Doesn't make sense, if you have malware it could be keystroke logging - which would make a password manager more, not less secure if it auto-fills the user+password fields the user+password might not get sniffed.
Since my password manager is a simple piece of software - an encrypted database of my passwords that runs on my computer with the data on my computer, I'd say yes, I have no reason not to trust it. I wouldn't put my bank login details in to it though, because of vulnerabilities + trojans + keystroke-loggers.
Which actually sucks for license payers because over 450 million won't be paying for BBC content which would reduce the license.
The BBC sells it's programming via BBC worldwide which looks like some kind of massive fraudulent organisation, the amount they spend to sell the programs doesn't make any sense, go look for yourself if you don't believe me. I can only assume someone is embezzling tens of millions of pounds at the British license payers expense.
Just privatise it already, people don't understand the level of pro-corporate, pro-gov't, pro-establishment bias there is with the BBC. The woman who runs the BBC was head of auditing at HSBC whilst it was money-laundering for criminals and hiding money for the wealthy in Switzerland.
Considering H.265 taxes my intel I7 considerably, I think that more energy will be used decoding for a good few years until most hardware has dedicated decoding chips which use much less energy.
But given the way advances in silicon have almost stalled now and the royalties being demanded, I think it will be a long time before H.265 becomes standard even for piracy (look at how much XViD is still being used).
H.265 is going to become the standard in the near future
RTA, They are asking for too much money and too much hassle, I don't think they'll get many users as a result.
First: computers/devices are designed to let their CPUs run at 100% with whatever cooling mechanism they have designed.
Which requires a lot of electricity - internet streaming and hard disk space don't require a lot of electricity. So I'd prefer that H.265 doesn't make it big until most equipment has dedicated decoder silicon.
Play a 1080p H.265 video and look at the processor usage - not efficient, very processor intensive. Each generation of codec requires several times more processing power than the previous one.
And H.265 is horribly cpu/gpu intensive to the point you'll need a fan to cool the processor down when decoding it or your processor won't be able to handle it (for 4k, especially 4k 60fps).
Given the amount of terawatts that could be needed to process h265 continuously worldwide, I'd rather we all stick to h264.
Central heating is a f*cking retarded idea - heating the whole house when the simple fact is an individual can only use one room at a time. Radiators in the halls - WTF is that for?
Massive room for improvement, so why isn't it being radically improved? For the unimaginative this could be as simple as smart-phone controlled room-by room heating settings with options like heat for just the next N hours or heat from hours X to Y daily.
Why don't we have this, why isn't it mandatory for new systems? Why aren't intelligent heating systems being encouraged? Because politicians are as thick as pig-shit.
We haven't even begun when it comes to energy efficiency.
Current generations have been utterly spoiled by cheap energy and cheap gas which won't be around for long.
I agree, the idea that artists should be 'compensated' when it is the law that granted copyright in the first place shows the judge is either an idiot or he is corrupt.
It should be noted that judges have get-aways in luxurious accommodation with and al kinds of pampering paid for by the copyright industries, no doubt this judge had his fill.
I disagree, someone posted peoples attempt to chat-up some alice-type bots online the result was hilarious.
OTOH aren't 99.9% of films pretty exclusively about human interactions. It's like we're all afflicted with some autism like mentality, we barely acknowledge the rest of the universe.
Point 2: I don't see why you jump to this conclusion, there could easily be one breakthrough that enables A.I. and I think that is far more likely.
Point 3: If A.I.s are taught to avoid fallacies then they will look a lot more intelligent than humans and will come to agreement with each other far more quickly. Humans disagreement is either based upon disagreement about fact or more often IMO is the result of logical fallacies or less often, faith. With fallacies out of the way it comes down to determining the reliability of a source of information.
Point 4. Apart from military A.I.s you mean. As soon as robots can be guided by A.I. the military will be all over them.
Point 5. You are making some big assumptions here - you are assuming A.I. will have feelings and A.I. will have ambition or other such very human traits, in short you are assuming that A.I.s will be just like humans psychologically which is doubtful.
Your point 4 contradicts point 5, you say A.I.s will not behave like humans and then you say they will.
Indeed, Film #5 - 'I Robot' has experts claiming that robots don't do such and such. They have forgotten that we are talking about future possibilities and not current technology.
1. A single genius won't ever produce the A.I. breakthrough - This belief discounts people like Leonardo Da Vinci and Nikola Tesla. Kind of funny that the people creating A.I. wouldn't appreciate the different capabilities of different levels of intelligence. Also this over-looks that a single person in the future may already have had much of the groundwork laid, it might not be such a large step for an individual to create A.I.
2. (A.I.) Robots will only ever do what they are made for. Maybe or maybe not 'Emergent behaviour' is the key phrase here. Bugs in the software or scenarios never predicted by the makers of the software are both reasons for A.I. to potentially behave differently than intended.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't make sense, if you have malware it could be keystroke logging - which would make a password manager more, not less secure if it auto-fills the user+password fields the user+password might not get sniffed.
Since my password manager is a simple piece of software - an encrypted database of my passwords that runs on my computer with the data on my computer, I'd say yes, I have no reason not to trust it. I wouldn't put my bank login details in to it though, because of vulnerabilities + trojans + keystroke-loggers.
Trust an online password manager - hell no.
Which actually sucks for license payers because over 450 million won't be paying for BBC content which would reduce the license.
The BBC sells it's programming via BBC worldwide which looks like some kind of massive fraudulent organisation, the amount they spend to sell the programs doesn't make any sense, go look for yourself if you don't believe me. I can only assume someone is embezzling tens of millions of pounds at the British license payers expense.
Just privatise it already, people don't understand the level of pro-corporate, pro-gov't, pro-establishment bias there is with the BBC. The woman who runs the BBC was head of auditing at HSBC whilst it was money-laundering for criminals and hiding money for the wealthy in Switzerland.
Considering H.265 taxes my intel I7 considerably, I think that more energy will be used decoding for a good few years until most hardware has dedicated decoding chips which use much less energy.
But given the way advances in silicon have almost stalled now and the royalties being demanded, I think it will be a long time before H.265 becomes standard even for piracy (look at how much XViD is still being used).
RTA, They are asking for too much money and too much hassle, I don't think they'll get many users as a result.
Which requires a lot of electricity - internet streaming and hard disk space don't require a lot of electricity. So I'd prefer that H.265 doesn't make it big until most equipment has dedicated decoder silicon.
Do your phone or tablet etc have a fan in?
Play a 1080p H.265 video and look at the processor usage - not efficient, very processor intensive. Each generation of codec requires several times more processing power than the previous one.
And H.265 is horribly cpu/gpu intensive to the point you'll need a fan to cool the processor down when decoding it or your processor won't be able to handle it (for 4k, especially 4k 60fps).
Given the amount of terawatts that could be needed to process h265 continuously worldwide, I'd rather we all stick to h264.
Of course, everyone knows that contact with radioactive substances causes you to develop super-powers.
Bernie Sanders seems like a decent politician judging by his anti-TTIP speech.
Indeed.
So, you could have Hilary Clinton vs Donald Trump.
That's a really crap choice isn't it.
How massively ironic is it that they can't fix these cars remotely when the vulnerability is due to remote hacking.
And thermostats are crap, when's the last time you set an actual temperature on a radiator?
Extremely out of date tech needs updating.
How is water going to freeze at 59 when the freezing temp of water is 32???????
I didn't state at any point that "Some people ACTUALLY LIVE WITH OTHER PEOPLE." is not true.
You are jumping to conclusions.
No I meant people can only use 1 room per person at any one time.
We've had electronics and motors for decades, radiators should be remotely adjustable and individually time-able. Industry is in the stone ages still.
Central heating is a f*cking retarded idea - heating the whole house when the simple fact is an individual can only use one room at a time. Radiators in the halls - WTF is that for?
Massive room for improvement, so why isn't it being radically improved? For the unimaginative this could be as simple as smart-phone controlled room-by room heating settings with options like heat for just the next N hours or heat from hours X to Y daily.
Why don't we have this, why isn't it mandatory for new systems? Why aren't intelligent heating systems being encouraged? Because politicians are as thick as pig-shit.
We haven't even begun when it comes to energy efficiency.
Current generations have been utterly spoiled by cheap energy and cheap gas which won't be around for long.
I agree, the idea that artists should be 'compensated' when it is the law that granted copyright in the first place shows the judge is either an idiot or he is corrupt.
It should be noted that judges have get-aways in luxurious accommodation with and al kinds of pampering paid for by the copyright industries, no doubt this judge had his fill.
I disagree, someone posted peoples attempt to chat-up some alice-type bots online the result was hilarious.
OTOH aren't 99.9% of films pretty exclusively about human interactions. It's like we're all afflicted with some autism like mentality, we barely acknowledge the rest of the universe.
Shitty mods, if you disagree with my post then say why, don't just down-mod because you can't formulate a fucking argument.
Point 2: I don't see why you jump to this conclusion, there could easily be one breakthrough that enables A.I. and I think that is far more likely.
Point 3: If A.I.s are taught to avoid fallacies then they will look a lot more intelligent than humans and will come to agreement with each other far more quickly. Humans disagreement is either based upon disagreement about fact or more often IMO is the result of logical fallacies or less often, faith. With fallacies out of the way it comes down to determining the reliability of a source of information.
Point 4. Apart from military A.I.s you mean. As soon as robots can be guided by A.I. the military will be all over them.
Point 5. You are making some big assumptions here - you are assuming A.I. will have feelings and A.I. will have ambition or other such very human traits, in short you are assuming that A.I.s will be just like humans psychologically which is doubtful.
Your point 4 contradicts point 5, you say A.I.s will not behave like humans and then you say they will.
Indeed, Film #5 - 'I Robot' has experts claiming that robots don't do such and such. They have forgotten that we are talking about future possibilities and not current technology.
You are ignoring the fact that it is a very interesting article and very much nerdy stuff.
Why shouldn't the article be posted here?
I disagree with a couple of points already.
1. A single genius won't ever produce the A.I. breakthrough - This belief discounts people like Leonardo Da Vinci and Nikola Tesla. Kind of funny that the people creating A.I. wouldn't appreciate the different capabilities of different levels of intelligence. Also this over-looks that a single person in the future may already have had much of the groundwork laid, it might not be such a large step for an individual to create A.I.
2. (A.I.) Robots will only ever do what they are made for. Maybe or maybe not 'Emergent behaviour' is the key phrase here. Bugs in the software or scenarios never predicted by the makers of the software are both reasons for A.I. to potentially behave differently than intended.
Unlike the bible which is perfectly sensible.