The problem with what they are doing is that it makes documentation and support a huge mess.
The more customizable and adaptable the UI becomes the less you are able to walk someone through any series of steps; or describe how to get something done. OR even show them via youtube... because what they see on their screen doesn't line up with the instructions / demo you are giving them.
I don't object to it in principle, I like giving the user control over their UI... but it comes with a real cost. Especially for new users.
Anyone who has ever googled for how to set up your signature in Microsoft Outlook has run into the issue... where you'll find a tutorial for 2010 that doesn't work with 2013, and 2016 is different again. The actual basic steps are the same... but the navigation and dialog boxes are all a bit different from version to version. So you need to find a tutorial for your version if you are new, and can't puzzle out the equivalent path in hte new version. That's why 'change is bad'.
Doing 5 different UIs in one version... just amplifies that hassle. Now you have to find the tutorial for the version you are running with the interface you are using... otherwise you can't follow along.
Is it a 'bad thing' ? Hard to say. It's certainly... disruptive, but disruptive isn't necessarily bad.
However what makes it a mistake is that I have absolutely ZERO faith that Trump did it on purpose, or was even dimly aware of the hornets nest he stepped on when he did it.
In Chess sometimes its a brilliant move to sacrifice your queen; but when its done without even fully aware of what you are doing, by a neophyte who barely knows chess... it still might be a brilliant move... but it probably wasn't, and is more likely to be a disaster.
Trump doesn't even know the rules of the game yet. Let's not pretend he's a master statesman. He's not even a particularly great businessman.
Most people who want 2 numbers want them so they can use plans from different carriers so they spend less total money.
Yes. But they don't need dual sim phones for that either. And really dual sim phones is a more expensive solution. IF they want to save money they'll fuck around with forwarding. I've been there and done that. Get a local sim. Forward your home number to it. local calls work. Inbound calls from home just work. Caller ID to 'home' is screwed up. But it is the cheapest solution.
I've finally figured out what's going on here. you see, when you talk to and hang out with the locals, they don't want to call a different country to talk to you.
Get a local sim. Forward your home number to it. You need 2 sim cards, but you don't need a dual sim phone.
People who travel have friends in different countries or hang out with people they meet in other countries, swap phone numbers, call each other up to see a movie, go clubbing, fuck each other in the ass.
But only in 2 places? No need for a triple sim or quadruple sim? All your little fuck-buddies live in one of two places? Neat. Again I can see the need for someone to have multiple SIMs -- it just makes sense to get a local number if you are spending significant time somewhere, but you'd only need the local one in the phone at any given time.
The people who actually need *dual* sims in two different regions are NOT trying to save money. They are happy to pay a premium by way of roaming charges just so caller id just works, just to avoid having to fuck around with forwarding as they move around.
Dual sim might make a bit more sense for SMS... but that's why pretty much everyone in situations like that use apps instead.
ah yes, an american guy who's never been out of his little box.
Swing and a miss. I'm not american.
or having living in a country that has regional phone plans on different carriers in different parts. like, well like most countries. maybe you'll be able to think of a use for 2 sim cards
No, I get it. And if you read the entire thread including my followups you'd have seen that. Dual sim is for people who need service from more than one carrier at a time. And that is a real niche. But ~most~ people who want 2 numbers on one handset just want to separate personal / business calls better without carrying two phones, without running clunky voip apps for 1/2 their calls.
And as far as it goes dual sim for travel with one sim for each 'place' is still a PITA... it's still obnoxious; your outgoing calls are still messed up, you're still playing goofy games with forwarding as you move around, etc.
My current carrier has reached the point with its roaming options that its not worth the hassle of dealing with a 'local sim' for nearly all my travel.
there are still places in the world where where it would be, but those are getting fewer by the year.
No, I can't do that with a single sim phone. That's the only feature single sim phones are missing. And dual sim is overkill to solve that. I should just be able to get two numbers assigned by my carrier on one rate plan -- and then make or receive calls from either.
Don't need 2 sims, 2 rate plans... that's overkill for me.
Except I still need a plan with my carrier of choice. I can't get local numbers from GV in Canada... etc, etc, etc... so sure... I've invented google voice... but made I've made it a non-voip service from actual carriers.
"I don't know *any* cell phone that does that natively,"
None do.
"That just screams abuse potential to me."
What exactly is the potential for abuse? You can already TRIVIALLY have a 2nd (voip) number call forwarded to your primary, so in bound aliasing is already 'solved'.
The only bit is missing is that you can't place an outbound call using that 2nd number from the phone. Except... well you can can trivially use an app to make calls from your phone via the 2nd number... its just really clunky to have to use two separate dialers for outbound calls; and one of those dialers is data only.
So all im asking is to use the same primary phone dialer app for both numbers. Hardly 'abuse'. And 'spoofing' would be easily resolved by having the carrier do the aliasing... so it wouldn't be able to dial from an alias number you didn't have registered with the carrier as yours.
The one feature I *want* is to be able to define the outbound caller id, so I can make work related calls from the phone, and have my office number show. I can fire up the voip app and make the call through that, but its clutzy. There should be a simple way, *without* having 2 separate cell phone plans, to let you register legit alias numbers* and select them on outgoing calls.
* verfied by the phone company as 'belonging' to you/your organization. ('spoofing with bullshit go-nowhere numbers must die'.)
Dual sims is overkill... and a lousy not to mention expensive solution to the problem... the last thing I want is to deal with 2 rate plans, separate minute buckets, separate data buckets,... SMS issues, etc etc. Just give us the ability to assign alias numbers on a single rate plan and let us send and receive calls / SMS with callerid set to either the primary or alias numbers.
Most people who just want two separate numbers (e.g. to separate work and personal better) would be well served by having this sort of 'alias' feature on a single rate plane.
The only problem dual sims really solves is if you need simultaneous service from two completely separate carriers. That is a much more niche requirement.
"It would also eliminate the need for a third-party broker, which typically charges a commission of about 15% for doing the middleman work."
It's not eliminating anything. Amazon is simply entering the market as new competitor. They want to be that '3rd party broker'. And what commission do you think they'll take for doing the middleman work? Probably around 15%, maybe a bit less while they grab marketshare.
But there's just no first hand sourced proof that this is at all true. And by god I WANT to know if there is proof.
Think about it. There is an objective truth out there, but you'll never know what it is. There is no such thing as proof.
Suppose we had a voice recording of Putin saying "Hack the DNC and release the emails to wikileaks". If we had that no way they'd let you know because then Putin would know... that we had his calls at least around such and such a day at such and such a time in such and such a place... that could put agents at risk, that could put other assets/access at risk, or expose capabilities etc etc. They'd never give you that. Even if it existed. They'd never even admit they had it.
(And even if we had that, and gave it to you, you'd poke all kinds of holes in it... "how do we know this wasn't put together by Adobe?" How do we know this is a recording of Putin? so even if they did give it to you, it would resolve nothing.)
And we probably don't have that. So what we do have is more likely a lot more contextual and circumstantial and would only be really convincing to an intelligence specialist who had made a career out of studying Russia and Putin. So releasing that would have all the same draw backs as the previous scenario... and would still utterly fail to convince you or me. We'd poke all kinds of holes in stuff like server logs which can easily be faked and tampered with and besides such logs and records don't 'prove' anything about people. So a computer in Moscow touch this... that doesn't prove Putin was on the keyboard, or even in the room, or even being appraised... etc, etc, etc. So why release that evidence... it would just compromise intelligence operations, and we'd all be smugly skeptical about how it wasn't really "proof" anyway.
So even in a perfect world: No proof for you.
But its not a perfect world... its a shitty one. Our government has no credibility with us, is known to lie all the time, and there is political advantages and angles to connecting this to Putin. That doesn't mean he wasn't involved... but it means if your even reasonably rational you do have to consider that this political posturing, political theatre, and is all being done to score points for someone's next election run, or in some UN debate somewhere...so any proof we were given could be plausibly 'manufacturered' for us.
In fact if they gave us 'proof' it would be immediately suspicious. If they had proof I'd expect it to be classified and sensitive.
No proof for you. We live in Orwell's 1984. How do you choose what to believe?
No. I don't. The 'average user' is hosed either way. Either he gets the updates forced on him and is hosed when they go bad, or he doesn't and he's turned into a puddle of malware. There is no winning move.
Linux or BSD isn't any better... "average users" are boned there too if something goes sideways*. As are OSX users.
* of course with *nix most users aren't average users. But if we put 'averages users' there we end up the same.
People steal from UPS trucks all the time if the driver is not attending the packages. (leaves the truck open and walks away). Not just UPS... but anything really.
The drone, by virtue of not having a driver is always 'unattended'.
I can can see drones getting downed by birds. (I recall we had swallows nesting in a tree near our front door one year... they'd dive bomb anyone who came by...) I wouldn't be surprised to see them downed by theives running their own drones and taking them out midair, and then packages stolen. Fun and profit.
And when they malfunction, how will they avoid crashing into things and damaging property or injuring people? Even a 5 pound device falling from 15 feet and crashing into a person or a car is pretty serious. Not to mention after a crash, the goods will probably be stolen... possibly the drone itself too.
The hard part is not getting the update that's easy.
The hard part is finding out that its a known issue with the last update; and that you need to get a new update... since you are offline and can't search to find out. (assuming this computer was your only internet access)
But really, if my computer did an update, and then couldn't connect to the network, step one is to roll back the update. Windows can still do that... unlike, say Apple OSes.
That's not to say I am onboard with Microsoft's forced udpates program. It seriously pisses me off. Apple gets points for not forcing them.
I had to ask them multiple times to just give me the base settings for the damn router (they can query from their end) so I would know what scope to configure a static IP for this person's PC in.
The daughters tablet was working... why wouldn't you just have grabbed the info from that?
On the other hand, my brother in law hit the same issue on a couple of his PCs... he just did a system restore to before the update. And he was up and running.
People here seem perpetually determined to do things the hard way.:)
Its from a workshop at the Vision by Design expo in 2016.
Almost definitely a surface pro in the lower right; and I think I can make out another one too. but not sure -- the aspect ratio looks right and i think i can make out the foldout stand. -shrug- its a random photo... not a product placement shot.
Each year I see a few more; they're being used in the booths... because they are 'tablets' that run the applications for the demo diagnostic equipment; so they make great demo systems -- you don't have to balance a laptop, or hunch over a table.
As for the size of the companies; who do you think is running booths at an event like that? Zeiss, Canon, Topcon, subsidiaries of Novartis (Alcon); subsidiaries of Valeant (Bausch & Lomb); etc... and yeah, I've seen some of their people carrying around surfaces.
Yeah. At risk of sounding like a shill here, but actually both of my biggest clients have several, and both are happy with them and adding more all the time. They both have software that needs windows so mac's aren't an option. At one the outbound sales reps are loving them; the company hasn't rolled out windows 10 yet, but allows for BYOD so more and more of outbound reps are buying their own; as well as a couple of the upper management have surfacebooks (they're 'exempt' from the regular roll out rules and can have what they want.)
At the other, likewise, the surfaces are making their way into the hands of the outside sales people and marketing people who use them at trade shows.
I *personally* don't have one. and I don't have much interest in the surface, but the surface book, honestly looks like a pretty good machine.... I'm writing this on a 1 year old Macbook Pro, and I have no interest in the new one. I don't need a new laptop yet, but if i did... I'd give the surfacebook a hard look. And perhaps when I need a new laptop in a couple years that generation of the surface book may be what i go with. I more or less assume Apple will probably still be selling the MBP they just released so i'm not holding a lot of hope there.:(
As soon as person A releases the work to the public domain they no longer own copyright on it. They have standing to sue when B tries to license it back to them or restrict there own use of it.
But they can't sue B for the 'general misuse of that public domain image' in terms of their attempts to license it to others.
Now personally, I see a wedge of reason for there to be a cause of action there,
I've been mulling that over too since posting. By releasing it into the public domain, one interpretation is that their are no copyright holders; but another is that the 'public' is the copyright holder and the copyrights have been transferred to "the public". And by that interpretation any member of the public could sue over misuse... but also by that interpretation Getty images is also a legitimate copyright holder attempting to sell licensing. (admittedly they are attempting to sell licensing to people who are already themselves copyrigth owners... but im not sure that is illegal.
For example... Michael Jackson owned the Beatles catalog at one time, but there was nothing illegal or even shady about the prospect of say a record store wanting to sell him a Beatles CD and effectively get him to pay for a licensed copy of music he already owned the copyright on.
On the other hand, the whole thing smacks of abuse here with getty images... and if its not illegal it certainly should be. But the courts function is to adjudicate the law, not make it. So as is often the case, it falls to a dysfunctional congress to fix it.
Pretty sure the legal system just said it is okay to send out extortion letters for public domain images.
In precisely the same way that if you camp on my cousins front yard and I sue you for the tort of tresspass; the courts will dismiss the case because I don't have standing.
The courts aren't saying you can can camp on my cousins front yard. they are just saying *I* can't sue them for it. My cousin, on the other hand...
Or perhaps if it rises to the level of criminal trespass the police and state can prosecute directly.
But in any case, *I* can't bring a lawsuit over it.
In this particular case, I'd suggest that any one extorted by getty should be suing them. And further, that in this case it should rise to the level of criminal copyright infringment and that it would be in the publics best interest for the state to prosecute the case on behalf of the public.
It's not Trump and his followers that people need to worry about, it's the disgruntled liberals and their extreme anger and intolerance which is a path to dictatorship.
If a "disgruntled populace and extreme anger and intolerance" is a path to dictatorship. Then "Trump and his followers" represent that demographic to a tee.
I'm not saying that there isn't plenty of harmful extremism on the left too. Because we both know there is. But to pretend "Trump and his supporters" aren't disgruntled, aren't extremely angry, and aren't intolerant undermines any credibility you might have.
Clinton
This debate really has NOTHING to do with Clinton. Why even bring her up? We should be evaluating Trump on his own merit, his own words, and his own actions now.
But fine... if you want to talk about clinton... let's do that...
would have never had the guts to pull the plug on this
A treaty needs 2/3rds of the Senate before it can be ratified. If the TPP ever became law, blame the Senate. Slightly over half of it is republican. If 2/3rds of senate approve the TPP, the problem is not Hillary.
she would have happily sold the country to foreign interests
The US, as in most treaties it signs, would be the primary benefactor of the TPP. Not regular US citizens perhaps, but US "interests" nonetheless. Sold the country to domestic corporate interests. Sold the country to the domestic 1% interests would be more accurate if you want to be critical of what she would have done.
On the other hand Trump is the 1% of the 1%. And he doesn't have the shame or ethics to even comprehend a need to separate his business interests from his presidency. He said what he said to get elected. He might be well be willing to turf the TPP (to thunderous applause); but only because he thinks he can get himself a better deal.
just like she changed her stance on bankruptcy to please her Wall Street backers.
Indeed. Hillary was 'bought and paid for' by the so called elite 1%. Trump on the other hand IS the elite 1%. He's not beholden to corporate backers to serve their business interests...so he's free to do his own thing. But the only thing Trump has ever done is "serve himself". You might as well have elected "Goldman Sachs" as president; that's not beholden to corporate interests either... at least not to OTHER corporate interests.
But, to play devils advocate, when exactly in Germany did it go from being "severely disturbed" to talk about Hitler creating a dictatorship... to it being a defacto reality?
Also, bear in mind, that once it is done, it's way too late to start warning people about it.
I personally, don't see Trump creating a dictator ship...... but he's seems on the road to make a series of catastrophically ignorant decisions coupled with almost no shame or ethics with respect to maintaining any separation between his presidency and his business interests.
That would be nice if translating sentences was the same as looking up words in a dictionary. It's not.
I literally acknowledged that in my post.
Languages have a fuzzy haze of concepts and ways to parse them.
Yeah, I called that "(to effectively build a weighted mapping of language equivalences)"
weighting implies fuzzy and i deliberately said language equivalencies instead of word equivalencies because yes -- word groups, structures, even contexts etc have meaning beyond the individual words etc. chat = cat = gato is trivial but it's still illustrative of what is going on here.
There is no 'secret' language, or even deeper understanding. The notion that they aren't using english as a bridge language just means that they aren't translating Japanese-to-English-to-Korean.
But for example... if I train you that cat = gato in italian, and that cat = chat in french. And then ask you to spit out the french if give you the "gato" that's not exactly magic. It looks up 'gato' in italian and sees a reference to "chat". And it can do this without explicitly looking up the english "cat" and then feeding "cat" back in to look up the french.
English is still the bridge language that was used to train it.
Now this neural network is a lot more complex because lanaguage is a lot more complex than simple word substitutions but the neural network is still basically encoding that chat (french) = cat (english); and cat (english) = gato (italian) and the way this information is mapped into the neural network -- that it can now retrieve equivalencies between french and italian without being EXPLICITLY trained on them.
Its neat... but whoo... the neural network structure inherently models the transitive property of equivalence. That's kind of the whole point of the thing (to effectively build a weighted mapping of language equivalences) so it would almost be more surprising if it couldn't do some reasonable transalations between languages it wasn't explicitly trained on -- because english is the bridge between them in how the knowledge was built even if they aren't explicitly using english now.
I mean... train it on english to french, and train it on japanese to korean, and see if it can go from korean to english. It won't. Because it won't have ANYTHING to bridging those two sets of knowledge.
I'm not even sure why you would want to. Run a dumb HDMI cable into it from something that is competent, turn off any lag inducing image processing, and then other than on and off...I pretty much forget it even has any other capabilities.
I'm buying a TV for the screen. That's it. I don't care what else it does, and I certainly don't expect some piece of shit embedded apps to be worth anything new out of the box, let alone 5-10-15 years later.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with what they are doing is that it makes documentation and support a huge mess.
The more customizable and adaptable the UI becomes the less you are able to walk someone through any series of steps; or describe how to get something done. OR even show them via youtube... because what they see on their screen doesn't line up with the instructions / demo you are giving them.
I don't object to it in principle, I like giving the user control over their UI... but it comes with a real cost. Especially for new users.
Anyone who has ever googled for how to set up your signature in Microsoft Outlook has run into the issue... where you'll find a tutorial for 2010 that doesn't work with 2013, and 2016 is different again. The actual basic steps are the same... but the navigation and dialog boxes are all a bit different from version to version. So you need to find a tutorial for your version if you are new, and can't puzzle out the equivalent path in hte new version. That's why 'change is bad'.
Doing 5 different UIs in one version... just amplifies that hassle. Now you have to find the tutorial for the version you are running with the interface you are using... otherwise you can't follow along.
Is it a 'bad thing' ? Hard to say. It's certainly... disruptive, but disruptive isn't necessarily bad.
However what makes it a mistake is that I have absolutely ZERO faith that Trump did it on purpose, or was even dimly aware of the hornets nest he stepped on when he did it.
In Chess sometimes its a brilliant move to sacrifice your queen; but when its done without even fully aware of what you are doing, by a neophyte who barely knows chess... it still might be a brilliant move... but it probably wasn't, and is more likely to be a disaster.
Trump doesn't even know the rules of the game yet. Let's not pretend he's a master statesman. He's not even a particularly great businessman.
Most people who want 2 numbers want them so they can use plans from different carriers so they spend less total money.
Yes. But they don't need dual sim phones for that either. And really dual sim phones is a more expensive solution. IF they want to save money they'll fuck around with forwarding. I've been there and done that. Get a local sim. Forward your home number to it. local calls work. Inbound calls from home just work. Caller ID to 'home' is screwed up. But it is the cheapest solution.
I've finally figured out what's going on here. you see, when you talk to and hang out with the locals, they don't want to call a different country to talk to you.
Get a local sim. Forward your home number to it. You need 2 sim cards, but you don't need a dual sim phone.
People who travel have friends in different countries or hang out with people they meet in other countries, swap phone numbers, call each other up to see a movie, go clubbing, fuck each other in the ass.
But only in 2 places? No need for a triple sim or quadruple sim? All your little fuck-buddies live in one of two places? Neat. Again I can see the need for someone to have multiple SIMs -- it just makes sense to get a local number if you are spending significant time somewhere, but you'd only need the local one in the phone at any given time.
The people who actually need *dual* sims in two different regions are NOT trying to save money. They are happy to pay a premium by way of roaming charges just so caller id just works, just to avoid having to fuck around with forwarding as they move around.
Dual sim might make a bit more sense for SMS... but that's why pretty much everyone in situations like that use apps instead.
faggot
You're projecting.
ah yes, an american guy who's never been out of his little box.
Swing and a miss. I'm not american.
or having living in a country that has regional phone plans on different carriers in different parts. like, well like most countries. maybe you'll be able to think of a use for 2 sim cards
No, I get it. And if you read the entire thread including my followups you'd have seen that. Dual sim is for people who need service from more than one carrier at a time. And that is a real niche. But ~most~ people who want 2 numbers on one handset just want to separate personal / business calls better without carrying two phones, without running clunky voip apps for 1/2 their calls.
And as far as it goes dual sim for travel with one sim for each 'place' is still a PITA... it's still obnoxious; your outgoing calls are still messed up, you're still playing goofy games with forwarding as you move around, etc.
My current carrier has reached the point with its roaming options that its not worth the hassle of dealing with a 'local sim' for nearly all my travel.
there are still places in the world where where it would be, but those are getting fewer by the year.
No, I can't do that with a single sim phone. That's the only feature single sim phones are missing. And dual sim is overkill to solve that. I should just be able to get two numbers assigned by my carrier on one rate plan -- and then make or receive calls from either.
Don't need 2 sims, 2 rate plans... that's overkill for me.
Except I still need a plan with my carrier of choice. I can't get local numbers from GV in Canada... etc, etc, etc... so sure... I've invented google voice... but made I've made it a non-voip service from actual carriers.
"I don't know *any* cell phone that does that natively,"
None do.
"That just screams abuse potential to me."
What exactly is the potential for abuse? You can already TRIVIALLY have a 2nd (voip) number call forwarded to your primary, so in bound aliasing is already 'solved'.
The only bit is missing is that you can't place an outbound call using that 2nd number from the phone. Except... well you can can trivially use an app to make calls from your phone via the 2nd number... its just really clunky to have to use two separate dialers for outbound calls; and one of those dialers is data only.
So all im asking is to use the same primary phone dialer app for both numbers. Hardly 'abuse'. And 'spoofing' would be easily resolved by having the carrier do the aliasing... so it wouldn't be able to dial from an alias number you didn't have registered with the carrier as yours.
The one feature I *want* is to be able to define the outbound caller id, so I can make work related calls from the phone, and have my office number show. I can fire up the voip app and make the call through that, but its clutzy. There should be a simple way, *without* having 2 separate cell phone plans, to let you register legit alias numbers* and select them on outgoing calls.
* verfied by the phone company as 'belonging' to you/your organization. ('spoofing with bullshit go-nowhere numbers must die'.)
Dual sims is overkill... and a lousy not to mention expensive solution to the problem... the last thing I want is to deal with 2 rate plans, separate minute buckets, separate data buckets, ... SMS issues, etc etc. Just give us the ability to assign alias numbers on a single rate plan and let us send and receive calls / SMS with callerid set to either the primary or alias numbers.
Most people who just want two separate numbers (e.g. to separate work and personal better) would be well served by having this sort of 'alias' feature on a single rate plane.
The only problem dual sims really solves is if you need simultaneous service from two completely separate carriers. That is a much more niche requirement.
"It would also eliminate the need for a third-party broker, which typically charges a commission of about 15% for doing the middleman work."
It's not eliminating anything. Amazon is simply entering the market as new competitor. They want to be that '3rd party broker'. And what commission do you think they'll take for doing the middleman work? Probably around 15%, maybe a bit less while they grab marketshare.
But there's just no first hand sourced proof that this is at all true. And by god I WANT to know if there is proof.
Think about it. There is an objective truth out there, but you'll never know what it is. There is no such thing as proof.
Suppose we had a voice recording of Putin saying "Hack the DNC and release the emails to wikileaks". If we had that no way they'd let you know because then Putin would know... that we had his calls at least around such and such a day at such and such a time in such and such a place... that could put agents at risk, that could put other assets/access at risk, or expose capabilities etc etc. They'd never give you that. Even if it existed. They'd never even admit they had it.
(And even if we had that, and gave it to you, you'd poke all kinds of holes in it... "how do we know this wasn't put together by Adobe?" How do we know this is a recording of Putin? so even if they did give it to you, it would resolve nothing.)
And we probably don't have that. So what we do have is more likely a lot more contextual and circumstantial and would only be really convincing to an intelligence specialist who had made a career out of studying Russia and Putin. So releasing that would have all the same draw backs as the previous scenario... and would still utterly fail to convince you or me. We'd poke all kinds of holes in stuff like server logs which can easily be faked and tampered with and besides such logs and records don't 'prove' anything about people. So a computer in Moscow touch this... that doesn't prove Putin was on the keyboard, or even in the room, or even being appraised ... etc, etc, etc. So why release that evidence... it would just compromise intelligence operations, and we'd all be smugly skeptical about how it wasn't really "proof" anyway.
So even in a perfect world: No proof for you.
But its not a perfect world... its a shitty one. Our government has no credibility with us, is known to lie all the time, and there is political advantages and angles to connecting this to Putin. That doesn't mean he wasn't involved... but it means if your even reasonably rational you do have to consider that this political posturing, political theatre, and is all being done to score points for someone's next election run, or in some UN debate somewhere...so any proof we were given could be plausibly 'manufacturered' for us.
In fact if they gave us 'proof' it would be immediately suspicious. If they had proof I'd expect it to be classified and sensitive.
No proof for you. We live in Orwell's 1984. How do you choose what to believe?
No. I don't. The 'average user' is hosed either way. Either he gets the updates forced on him and is hosed when they go bad, or he doesn't and he's turned into a puddle of malware. There is no winning move.
Linux or BSD isn't any better... "average users" are boned there too if something goes sideways*. As are OSX users.
* of course with *nix most users aren't average users. But if we put 'averages users' there we end up the same.
People steal from UPS trucks all the time if the driver is not attending the packages. (leaves the truck open and walks away).
Not just UPS... but anything really.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The drone, by virtue of not having a driver is always 'unattended'.
I can can see drones getting downed by birds. (I recall we had swallows nesting in a tree near our front door one year... they'd dive bomb anyone who came by...) I wouldn't be surprised to see them downed by theives running their own drones and taking them out midair, and then packages stolen. Fun and profit.
And when they malfunction, how will they avoid crashing into things and damaging property or injuring people? Even a 5 pound device falling from 15 feet and crashing into a person or a car is pretty serious. Not to mention after a crash, the goods will probably be stolen... possibly the drone itself too.
https://support.microsoft.com/...
System restore to before the update.
The hard part is not getting the update that's easy.
The hard part is finding out that its a known issue with the last update; and that you need to get a new update... since you are offline and can't search to find out. (assuming this computer was your only internet access)
But really, if my computer did an update, and then couldn't connect to the network, step one is to roll back the update. Windows can still do that... unlike, say Apple OSes.
That's not to say I am onboard with Microsoft's forced udpates program. It seriously pisses me off. Apple gets points for not forcing them.
I had to ask them multiple times to just give me the base settings for the damn router (they can query from their end) so I would know what scope to configure a static IP for this person's PC in.
The daughters tablet was working... why wouldn't you just have grabbed the info from that?
On the other hand, my brother in law hit the same issue on a couple of his PCs... he just did a system restore to before the update. And he was up and running.
People here seem perpetually determined to do things the hard way. :)
Lets see... I can link this at least since its a PR shot that's on facebook and elsewhere... its still a shit picture though.
https://static1.squarespace.co...
Its from a workshop at the Vision by Design expo in 2016.
Almost definitely a surface pro in the lower right; and I think I can make out another one too. but not sure -- the aspect ratio looks right and i think i can make out the foldout stand. -shrug- its a random photo... not a product placement shot.
Each year I see a few more; they're being used in the booths... because they are 'tablets' that run the applications for the demo diagnostic equipment; so they make great demo systems -- you don't have to balance a laptop, or hunch over a table.
As for the size of the companies; who do you think is running booths at an event like that? Zeiss, Canon, Topcon, subsidiaries of Novartis (Alcon); subsidiaries of Valeant (Bausch & Lomb); etc... and yeah, I've seen some of their people carrying around surfaces.
Yeah. At risk of sounding like a shill here, but actually both of my biggest clients have several, and both are happy with them and adding more all the time. They both have software that needs windows so mac's aren't an option. At one the outbound sales reps are loving them; the company hasn't rolled out windows 10 yet, but allows for BYOD so more and more of outbound reps are buying their own; as well as a couple of the upper management have surfacebooks (they're 'exempt' from the regular roll out rules and can have what they want.)
At the other, likewise, the surfaces are making their way into the hands of the outside sales people and marketing people who use them at trade shows.
I *personally* don't have one. and I don't have much interest in the surface, but the surface book, honestly looks like a pretty good machine .... I'm writing this on a 1 year old Macbook Pro, and I have no interest in the new one. I don't need a new laptop yet, but if i did... I'd give the surfacebook a hard look. And perhaps when I need a new laptop in a couple years that generation of the surface book may be what i go with. I more or less assume Apple will probably still be selling the MBP they just released so i'm not holding a lot of hope there. :(
The only way to change that is to change the Constitution, which would require 38 states to decide they should have no say on who is President,
To be fair, that's kind of a good description of the system in place now too.
As soon as person A releases the work to the public domain they no longer own copyright on it. They have standing to sue when B tries to license it back to them or restrict there own use of it.
But they can't sue B for the 'general misuse of that public domain image' in terms of their attempts to license it to others.
Now personally, I see a wedge of reason for there to be a cause of action there,
I've been mulling that over too since posting. By releasing it into the public domain, one interpretation is that their are no copyright holders; but another is that the 'public' is the copyright holder and the copyrights have been transferred to "the public". And by that interpretation any member of the public could sue over misuse... but also by that interpretation Getty images is also a legitimate copyright holder attempting to sell licensing. (admittedly they are attempting to sell licensing to people who are already themselves copyrigth owners... but im not sure that is illegal.
For example... Michael Jackson owned the Beatles catalog at one time, but there was nothing illegal or even shady about the prospect of say a record store wanting to sell him a Beatles CD and effectively get him to pay for a licensed copy of music he already owned the copyright on.
On the other hand, the whole thing smacks of abuse here with getty images ... and if its not illegal it certainly should be. But the courts function is to adjudicate the law, not make it. So as is often the case, it falls to a dysfunctional congress to fix it.
Pretty sure the legal system just said it is okay to send out extortion letters for public domain images.
In precisely the same way that if you camp on my cousins front yard and I sue you for the tort of tresspass; the courts will dismiss the case because I don't have standing.
The courts aren't saying you can can camp on my cousins front yard. they are just saying *I* can't sue them for it. My cousin, on the other hand...
Or perhaps if it rises to the level of criminal trespass the police and state can prosecute directly.
But in any case, *I* can't bring a lawsuit over it.
In this particular case, I'd suggest that any one extorted by getty should be suing them. And further, that in this case it should rise to the level of criminal copyright infringment and that it would be in the publics best interest for the state to prosecute the case on behalf of the public.
It's not Trump and his followers that people need to worry about, it's the disgruntled liberals and their extreme anger and intolerance which is a path to dictatorship.
If a "disgruntled populace and extreme anger and intolerance" is a path to dictatorship. Then "Trump and his followers" represent that demographic to a tee.
I'm not saying that there isn't plenty of harmful extremism on the left too. Because we both know there is. But to pretend "Trump and his supporters" aren't disgruntled, aren't extremely angry, and aren't intolerant undermines any credibility you might have.
Clinton
This debate really has NOTHING to do with Clinton. Why even bring her up? We should be evaluating Trump on his own merit, his own words, and his own actions now.
But fine... if you want to talk about clinton... let's do that...
would have never had the guts to pull the plug on this
A treaty needs 2/3rds of the Senate before it can be ratified. If the TPP ever became law, blame the Senate. Slightly over half of it is republican. If 2/3rds of senate approve the TPP, the problem is not Hillary.
she would have happily sold the country to foreign interests
The US, as in most treaties it signs, would be the primary benefactor of the TPP. Not regular US citizens perhaps, but US "interests" nonetheless. Sold the country to domestic corporate interests. Sold the country to the domestic 1% interests would be more accurate if you want to be critical of what she would have done.
On the other hand Trump is the 1% of the 1%. And he doesn't have the shame or ethics to even comprehend a need to separate his business interests from his presidency. He said what he said to get elected. He might be well be willing to turf the TPP (to thunderous applause); but only because he thinks he can get himself a better deal.
just like she changed her stance on bankruptcy to please her Wall Street backers.
Indeed. Hillary was 'bought and paid for' by the so called elite 1%. Trump on the other hand IS the elite 1%. He's not beholden to corporate backers to serve their business interests...so he's free to do his own thing. But the only thing Trump has ever done is "serve himself". You might as well have elected "Goldman Sachs" as president; that's not beholden to corporate interests either... at least not to OTHER corporate interests.
You aren't wrong.
But, to play devils advocate, when exactly in Germany did it go from being "severely disturbed" to talk about Hitler creating a dictatorship... to it being a defacto reality?
Also, bear in mind, that once it is done, it's way too late to start warning people about it.
I personally, don't see Trump creating a dictator ship... ... but he's seems on the road to make a series of catastrophically ignorant decisions coupled with almost no shame or ethics with respect to maintaining any separation between his presidency and his business interests.
That would be nice if translating sentences was the same as looking up words in a dictionary. It's not.
I literally acknowledged that in my post.
Languages have a fuzzy haze of concepts and ways to parse them.
Yeah, I called that "(to effectively build a weighted mapping of language equivalences)"
weighting implies fuzzy and i deliberately said language equivalencies instead of word equivalencies because yes -- word groups, structures, even contexts etc have meaning beyond the individual words etc. chat = cat = gato is trivial but it's still illustrative of what is going on here.
On the other hand TFS is basically gibberish.
There is no 'secret' language, or even deeper understanding. The notion that they aren't using english as a bridge language just means that they aren't translating Japanese-to-English-to-Korean.
But for example... if I train you that cat = gato in italian, and that cat = chat in french. And then ask you to spit out the french if give you the "gato" that's not exactly magic. It looks up 'gato' in italian and sees a reference to "chat". And it can do this without explicitly looking up the english "cat" and then feeding "cat" back in to look up the french.
English is still the bridge language that was used to train it.
Now this neural network is a lot more complex because lanaguage is a lot more complex than simple word substitutions but the neural network is still basically encoding that chat (french) = cat (english); and cat (english) = gato (italian) and the way this information is mapped into the neural network -- that it can now retrieve equivalencies between french and italian without being EXPLICITLY trained on them.
Its neat... but whoo... the neural network structure inherently models the transitive property of equivalence. That's kind of the whole point of the thing (to effectively build a weighted mapping of language equivalences) so it would almost be more surprising if it couldn't do some reasonable transalations between languages it wasn't explicitly trained on -- because english is the bridge between them in how the knowledge was built even if they aren't explicitly using english now.
I mean... train it on english to french, and train it on japanese to korean, and see if it can go from korean to english. It won't. Because it won't have ANYTHING to bridging those two sets of knowledge.
I'm not even sure why you would want to. Run a dumb HDMI cable into it from something that is competent, turn off any lag inducing image processing, and then other than on and off...I pretty much forget it even has any other capabilities.
I'm buying a TV for the screen. That's it. I don't care what else it does, and I certainly don't expect some piece of shit embedded apps to be worth anything new out of the box, let alone 5-10-15 years later.