This is an important point. Their use case is to call and make reservations or purchase services: basically do the stuff somebody might do online but with an analog interface.
I'll bet the companies in question won't really mind selling to somebody might not contact them via other means. Basically this lets them delay on building a web page or buying into some reservation service they don't care about/don't want and yet they can still interact with the digital world.
As long as the technology is *good enough* to approximate or improve on the average stoned, drunk, spaced out, partially literate, callers they might get today then it improves their lives. And if they learn to recognize the voice they can even accelerate the interaction by getting right to the point (like they would if they were talking to a person that calls them a lot).
"Encrypted Traffic Analytics extracts four main data elements: the sequence of packet lengths and times, the byte distribution, TLS-specific features and the initial data packet."
The recent US election has shown us that forcing people to be civil does not also force them to "not hate" each other.
What it appears to have done is driven much of that hate out of sight -- and thus out of discussion. One of the things we're struggling with right now is understanding the distinctions between * who really hates who * who doesn't care about "hate speech" being used so long as other political goals are met * who doesn't really believe it is hate speech * who doesn't hate other people
Yes, the differences between these choices is totally vague. Thats because we've been lumping it all under one "not politically correct" label and burying it.
People have feelings all around this spectrum. Perhaps its better to allow hate speech with the understanding that the proper response is more language, more communication, and less silence and brooding?
Correct, letting people talk doesn't solve the problem of hate. Neither does forcing their silence.
Perhaps open communication is the only way to address, or at least explore how to address, the underlying problem?
And frankly, I was a little surprised at where some of my acquaintances were in various places on this spectrum. A very religious man turned out to not care about hate, hateful feelings, hateful laws, etc so long as his particular religious goals were met. I'd have never known this about him without the open communication forced by the election rhetoric. It might have been a more productive years of friendship if I'd known where he stood earlier on.
If I recall the tl;dr version it goes something like this: Automakers screwed dealers during the great depression so the dealers ran for legislative cover. Dealers now make lots of money and pay lots of taxes so they have maintained that cover ever since. And now are the ones screwing everybody else.
These guns look amazingly like toys. Complete with bright red plastic in an odd shape. More folks with toy guns (squirt guns for example) are gonna get shot by scared people who don't know if they are faced with a real threat or not.
Yup, there are lots of morally bankrupt and toxic corporations. Limiting your critique to the high tech industry could cause you to think this is about technology vs human interactions or some made up arbitrary distinction. Clear your mind, feel the force, and examine your feelings: this issue is much broader than you suppose.
People can be morally bankrupt and toxic. They can be greedy little shits. Usually they're either taught by society, or reigned in by societies laws, to be more ethical and bubbly and interested in the social justice and all that -- but only usually. And we all know that if you add a few layers of indirection, like maybe they're just doing their job and trying to get a bonus or grow their team or implement a cool feature and see their stock go up or find a business model that feeds and diapers the kids... well, ethics about some shmuck on the internet is a pretty easy thing to let slip. Heck, give them a big enough bonus and they'll close a plant and ship all the jobs to China. And run for office based on how much money they made when they increased the value of the stock.
If you're concerned then you need to engage with people. Work to built the society you want to see exist; work to encode that society into our enforced laws, and _vote_ for people that reflect your opinions.
Come on folks, of course I know who Linus is. Sheesh. Do I gotta put a smiley every time? (Apparently some people got it).
Sipper went ahead and clarified the underlying point anyway. Sometimes its fair to ask folks to contribute; but also it can be fair to "just" provide feedback without devoting yourself to fixing that specific problem. Linus certainly has the chops to address major design flaws -- but I don't expect him to do so everywhere he runs into them.
(Mostly I was just enjoying writing such a response about Linus' post. We don't need another discussion of open software strengths and weaknesses.)
I don't know who this "Linus" guy think he is. Just because his name looks kinda similar to "Linux" doesn't mean he has the right to be jerk. The community should flame him off the forums because he apparently doesn't understand the open source ethos.
If he was a real programmer he'd just dig into the code and fix these problems. This is why linux desktop hasn't taken off -- all these moochers who just want their computer to work without putting any effort into understanding the underlying system and not being willing to chip in and help the effort.
Until then it will be business as usual. And unfortunately when some script kiddie kills somebody it won't make the news. I worry that this sort of thing won't get fixed until a major "breaking news story" about hundreds of cars running off the road plays out. Only then will it matter.
An optimistic alternative option is that the 'fear mongering' media run with this sufficiently to make it a big issue. This one of the times when the media's bias towards scary news stories can help society.
When folks want to learn to program, or in fact do pretty much anything, I usually suggest they pick an arbitrary project idea in the general field and simply start working on it. *What* exactly they're working on matters less than that they are working on something and learning from the process. (The scope of the project ideally grows naturally on their existing knowledge base).
In this case anybody working on this is developing (hopefully better) technology for finding stuff. That technology will go into our lexicon and when the aliens arrive we'll be all set to "quick, see if you can find them on the deep space scanners".
Its just an onboard battery. You can probably even replace it with replaceable batteries if you want to put the work in. Or use an external power pack that runs off of store bought batteries to recharge it.
Microsoft has been letting "backwards compatibility" restrict their innovations for too long. Sounds like they learned a lesson with the Vista fiasco and are finally willing to move forward without continuously coddling all those customers that won't upgrade anyway. You all are scoffing but this is their turn around in action.
Either that or internally they can't convince any developers to install Vista for compatibility testing & development.
This guy looks like a young accomplished pilot (and scientist?) of experimental rockets that he straps onto himself and then flies around with. He may not be widely known to 8yr olds but they'll dig the youtube videos. There are other crazy birdsuit base jumpers out there you could point to. Start here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HMdioj6kng
In a similar vein there are people like Dean Potter or any of the extremel rock climber slacklining nutters out there.
What these have in common is that they involve physical prowess in addition to mental abilities. Frankly I just don't see an 8yr getting excited about a boring hero that is really good at doing homework. But there is no reason the sport has to be a boring one.
"[The protagonist] helps develop a clandestine wireless network, X-Net [so named because it is built on Xboxes], that avoids DHS monitoring using anonymity and encryption. Using the X-Net as a secure communications medium, he organizes teenagers and twenty-somethings who are upset with the police state tactics imposed after the [plot elements]. They develop innovative uses of existing technologies to foil DHS monitoring and cause mass confusion and embarrassment to law enforcement."
I'm positive Homeland Security has read this book. They're probably just cracking down now before things get out of hand.
From TFA: "Clark County Registrar of Voters Larry Lomax said there is no voter fraud, although the issues do come up because the screens are sensitive. For that reason, a person may not want to have their fingers linger too long on the screen after they choose their candidate."
It is interesting how the options work out; but the real issue here is a lousy hardware/software implementation. I wonder if any individual can control the layout well enough to purposefully take advantage of this. (Obviously the original submission implies such: but I doubt they were thinking about it vs just being a troll).
Not to worry... I'm sure iTunes will automatically 'like' songs based on what you listen to on your home machine. You needn't lift a finger to be an active member of ping. Oddly they could be creating a fully automated social networking site - no direct user involvement needed.
Because the proposed shutdown process is so blatantly wrong that any inhibition that blocks misguided developers from copying it is a good thing.
What should happen is that the apps all shut down and go away without any IF/AND/ORs/BUTs about it. If they need to save some state or or whatever then they should get a chance to do so. They should NOT EVER get to communicate with the user or otherwise delay the shutdown process. The OS layer should chose, prior to sending the message, if there is any opportunity for GUI interactions (and should not normally do so).
In an ideal world this would force application developers to maintain proper state and properly deal with auto-save and other features to make the user's life easier. The current model, as detailed in this patent, just pushes the problem off to the end user (which is wrong).
Your conclusion that the iphone4 drops "twice as many calls" as the 3GS doesn't pass the sniff test. If things were that bad I think it would be a much more obvious problem and would have taken a much more proactive fix by Apple. I suspect you're reading the Apple messaging wrong. The actual wording from the apple slide is, "(less than) 1 Additional calls dropped per 100 calls compared to iPhone 3GS".
You took this to mean 3GS drops 1/100 calls and that the iphone4 was dropping 2/100. But I think what they actually meant to say was "1 additional calls dropped per 100 dropped calls compared to the 3GS", e.g. that for any location and any number of successful calls if the 3GS would have dropped 100 of them the iphone4 would have dropped 101 of them. This is about a 1% degradation in performance.
Although still a PR problem for Apple -- particularly given that they bragged about this new antenna system. I don't see this as being earth shatteringly worse.
A good reason for the OS to support multitasking: Assume you hit 'upload' in your favorite application and now want to do something else while the data is slowly streaming out to the server. This allows you to move on to do something else.
You aren't the one multitasking though because, from your perspective, you're done with that previous task. This lets the application/OS do the multitasking that allows you to move on and do something else. Apple would argue this "good" vs making you think about it as a new task: "I want this upload to complete so I'll run this application in the background while I do something else then I'll come back and close this application when it is done". In the latter case you truly are doing the multitasking.
Similar to your story I was out shoveling snow one day last winter... and after I was done my iPhone was missing.
I tracked it down in the tracks of my truck -- I'd moved it to finish shoveling and driven over my phone. As in your case all was fine -- didn't break the screen and it's been working just fine for at least a year since then.
This is a technical "solution" to a non-technical problem. The ability exists today but is predominately blocked by the cell phone providers.
This quote from the article shows how deluded these people are: "it seems likely that carriers would give the SIMFi away as long as you took out some sort of mobile data contract". If that was the case then I'd be able to use tethering on my iphone RIGHT NOW.
Sure, neat technical hack. Nice miniaturization there. But making this functionality available in a smaller form factor isn't the problem.
Oddly, I've recently moved to Wisconsin and many conversations about the weather turn to global warming. Apparently plenty of WI folks feel that recent winters are proof of "Global Warming". Anecdotal discussions aside, people around here seem to be very aware that the world is changing around them and, if anything, seem to be more willing to take these changes as signs of climate change.
Heck, I'd have argued that these strong seasons with a long history of "how cold does it get" and "when do the lakes freeze" and "when do the lakes thaw" and "when do the birds come back" make these midwesterner folks more interested in, and realizing of, the potential/risk of climate change. As opposed to the folks on the coast where small changes in weather/temperature hardly make a difference.
In the Star Trek future you can always route auxiliary power to the overloaded/failed device; which is usually sufficient to get to the end of the episode.
Slashdot Mirror
This is an important point. Their use case is to call and make reservations or purchase services: basically do the stuff somebody might do online but with an analog interface.
I'll bet the companies in question won't really mind selling to somebody might not contact them via other means. Basically this lets them delay on building a web page or buying into some reservation service they don't care about/don't want and yet they can still interact with the digital world.
As long as the technology is *good enough* to approximate or improve on the average stoned, drunk, spaced out, partially literate, callers they might get today then it improves their lives. And if they learn to recognize the voice they can even accelerate the interaction by getting right to the point (like they would if they were talking to a person that calls them a lot).
https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en...
"Encrypted Traffic Analytics extracts four main data elements: the sequence of packet lengths and times, the byte distribution, TLS-specific features and the initial data packet."
The recent US election has shown us that forcing people to be civil does not also force them to "not hate" each other.
What it appears to have done is driven much of that hate out of sight -- and thus out of discussion. One of the things we're struggling with right now is understanding the distinctions between
* who really hates who
* who doesn't care about "hate speech" being used so long as other political goals are met
* who doesn't really believe it is hate speech
* who doesn't hate other people
Yes, the differences between these choices is totally vague. Thats because we've been lumping it all under one "not politically correct" label and burying it.
People have feelings all around this spectrum. Perhaps its better to allow hate speech with the understanding that the proper response is more language, more communication, and less silence and brooding?
Correct, letting people talk doesn't solve the problem of hate. Neither does forcing their silence.
Perhaps open communication is the only way to address, or at least explore how to address, the underlying problem?
And frankly, I was a little surprised at where some of my acquaintances were in various places on this spectrum. A very religious man turned out to not care about hate, hateful feelings, hateful laws, etc so long as his particular religious goals were met. I'd have never known this about him without the open communication forced by the election rhetoric. It might have been a more productive years of friendship if I'd known where he stood earlier on.
Planet Money has had some good discussions about this:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money...
If I recall the tl;dr version it goes something like this:
Automakers screwed dealers during the great depression so the dealers ran for legislative cover. Dealers now make lots of money and pay lots of taxes so they have maintained that cover ever since. And now are the ones screwing everybody else.
These guns look amazingly like toys. Complete with bright red plastic in an odd shape.
More folks with toy guns (squirt guns for example) are gonna get shot by scared people who don't know if they are faced with a real threat or not.
Yup, there are lots of morally bankrupt and toxic corporations. Limiting your critique to the high tech industry could cause you to think this is about technology vs human interactions or some made up arbitrary distinction. Clear your mind, feel the force, and examine your feelings: this issue is much broader than you suppose.
People can be morally bankrupt and toxic. They can be greedy little shits. Usually they're either taught by society, or reigned in by societies laws, to be more ethical and bubbly and interested in the social justice and all that -- but only usually. And we all know that if you add a few layers of indirection, like maybe they're just doing their job and trying to get a bonus or grow their team or implement a cool feature and see their stock go up or find a business model that feeds and diapers the kids... well, ethics about some shmuck on the internet is a pretty easy thing to let slip. Heck, give them a big enough bonus and they'll close a plant and ship all the jobs to China. And run for office based on how much money they made when they increased the value of the stock.
If you're concerned then you need to engage with people. Work to built the society you want to see exist; work to encode that society into our enforced laws, and _vote_ for people that reflect your opinions.
Come on folks, of course I know who Linus is. Sheesh. Do I gotta put a smiley every time? (Apparently some people got it).
Sipper went ahead and clarified the underlying point anyway. Sometimes its fair to ask folks to contribute; but also it can be fair to "just" provide feedback without devoting yourself to fixing that specific problem. Linus certainly has the chops to address major design flaws -- but I don't expect him to do so everywhere he runs into them.
(Mostly I was just enjoying writing such a response about Linus' post. We don't need another discussion of open software strengths and weaknesses.)
I don't know who this "Linus" guy think he is. Just because his name looks kinda similar to "Linux" doesn't mean he has the right to be jerk. The community should flame him off the forums because he apparently doesn't understand the open source ethos.
If he was a real programmer he'd just dig into the code and fix these problems. This is why linux desktop hasn't taken off -- all these moochers who just want their computer to work without putting any effort into understanding the underlying system and not being willing to chip in and help the effort.
...before anything is seriously done about this.
Until then it will be business as usual. And unfortunately when some script kiddie kills somebody it won't make the news. I worry that this sort of thing won't get fixed until a major "breaking news story" about hundreds of cars running off the road plays out. Only then will it matter.
An optimistic alternative option is that the 'fear mongering' media run with this sufficiently to make it a big issue. This one of the times when the media's bias towards scary news stories can help society.
When folks want to learn to program, or in fact do pretty much anything, I usually suggest they pick an arbitrary project idea in the general field and simply start working on it. *What* exactly they're working on matters less than that they are working on something and learning from the process. (The scope of the project ideally grows naturally on their existing knowledge base).
In this case anybody working on this is developing (hopefully better) technology for finding stuff. That technology will go into our lexicon and when the aliens arrive we'll be all set to "quick, see if you can find them on the deep space scanners".
Its just an onboard battery. You can probably even replace it with replaceable batteries if you want to put the work in. Or use an external power pack that runs off of store bought batteries to recharge it.
http://www.ladyada.net/make/mintyboost/
Microsoft has been letting "backwards compatibility" restrict their innovations for too long. Sounds like they learned a lesson with the Vista fiasco and are finally willing to move forward without continuously coddling all those customers that won't upgrade anyway. You all are scoffing but this is their turn around in action.
Either that or internally they can't convince any developers to install Vista for compatibility testing & development.
This guy looks like a young accomplished pilot (and scientist?) of experimental rockets that he straps onto himself and then flies around with. He may not be widely known to 8yr olds but they'll dig the youtube videos. There are other crazy birdsuit base jumpers out there you could point to. Start here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HMdioj6kng
In a similar vein there are people like Dean Potter or any of the extremel rock climber slacklining nutters out there.
What these have in common is that they involve physical prowess in addition to mental abilities. Frankly I just don't see an 8yr getting excited about a boring hero that is really good at doing homework. But there is no reason the sport has to be a boring one.
You might find it interesting to read Little Brother, by Cory Doctorow:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Brother_(Cory_Doctorow_novel)
"[The protagonist] helps develop a clandestine wireless network, X-Net [so named because it is built on Xboxes], that avoids DHS monitoring using anonymity and encryption. Using the X-Net as a secure communications medium, he organizes teenagers and twenty-somethings who are upset with the police state tactics imposed after the [plot elements]. They develop innovative uses of existing technologies to foil DHS monitoring and cause mass confusion and embarrassment to law enforcement."
I'm positive Homeland Security has read this book. They're probably just cracking down now before things get out of hand.
From TFA: "Clark County Registrar of Voters Larry Lomax said there is no voter fraud, although the issues do come up because the screens are sensitive. For that reason, a person may not want to have their fingers linger too long on the screen after they choose their candidate."
It is interesting how the options work out; but the real issue here is a lousy hardware/software implementation. I wonder if any individual can control the layout well enough to purposefully take advantage of this. (Obviously the original submission implies such: but I doubt they were thinking about it vs just being a troll).
Posted Anonymously for obvious reasons. The computers will never get me!
Not to worry ... I'm sure iTunes will automatically 'like' songs based on what you listen to on your home machine. You needn't lift a finger to be an active member of ping. Oddly they could be creating a fully automated social networking site - no direct user involvement needed.
Because the proposed shutdown process is so blatantly wrong that any inhibition that blocks misguided developers from copying it is a good thing.
What should happen is that the apps all shut down and go away without any IF/AND/ORs/BUTs about it. If they need to save some state or or whatever then they should get a chance to do so. They should NOT EVER get to communicate with the user or otherwise delay the shutdown process. The OS layer should chose, prior to sending the message, if there is any opportunity for GUI interactions (and should not normally do so).
In an ideal world this would force application developers to maintain proper state and properly deal with auto-save and other features to make the user's life easier. The current model, as detailed in this patent, just pushes the problem off to the end user (which is wrong).
Your conclusion that the iphone4 drops "twice as many calls" as the 3GS doesn't pass the sniff test. If things were that bad I think it would be a much more obvious problem and would have taken a much more proactive fix by Apple. I suspect you're reading the Apple messaging wrong. The actual wording from the apple slide is, "(less than) 1 Additional calls dropped per 100 calls compared to iPhone 3GS".
You took this to mean 3GS drops 1/100 calls and that the iphone4 was dropping 2/100. But I think what they actually meant to say was "1 additional calls dropped per 100 dropped calls compared to the 3GS", e.g. that for any location and any number of successful calls if the 3GS would have dropped 100 of them the iphone4 would have dropped 101 of them. This is about a 1% degradation in performance.
Although still a PR problem for Apple -- particularly given that they bragged about this new antenna system. I don't see this as being earth shatteringly worse.
I myself have had work come back as plagarised beacuse there arte only so many ways to write the same damn sentance.
Creative spelling does help expand the number of ways 1 can right the same dam sentence!
A good reason for the OS to support multitasking: Assume you hit 'upload' in your favorite application and now want to do something else while the data is slowly streaming out to the server. This allows you to move on to do something else.
You aren't the one multitasking though because, from your perspective, you're done with that previous task. This lets the application/OS do the multitasking that allows you to move on and do something else. Apple would argue this "good" vs making you think about it as a new task: "I want this upload to complete so I'll run this application in the background while I do something else then I'll come back and close this application when it is done". In the latter case you truly are doing the multitasking.
Similar to your story I was out shoveling snow one day last winter... and after I was done my iPhone was missing.
I tracked it down in the tracks of my truck -- I'd moved it to finish shoveling and driven over my phone. As in your case all was fine -- didn't break the screen and it's been working just fine for at least a year since then.
This is a technical "solution" to a non-technical problem. The ability exists today but is predominately blocked by the cell phone providers.
This quote from the article shows how deluded these people are: "it seems likely that carriers would give the SIMFi away as long as you took out some sort of mobile data contract". If that was the case then I'd be able to use tethering on my iphone RIGHT NOW.
Sure, neat technical hack. Nice miniaturization there. But making this functionality available in a smaller form factor isn't the problem.
Oddly, I've recently moved to Wisconsin and many conversations about the weather turn to global warming. Apparently plenty of WI folks feel that recent winters are proof of "Global Warming". Anecdotal discussions aside, people around here seem to be very aware that the world is changing around them and, if anything, seem to be more willing to take these changes as signs of climate change.
Heck, I'd have argued that these strong seasons with a long history of "how cold does it get" and "when do the lakes freeze" and "when do the lakes thaw" and "when do the birds come back" make these midwesterner folks more interested in, and realizing of, the potential/risk of climate change. As opposed to the folks on the coast where small changes in weather/temperature hardly make a difference.
In the Star Trek future you can always route auxiliary power to the overloaded/failed device; which is usually sufficient to get to the end of the episode.