But many of them stop calculating your MPG when your motor is running but you aren't moving, which provide very bad estimate of your true efficiency..
In mine, the average mpg display goes down continuously if I'm stuck in a traffic jam. It doesn't display current mpg until you reach 15mph or so, but the average mpg display does got updated.
How is "miles/gallon" wronger compared to "gallons/mile" than "gallons/mile" to "l/km"?
One problem with miles per gallon is that there is one kind of mile, but two kinds of gallons. US gallons are smaller than UK gallons, so if I tell you my miles per gallon, you need to know where I am.
In practice, you report "litres per 100 kilometre", because litres per kilometres should be a tiny number, somewhere between 0.04 and 0.1 for most cars. Americans and Brits should feel free to do litres per 100 miles.
I don't understand all the comments expressing bafflement as to why you get ads for something you already purchased. The contextual advertising company has no access to your purchase history...
You may be correctly stating the reason why targeted ads are useless, but that doesn't change the fact that they _are_ indeed useless. Now my wife and I use the same eBay account... Can you imagine how that f***s up any targeted advertisement?
I'd really want to see what really happened first. Everyone is getting outraged, but different Macs and iPads in my home figure out what page of a book I have been reading and display that page if I read the same book on a different device, so I'm quite sure the information goes through some server at Apple first.
I'd hope the information is sent encrypted (https would be a good way to do this) and is stored encrypted, but on the other hand I would trust Apple to not look at that information.
So is there any good reason why Adobe would do this that benefits the customer?
There is that, but if that were trustworthy you wouldn't need encryption. I assume, I think rightly, that any forensic app installed by Apple or a letter agency will have no trouble bypassing the sandbox. I've yet to see any sandbox model, on any OS, that didn't leak like a sieve. See Java and Flash for well-known examples of that approach.
Idiot. It's called "defence in depth". The most basic knowledge of security will tell you that you will have multiple protections. Having three layers of security isn't an admission that the first two layers are unsafe, only to a clueless idiot. The third layer provides more security.
I will easily believe that someone sold a system that uses Google Glass for facial recognition to the Dubai police. It's much hard to believe that someone sold them a system that actually works.
The German Federal security service tried this years ago in airports, and got a combinatorial explosion in false positives (AKA the "birthday paradox") that drowned out the real positives. Google knows the math, and is trying to save the inumerate from an expensive failure (;-))
There's an estimate that about one in a million people looks practically identical to you. So if you have a database of 100,000 criminals, about every tenth random person matches someone from the database so closely that you would look identical to a police officer who checks.
But there was no abuse. The fake name policy was changed after they found it impacted a set of people. It's like admonishing a cop for writing too many speeding tickets on a road before the speed limit had been raised.
This is like admonishing a cop who knowingly wrote tickets at a place where the speed limit sign was obviously wrong, where following the speed sign would have caused traffic chaos and going at the higher speed made everything run smoothly and safe.
Hate speech itself is the problem because it's defined so loosely that virtually anything that pings on someone's nerve is called hate speech whether it be directed and hostile language or simply a difference of opinion.
Hate speech is always just a "difference of opinion". Some people have the opinion that they should be able to live peacefully without being attacked, and other people think they shouldn't.
what abuses? guy was reporting accounts VIOLATING OFFICIAL POLICY
Systematic reporting of accounts violating the official policy was a homophobic attack targeting people with a good reason to violate the official policy. "I only followed orders" stopped being an excuse 70 years ago. "They are violating official policy" stopped being an excuse for discrimination at the same time. Little Hitlers need to be stopped, not excused.
Sorry. Google, Motorola, Samsung, etc. have used patents purely in defensive mode. Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, Erricsson etc. are the litigious bastards.
Excuse me? Google/Motorola trying to extract four billion dollars out of Microsoft for some.mp3 patents? Samsung being told by the EU that they could face a fine up to $17 billion unless they stop trying to use their patents in anti-competitive ways?
If you can afford a decent hotel, you're less likely to balk at $20 wifi. If, on the other hand, you're looking to spend $50 a night for a hotel room, getting cheap entertainment is probably just as much a priority.
Actually, if I pay good money for a room, I hate if they try to make me pay for the nose for WiFi. If you pay $50 for a room, you can probably keep yourself entertained by watching the local wild life in your room.
For basic accounts, please name a major cloud provider that has 2-factor auth as default. Google definitely doesn't, and neither do Facebook, Microsoft, or Amazon.
The problem with 2 factor auth, or any scheme trying to make it harder for hackers to get in, is that it is harder for the legitimate user to get in, and in some cases impossible. And since there was a case a year ago where someone got access to someone else's account by socially engineering Apple staff, that is made impossible. Problem is that if it is made impossible for Apple to give access to your account to a stranger who very convincingly pretends to be you, then it is also impossible for Apple to give access to your account to you, if you manage to lose it.
So Apple fails to provide sufficient security of photos uploaded to its iCloud service, and Google is the one that gets sued. Lawyers at work!
Any evidence for the first part? Any evidence that any photos were taken from iCloud by a person who didn't have the credentials that the account holder required?
Does their "MAC antivirus" only detect it if it is there, or does it detect it whether it's there or not? Most Mac "anti-virus" software is just scareware that will find viruses whether they are there or not.
And since the average mac user thinks their machine is impervious to viruses...alot of them would see no issue in running it
I think you will find the average Mac user is more intelligent than that. The less technical inclined see two rather dire warnings which would stop them. The more technical inclined know the difference between "trojan" and "virus" and don't even need the warnings.
And this differs from the average user of every other consumer or business platform in what way, again? I mean, average Windows or Android users may not "think their machine is impervious to viruses", but they seem to "see no issue in" downloading random "music" or "videos" or "software" from even the skankiest sources.
As an example, I recently started getting quite a few emails with a.zip attachment, and inside a.doc.scr file, which is (I guess) a windows screen saver. Obviously this doesn't work on my Mac, but if it did work, I'd have to unzip manually, ignore the highly suspicious.doc.scr extension, launch it, and then wilfully ignore two warnings that my Mac gives. Not sure if it gets unzipped automatically on Windows, but I think Windows would show a.doc extension, and at least on older Windows versions this will be a lot easier to launch successfully.
There is really no information here. How does it spread? Does it spread through utter user stupidity, or is it actually dangerous? It says infected Macs are added to a botnet of 17,000 computers - is that 16,999 PCs and one Mac, or 17,000 Macs?
In this "think of the children" scenario, the situation would be that a child is in danger, there is a suspect, and there is enough evidence to get a search warrant for the suspect's phone.
I wonder how many cases there have been where a child was saved from danger by searching a suspect's phone.
No, Hinduism and Atheism are NOT compatible. The easiest way to demonstrate that you are wrong: Hindu people believe that failures in morality/karma/dharma result in a corrupt soul and may result in reincarnation as a lesser creature as punishment.
It's time for national units to finally be put out to pasture. Both US units and UK units.
You are welcome to try to change all the street signs in the UK using miles, and all the speed limits using miles per hour, and I'll predict you'll have utter chaos because the percentage of drivers who can figure out that 80km/h = 50mph is quite low, and the percentage of drivers who can do that calculation in their head without taking their hands off the steering wheel and their eyes off the road is tiny.
So, where in the CTO's email is asking to share copyrignted music to hang them all for that?
It says so in the summary of the article. Not literally. He didn't say "Please share copyrighted music". He said "download all the mp3's you can and share them". To any judge, that is the same.
Slashdot Mirror
I cringe everytime I see "é" "Ã" or "Ã" in folder/file names.
I cringe every time someone has a problem with accented characters in folder or file names.
And it doesn't break any programs. Those programs are broken already.
But many of them stop calculating your MPG when your motor is running but you aren't moving, which provide very bad estimate of your true efficiency..
In mine, the average mpg display goes down continuously if I'm stuck in a traffic jam. It doesn't display current mpg until you reach 15mph or so, but the average mpg display does got updated.
How is "miles/gallon" wronger compared to "gallons/mile" than "gallons/mile" to "l/km"?
One problem with miles per gallon is that there is one kind of mile, but two kinds of gallons. US gallons are smaller than UK gallons, so if I tell you my miles per gallon, you need to know where I am.
In practice, you report "litres per 100 kilometre", because litres per kilometres should be a tiny number, somewhere between 0.04 and 0.1 for most cars. Americans and Brits should feel free to do litres per 100 miles.
I don't understand all the comments expressing bafflement as to why you get ads for something you already purchased. The contextual advertising company has no access to your purchase history...
You may be correctly stating the reason why targeted ads are useless, but that doesn't change the fact that they _are_ indeed useless. Now my wife and I use the same eBay account... Can you imagine how that f***s up any targeted advertisement?
I'd really want to see what really happened first. Everyone is getting outraged, but different Macs and iPads in my home figure out what page of a book I have been reading and display that page if I read the same book on a different device, so I'm quite sure the information goes through some server at Apple first.
I'd hope the information is sent encrypted (https would be a good way to do this) and is stored encrypted, but on the other hand I would trust Apple to not look at that information.
So is there any good reason why Adobe would do this that benefits the customer?
There is that, but if that were trustworthy you wouldn't need encryption. I assume, I think rightly, that any forensic app installed by Apple or a letter agency will have no trouble bypassing the sandbox. I've yet to see any sandbox model, on any OS, that didn't leak like a sieve. See Java and Flash for well-known examples of that approach.
Idiot. It's called "defence in depth". The most basic knowledge of security will tell you that you will have multiple protections. Having three layers of security isn't an admission that the first two layers are unsafe, only to a clueless idiot. The third layer provides more security.
I will easily believe that someone sold a system that uses Google Glass for facial recognition to the Dubai police. It's much hard to believe that someone sold them a system that actually works.
The German Federal security service tried this years ago in airports, and got a combinatorial explosion in false positives (AKA the "birthday paradox") that drowned out the real positives. Google knows the math, and is trying to save the inumerate from an expensive failure (;-))
There's an estimate that about one in a million people looks practically identical to you. So if you have a database of 100,000 criminals, about every tenth random person matches someone from the database so closely that you would look identical to a police officer who checks.
But there was no abuse. The fake name policy was changed after they found it impacted a set of people. It's like admonishing a cop for writing too many speeding tickets on a road before the speed limit had been raised.
This is like admonishing a cop who knowingly wrote tickets at a place where the speed limit sign was obviously wrong, where following the speed sign would have caused traffic chaos and going at the higher speed made everything run smoothly and safe.
Hate speech itself is the problem because it's defined so loosely that virtually anything that pings on someone's nerve is called hate speech whether it be directed and hostile language or simply a difference of opinion.
Hate speech is always just a "difference of opinion". Some people have the opinion that they should be able to live peacefully without being attacked, and other people think they shouldn't.
How do you know? Maybe they just make up 90% of all fake names? Maybe these are the type of accounts in his network of friends/likes/subscriptions?
How do we know you are not the same homophobic asshat, posting here under a false name, to excuse your homophobic asshattery?
what abuses? guy was reporting accounts VIOLATING OFFICIAL POLICY
Systematic reporting of accounts violating the official policy was a homophobic attack targeting people with a good reason to violate the official policy. "I only followed orders" stopped being an excuse 70 years ago. "They are violating official policy" stopped being an excuse for discrimination at the same time. Little Hitlers need to be stopped, not excused.
Sorry. Google, Motorola, Samsung, etc. have used patents purely in defensive mode. Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, Erricsson etc. are the litigious bastards.
Excuse me? Google/Motorola trying to extract four billion dollars out of Microsoft for some .mp3 patents? Samsung being told by the EU that they could face a fine up to $17 billion unless they stop trying to use their patents in anti-competitive ways?
If you can afford a decent hotel, you're less likely to balk at $20 wifi. If, on the other hand, you're looking to spend $50 a night for a hotel room, getting cheap entertainment is probably just as much a priority.
Actually, if I pay good money for a room, I hate if they try to make me pay for the nose for WiFi. If you pay $50 for a room, you can probably keep yourself entertained by watching the local wild life in your room.
For basic accounts, please name a major cloud provider that has 2-factor auth as default. Google definitely doesn't, and neither do Facebook, Microsoft, or Amazon.
The problem with 2 factor auth, or any scheme trying to make it harder for hackers to get in, is that it is harder for the legitimate user to get in, and in some cases impossible. And since there was a case a year ago where someone got access to someone else's account by socially engineering Apple staff, that is made impossible. Problem is that if it is made impossible for Apple to give access to your account to a stranger who very convincingly pretends to be you, then it is also impossible for Apple to give access to your account to you, if you manage to lose it.
So Apple fails to provide sufficient security of photos uploaded to its iCloud service, and Google is the one that gets sued. Lawyers at work!
Any evidence for the first part? Any evidence that any photos were taken from iCloud by a person who didn't have the credentials that the account holder required?
dr web is saying their MAC antivirus will now detect it http://news.drweb.com/show/?i=...
Does their "MAC antivirus" only detect it if it is there, or does it detect it whether it's there or not? Most Mac "anti-virus" software is just scareware that will find viruses whether they are there or not.
And since the average mac user thinks their machine is impervious to viruses...alot of them would see no issue in running it
I think you will find the average Mac user is more intelligent than that. The less technical inclined see two rather dire warnings which would stop them. The more technical inclined know the difference between "trojan" and "virus" and don't even need the warnings.
And this differs from the average user of every other consumer or business platform in what way, again? I mean, average Windows or Android users may not "think their machine is impervious to viruses", but they seem to "see no issue in" downloading random "music" or "videos" or "software" from even the skankiest sources.
As an example, I recently started getting quite a few emails with a .zip attachment, and inside a .doc.scr file, which is (I guess) a windows screen saver. Obviously this doesn't work on my Mac, but if it did work, I'd have to unzip manually, ignore the highly suspicious .doc.scr extension, launch it, and then wilfully ignore two warnings that my Mac gives. Not sure if it gets unzipped automatically on Windows, but I think Windows would show a .doc extension, and at least on older Windows versions this will be a lot easier to launch successfully.
There is really no information here. How does it spread? Does it spread through utter user stupidity, or is it actually dangerous? It says infected Macs are added to a botnet of 17,000 computers - is that 16,999 PCs and one Mac, or 17,000 Macs?
In this "think of the children" scenario, the situation would be that a child is in danger, there is a suspect, and there is enough evidence to get a search warrant for the suspect's phone.
I wonder how many cases there have been where a child was saved from danger by searching a suspect's phone.
No, Hinduism and Atheism are NOT compatible. The easiest way to demonstrate that you are wrong: Hindu people believe that failures in morality/karma/dharma result in a corrupt soul and may result in reincarnation as a lesser creature as punishment.
How is that incompatible to atheism?
It's time for national units to finally be put out to pasture. Both US units and UK units.
You are welcome to try to change all the street signs in the UK using miles, and all the speed limits using miles per hour, and I'll predict you'll have utter chaos because the percentage of drivers who can figure out that 80km/h = 50mph is quite low, and the percentage of drivers who can do that calculation in their head without taking their hands off the steering wheel and their eyes off the road is tiny.
I don't see any statement about stealing MP3s to share, ignoring copyright claims by artists, or copying personally purchased music into the service.
Because you are closing your eyes.
So, where in the CTO's email is asking to share copyrignted music to hang them all for that?
It says so in the summary of the article. Not literally. He didn't say "Please share copyrighted music". He said "download all the mp3's you can and share them". To any judge, that is the same.