Also, no current automated car (including Google's) works at all when the roads are covered by snow, and large numbers of people live in areas that have at least some snow during the year. Purely automated cars are not practical in most of the US and Canada until they can handle that scenario.
Most of the cars are NOT like Google's, in that it will still be necessary to drive them manually in many occasions. For instance, I'd imagine it's going to be a while before an autonomous car can effectively navigate a parking garage. Or, as you said, in very inclimate weather, or driving off-road / unmapped roads, or in other unusual situations. Car makers don't need to solve 100% of the problems before self-driving features will be incredibly useful to most people.
every application (even apps on your mobile phone) should be jailed in isolation.
Modern phone OSes already work this way. Additionally, applications downloaded from the Apple OS X store or Microsoft's Universal Apps also use a stronger permissions system and sandboxed model, as far as I understand.
I agree that docker containers are a good starting point, but keep in mind they're not the end-all, be-all of security. Remember, exploits have been found that allow applications to escape virtual machines, and we've seen plenty of other sandboxes breached, so it seems foolish to believe that no exploits will ever be found that allow malicious actors to break free of containers. Plus, don't forget that even if they haven't compromised the system, gaining all access to a container still may compromise private data.
That was my first thought too. When did we actually create "artificially intelligent" anything? That alone would make worldwide news - forget the damned camera!
Just to be clear... our current payment systems are incredibly insecure right now. That being said, I completely agree that I'm going to let others who like to jump on these new fads to be the ones to beta-test things and find out how insecure things really are over the next few years before I sign up. They can put their own finances and credit scores on the line, and I'll just wait until all the bugs and security issues are worked out.
A go to free audio codec with near universal support if you ask me.
Opus, which is used in VP9, is a substantially superior codec. It's also open source and royalty-free. Any software or device would need to add support for this new video codec anyhow, so there's no good reason to saddle yourself with an older, inferior audio codec for compatibility reasons.
I think they're being pressured by the unreasonable financial demands of the h265 patent pool. Do you recall how MS was one of the partners in the effort to develop an alternative freely usable video codec, along with a number of other big names - Google included? In light of this, Microsoft has every incentive to encourage the broad use of freely available codecs.
At the moment, VP9/WebM is available, so they'll start with this. As soon as their h265-competitive code is ready, they'll add support to that as well. MS is no longer in a position to screw around with standards.
Sometimes people forget that Linux has their own "asshole with a vision" as well. In fact, I'd say Linux actually had two. Both of those individuals had a very strong presence (along with contentious personalities) and helped to shape Linux into what it is today during it's formative years, and not only from a technological standpoint.
I think there's a reason Linux Mint gained popularity, especially now with it's Cinnamon desktop. It kept things simple and traditional on the UI side, while building on what's good about Ubuntu. As PC users, we've seen the slow evolution of a fairly standard user experience on the desktop. I think there's a reason we haven't seen much "innovation" there, in a similar way to how there's very little "innovation" in the basic controls of automobiles. I think the major issues have largely been tackled, and for the most part, the interface works quite optimally for mouse and keyboard users. There's simply no need to try to re-imagine the entire process. Boring, yes. But also productive and comfortable.
When I tried out a Windows 8 machine, I actually had a harder time transitioning to it than OS X or Linux Mint. The first time I tried it, I couldn't even figure out how to close a modern app. How ridiculous is that for someone who's used Windows for 20 years? Fortunately, with whatever other issues people may have with Windows 10, the UI is sane again.
BTW, I've been trying since yesterday to reach the Trinity Desktop site to see what it's all about, and it's been down, and apparently not for just me. That doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Well, I'm pretty sure I'll be sticking with Linux Mint.
Don't forget the removal of all gradients and everything shiny or glossy. Gotta keep those UX designers doing something, right?
Honestly, though, I barely notice any functional or speed difference. I have a Mac Mini I bought a while ago as an inexpensive dev box, which I'm using to port my game to OS X. I actually see the lack of significant changes as a *good* thing, and hope it continues. It means that Apple considers the desktop functionality and design to be stable, and has no need to radically alter the paradigm like MS tried to do with Windows 8.1, or to make a "unified" desktop for multiple devices like with Ubuntu.
Or the subtlety of TNG episode where everyone on an alien planet is genderless, but some of them lean more towards one gender or another. Or the subtlety of the entire Ferrengi race, for that matter, which was almost a literal demonization of capitalism (greedy, deceptive, ugly, backstabbing, cowardly, and sexist to boot).
Star Trek writers could have used a bit of restraint in creating these ham-handed scenarios and caricatures. I liked Star Trek in spite of its ridiculous political and social preaching, not because of it.
This sounds a bit like the theory that children are less likely to develop allergies to common foods like milk, eggs, wheat, and so on if exposed to them at a young age. I have no idea if that's factual or not, but based on how our bodies adapt and develop immunity to common pathogens, it doesn't seem like such an outrageous theory.
Technology is supposed to help people, not replace people.
Since when? Our lives have vastly improved since technology has been replacing people, typically by doing things that are repetitive, boring, and/or dangerous (all of which describe driving).
Think carefully about how silly your assertion sounds in a broader context. How'd you like to go back to planting and harvesting fields by hand. Yeah, technology replace a bunch of people there. How about digging tunnels with picks and shovels? Oops, yeah, technology replaced all that sort of backbreaking labor. What about entire offices filled with people mindlessly adding columns of numbers? Technology eliminated that sort of work, didn't it?
Computer algorithms will probably be several orders of magnitude better at driving than humans, and all that time currently spent in traffic can now be used for productivity, relaxation, or socialization. Still, you probably don't have to worry for a while. The first generation of self-driving cars will start adding these features gradually, and we'll use them as safety features or a more advanced cruise control for a while. It's going to be quite a while before humans are *completely* out of the loop when driving.
but since there was no rule against what she was doing
No, that's the problem. There were not only rules, but there were laws against what she was doing. Had you or I broken those laws, then ignored a federal order to turn over those e-mails and wiped our e-mail server instead, we'd be sitting in an iron cage right now.
Maybe we could remove all skeumorphism, transparency, bevels, borders, and gradients here in the real world as well? I propose we call this style "new metro!"
The newsletter is intended for people using its HIV and other sexual health services, and gives details of treatments and support.
This strongly implies there's some medical issue with all the recipients of this e-mail newsletter. After all, why would someone be subscribed to this who is not HIV positive or has some other affliction? And if you read the article, their full names were included in the list, as is common with e-mail. Frequent gaffe or not, this is a huge breach of privacy for those involved.
I'm curious... does anyone know if there a way to create a mailing list in Outlook (or whatever they used) such that it can ONLY be sent via BCC (at least without taking obvious steps)? If not, why in the world is that not a feature? If you're requiring an employee to manually choose the correct field (which typically isn't the default field) every time the mailer is sent out, then it's only a matter of time before they get it wrong, and the whole damned list gets sent to everyone. We see this blunder being made all the time. You'd think someone would have found a solution other than telling the operator "don't be an idiot", because *everyone* makes mistakes from time to time.
I'm starting to believe that we should simply not allow any internet connected consumer device to be sold without the ability to automatically patch it's own software / firmware, and a clear commitment from the company up front as to how long they'll continue to support it. If a company is not willing to add that capability to the device, then it's not secure enough to be sending or receiving internet data. We don't let toy cars drive on the freeway. Maybe we should think of internet-enabled devices in the same way.
Maybe devices like Google's OnHub router are the way we need to go (ignoring who it's from for a moment). The device pings the mothership and automatically updates itself as needed. There's nothing all that difficult about auto-patching firmware if the devices is already internet enabled and has flash-able firmware. It's expecting too much of normal users to know which of a thousand models of hardware they have, and to know if they need to patch it because of a critical vulnerability. I mean, it's apparently too much for many supposed professional IT departments. How can we expect that of normal consumers?
I really wish the industry would get off its ass and start taking responsibility for things like this, but it's just not happening. It's more profitable to just throw some half-assed features on there and put the "watch from anywhere on the internet" bulletpoint on the box. Unfortunately, they're going to keep this sort of nonsense up until enough people start calling for legislation and regulation. Getting the government involved is always a mixed blessing.
I don't have a DVR set up because I don't have cable (and I have no idea what a NUC is). One of the biggest draws for streaming is the incredible convenience of the experience. It seems like a PITA to have to pre-record shows to simply watch them later.
Honestly, I'm not desperate enough for their content to go through that much trouble. And I don't want to pay them for that service, which is an implicit enforcement of their business model.
The real issue is that the patent pool for h265 is getting greedy, and planning to charge a *lot* more than h264 use, and in more circumstances. All these companies have an incentive to create a next-generation codec that can be licensed for no cost, because they're either providing platforms for this content or streaming content themselves.
So, what you're seeing here is a natural market reaction to the overreach of the h265 pool, and it makes sense to combine their efforts and technologies to deliver a single superior codec that everyone can use. If they follow through with their promise of an open codec, it's definitely going to be a big win for these companies AND consumers. Moreover, as a purely pragmatic matter, it will allow more streaming for less bandwidth overall, something that's also important for many users with data caps.
Lawsuits are almost inevitable, simply because they're threatening to destroy a potentially lucrative patent pool's effectiveness. Fortunately, this is a talented group with some legal and financial muscle behind it, so I think they have a good shot at succeeding.
The actual solution is "stop spewing so much shit into the air", but that's hard to do and very expensive. Temporarily shutting down a smokestack here or there where the problem is worst isn't going to do anything substantial. This is about feel-good solutions, so the Chinese politicians can claim they're doing something, and IBM can get a contract.
I'm trying to figure out what good does it do someone to get a 72-hour forecast of how crappy the air will be? Can local residents stop breathing for a day or two until it clears up? Can they not go in to work and live in a filtered bubble at home? Uh... right. Instead, what will happen is the government will shut down nearby powerplants and limit gas-powered vehicle traffic, so those poor residents will have crappy air AND will be inconvenienced at the same time.
Color me skeptical. I wish them well in cleaning things up, but it's going to take more than a smart computer to make that happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, no current automated car (including Google's) works at all when the roads are covered by snow, and large numbers of people live in areas that have at least some snow during the year. Purely automated cars are not practical in most of the US and Canada until they can handle that scenario.
Most of the cars are NOT like Google's, in that it will still be necessary to drive them manually in many occasions. For instance, I'd imagine it's going to be a while before an autonomous car can effectively navigate a parking garage. Or, as you said, in very inclimate weather, or driving off-road / unmapped roads, or in other unusual situations. Car makers don't need to solve 100% of the problems before self-driving features will be incredibly useful to most people.
every application (even apps on your mobile phone) should be jailed in isolation.
Modern phone OSes already work this way. Additionally, applications downloaded from the Apple OS X store or Microsoft's Universal Apps also use a stronger permissions system and sandboxed model, as far as I understand.
I agree that docker containers are a good starting point, but keep in mind they're not the end-all, be-all of security. Remember, exploits have been found that allow applications to escape virtual machines, and we've seen plenty of other sandboxes breached, so it seems foolish to believe that no exploits will ever be found that allow malicious actors to break free of containers. Plus, don't forget that even if they haven't compromised the system, gaining all access to a container still may compromise private data.
That was my first thought too. When did we actually create "artificially intelligent" anything? That alone would make worldwide news - forget the damned camera!
Just to be clear... our current payment systems are incredibly insecure right now. That being said, I completely agree that I'm going to let others who like to jump on these new fads to be the ones to beta-test things and find out how insecure things really are over the next few years before I sign up. They can put their own finances and credit scores on the line, and I'll just wait until all the bugs and security issues are worked out.
A go to free audio codec with near universal support if you ask me.
Opus, which is used in VP9, is a substantially superior codec. It's also open source and royalty-free. Any software or device would need to add support for this new video codec anyhow, so there's no good reason to saddle yourself with an older, inferior audio codec for compatibility reasons.
I think they're being pressured by the unreasonable financial demands of the h265 patent pool. Do you recall how MS was one of the partners in the effort to develop an alternative freely usable video codec, along with a number of other big names - Google included? In light of this, Microsoft has every incentive to encourage the broad use of freely available codecs.
At the moment, VP9/WebM is available, so they'll start with this. As soon as their h265-competitive code is ready, they'll add support to that as well. MS is no longer in a position to screw around with standards.
Out of carrots? Fire up Google and search for some. They might just show up at your house.
I'm going to search for "gold bullion" and see if the same principle applies.
prosumer-grade DAWs (like Reaper, Sonar, Cubase, ProTools, etc.),
If those tools are "prosumer-grade", I'm curious what DAWs you'd identify as "professional-grade"?
Sometimes people forget that Linux has their own "asshole with a vision" as well. In fact, I'd say Linux actually had two. Both of those individuals had a very strong presence (along with contentious personalities) and helped to shape Linux into what it is today during it's formative years, and not only from a technological standpoint.
“I think I'm running to get people to acknowledge the elephant in the room,” he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos.
Was Trump in the room with him? And does he really need more attention than he's getting now?
I think there's a reason Linux Mint gained popularity, especially now with it's Cinnamon desktop. It kept things simple and traditional on the UI side, while building on what's good about Ubuntu. As PC users, we've seen the slow evolution of a fairly standard user experience on the desktop. I think there's a reason we haven't seen much "innovation" there, in a similar way to how there's very little "innovation" in the basic controls of automobiles. I think the major issues have largely been tackled, and for the most part, the interface works quite optimally for mouse and keyboard users. There's simply no need to try to re-imagine the entire process. Boring, yes. But also productive and comfortable.
When I tried out a Windows 8 machine, I actually had a harder time transitioning to it than OS X or Linux Mint. The first time I tried it, I couldn't even figure out how to close a modern app. How ridiculous is that for someone who's used Windows for 20 years? Fortunately, with whatever other issues people may have with Windows 10, the UI is sane again.
BTW, I've been trying since yesterday to reach the Trinity Desktop site to see what it's all about, and it's been down, and apparently not for just me. That doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Well, I'm pretty sure I'll be sticking with Linux Mint.
Don't forget the removal of all gradients and everything shiny or glossy. Gotta keep those UX designers doing something, right?
Honestly, though, I barely notice any functional or speed difference. I have a Mac Mini I bought a while ago as an inexpensive dev box, which I'm using to port my game to OS X. I actually see the lack of significant changes as a *good* thing, and hope it continues. It means that Apple considers the desktop functionality and design to be stable, and has no need to radically alter the paradigm like MS tried to do with Windows 8.1, or to make a "unified" desktop for multiple devices like with Ubuntu.
Or the subtlety of TNG episode where everyone on an alien planet is genderless, but some of them lean more towards one gender or another. Or the subtlety of the entire Ferrengi race, for that matter, which was almost a literal demonization of capitalism (greedy, deceptive, ugly, backstabbing, cowardly, and sexist to boot).
Star Trek writers could have used a bit of restraint in creating these ham-handed scenarios and caricatures. I liked Star Trek in spite of its ridiculous political and social preaching, not because of it.
This sounds a bit like the theory that children are less likely to develop allergies to common foods like milk, eggs, wheat, and so on if exposed to them at a young age. I have no idea if that's factual or not, but based on how our bodies adapt and develop immunity to common pathogens, it doesn't seem like such an outrageous theory.
According to the State Department, the former head of the State Department violated neither policies nor laws.
Well, case closed then!
Technology is supposed to help people, not replace people.
Since when? Our lives have vastly improved since technology has been replacing people, typically by doing things that are repetitive, boring, and/or dangerous (all of which describe driving).
Think carefully about how silly your assertion sounds in a broader context. How'd you like to go back to planting and harvesting fields by hand. Yeah, technology replace a bunch of people there. How about digging tunnels with picks and shovels? Oops, yeah, technology replaced all that sort of backbreaking labor. What about entire offices filled with people mindlessly adding columns of numbers? Technology eliminated that sort of work, didn't it?
Computer algorithms will probably be several orders of magnitude better at driving than humans, and all that time currently spent in traffic can now be used for productivity, relaxation, or socialization. Still, you probably don't have to worry for a while. The first generation of self-driving cars will start adding these features gradually, and we'll use them as safety features or a more advanced cruise control for a while. It's going to be quite a while before humans are *completely* out of the loop when driving.
but since there was no rule against what she was doing
No, that's the problem. There were not only rules, but there were laws against what she was doing. Had you or I broken those laws, then ignored a federal order to turn over those e-mails and wiped our e-mail server instead, we'd be sitting in an iron cage right now.
Maybe we could remove all skeumorphism, transparency, bevels, borders, and gradients here in the real world as well? I propose we call this style "new metro!"
The newsletter is intended for people using its HIV and other sexual health services, and gives details of treatments and support.
This strongly implies there's some medical issue with all the recipients of this e-mail newsletter. After all, why would someone be subscribed to this who is not HIV positive or has some other affliction? And if you read the article, their full names were included in the list, as is common with e-mail. Frequent gaffe or not, this is a huge breach of privacy for those involved.
I'm curious... does anyone know if there a way to create a mailing list in Outlook (or whatever they used) such that it can ONLY be sent via BCC (at least without taking obvious steps)? If not, why in the world is that not a feature? If you're requiring an employee to manually choose the correct field (which typically isn't the default field) every time the mailer is sent out, then it's only a matter of time before they get it wrong, and the whole damned list gets sent to everyone. We see this blunder being made all the time. You'd think someone would have found a solution other than telling the operator "don't be an idiot", because *everyone* makes mistakes from time to time.
I'm starting to believe that we should simply not allow any internet connected consumer device to be sold without the ability to automatically patch it's own software / firmware, and a clear commitment from the company up front as to how long they'll continue to support it. If a company is not willing to add that capability to the device, then it's not secure enough to be sending or receiving internet data. We don't let toy cars drive on the freeway. Maybe we should think of internet-enabled devices in the same way.
Maybe devices like Google's OnHub router are the way we need to go (ignoring who it's from for a moment). The device pings the mothership and automatically updates itself as needed. There's nothing all that difficult about auto-patching firmware if the devices is already internet enabled and has flash-able firmware. It's expecting too much of normal users to know which of a thousand models of hardware they have, and to know if they need to patch it because of a critical vulnerability. I mean, it's apparently too much for many supposed professional IT departments. How can we expect that of normal consumers?
I really wish the industry would get off its ass and start taking responsibility for things like this, but it's just not happening. It's more profitable to just throw some half-assed features on there and put the "watch from anywhere on the internet" bulletpoint on the box. Unfortunately, they're going to keep this sort of nonsense up until enough people start calling for legislation and regulation. Getting the government involved is always a mixed blessing.
I don't have a DVR set up because I don't have cable (and I have no idea what a NUC is). One of the biggest draws for streaming is the incredible convenience of the experience. It seems like a PITA to have to pre-record shows to simply watch them later.
Honestly, I'm not desperate enough for their content to go through that much trouble. And I don't want to pay them for that service, which is an implicit enforcement of their business model.
The real issue is that the patent pool for h265 is getting greedy, and planning to charge a *lot* more than h264 use, and in more circumstances. All these companies have an incentive to create a next-generation codec that can be licensed for no cost, because they're either providing platforms for this content or streaming content themselves.
So, what you're seeing here is a natural market reaction to the overreach of the h265 pool, and it makes sense to combine their efforts and technologies to deliver a single superior codec that everyone can use. If they follow through with their promise of an open codec, it's definitely going to be a big win for these companies AND consumers. Moreover, as a purely pragmatic matter, it will allow more streaming for less bandwidth overall, something that's also important for many users with data caps.
Lawsuits are almost inevitable, simply because they're threatening to destroy a potentially lucrative patent pool's effectiveness. Fortunately, this is a talented group with some legal and financial muscle behind it, so I think they have a good shot at succeeding.
Ah... well, that explains a lot.
In fairness, I'd imagine it's probably not Hulu but the content providers that dictate that policy.
The actual solution is "stop spewing so much shit into the air", but that's hard to do and very expensive. Temporarily shutting down a smokestack here or there where the problem is worst isn't going to do anything substantial. This is about feel-good solutions, so the Chinese politicians can claim they're doing something, and IBM can get a contract.
I'm trying to figure out what good does it do someone to get a 72-hour forecast of how crappy the air will be? Can local residents stop breathing for a day or two until it clears up? Can they not go in to work and live in a filtered bubble at home? Uh... right. Instead, what will happen is the government will shut down nearby powerplants and limit gas-powered vehicle traffic, so those poor residents will have crappy air AND will be inconvenienced at the same time.
Color me skeptical. I wish them well in cleaning things up, but it's going to take more than a smart computer to make that happen.