has the authority to set rules about radio and TV but not the internet. I suppose you could claim that wireless spectrum is a public space, therefore within the purview of the government. But that arguement falls apart since most people have cable anyway. To give you a sense of how inconsistent things currently are, if you have a cable modem, part of the signal (TV) is subject to Can-con, but if you stream (internet) it is not.
Again, I'm not coming out in favour (note the u:) of Can-con on any media provider, but the current case against Netflix etc is consistent with the law as it is written.
When a project like that gets cancelled, where does all the material go? Does someone just do a rm -rf./project, or does it just get rebranded into something else?
fMRI will not be a home-based solution. It requires a _really_ big magnetic field. The hardware is big, costs millions of dollars, and is only available at hospitals / research centres.
On my android phone, I can type words by swiping between letters, rather than simply poking at them with my fingers. I'm amazed how well this tech works and how fast I can write with it.
I know that eye trackers exist (and that one can select letters by hovering over them) but does eye tracking + swipe exist? If it doesn't, it would be straightforward to prototype it easily (originally you had to buy it, but now it seems to be part of the main OS. http://www.swype.com/
Other human computer interaction options would be the various brain wave headsets which are now appearing (e.g. from google I see http://neurosky.com/http://interaxon.ca/ etc). They tend to be less accurate, but are probably useful for things like controlling the environment (lights on and off) etc. It wouldn't be difficult to interface them with some basic home automation hardware.
I would think that finding a mix off input devices would be ideal in terms of preventing fatigue.
Once a bit of time has passed, you might consider spending some time looking through the faculty pages at your local University's CS Department. Get in contact with them. There is a lot of work (and funds) going on into HCI right now. This seems like the type of project that would get a lot of support from graduate students and faculty.
Please come back to us with a follow-up post. Don't forget to include a fundraising link for equipment costs. I would certainly contribute.
I will not try this nor recommend it until Google states clearly that this service will be maintained for X years. I understand that nothing is forever, but too many projects have been created by Google only to be abandoned within 2-3 years.
If only there was a country to the North with which to compare. Minimum wage in Canada is north (heh:) of $10 everywhere except in Alberta where it is $9.95. I can assure you we do not have robot janitors and our coffee and fast food is served by humans. The economies and purchasing power of the two countries are similar enough it's a valid comparison. While there clearly must be a point at which labour costs outweigh purchase + operating costs of automated solutions, for the types of jobs being discussed here, the break point is not $10/hour.
A large part of the problem stems (heh:) from the fact that the disciplines are not interchangeable. Policy makers typically do not have backgrounds in _any_ of the fields, so they see little distinction between a computer science student, software engineer, math, physics, etc. While we can all agree that those disciplines are technical in nature, the fact is you do not learn the same set of skills. When employers say then need more STEM grads, they aren't looking for a generic chemistry or biology student. They want a C++ coder, or they want someone that can build an antenna, or someone that can operate a mass spec. The learning outcomes from different STEM degrees are vastly different. Notwithstanding issues related to wages, H1-B etc, the acronym itself is a big part of the problem.
The whole thing is being shot in a Hollywood studio. A night janitor was goofing around with the set and didn't put things back properly. Happens all the time.
Currently I am able to log in and out of gmail on a friend's laptop without any (reasonable) fear that my email will keep living on that machine (and is unencrypted). Obviously keyloggers etc could grab my password, but let's assume I'm not _that_ paranoid.
I do not have this option with the Chrome browser itself. At best, I can log into Chrome (and am encouraged to do so at first startup) and at the end of the session, I can delete the profile (rm -rf.config/google-chrome). This certainly deals with the problem, but is pretty clunky. The should be a login / logout feature to the browser, not just my email.
Compare this to Chrome OS. Here the functionality is built in; you don't have to delete your user account at the end of every session. Encrypted files are stored on the local drive which you can then access the next time you log in. It's quick and painless. This needs to be built into the standard Chrome browser.
From the article:
"The audio was recovered by a team of scholars consisting of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory physicist Carl Haber, National Museum of American History curator Carlene Stephens and Library of Congress digital conversion specialist Peter Alyea, among others."
See also here: http://newscenter.lbl.gov/science-shorts/2013/04/25/alexander-graham-bell/
I'm sorry, but no. That argument doesn't make any sense. Microsoft was forced into providing that nag screen simply because courts move slower than technology. Fighting against Internet Explorer was the tech world's bizarre attempt to show Redmond they couldn't push everyone (read Netscape) around. Somewhere along the way, someone got mad that they couldn't uninstall a piece of software which _they_ personally deemed to be unrelated to the underlying OS. Flash forward, and now companies have their entire business based solely around the browser. MS built Internet Explorer into the core of the operating system because they knew it was a big deal. Did you really have that much trouble downloading and installing another browser next to IE? Really?
Now, related to your arbitrary and questionable definition of a monopoly, are you actually telling us that in the old days there was no alternative to Windows (*cough* *cough* Macintosh)? There was "no choice"?? And you would also like us to believe that Apple doesn't own the tablet market today? Apple prides itself on having a completely closed ecosystem. If we follow their model of "don't allow applications which duplicate functionality", then IE should still be the only browser allowed on Windows machines...
The only reason they haven't been hit for anti-competitive practices is because their marketing department, including Jobs, have always made the company seem like the scrappy outsider. Google looked that way at one point as well. Apple's time will come. It's inevitable.
The first person who figures out how to do this reliably will make a huge profit. There are already undersea cables which exist for the sole purpose of reducing latency between NY and UK stock exchanges. Neutrinos going _through_ the earth (arriving at the Nikkei for instance) would have a significantly shorter time of flight and would give traders a massive advantage.
I remember reading several months ago that this was being developed in response to the Al-Qaeda leadership hunting that was going on in Afghanistan. Apparently there were cases where the U.S. had intel (via satellite) about targets, and the only option that would have been fast enough to be useful was nuclear (and therefore was not an option). This weapon allows the U.S. to deploy the equivalent of a conventional aerial strike without the time required for a plane / drone to fly there.
Slashdot Mirror
If shellshock lets remote users execute arbitrary shell commands, should we just run a scan of the whole internet (https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/masscan), and issue apt-get update & apt-get upgrade? Use the bug to patch the bug?
If shellshock lets remote users execute arbitrary shell commands, should we just run a scan of the whole internet (https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/masscan), and issue apt-get update & apt-get upgrade? Use the bug to patch the bug?
Interesting. I didn't realize it was the tariff that was the issue (for the moment at least). To be honest, I am OK with a tax of something like $1 / month that goes toward producing Canadian content. And something like an on-demand model, where my vote is recorded based on what I watch, seems like a decent way of deciding which content is supported. I agree with you that this current business has less to do with supporting Canadian content, and more to do with the fact that incumbents are scared by Netflix. I don't have a cable subscription and never will. Most of my friends are in the same boat. Paying for low quality content mixed with commercials feels like having a newspaper delivered to my doorstep every morning. Fun if you're pretending it is 1972, but otherwise pretty silly. Unfortunately, the CRTC, historically the place that former media executives go to retire, is unlikely to see it this way. They are basically in charge of regulating their old buddies.
In Canada it is a bit more complicated. We have a policy here which mandates that a certain percentage of all broadcast media be Canadian content (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_content).
:) of Can-con on any media provider, but the current case against Netflix etc is consistent with the law as it is written.
It means that radio stations have to play Canadian music, and that television networks must show Canadian shows.
As you can imagine, there are strong opinions about this. For example, what constitutes Canadian content? If it is an American made show that is shot on Canadian soil (Toronto playing the role of Big-American-City), should that count? Or if the writers are Canadian, but the show is produced in the US, how should it be counted? What about a celebrity gossip show, primarily about Hollywood stars, that is hosted by Canadians? I'm not making these examples up by the way.
In radio, Can-con can lead to odd things too: when there is a new Canadian band, airwaves become oversaturated with their music quite quickly, to the point where the domestic audience gets tired of them. DJs want to play popular music (mostly of US origin), but must also meet Can-con rules. A new, popular Canadian band can actually be hurt by too much exposure in a short period of time.
So the CRTC here isn't just about issuing licenses for limited airwaves. It is also about enforcing rules on the content.
My personal opinion is that Can-con (mandating some % of material be broadcast) is probably not the best approach to supporting Canadian artists. I don't think it makes sense for TV, radio, or internet.
That said, it is pretty clear to me that under the current rules, Netflix and Youtube should fall under the same umbrella. I don't see an argument how the government has the authority to set rules about radio and TV but not the internet. I suppose you could claim that wireless spectrum is a public space, therefore within the purview of the government. But that arguement falls apart since most people have cable anyway. To give you a sense of how inconsistent things currently are, if you have a cable modem, part of the signal (TV) is subject to Can-con, but if you stream (internet) it is not.
Again, I'm not coming out in favour (note the u
When a project like that gets cancelled, where does all the material go? Does someone just do a rm -rf ./project, or does it just get rebranded into something else?
http://xkcd.com/927/
fMRI will not be a home-based solution. It requires a _really_ big magnetic field. The hardware is big, costs millions of dollars, and is only available at hospitals / research centres.
On my android phone, I can type words by swiping between letters, rather than simply poking at them with my fingers. I'm amazed how well this tech works and how fast I can write with it.
I know that eye trackers exist (and that one can select letters by hovering over them) but does eye tracking + swipe exist? If it doesn't, it would be straightforward to prototype it easily (originally you had to buy it, but now it seems to be part of the main OS. http://www.swype.com/
...actually, after a bit of googling it looks like others have thought of this: http://sciencenordic.com/texti...
Other human computer interaction options would be the various brain wave headsets which are now appearing (e.g. from google I see http://neurosky.com/ http://interaxon.ca/ etc). They tend to be less accurate, but are probably useful for things like controlling the environment (lights on and off) etc. It wouldn't be difficult to interface them with some basic home automation hardware.
I would think that finding a mix off input devices would be ideal in terms of preventing fatigue.
Once a bit of time has passed, you might consider spending some time looking through the faculty pages at your local University's CS Department. Get in contact with them. There is a lot of work (and funds) going on into HCI right now. This seems like the type of project that would get a lot of support from graduate students and faculty.
Please come back to us with a follow-up post. Don't forget to include a fundraising link for equipment costs. I would certainly contribute.
I will not try this nor recommend it until Google states clearly that this service will be maintained for X years. I understand that nothing is forever, but too many projects have been created by Google only to be abandoned within 2-3 years.
If only there was a country to the North with which to compare. Minimum wage in Canada is north (heh :) of $10 everywhere except in Alberta where it is $9.95. I can assure you we do not have robot janitors and our coffee and fast food is served by humans. The economies and purchasing power of the two countries are similar enough it's a valid comparison. While there clearly must be a point at which labour costs outweigh purchase + operating costs of automated solutions, for the types of jobs being discussed here, the break point is not $10/hour.
A large part of the problem stems (heh :) from the fact that the disciplines are not interchangeable. Policy makers typically do not have backgrounds in _any_ of the fields, so they see little distinction between a computer science student, software engineer, math, physics, etc. While we can all agree that those disciplines are technical in nature, the fact is you do not learn the same set of skills. When employers say then need more STEM grads, they aren't looking for a generic chemistry or biology student. They want a C++ coder, or they want someone that can build an antenna, or someone that can operate a mass spec. The learning outcomes from different STEM degrees are vastly different. Notwithstanding issues related to wages, H1-B etc, the acronym itself is a big part of the problem.
Funniest comment I've seen in a long time.
The whole thing is being shot in a Hollywood studio. A night janitor was goofing around with the set and didn't put things back properly. Happens all the time.
Currently I am able to log in and out of gmail on a friend's laptop without any (reasonable) fear that my email will keep living on that machine (and is unencrypted). Obviously keyloggers etc could grab my password, but let's assume I'm not _that_ paranoid.
I do not have this option with the Chrome browser itself. At best, I can log into Chrome (and am encouraged to do so at first startup) and at the end of the session, I can delete the profile (rm -rf .config/google-chrome). This certainly deals with the problem, but is pretty clunky. The should be a login / logout feature to the browser, not just my email.
Compare this to Chrome OS. Here the functionality is built in; you don't have to delete your user account at the end of every session. Encrypted files are stored on the local drive which you can then access the next time you log in. It's quick and painless. This needs to be built into the standard Chrome browser.
It also heats up when you compress it.
If you use an air-water mixture, this can be done quite efficiently: http://lightsailenergy.com/
From the article: "The audio was recovered by a team of scholars consisting of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory physicist Carl Haber, National Museum of American History curator Carlene Stephens and Library of Congress digital conversion specialist Peter Alyea, among others." See also here: http://newscenter.lbl.gov/science-shorts/2013/04/25/alexander-graham-bell/
they get paid 81 cents on the dollar.
Most of the improvement is likely due to increased distance between the amplification circuits and the noisy AC/DC power supply.
I'm sorry, but no. That argument doesn't make any sense. Microsoft was forced into providing that nag screen simply because courts move slower than technology. Fighting against Internet Explorer was the tech world's bizarre attempt to show Redmond they couldn't push everyone (read Netscape) around. Somewhere along the way, someone got mad that they couldn't uninstall a piece of software which _they_ personally deemed to be unrelated to the underlying OS. Flash forward, and now companies have their entire business based solely around the browser. MS built Internet Explorer into the core of the operating system because they knew it was a big deal. Did you really have that much trouble downloading and installing another browser next to IE? Really?
Now, related to your arbitrary and questionable definition of a monopoly, are you actually telling us that in the old days there was no alternative to Windows (*cough* *cough* Macintosh)? There was "no choice"?? And you would also like us to believe that Apple doesn't own the tablet market today? Apple prides itself on having a completely closed ecosystem. If we follow their model of "don't allow applications which duplicate functionality", then IE should still be the only browser allowed on Windows machines...
The only reason they haven't been hit for anti-competitive practices is because their marketing department, including Jobs, have always made the company seem like the scrappy outsider. Google looked that way at one point as well. Apple's time will come. It's inevitable.
If it had fallen over, that would have been a good excuse to go back and fix it.
What are the numbers for a parking lot outside of Walmart? A small local change is not an unreasonable tradeoff for clean power.
The first person who figures out how to do this reliably will make a huge profit. There are already undersea cables which exist for the sole purpose of reducing latency between NY and UK stock exchanges. Neutrinos going _through_ the earth (arriving at the Nikkei for instance) would have a significantly shorter time of flight and would give traders a massive advantage.
I've found it's actually closer to about 15 years.
I remember reading several months ago that this was being developed in response to the Al-Qaeda leadership hunting that was going on in Afghanistan. Apparently there were cases where the U.S. had intel (via satellite) about targets, and the only option that would have been fast enough to be useful was nuclear (and therefore was not an option). This weapon allows the U.S. to deploy the equivalent of a conventional aerial strike without the time required for a plane / drone to fly there.