The problem is that "your chosen extensions" can cause worse bloat than an unused feature in a browser. I'd rather have as much functionality as I can from the developer of the browser itself. Extensions are helpful (particularly for obscure features that no browser developer would bother writing because the user base would be too small) but all to often they break more than they fix.
Basically, the Vivaldi browser is designed to appeal to people who miss Opera 12.x. When Opera moved to Chromium in version 15, it did basically what you are talking about--stripped out nearly every feature aside from browsing itself and it opened up to Chrome extensions. But, many of us found that, in order to add extensions to Opera 15 and later, that met the features we used from 12.x, the browser was a hulking mess--and the extensions for the most part don't work as well as the built in functionality from 12.x. And the whole thing was now slower and riddled with memory leaks due to the extensions.
So, basically, I'm not going to suggest that you must switch to Vivaldi, but personally, I am keeping my eye on the project. I think there is a good user base to be had out there for it.
But don't the fitness trackers all pair with smartphones to actually convey the data they collect? It seems that this research is saying that any fitness tracker that relies on pairing with a phone is redundant (unless the tracker does something grand that the phone does not).
Disclaimer: I have a smartphone, so I don't feel like I need a fitness tracker (and still wouldn't feel like I was in need of a fitness tracker if I didn't have a smartphone--I don't need something on my wrist to tell me that I sit in front of a computer in my mom's basement all day).
I agree with this, but I'm not particularly concerned. I do not think that the general public would be viewing the videos like a live feed or much at all. I think we already have precedent for how this would work--dash cams in police cars. That system seems to work fine and I think it would be the same here.
Maybe it proves that putting the criminals in the spot light reduced their violence by 60%, and reduced false "police brutality" claims by 90%
If this is true then it still makes perfect sense to use the body cameras. There are far fewer allegations of police brutality to deal with--whether the reduction comes from an actual decrease in police brutality or from a reduction in false claims of police brutality or an increase of cooperation of the people in-front of the officer--who cares? It's all good to me.
In my mind, the only true downside of the body cameras is the expense of dealing with collection and storage of thousands upon thousands of hours of mundane footage. I am not confident that the monetary benefit of the cameras (e.g., I witnessed a trial of police officers accused of police brutality, which allegations were utterly falsified in my opinion. The department spent a lot of money on that case) will outweigh the monetary cost (I think the cost of maintaining the system will be more than the cost of false allegations). But, there is a nonmonetary benefit that it sounds more and more to me like outweighs the cost.
An effective police force needs the trust of the public, and I think this is at a low point lately. It sounds like the body cameras will probably help.
This is veering offtopic, but, according to this article, thepiratebay.cr is not to be trusted, if I am understanding it correctly:
Various mirror sites of The Pirate Bay have sprung up since the site’s disappearance, but this one is different. Some alternatives simply provide a copy of The Pirate Bay with no new content (many proxy sites have been doing this for years). Others, like thepiratebay.cr, go further and even provide fake content as if it was new and even attempt to charge users.
Probably any torrent site is not to be easily trusted, but I could imagine hackers setting up a lookalike site in order to get people who should know better to download problematic stuff. Heck, maybe the CIA set it up.
And neither Apple (the music company) nor Apple (the computer company) was able to prevent the other from using the name, even after the computer company dove into the music world (though they settled that without a trial). "General Motors" is a unique and specific enough combination of words (e.g., it isn't such a great name for a software company), that I don't think they could easily be used by another company in a nonconfusing way.
I just don't see confusion with GNOME as a likely outcome of allowing Groupon to name its tablet Gnome. Trademark doesn't give the holder the uninhibited right to use a word. It just gives the holder the rights to a word in a specific realm.
This factory is expected to be gargantuan and will employ a great many smart people with good paying jobs. The factory will have a great many trucks going in and out. The money going to pay these people is coming from the income from a California company. So, well paid engineers will receive California money to purchase houses and furniture and food, etc. in NV. The engineers will pay sales taxes, property taxes, and will spend money in the casinos (I almost mentioned income taxes, until I remembered that NV doesn't have a state income tax--they have casinos instead). The calculus that NV is making with this deal is that the tax revenue it is giving up from Tesla will more than be made up for by the cut of the income they keep from the money that Tesla will pay to its employees and to NV truck drivers and suppliers, etc. The thought is that this will be a net positive for NV.
If Black Hats don't hack it then the NSA will. But the NSA will quietly keep the vulnerability(ies) to themselves and use them to collect data. Whereas a Black Hat looking to rely on TOR will be best off figuring out its weaknesses in order to make it more effective.
In other words, people who rely on TOR would be completely stupid to not try to hack it to determine its vulnerabilities. The only odd thing about this isn't really odd at all when you think about these hackers are--they're exposing vulnerabilities in a particularly spectacular fashion.
What he means, I think, is that most computer companies make "consumer grade" machines and "commercial grade" machines. I've not has an Asus or Lenovo, but I've had Toshiba, HP, and Dell. With respect to Dell, I've had both consumer and commercial grade machines, built to higher specifications. Most recently I purchased a Dell Latitude 5000 series laptop--in Dell's explanation of this computer in comparison to the 7000 series, it gave the 5000 series a build quality of 3 out of 4 stars, it gave the 3000 series 2 out of 4 stars (still Latitude--which implies the consumer grade stuff is 1 out of 4 stars for build quality). The consumer grade machines seem to be designed to last about 2 years or less. The commercial grade machines are designed to last more like 4 years.
The problem is, you have to pay a premium for the commercial grade machines.
With Apple, there is no "consumer grade" and "commercial grade"--they're all made to high specifications.
So, if you take the thing to its limits, you'd better remember to get out before the battery completely dies. Because when the gyro stops turning, you can't put your feet down (since there is a vehicle body in the way) to keep the thing from falling over.
Not that I think the idea is a bad one in general.
I saw a Kickstarter campaign just the other day using this concept to replace training wheels in kids' bikes (a gyro goes in the front wheel). Personally, I think it was a better idea in the kids' bike than on a motorbike. And that Kickstarter video had actual footage of the concept in action, with kids riding bikes, and a shot of the bike rolling with no one on it and self correcting when somebody smacked it several times in a manner that would normally knock a bike over).
1) According to the picture on the tracking thing, this was not a Dell, it was a Lenovo Thinkpad, which is a Chinese company, which Chinese company probably does not install "special firmware" for the NSA.
2) However, the picture actually doesn't say it is a Lenovo Thinkpad, it actually says it is a Lenovo Thinkpad KEYBOARD. I guess I haven't dismantled a Thinkpad lately, but it doesn't make as much sense to me to intercept a keyboard as it does to intercept a computer.
The summary says that Google is testing cars in Mountain View. According to this website, with respect to Mountain View:
During the cold season, which lasts from November 26 to March 6, there is a 34% average chance that precipitation will be observed at some point during a given day. When precipitation does occur it is most often in the form of light rain (57% of days with precipitation have at worst light rain), moderate rain (31%), and heavy rain (11%).
I think it is safe to say that it rains there, as compared to, for example, Disneyland (18% of cold season days have precipitation) or Las Vegas (12% of cold season days have precipitation).
Why would any reputable scientist want to replicate the fudging of data that discards large swaths of the climate history without adequate justification?
I haven't read the paper to say whether or not this is true, but, if it is, why does that justify getting this guy's emails? What will his emails say? "I decided to leave out a medieval warm period...." His emails have not been released and yet you know these flaws in the paper. You can show the flaws in the study and produce a better study. That does not require accessing somebody's emails or other underlying work product.
My understanding of the idea and purpose of an academic research paper is to lay out a hypothesis, method to collect data to test the hypothesis, data (results), statistical analysis of data, and conclusions. A properly written research paper will not be published in a peer reviewed journal unless the method of data collection is clear. This makes the research reproducible. The publication of reproducible research is a crux of the scientific process.
What the proponents of the FOIA request are doing is trying to cheat. If you want to disprove research, you may: - Show that the method of data collection produces biased data - Show that using the same method of data collection produces different data than that shown in the original research - Show that statistical analysis was not done properly - Etc.
All of this is done by hiring experts to analyze the methodology and statistical analysis and by commissioning a study to reproduce the original research. If the research is not reproducable, then there is something wrong.
That is how science works--you make reproducible research and then other people reproduce it. When they can't, the scientific community tries to figure out what went wrong. Maybe the underlying scientist made an error, maybe s/he made up data, maybe there is no explanation.
But this idea that you can cheat by looking at the researcher's emails? That's new. And not useful. If the study was not done properly, then reproducing it will catch that. If the research was done properly, then it needs to be reproduced anyway in order to determine the strength of the conclusions. So, don't try to cheat the system, just do this the old fashioned way--reproduce the research.
Mod parent up. This is absolutely true. For example, listen on Car Talk to "Click and Clack" discuss how cruddy cars used to be and how much better and more reliable cars are nowadays. Compare a mid-90s Hyundai Excel to Hyundais now, for example.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that "your chosen extensions" can cause worse bloat than an unused feature in a browser. I'd rather have as much functionality as I can from the developer of the browser itself. Extensions are helpful (particularly for obscure features that no browser developer would bother writing because the user base would be too small) but all to often they break more than they fix.
Basically, the Vivaldi browser is designed to appeal to people who miss Opera 12.x. When Opera moved to Chromium in version 15, it did basically what you are talking about--stripped out nearly every feature aside from browsing itself and it opened up to Chrome extensions. But, many of us found that, in order to add extensions to Opera 15 and later, that met the features we used from 12.x, the browser was a hulking mess--and the extensions for the most part don't work as well as the built in functionality from 12.x. And the whole thing was now slower and riddled with memory leaks due to the extensions.
So, basically, I'm not going to suggest that you must switch to Vivaldi, but personally, I am keeping my eye on the project. I think there is a good user base to be had out there for it.
But don't the fitness trackers all pair with smartphones to actually convey the data they collect? It seems that this research is saying that any fitness tracker that relies on pairing with a phone is redundant (unless the tracker does something grand that the phone does not).
Disclaimer: I have a smartphone, so I don't feel like I need a fitness tracker (and still wouldn't feel like I was in need of a fitness tracker if I didn't have a smartphone--I don't need something on my wrist to tell me that I sit in front of a computer in my mom's basement all day).
Holy crap! I'm having a hard time imagining that getting funded.
I've always wondered the purpose of the wrestling in Festivus. It all comes together now.
Personally, I think voting is a great way to determine truth. When that doesn't work, generally a wrestling match does.
I agree with this, but I'm not particularly concerned. I do not think that the general public would be viewing the videos like a live feed or much at all. I think we already have precedent for how this would work--dash cams in police cars. That system seems to work fine and I think it would be the same here.
Maybe it proves that putting the criminals in the spot light reduced their violence by 60%, and reduced false "police brutality" claims by 90%
If this is true then it still makes perfect sense to use the body cameras. There are far fewer allegations of police brutality to deal with--whether the reduction comes from an actual decrease in police brutality or from a reduction in false claims of police brutality or an increase of cooperation of the people in-front of the officer--who cares? It's all good to me.
In my mind, the only true downside of the body cameras is the expense of dealing with collection and storage of thousands upon thousands of hours of mundane footage. I am not confident that the monetary benefit of the cameras (e.g., I witnessed a trial of police officers accused of police brutality, which allegations were utterly falsified in my opinion. The department spent a lot of money on that case) will outweigh the monetary cost (I think the cost of maintaining the system will be more than the cost of false allegations). But, there is a nonmonetary benefit that it sounds more and more to me like outweighs the cost.
An effective police force needs the trust of the public, and I think this is at a low point lately. It sounds like the body cameras will probably help.
This is veering offtopic, but, according to this article, thepiratebay.cr is not to be trusted, if I am understanding it correctly:
Various mirror sites of The Pirate Bay have sprung up since the site’s disappearance, but this one is different. Some alternatives simply provide a copy of The Pirate Bay with no new content (many proxy sites have been doing this for years). Others, like thepiratebay.cr, go further and even provide fake content as if it was new and even attempt to charge users.
Probably any torrent site is not to be easily trusted, but I could imagine hackers setting up a lookalike site in order to get people who should know better to download problematic stuff. Heck, maybe the CIA set it up.
There is at least one other instance I am aware of that might suggest you are correct:
https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
There was a settlement between the companies about the use fo the name long before Apple Computer went into the music business.
Nuh-uh
And neither Apple (the music company) nor Apple (the computer company) was able to prevent the other from using the name, even after the computer company dove into the music world (though they settled that without a trial). "General Motors" is a unique and specific enough combination of words (e.g., it isn't such a great name for a software company), that I don't think they could easily be used by another company in a nonconfusing way.
I just don't see confusion with GNOME as a likely outcome of allowing Groupon to name its tablet Gnome. Trademark doesn't give the holder the uninhibited right to use a word. It just gives the holder the rights to a word in a specific realm.
Thanks for RTFA for me. Now I won't bother.
This factory is expected to be gargantuan and will employ a great many smart people with good paying jobs. The factory will have a great many trucks going in and out. The money going to pay these people is coming from the income from a California company. So, well paid engineers will receive California money to purchase houses and furniture and food, etc. in NV. The engineers will pay sales taxes, property taxes, and will spend money in the casinos (I almost mentioned income taxes, until I remembered that NV doesn't have a state income tax--they have casinos instead). The calculus that NV is making with this deal is that the tax revenue it is giving up from Tesla will more than be made up for by the cut of the income they keep from the money that Tesla will pay to its employees and to NV truck drivers and suppliers, etc. The thought is that this will be a net positive for NV.
If Black Hats don't hack it then the NSA will. But the NSA will quietly keep the vulnerability(ies) to themselves and use them to collect data. Whereas a Black Hat looking to rely on TOR will be best off figuring out its weaknesses in order to make it more effective.
In other words, people who rely on TOR would be completely stupid to not try to hack it to determine its vulnerabilities. The only odd thing about this isn't really odd at all when you think about these hackers are--they're exposing vulnerabilities in a particularly spectacular fashion.
What he means, I think, is that most computer companies make "consumer grade" machines and "commercial grade" machines. I've not has an Asus or Lenovo, but I've had Toshiba, HP, and Dell. With respect to Dell, I've had both consumer and commercial grade machines, built to higher specifications. Most recently I purchased a Dell Latitude 5000 series laptop--in Dell's explanation of this computer in comparison to the 7000 series, it gave the 5000 series a build quality of 3 out of 4 stars, it gave the 3000 series 2 out of 4 stars (still Latitude--which implies the consumer grade stuff is 1 out of 4 stars for build quality). The consumer grade machines seem to be designed to last about 2 years or less. The commercial grade machines are designed to last more like 4 years.
The problem is, you have to pay a premium for the commercial grade machines.
With Apple, there is no "consumer grade" and "commercial grade"--they're all made to high specifications.
So, if you take the thing to its limits, you'd better remember to get out before the battery completely dies. Because when the gyro stops turning, you can't put your feet down (since there is a vehicle body in the way) to keep the thing from falling over.
Not that I think the idea is a bad one in general.
I saw a Kickstarter campaign just the other day using this concept to replace training wheels in kids' bikes (a gyro goes in the front wheel). Personally, I think it was a better idea in the kids' bike than on a motorbike. And that Kickstarter video had actual footage of the concept in action, with kids riding bikes, and a shot of the bike rolling with no one on it and self correcting when somebody smacked it several times in a manner that would normally knock a bike over).
Two things:
1) According to the picture on the tracking thing, this was not a Dell, it was a Lenovo Thinkpad, which is a Chinese company, which Chinese company probably does not install "special firmware" for the NSA.
2) However, the picture actually doesn't say it is a Lenovo Thinkpad, it actually says it is a Lenovo Thinkpad KEYBOARD. I guess I haven't dismantled a Thinkpad lately, but it doesn't make as much sense to me to intercept a keyboard as it does to intercept a computer.
Combine this with infusions of blood from your grandchildren and you'll be good to go.
This is why, as of late, manufacturers have realized that the brake must mechanically override the throttle.
How does one test a lethal injection drug?
The summary says that Google is testing cars in Mountain View. According to this website, with respect to Mountain View:
During the cold season, which lasts from November 26 to March 6, there is a 34% average chance that precipitation will be observed at some point during a given day. When precipitation does occur it is most often in the form of light rain (57% of days with precipitation have at worst light rain), moderate rain (31%), and heavy rain (11%).
I think it is safe to say that it rains there, as compared to, for example, Disneyland (18% of cold season days have precipitation) or Las Vegas (12% of cold season days have precipitation).
If by "imtimidating" you meant "sexy", and by "stress" you meant "erections", I'm right there with you, buddy.
This only applies to a small percentage of women.
Women are intimidating and cause stress.
This applies to approximately 100% of women (including the subset of sexy women), so, no, coinreturn had it right.
Why would any reputable scientist want to replicate the fudging of data that discards large swaths of the climate history without adequate justification?
I haven't read the paper to say whether or not this is true, but, if it is, why does that justify getting this guy's emails? What will his emails say? "I decided to leave out a medieval warm period...." His emails have not been released and yet you know these flaws in the paper. You can show the flaws in the study and produce a better study. That does not require accessing somebody's emails or other underlying work product.
My understanding of the idea and purpose of an academic research paper is to lay out a hypothesis, method to collect data to test the hypothesis, data (results), statistical analysis of data, and conclusions. A properly written research paper will not be published in a peer reviewed journal unless the method of data collection is clear. This makes the research reproducible. The publication of reproducible research is a crux of the scientific process.
What the proponents of the FOIA request are doing is trying to cheat. If you want to disprove research, you may:
- Show that the method of data collection produces biased data
- Show that using the same method of data collection produces different data than that shown in the original research
- Show that statistical analysis was not done properly
- Etc.
All of this is done by hiring experts to analyze the methodology and statistical analysis and by commissioning a study to reproduce the original research. If the research is not reproducable, then there is something wrong.
That is how science works--you make reproducible research and then other people reproduce it. When they can't, the scientific community tries to figure out what went wrong. Maybe the underlying scientist made an error, maybe s/he made up data, maybe there is no explanation.
But this idea that you can cheat by looking at the researcher's emails? That's new. And not useful. If the study was not done properly, then reproducing it will catch that. If the research was done properly, then it needs to be reproduced anyway in order to determine the strength of the conclusions. So, don't try to cheat the system, just do this the old fashioned way--reproduce the research.
Mod parent up. This is absolutely true. For example, listen on Car Talk to "Click and Clack" discuss how cruddy cars used to be and how much better and more reliable cars are nowadays. Compare a mid-90s Hyundai Excel to Hyundais now, for example.