A non-neutral internet is just like a curved-screen television: it's an invention whose only purpose is to generate money for the creator without providing any actual service or improvement, while providing noticeable cases where it detracts from the original experience.
I don't know what kind of software you develop, but we have on-site development only for security concerns. Not only that, but certain developer offices are physically locked to prevent unauthorized access. Then there is the issue of people farming their jobs out to third world countries -- if you are being paid 6 figures to develop software, your employer certainly doesn't want you to pay 20k/year to some Indian or Chinese company for them to have cheap labor do your job and steal your work. There are some very good reasons for on-site-only software dev.
I wonder if it's politicians with WMDs or just simple A.I. with intelligence far greater than its creators that wipes would-be advanced civilizations out before they can colonize the universe . . .
Lidar was doomed from the start. If a car is going to be autonomous, it must function when drivers aren't paying attention to conditions. Otherwise, what's the point? Other systems will have to be good enough to work in fog. And if you have systems that can work even in poor conditions, then lidar is uselessly redundant.
If you install the facebook app on a phone, then it gets all your contact information. Same for linkedin or any other social networking app. You do not have to have an account with facebook. The app takes the data as part of its security permissions. So if your father or your aunt, both of whom had each other as phone contacts, ever had a facebook app on their phone, then the connection is in facebook's databases.
If obscurity is the primary method of security, meaning "if they discover how we are doing it then they can defeat it," then you have no security. You must plan for the eventuality that someone will know how you do it. So, if the FCC's new method requires that it remain obscure to remain effective, then it might as well have already been compromised. Of course, having an obscure security system that nobody knows about is helpful. Nobody would argue otherwise. But that should just be icing on the cake - a nice little perk. Think of this comparison of a time-lock safe vs. a hidden book box:
Look at a time lock safe: 1. It is known 2. The way it works is known 3. It is effective because of the security measures of the safe
This is opposed to hiding valuables in a hidden book box: 1. If it is not known, it might work 2. If it is not known, it might be discovered through thorough searches and thus fail 3. If it is known, it definitely won't work
If you hide the time lock safe, then you do add a layer of cursory security. However, it is not the location/disguise of the safe that matters. It's the function of the safe's defenses that protect the valuables.
One would be a fool to think that Apple does not also purchase bugs on the black market through intermediaries. Having an inexpensive bug bounty gives incentive to all the white hats out there to do their part to increase Apple security.
For everyone else, Apple will buy exploits in the wild paying market value. If they increased their bug bounty program to this level, it would not increase their ability to get ahead of black hats since they would have to pay over market price to lure them over, but it would make all their other submitted bugs more expensive.
I believe the intent is rather obvious: give Waymo a copy of everything you took and delete your own files. I don't think the judge's name is Hansel (he's so hot right now).
Who thought it was a good idea for any part of emissions testing to rely on a query to the entity being tested?
"I'm doing everything very efficiently, I promise!" -Everyone
The only way that this would possibly be ok would be if the emissions testing system being queried was from a 3rd party that was forced to be installed in the vehicle. But I can see problems with that, too. If you are literally testing to see if a part is breaking the law or not, why the hell would you ever ask the manufacturer if the part is breaking the law?
There are two primary techs for 3D-at-home. The first is passive glasses, like the RealD glasses at the movie theater. It is polarized. This is the tech used by many LG televisions. The second is active glasses. They are battery powered. They cost sometimes > $100 per pair. This is used by Samsung and other manufacturers.
A single viewing of a 3D movie on an active system is enough to make anyone want to never view 3d again. The glasses are heavy, uncomfortable, and the flickering causes horrible headaches above and beyond anything a person might have had from the stereoscopic effect. However, most users think their headache was from the stereoscopic vision, not the horrible shit tech shoved down their throats because a marketing executive wanted to sell $500 worth of glasses to a family of four on top of their $1500 television.
If you have a high-quality 3d film like Avatar, or anything from DreamWorks Animation, etc -- the stuff intended from the start to be 3d, watch it on an LG system that supports the polarized glasse. The glasses are the exact same polarization as the RealD glasses from the theater -- you can take them home and use them on the tv. The experience is so much better than the active glasses as to be almost incomparable. The only trade-off, and this is only something I have read in articles with samsung adverts and from people spouting what they read in said articles, is that the resolution for passive displays is noticeably lower. That is because on a passive display, half the lines of resolution are used for one eye and half for the other. However, having worked in the industry, viewed by styles of TV, and now owning a passive 3d system, I can tell you with authority that you will not be able to tell a difference in image quality and that most people will report a significantly higher picture quality from the passive system since they don't pick up on the flickering.
White hat is respectable researchers who work with entities to fix security problems. I'm thinking they have a hat that looks dark grey on the top but gradates to black at the base.
Taking down 911 is no laughing "slap on the wrist" matter. People need 911 for actual emergencies. Shutting down that system is akin to sentencing people to die in certain circumstances.
Ok, hold on a sec. You have summertime actively under investigation. The FBI hours to the court and tries to get a legal subpoena/warrant/whatever to get information from a service provider. That is how the system is supposed to work!
It's when they get the data without going through proper channels that's bad. Holy shit, you do know that allowing the FBI to actually investigate terrorism is a Good Thing, right?
Billionaires: "Charge millionaires more taxes to fix our roads so we can expand our industries without contributing to the necessary socialist infrastructure supporting them."
I hate stuff like this. I hate it because it is crooked and evil. I hate it because there is very little recourse for the average citizen to make against an attack like this.
Contact your congress reps, local and federal. Try to get them to change the law. What is happening in these stories should be illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
A non-neutral internet is just like a curved-screen television: it's an invention whose only purpose is to generate money for the creator without providing any actual service or improvement, while providing noticeable cases where it detracts from the original experience.
I don't know what kind of software you develop, but we have on-site development only for security concerns. Not only that, but certain developer offices are physically locked to prevent unauthorized access. Then there is the issue of people farming their jobs out to third world countries -- if you are being paid 6 figures to develop software, your employer certainly doesn't want you to pay 20k/year to some Indian or Chinese company for them to have cheap labor do your job and steal your work. There are some very good reasons for on-site-only software dev.
*. . . there are a lot . . .
I wonder if it's politicians with WMDs or just simple A.I. with intelligence far greater than its creators that wipes would-be advanced civilizations out before they can colonize the universe . . .
Lidar was doomed from the start. If a car is going to be autonomous, it must function when drivers aren't paying attention to conditions. Otherwise, what's the point? Other systems will have to be good enough to work in fog. And if you have systems that can work even in poor conditions, then lidar is uselessly redundant.
Honestly, $640 should be plenty for any smartphone. Let's just set that as a hard cap.
If you install the facebook app on a phone, then it gets all your contact information. Same for linkedin or any other social networking app. You do not have to have an account with facebook. The app takes the data as part of its security permissions. So if your father or your aunt, both of whom had each other as phone contacts, ever had a facebook app on their phone, then the connection is in facebook's databases.
If obscurity is the primary method of security, meaning "if they discover how we are doing it then they can defeat it," then you have no security. You must plan for the eventuality that someone will know how you do it. So, if the FCC's new method requires that it remain obscure to remain effective, then it might as well have already been compromised. Of course, having an obscure security system that nobody knows about is helpful. Nobody would argue otherwise. But that should just be icing on the cake - a nice little perk. Think of this comparison of a time-lock safe vs. a hidden book box:
Look at a time lock safe:
1. It is known
2. The way it works is known
3. It is effective because of the security measures of the safe
This is opposed to hiding valuables in a hidden book box:
1. If it is not known, it might work
2. If it is not known, it might be discovered through thorough searches and thus fail
3. If it is known, it definitely won't work
If you hide the time lock safe, then you do add a layer of cursory security. However, it is not the location/disguise of the safe that matters. It's the function of the safe's defenses that protect the valuables.
On the one hand, we have United Airlines. On the other hand we have the TSA.
Let's just assume they are both somehow lying, incompetent, or both.
What really blows my mind -- at the bottom of the page selling that cable, "We take trade-ins"
Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. I cannot have enough "ha's"
One would be a fool to think that Apple does not also purchase bugs on the black market through intermediaries. Having an inexpensive bug bounty gives incentive to all the white hats out there to do their part to increase Apple security.
For everyone else, Apple will buy exploits in the wild paying market value. If they increased their bug bounty program to this level, it would not increase their ability to get ahead of black hats since they would have to pay over market price to lure them over, but it would make all their other submitted bugs more expensive.
Those words . . . they are terrifying.
I believe the intent is rather obvious: give Waymo a copy of everything you took and delete your own files. I don't think the judge's name is Hansel (he's so hot right now).
I guess they should amend it:
Current: "No tipping of drivers"
New: "No tipping of drivers nor of the company by newly hired executives"
I feel no sympathy for that company.
Who thought it was a good idea for any part of emissions testing to rely on a query to the entity being tested?
"I'm doing everything very efficiently, I promise!"
-Everyone
The only way that this would possibly be ok would be if the emissions testing system being queried was from a 3rd party that was forced to be installed in the vehicle. But I can see problems with that, too. If you are literally testing to see if a part is breaking the law or not, why the hell would you ever ask the manufacturer if the part is breaking the law?
There are two primary techs for 3D-at-home. The first is passive glasses, like the RealD glasses at the movie theater. It is polarized. This is the tech used by many LG televisions. The second is active glasses. They are battery powered. They cost sometimes > $100 per pair. This is used by Samsung and other manufacturers.
A single viewing of a 3D movie on an active system is enough to make anyone want to never view 3d again. The glasses are heavy, uncomfortable, and the flickering causes horrible headaches above and beyond anything a person might have had from the stereoscopic effect. However, most users think their headache was from the stereoscopic vision, not the horrible shit tech shoved down their throats because a marketing executive wanted to sell $500 worth of glasses to a family of four on top of their $1500 television.
If you have a high-quality 3d film like Avatar, or anything from DreamWorks Animation, etc -- the stuff intended from the start to be 3d, watch it on an LG system that supports the polarized glasse. The glasses are the exact same polarization as the RealD glasses from the theater -- you can take them home and use them on the tv. The experience is so much better than the active glasses as to be almost incomparable. The only trade-off, and this is only something I have read in articles with samsung adverts and from people spouting what they read in said articles, is that the resolution for passive displays is noticeably lower. That is because on a passive display, half the lines of resolution are used for one eye and half for the other. However, having worked in the industry, viewed by styles of TV, and now owning a passive 3d system, I can tell you with authority that you will not be able to tell a difference in image quality and that most people will report a significantly higher picture quality from the passive system since they don't pick up on the flickering.
They actively hacked a live account.
White hat is respectable researchers who work with entities to fix security problems. I'm thinking they have a hat that looks dark grey on the top but gradates to black at the base.
Taking down 911 is no laughing "slap on the wrist" matter. People need 911 for actual emergencies. Shutting down that system is akin to sentencing people to die in certain circumstances.
summertime, suspect . . .
Damn you, autocorrect!
Ok, hold on a sec. You have summertime actively under investigation. The FBI hours to the court and tries to get a legal subpoena/warrant/whatever to get information from a service provider. That is how the system is supposed to work!
It's when they get the data without going through proper channels that's bad. Holy shit, you do know that allowing the FBI to actually investigate terrorism is a Good Thing, right?
Billionaires: "Charge millionaires more taxes to fix our roads so we can expand our industries without contributing to the necessary socialist infrastructure supporting them."
Wear seat belts!
Yup, I bet it is. They definitely need to find a way to sidestep privacy ASAP so all these damned civilians can be properly monit^H^H^H^H^H kept safe.
It's pretty obvious that this patient had been . . . wait for it . . . DECONTAINENATED!
Ouch.
I hate stuff like this. I hate it because it is crooked and evil. I hate it because there is very little recourse for the average citizen to make against an attack like this.
Contact your congress reps, local and federal. Try to get them to change the law. What is happening in these stories should be illegal.