We don't have a good reason for being enemies of Iran and in many ways they would make a better ally for us in the region than most other countries because they are among the more progressive countries in the Middle East and more likely to be supportive of Western ideals. A lot of it just comes down historical events putting us on the current path we're on, even if those are past and buried. People have long memories and there are just too many people on both sides that still harbor old hatreds (which may be completely valid) to be able to find a common ground to work from moving forward.
However it really boils down to us already being closely tied in with both Saudi Arabia and Israel. Saudi Arabia hates Iran for being the wrong type of Muslims and sees them as a challenger in terms of which country will be dominant in the region. Relations with Israel were seriously strained when the Ayatollahs came into power and declared Israel as an enemy of Islam and groups like Hezbollah were founded and have received some state support from Iran. Conceivably, the U.S. getting closer to Iran and democracy being restored would probably see the country relax their relationships in regards to Israel. They were actually quite cordial with one and other in the past and I don't think the average Iranian cares about hating Israel as much as the extreme religious sect that controls the country now does.
I don't think we could be allies of both Saudi Arabia and Iran at the same time now. Israel would be pragmatic enough to deal with Iran while relations are smoothed out, but I don't believe that the Saudi's would be. The two countries currently don't have any diplomatic relations following some recent events between them, and there are perhaps too many recent historical events between the two to expect any type of amelioration. It's easier for us to continue being allies with the Saudis even if it isn't in our long-term best interests to do so. The U.S. political system makes it incredibly difficult to change the status quo in a large way and no matter which party extends the olive branch, the other will denounce it purely for political reasons.
I've already known people who have developed dementia or other degenerative mental conditions. Some have had their health fail for other reasons like cancer and I've known plenty who've been done in mostly by their own vices. Talk to anyone who's been around long enough and they've seen plenty of medical tragedy, either in their own life or in that of their friends and family.
I say that it doesn't particularly matter because in the end there's going to be something that comes for you whether it's Alzheimer's, heart disease, cancer, strokes, etc. Whatever it is, it's scarcely pretty. I hope that when I go it's something quick like a sudden heart attack that did my grandfather in instead of something that's long and hell on everyone else around me. However, if he had the choice to live until whatever might kill him next, I'm pretty sure he'd pay whatever cost necessary. He simply didn't have any choice in the matter.
Again, it doesn't really matter because even if we can cure Alzheimer's there's just something else that will kill us instead. Perhaps it will be something that won't rob us of our sense of self or destroy the person that is us, but it's just as costly in the end from a financial point. Even my grandmother who lived a long life and enjoyed relatively good health up until her death needed care providers to help her once she became incapable of completely caring for her self. That adds up over the years.
No matter how good your health is eventually you reach a point where no amount of money can keep you alive for a second longer. Yet people desire to cling to life as much as possible. It's just not in our genes to lay down and die and if it ever was or is, those would tend not to be passed on. It's not that the medical field is particularly greedy or more so than any other business, but that people by and large are willing to spend everything they have to live just a little bit longer. I'd like to say that the ones who won't do that are the most sane among us us, but I suspect that many of them feel no reason to go on which is perhaps more tragic.
Seems like the kind of thing that becomes self-fulfilling since you can just point to any dissent about the article itself or the message as signs of increased troll/shill activity.
So therefore we can logically conclude that you and whoever moderated you up are Russian trolls. Normally we might not assume that, but there's a 2000% increase in activity and you're now proof of it.
It still matters not one bit. Unless the main cause of death becomes accidents with near complete and instant fatality, eventually a person gets sick and needs expensive medical care. Instead of big pharma selling you meds for Alzheimers, they sell you meds for something else.
It hardly matters. Old people will eventually spend all of that money on some other medical condition. Unless you have a cure for old age in general, people will still have to face that after decades, their bodies are getting worn down. That means spending more and more money to keep it afloat or just accepting death.
Despite that, they may have some advantages as a carefully controlled environment can ensure that the crops can be grown more easily or without as much need for herbicides or pesticides as the summary points out. You can also get a more consistent supply as indoor crops can be grown irrespective of season so there's always a relatively fixed supply instead of periods where an abundance leads to incredibly low prices and some waste and other times where shortages lead to high prices that some can't afford and many are unwilling to pay.
Personally, I think this is a great idea and will go a long way towards solving a lot of the health ills in the U.S. that are in some ways a result of food deserts in big cities where it's simply not possible for people to get fresh foods.
It wouldn't be that difficult and there are plenty of other states where large numbers of people work across state lines such as in New York City or Kansas City.
I'll give you that. I've stayed away from all of these since I have no interest in an always on, always listening digital assistant (or whatever they're called) due to the potential privacy concerns. I don't think Apple will do it as they're not going to charge less for a dumb speaker that doesn't cost them less to manufacture because I suspect that most people would buy that version instead of the premium version with Siri.
Apple's other problem is that unless you're already part of their ecosystem, this speaker probably isn't that useful. I guess you could just put your music in iTunes and use it to stream stuff, but there are plenty of much cheaper boxes that can be used to stream a music library through an actual stereo system.
My understanding was that the "smart" capabilities of this thing were extremely lacking and that the main reason to get one is that the sound quality was decent for what it is. It sounds like the hardware is fine (albeit pricey, but it's Apple so what else did you expect) but that the Siri functionality is what's lacking.
A third party replacement screen could still be counterfeit if it tries to pass itself off as an officially branded product. I don't believe that to be the case here, but it's certainly possible.
Assuming it weren't, it wouldn't be too much more difficult to take a video of the entire process of opening the email. Even better if as you take that video it is uploaded some some cloud service that time stamps everything as well. At some point you've got evidence that is every bit as good as the email itself and if you won't accept that, then what good would the actual email do as evidence?
Judge's typically don't like it when companies try to buck court orders in this way. I think a big "no results" would be just as telling. I suspect that defendant would be back in court complaining that no one can find him were that the case.
I can understand the intent that the court would like to have, but search engines are still completely idiotic. Does this person just get completed erased from the internet so that you can't even find their Linkdin page or something like that? I don't know if there's enough fine grained control to forget about only this person's crime instead of the person entirely or rather anyone bearing that person's name without a great deal of manual effort. Even that doesn't work as there's nothing to stop someone from creating a website that details the sordid past of anyone who requests to be forgotten. Perhaps that site's pages don't show up in a Google search if everything is done correctly (good luck with that) but it doesn't stop anyone from going to that site.
Even the eventual leaking or inadvertent release of the list of things that Google must forget about is going to draw more eyes to it than would otherwise be cast on that information. The best way to make sure everyone wants to know something or talk about it is to forbid doing just that. Perhaps it could work in Soviet Russia where there was at least a long history of repression and dire consequences for such an act, but it can't hope to succeed in the Western democracies of today or even a world where an unfiltered internet exists.
I can't say for sure what will happen with the gig economy, but I'm not convinced its a fad. People forget that the increases in productivity that we continue to see don't just mean a loss of jobs, but also a decrease in the cost of goods. I think what will really make the gig economy viable is when it becomes possible to cover living expenses when working 20 - 30 hours per week at your gig. Not because the gig is particularly well paying, but because it doesn't cost much to get by. I think that if a person were particularly frugal that may already be a possibility.
Some currently existing careers are going to go away (as they have throughout history) and not everyone is capable of retraining as a surgeon, engineer, or some other form of highly skilled labor that guarantees a career. I suspect that the jobs in a gig economy will change as well or that it may be the type of situation where you might have five different gigs at only four to six hours apiece.
Once again though, it doesn't ultimately matter. If Uber can drag this case out long enough who cares what restrictions the government tries to make regarding employees and contractors because in 10 years I wouldn't be surprised if Uber were running mostly or all self-driving cars.
It doesn't matter if Uber ultimately loses. They'll just make the minimum necessary changes so that they no longer have any employees. It's similar to how after the ACA was passed, some people suddenly found themselves working 29 hours per week because their employers didn't want full time employees and the additional requirements that entailed.
If you want to ensure that gig economy workers have the best wages and conditions, make sure that there are a large number of gig economy service providers competing with each other.
In this case TFS seems to define provably random as that which cannot be predicted in advance given sufficient knowledge of how the number is generated and some initial conditions. Supposedly they have proven that this is the case, though I have not verified the correctness of their proof. However, this is really no different than other mathematical proofs. Either the proof is correct or it is not, but a lack of understanding of the proof does not change its correctness.
The moral of the story is that when the AI self-driving system starts giving your warning messages about its inability to cope with the current road conditions that you should pay attention to it.
Tesla should know better though. People are fucking idiots and the vehicle should not assume they'll act responsibly. If the AI system doesn't think it can manage things anymore and the user is not responding to input, it should throw the hazard lights on and make an emergency stop. Systems like this should always be able to fail gracefully. If this is a repeated problem, the system should disable the auto-pilot feature and refuse to let the driver use it. If they want it turned back on, they can write to Tesla and explain why they think that they should be allowed to be a colossal moron with a quarter million joules of kinetic energy.
I doubt that he wanted to crash. However, I suspect he wanted to text someone or check something on his phone (it'll only take like 10 seconds after all) more than he wanted to not crash (apparently his ability to estimate the likelihood of this outcome was about as terrible as most people) though.
I'm kind of glad it got left out. There's far too much effort to drag politics into stories when there's plenty to discuss about the hacking itself. Also, I'd argue that by focusing on the perpetrators and their message, you only provide a lot more encouragement for others to do the same to get their message out there. It's the same reason that news stations are discouraged from showing and endlessly discussing the perpetrator in mass shootings or terror attacks because it is believe to encourage others to do it.
Who cares if the assholes that did it are Palestinian assholes, white nationalist assholes, Islamist assholes, Antifa assholes, etc.? Doesn't really change the fact that they're assholes and shouldn't be given publicity for being dicks.
I could understand the story from last year (or whenever it was) about Apple updating their devices to reject third party repairs to the home button / finger scanner as that could have presented some obvious security risk. However, I'm having a hard time seeing the same here. I suppose one could make a case for this third party chip being able to scrape the screen in some nefarious manner, but that just seems a bit tinfoil hat.
It's worse than another password. Most sites are at least smart enough to store a hash and some will go a little further and salt it to make extracting the real value more difficult. However, security questions are more likely to be stored in plain text (especially if you can give them over the phone to a CSR) and a lot of sites are going to allow you to reset a password with security questions.
Under no circumstances should you ever use a correct answer for a security question and the answer you have should never be reused. Many sties have a predefined list of security questions and there's a lot of overlap between those lists. An attacker that gets one set of security questions can probably reuse them on other sites beyond the one they attacked.
I would imagine that most of what they're using these days is some kind of genetic neural network that uses user attachment or engagement as its fitness criteria. At this point, no one really has a clue why it does what it does outside of making broad interpretations based on the outcomes well after the fact.
Slashdot Mirror
We don't have a good reason for being enemies of Iran and in many ways they would make a better ally for us in the region than most other countries because they are among the more progressive countries in the Middle East and more likely to be supportive of Western ideals. A lot of it just comes down historical events putting us on the current path we're on, even if those are past and buried. People have long memories and there are just too many people on both sides that still harbor old hatreds (which may be completely valid) to be able to find a common ground to work from moving forward.
However it really boils down to us already being closely tied in with both Saudi Arabia and Israel. Saudi Arabia hates Iran for being the wrong type of Muslims and sees them as a challenger in terms of which country will be dominant in the region. Relations with Israel were seriously strained when the Ayatollahs came into power and declared Israel as an enemy of Islam and groups like Hezbollah were founded and have received some state support from Iran. Conceivably, the U.S. getting closer to Iran and democracy being restored would probably see the country relax their relationships in regards to Israel. They were actually quite cordial with one and other in the past and I don't think the average Iranian cares about hating Israel as much as the extreme religious sect that controls the country now does.
I don't think we could be allies of both Saudi Arabia and Iran at the same time now. Israel would be pragmatic enough to deal with Iran while relations are smoothed out, but I don't believe that the Saudi's would be. The two countries currently don't have any diplomatic relations following some recent events between them, and there are perhaps too many recent historical events between the two to expect any type of amelioration. It's easier for us to continue being allies with the Saudis even if it isn't in our long-term best interests to do so. The U.S. political system makes it incredibly difficult to change the status quo in a large way and no matter which party extends the olive branch, the other will denounce it purely for political reasons.
I've already known people who have developed dementia or other degenerative mental conditions. Some have had their health fail for other reasons like cancer and I've known plenty who've been done in mostly by their own vices. Talk to anyone who's been around long enough and they've seen plenty of medical tragedy, either in their own life or in that of their friends and family.
I say that it doesn't particularly matter because in the end there's going to be something that comes for you whether it's Alzheimer's, heart disease, cancer, strokes, etc. Whatever it is, it's scarcely pretty. I hope that when I go it's something quick like a sudden heart attack that did my grandfather in instead of something that's long and hell on everyone else around me. However, if he had the choice to live until whatever might kill him next, I'm pretty sure he'd pay whatever cost necessary. He simply didn't have any choice in the matter.
Again, it doesn't really matter because even if we can cure Alzheimer's there's just something else that will kill us instead. Perhaps it will be something that won't rob us of our sense of self or destroy the person that is us, but it's just as costly in the end from a financial point. Even my grandmother who lived a long life and enjoyed relatively good health up until her death needed care providers to help her once she became incapable of completely caring for her self. That adds up over the years.
No matter how good your health is eventually you reach a point where no amount of money can keep you alive for a second longer. Yet people desire to cling to life as much as possible. It's just not in our genes to lay down and die and if it ever was or is, those would tend not to be passed on. It's not that the medical field is particularly greedy or more so than any other business, but that people by and large are willing to spend everything they have to live just a little bit longer. I'd like to say that the ones who won't do that are the most sane among us us, but I suspect that many of them feel no reason to go on which is perhaps more tragic.
I don't like Windows either, but I hardly consider it ransomware. Just install Ubuntu which is free.
Seems like the kind of thing that becomes self-fulfilling since you can just point to any dissent about the article itself or the message as signs of increased troll/shill activity.
So therefore we can logically conclude that you and whoever moderated you up are Russian trolls. Normally we might not assume that, but there's a 2000% increase in activity and you're now proof of it.
It still matters not one bit. Unless the main cause of death becomes accidents with near complete and instant fatality, eventually a person gets sick and needs expensive medical care. Instead of big pharma selling you meds for Alzheimers, they sell you meds for something else.
It hardly matters. Old people will eventually spend all of that money on some other medical condition. Unless you have a cure for old age in general, people will still have to face that after decades, their bodies are getting worn down. That means spending more and more money to keep it afloat or just accepting death.
Despite that, they may have some advantages as a carefully controlled environment can ensure that the crops can be grown more easily or without as much need for herbicides or pesticides as the summary points out. You can also get a more consistent supply as indoor crops can be grown irrespective of season so there's always a relatively fixed supply instead of periods where an abundance leads to incredibly low prices and some waste and other times where shortages lead to high prices that some can't afford and many are unwilling to pay.
Personally, I think this is a great idea and will go a long way towards solving a lot of the health ills in the U.S. that are in some ways a result of food deserts in big cities where it's simply not possible for people to get fresh foods.
It wouldn't be that difficult and there are plenty of other states where large numbers of people work across state lines such as in New York City or Kansas City.
I'll give you that. I've stayed away from all of these since I have no interest in an always on, always listening digital assistant (or whatever they're called) due to the potential privacy concerns. I don't think Apple will do it as they're not going to charge less for a dumb speaker that doesn't cost them less to manufacture because I suspect that most people would buy that version instead of the premium version with Siri.
Apple's other problem is that unless you're already part of their ecosystem, this speaker probably isn't that useful. I guess you could just put your music in iTunes and use it to stream stuff, but there are plenty of much cheaper boxes that can be used to stream a music library through an actual stereo system.
My understanding was that the "smart" capabilities of this thing were extremely lacking and that the main reason to get one is that the sound quality was decent for what it is. It sounds like the hardware is fine (albeit pricey, but it's Apple so what else did you expect) but that the Siri functionality is what's lacking.
A third party replacement screen could still be counterfeit if it tries to pass itself off as an officially branded product. I don't believe that to be the case here, but it's certainly possible.
Maybe there were a few readers here who didn't already know a good source for pirated music, movies, etc.
Assuming it weren't, it wouldn't be too much more difficult to take a video of the entire process of opening the email. Even better if as you take that video it is uploaded some some cloud service that time stamps everything as well. At some point you've got evidence that is every bit as good as the email itself and if you won't accept that, then what good would the actual email do as evidence?
Judge's typically don't like it when companies try to buck court orders in this way. I think a big "no results" would be just as telling. I suspect that defendant would be back in court complaining that no one can find him were that the case.
I can understand the intent that the court would like to have, but search engines are still completely idiotic. Does this person just get completed erased from the internet so that you can't even find their Linkdin page or something like that? I don't know if there's enough fine grained control to forget about only this person's crime instead of the person entirely or rather anyone bearing that person's name without a great deal of manual effort. Even that doesn't work as there's nothing to stop someone from creating a website that details the sordid past of anyone who requests to be forgotten. Perhaps that site's pages don't show up in a Google search if everything is done correctly (good luck with that) but it doesn't stop anyone from going to that site.
Even the eventual leaking or inadvertent release of the list of things that Google must forget about is going to draw more eyes to it than would otherwise be cast on that information. The best way to make sure everyone wants to know something or talk about it is to forbid doing just that. Perhaps it could work in Soviet Russia where there was at least a long history of repression and dire consequences for such an act, but it can't hope to succeed in the Western democracies of today or even a world where an unfiltered internet exists.
I can't say for sure what will happen with the gig economy, but I'm not convinced its a fad. People forget that the increases in productivity that we continue to see don't just mean a loss of jobs, but also a decrease in the cost of goods. I think what will really make the gig economy viable is when it becomes possible to cover living expenses when working 20 - 30 hours per week at your gig. Not because the gig is particularly well paying, but because it doesn't cost much to get by. I think that if a person were particularly frugal that may already be a possibility.
Some currently existing careers are going to go away (as they have throughout history) and not everyone is capable of retraining as a surgeon, engineer, or some other form of highly skilled labor that guarantees a career. I suspect that the jobs in a gig economy will change as well or that it may be the type of situation where you might have five different gigs at only four to six hours apiece.
Once again though, it doesn't ultimately matter. If Uber can drag this case out long enough who cares what restrictions the government tries to make regarding employees and contractors because in 10 years I wouldn't be surprised if Uber were running mostly or all self-driving cars.
It doesn't matter if Uber ultimately loses. They'll just make the minimum necessary changes so that they no longer have any employees. It's similar to how after the ACA was passed, some people suddenly found themselves working 29 hours per week because their employers didn't want full time employees and the additional requirements that entailed.
If you want to ensure that gig economy workers have the best wages and conditions, make sure that there are a large number of gig economy service providers competing with each other.
In this case TFS seems to define provably random as that which cannot be predicted in advance given sufficient knowledge of how the number is generated and some initial conditions. Supposedly they have proven that this is the case, though I have not verified the correctness of their proof. However, this is really no different than other mathematical proofs. Either the proof is correct or it is not, but a lack of understanding of the proof does not change its correctness.
The moral of the story is that when the AI self-driving system starts giving your warning messages about its inability to cope with the current road conditions that you should pay attention to it.
Tesla should know better though. People are fucking idiots and the vehicle should not assume they'll act responsibly. If the AI system doesn't think it can manage things anymore and the user is not responding to input, it should throw the hazard lights on and make an emergency stop. Systems like this should always be able to fail gracefully. If this is a repeated problem, the system should disable the auto-pilot feature and refuse to let the driver use it. If they want it turned back on, they can write to Tesla and explain why they think that they should be allowed to be a colossal moron with a quarter million joules of kinetic energy.
I doubt that he wanted to crash. However, I suspect he wanted to text someone or check something on his phone (it'll only take like 10 seconds after all) more than he wanted to not crash (apparently his ability to estimate the likelihood of this outcome was about as terrible as most people) though.
I'm kind of glad it got left out. There's far too much effort to drag politics into stories when there's plenty to discuss about the hacking itself. Also, I'd argue that by focusing on the perpetrators and their message, you only provide a lot more encouragement for others to do the same to get their message out there. It's the same reason that news stations are discouraged from showing and endlessly discussing the perpetrator in mass shootings or terror attacks because it is believe to encourage others to do it.
Who cares if the assholes that did it are Palestinian assholes, white nationalist assholes, Islamist assholes, Antifa assholes, etc.? Doesn't really change the fact that they're assholes and shouldn't be given publicity for being dicks.
I could understand the story from last year (or whenever it was) about Apple updating their devices to reject third party repairs to the home button / finger scanner as that could have presented some obvious security risk. However, I'm having a hard time seeing the same here. I suppose one could make a case for this third party chip being able to scrape the screen in some nefarious manner, but that just seems a bit tinfoil hat.
It's worse than another password. Most sites are at least smart enough to store a hash and some will go a little further and salt it to make extracting the real value more difficult. However, security questions are more likely to be stored in plain text (especially if you can give them over the phone to a CSR) and a lot of sites are going to allow you to reset a password with security questions.
Under no circumstances should you ever use a correct answer for a security question and the answer you have should never be reused. Many sties have a predefined list of security questions and there's a lot of overlap between those lists. An attacker that gets one set of security questions can probably reuse them on other sites beyond the one they attacked.
I would imagine that most of what they're using these days is some kind of genetic neural network that uses user attachment or engagement as its fitness criteria. At this point, no one really has a clue why it does what it does outside of making broad interpretations based on the outcomes well after the fact.
A better question would be why the fuck he's seeing ads at all. Even by 13 a person ought to know better and install ad block.