From what I understand ANY anti-virus or anti-malware tool is susceptible to being targeted by powerful nation-state actors for use is accessing user's computers... not just those from the US or Russia. That means that F-Secure, or any other such tool from any other country could still be hacked by the China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, the US or any other nation-state with an active cyber intelligence programme and used to violate the user's privacy and confidentiality.
I do not know what the real answer is... but I believe that the recent cyber intrusions are going to strengthen the advocacy for sandboxed application models and strict or explicit permissioned based access to computer hardware, software, network and data resources that have become prevalent on modern mobile platforms. Powerful nation-state actors will still try to hack and find vulnerabilities in the underlying operating system host or hypervisor layer, but at least it would give security practitioners a single concerted layer to focus their intrusion detection efforts on.
Protecting the cloud and the various systems, protocols, etc that make up the disparate components of cloud based systems is a whole other kettle of fish, which i think is beyond the scope of the question posed by the original poster.
It is true... bluetooth still has some ways to go before it can satisfy the reliability, consistency and quality of most audiophiles. Bluetooth, in its current incarnations, is a convenience technology that is mostly aiming to be good enough for most people... much like MP3 did for audio and MP4 did for video.
In choosing a bluetooth headset, one weighs the convenience of wireless listening with the inconvenience of having to make sure that one's headset is always charged before use and balances all that with having a further reduction in audio quality and intermittent connectivity issues. For most people, there is a headset at a price-point at which the convenience balances with the hassles and the quality of the headset offering is at a bearable price that they can live with.
Enter Apple AirPods (and W1 Beats headsets) and now Google Pixel Buds... all promising to improve the basic bluetooth experience in every way... as long as you use their headsets with a compatible device that knows how to interface with the enhanced protocols (i.e. one made by themselves). Since this is a game that any OEM that has a large consumer device footprint can play, we can expect Samsung to also have a headset offering that layers proprietary protocols on top of the basic bluetooth stack soon.
Isn't Laurene Powell (Steve Jobs' wife) a significant Disney shareholder... she should pick up the phone and call somebody.
In the old days, Steve would have picked up the phone and called Bob Igor (current Disney CEO) to remind him what happened to Michael Eisner, the last Disney CEO who tried to stand up to him.
For those who do not remember, Eisner was fired when it looked like Jobs (then CEO of Pixar) and John Lasseter (CCO) were going to take their Pixar ball and go and play with someone else (Warner Bros); and Igor was brought in with one task: Do not lose Pixar. Disney's subsequent acquisition of Pixar made Jobs the largest single shareholder of Disney and gave him a seat on its board of directors - which is presumably now filled by Powell.
Anyway... Tim Cook, at Apple, should call Powell and ask her to call Igor, at Disney, and have a gentle conversation about the difficulty he might have in a few months when he submits his new streaming app for approval for the Apple iOS and tvOS app stores.
Probably Russian hackers... all the evidence points to this being the case...
It must be Russian hackers... who else could it be...
The Cyrillic character found in the code is proof that the Russians could have possibly did it... maybe... definitely...
The computer logs are obviously classified... and that proves that the Russians may have definitely had a hand in possibly directing the hackers that did it...
What more proof does anyone need... there is no doubt in my mind that the Russians directed this hacking group to bring the State Department email down...
All the evidence leads directly to the Kremlin... all the way to the top...
I often turn off my phone's Wi-Fi support before plugging it in to charge at night, only to discover it has mysteriously turned on in the morning. After checking the Wi-Fi Control History on my S7, it appears as though the various cookie-cutter apps for these drones wake up to phone home in the night after they are opened, while the phone is charging.
How is this even possible!?
Although I have owned a few Android phones over the last few year, my primary smartphone has been an iPhone since the iPhone 3G. So, the idea that a third party app could turn on radios in my mobile device without my permission or knowledge is simply insane to me.
Besides just the loss of personal privacy and violation of confidentiality (depending on what the app is doing when it turns on the radio), many people still have capped or metered internet services, and this app could be draining that without the handset owner's permission!
Your browser is not supported.
Unfortunately this browser does not support the web technology that powers Firefox Send. You’ll need to try another browser. We recommend Firefox!
...when I try to access the service.
If Mozilla's strategy is to lure back old users with web based services like Send, they are going to have to ensure that the service works seamlessly for the people that I exchange files with, without trying to force them to change their browser first. Even if I eventually make the switch to Firefox, I can hardly expect everyone that I exchange files with to do the same in order to be able to receive the files that I send.
Many company's register their trade marks in adjacent industries, not just the classes that they operate in. This it to allow possible future expansion, as well as to prevent something like this from happening - a company in a different, but adjacent industry, having a similar mark as your own.
I headed up payments and collections innovation in a large major bank, and we defined adjacent industries quite broadly. Most people think of adjacent industries or sectors as being those related to what they do... but we defined it as being "...where there is a strong likelihood of there being significant customer or enduser overlap with a small or negligible symmetric difference."
I would guess that PayPal believes that there is a high overlap in Pandora's and PayPal's users, with a very small symmetric difference, making the likelihood that most of the people seeing the new Pandora logo will do so within a materially narrow time-space of having interacted with the PayPal logo - which would lead to both brand dilution as well as brand association, at least in the short term while people are getting used to the revised Pandora logo.
It's no surprise that The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild is the best-selling game on the Nintendo Switch... But managing to sell more copies than consoles that can actually play it? That's what's happened in the U.S., amazingly -- Nintendo just announced that it sold 906,000 Switch consoles in March along with 925,000 copies of Breath of the Wild.
Many people around the world buy their games from US based online stores when that game is not readily available from their local game store... These sales will have been recorded as US sales, even if the product might have ultimately been shipped overseas.
The iPhone exhibited a similar phenomenon during 2007-2009 when it was not yet readily available around the world. Apple reported significantly higher US unit sales than AT&T was reporting new subscribers - even though the phone was network locked to AT&T in the US - that was because many iPhones were being purchased in the US for use on other (often overseas) networks (after being jailbroken).
Intel hasn't given us specific information about the specs and speeds of its first Compute Cards, but you can expect the fastest ones to approach the performance of high-end fanless laptops like Apple's MacBooks.
As impressive a feat as this might appear, at first, one must remember that Apple devices running last year's A9X are already faster than the Apple MacBook running Intel's equivalent processor, according to the latest GeekBench numbers - http://wccftech.com/apple-a9xi.... So, I fully expect that newer devices running Apple's A10 or Qualcomm's Snapdragon 821 (that are slightly larger than a credit card due to some additional features that Intel's compute cards lack, such as a touch screen, gyro, motion, barometric, gps, cdma, gsm, lte, wifi, dsp, hsm, etc.) to already be a lot faster than Intel's fastest Compute Cards (assuming that the MacBook remains the benchmark performance).
I think that what Intel's Compute Cards will have going for them will be accessibility, programability, price and the ease of interfacing them to custom devices for developers... That is what Intel should be emphasizing. Vending machines, signage displays, self service kiosks, home automation hubs, assembly line robots, etc. do not need lots of computing power... but they need reliability, availability and dependability with minimal human intervention in some of the harshest environments, every single day of the year.
"For people who choose to integrate ride sharing apps with iOS Maps, location data must be shared in order for you to request a ride inside the Maps app..."
I wonder if all the other apps that use the Apple Maps integration, such as Lyft, OpenTable, and Yelp, also exhibit the same behaviour of changing the location tracking setting from "While using the app" to "Always"? Furthermore, if Siri integration can pass the location information to the ride hailing app just in time as it is invoked, why can't Maps integration accomplish the same feat? Finally, while I understand why Apple Maps would need location tracking to be set to be "Always" to accomplish some of its magic, why isn't this being reported as such... instead of misreporting it as being the app using Apple Maps integration that has its location tracking setting to "Always"
The bigger issue is that anyone who leaves their laptop unattended for a short period of time can have their laptop stolen, and the thief can actually gain access to it.
This is not true... as the article clearly states:
Swedish hardware hacker Ulf Frisk has created a device that can extract Mac FileVault2 (Apple's disk encryption utility) passwords from a device's memory before macOS boots and anti-DMA protections kick in.
Therefore simply leaving your laptop unattended is not going to automagically disable the built-in anti-DMA protections that kick in during the boot up process and enable a passerby with PCILeech to steal your password and access your encrypted disk.
To gain access to your MacBook, the attacker needs to have the PCILeech plugged into a Thunderbolt 2 port when the computer is first switched on to perform a cold boot and you need to be running an unpatched pre-16C63a build of macOS and you need to login with your password at that very moment while it is plugged in. The prototype PCILeech is much bulkier than a spy camera and has to be plugged into the computer (and its own power source) while you are logging in in order to extract the password from memory... so it is highly unlikely that you are not going to notice this big external hard disk-like looking device plugged into your computer when you return from a bathroom break.
However, immunity from the PCILeech hack is free and easy... just upgrade to macOS 10.12.2
From the Article:
"The solution Apple decided upon and rolled out is a complete one. At least to the extent that I have been able to confirm," Frisk said. "It is no longer possible to access memory prior to macOS boot. The Mac is now one of the most secure platforms with regards to this specific attack vector."
Bloomberg reports that hard-right groups are lining up to back misleading websites and fake journalists who attack Musk's business empire.
Throughout history, the English world has referred to political or social groups that espouse populist ultraconservative and extreme nationalist ideologies as far-right groups or parties. But, recently I have observed an explosion of new terminology being invented to try to distinguish the multitude of far-right groups - all of which share the same ultraconservative, ultranationalist rejection of modern egalitarianism. It is almost as if far-right groups are jostling for position to see who can pronounce themselves to be at the furthest right of the left-right socio-political ideological spectrum.
It may be that if one splits hairs, one may identify unique characteristics that distinguish the different groups' neoreactionary philosophies - and many people will point these out to confused detractors like myself. Far-right groups have as much right to exist and espouse their ideological views as any other socio-political group... but, for the sake of clarity, lets stop inventing completely new terminology to describe how much further to the right one group may be than the ones that came before it.
Never since the formalisation of the struggles for independence, self determination and emancipation by the long suffering subjects of British, French and Portuguese colonies have we seen the emergence of so many political and social "movements" as we have seen in recent far-right politics of America. Calling one's social, political or pressure group a movement, no matter how well funded it is, does not automatically bestow upon it a mark of legitimacy if it is not borne out of the organisation of legitimate grass-root and civil societal formations that will sustain it as a movement long after the big cheques stop flowing because the socio-economic issues that are the fuel of real movements very rarely follow the ebb and flow of the electoral cycle. So, enough already with the "it's a movement" when referring to the shiny new vehicle a particular group may be using to rally its supporters behind its latest socio-political ideological project.
1,440 articles, videos and other pieces of content would be too much for any one person to try to read or watch in a single day.
It is also highly unlikely that any one person could be interested in all the articles, videos and other pieces of content, in all the categories and sub-categories offered by the Washington Post. So the real number of articles, videos and other pieces of content published that one would want to read would probably be mush much smaller
I don't think that it matters... we are talking about innocent people who were later found to have done nothing to deserve death, rather than people who the police had legitimate cause to seek to apprehend... people who did not seek a violent confrontation with the police, but got one nevertheless.
I think that what you are getting at is something that my mother used to say to me when I was a kid... the friends one associates with, the way one presents themselves through dress, demeanour, etc., the neighbourhood that one hangs out at and more, all go towards other people's characterisation of you as an individual. If you hang out with your friends who sell drugs in a crime ridden neighbourhood, you are going to have more encounters with the police, regardless of race. The question is: is there a greater likelihood that one of those encounters might spiral into a violent and possibly fatal encounter because of one's race.
This is the problem with selecting a single element of detail out of a body of data and using it to make an argument that completely ignores the rest of the data.
If you look at the data in its entirety you will realise that no race, sex, or whatever is immune to being killed by the police... especially if you charge at the police with a knife or point something that may look like a firearm at them... the police will shoot you no matter who or what you are - this is just Darwin's theory of natural selection in action - weeding out the stupid gene so that it hopefully does not multiply, regardless of race.
However, if you look at all the data... not just the part that support the argument that you have already decided you want to make... all of the data... you will see that from time to time innocent men and women, black, white and everything in between, are sometimes killed needlessly by police. Sometimes it is an error - a civilian crossing the street in the middle of a shoot out with criminals - sometimes it is a cop who has had a bad week and that innocent person just happened to in the wrong place at the wrong time when the police officer lost control of their faculties. Regardless of the reasons, if you look deeper into the data... once again all of the data at the same time, not individual strands separated from the rest of the data... you will see that all too often, when this happens... when an innocent person is killed by the police... there is a disproportionate probability that that innocent person is going to be a black male than any other race or sex.
This is not a point of view to be debated... this is a matter of fact as evidenced by the publicly available data - we can debate why this might be the case, but not whether or not it is happening... that would be disrespectful to all he innocent people, of all races, whose deaths at the hands of the police make up the data we are discussing.
Now lets go out and celebrate one more gangster, murderer, rapist, etc who was stupid enough to go toe-to-toe with the police... and is now six feet under pushing daisies. We should not forget that sometimes the officers may not have had an alternative option that would safeguard life and property at the time or may have already exhausted non-lethal options at the time they took the lethal action.... sometimes.
The Guardian has been running a live counter of people killed by police in the US. The site is pretty haunting... showing a picture of the deceased as a normal smiling person before they died. While statistics can be projected so as to further any agenda, even a racist one as you rightly state, the raw data - without any biased analysis or interpretation - speaks for itself: 1145 people were killed by police in the US last year, and if you were black, you were 2.5 times as likely to be killed by the police as a white person.
But this is only part of the story... the Guardian counter allows you to click a link in the image of each person killed by the police to read about the circumstances under which they were killed, and it is clear that the vast majority of these people (regardless of race, ethnicity or sex) were out looking for trouble when they met their demise - criminal intent knows no racial or genetic boundaries - and maybe many of these people got what they deserved.
I think that the issue that many people take umbrage of is the clear disparity in which police handled the 226 unarmed people they killed in 2015. Once again, many of these so-called unarmed people were not innocent in their endeavours at the time they had their untimely encounter with the police. However, what the facts tell us is that if you were an unarmed black person and had a violent encounter with the police in 2015, you were 3.8 times as likely to be killed by the police as a white person. This includes people such as Keith Childress who failed to drop an object in his hand when instructed to do so by the police - the object turned out to be his cell phone, and one might understand why he might have hesitated flinging that onto the floor - as well as Leroy Browning who allegedly reached for a deputy's firearm during a physical struggle, prompting officers to open fire; Keith did not deserve to die while Leroy probably got what he deserved.
To be fair, Google has not made much from Java either... APIs on their own do not make money, it is what you do with the API that makes you money.
The challenge or the jury will be in quantifying the extent to which building the Java APIs into Android might have been responsible for the success of Android.
Speaking through its head of research and development, Wolfgang Epple, JLR says customers should not expect an autonomous car from them as it has no plans to manufacture cars that drive themselves for one reason: They view owners of self-driving car or people who ride in them as cargo and don't consider their customers as such. ''We don't consider customers cargo. We don't want to build a robot that delivers the cargo from A to B"
Chaum is also building into PrivaTegrity another feature that’s sure to be far more controversial: a carefully controlled backdoor that allows anyone doing something “generally recognized as evil” to have their anonymity and privacy stripped altogether.
Whoever controls that backdoor within PrivaTegrity would have the power to decide who counts as “evil” - too much power, Chaum recognizes, for any single company or government. So he’s given the task to a sort of council system. When PrivaTegrity’s setup is complete, nine server administrators in nine different countries would all need to cooperate to trace criminals within the network and decrypt their communications.
So... my question would be... Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? who will appoint, monitor and document the decisions of these administrators and if necessary revoke their anointed status as the determiners of what is or isn't acceptable evil (e.g. is sharing a commercial movie evil enough to attract the attention of "the nine"... how about a casual statement calling for the non-constitutional overthrow of a government... clearly child porn would be considered evil, but what would the cut off age be, 16, 17 or 18... would planning to blow up a public facility in a western country be more evil than threatening to blow up a public facility in a country already mired in a civil war)? Will they be accuser, prosecutor, judge and jury? who will take cases to them and which legal system will apply... can they be sued in the event that they err? what will keep them beyond reproach and will their decisions be made public? will it be possible to appeal their decisions?
Any ship embarking on interstellar travel
in the near future using any of the first two methods (a generation
ship using conventional propulsion or a hyper speed ship using fuel, thrust or time improvements) is likely to be
beaten to the destination by a explorers leaving earth hundreds of years later using superior interstellar travel
technology.
Although a generation ship carrying massive amounts of fuel and a gigantic solar
sail could boost up to speeds of hundreds of km/s, it could still be thousands of years before such a ship reached even
the nearest star system... and then it would have to expend vast amounts of stored fuel to slow down, slip into a suitable
orbit around the local sun and commence a search for potentially habitable planetary bodies, with no hope of ever
being able to generate sufficient thrust to move on to a further star system, should the first prove to have no suitable
planets to settle on.
Consider the rate of communications, propulsion, etc. advancement that would have taken place in the intervening 5000-
odd years between the departure of interstellar explorers leaving earth over the next 100 years and those leaving earth,
say, 2-3000 years from today. How would our present day explorers even communicate with earth using 5000 year old
communication technology - heck, it would be tough to communicate with just 100 year old technology, let alone 5000 year
old relics. And suppose the mission was successful... later and technologically more advanced departures travelling in the
same direction would have to make first contact decisions not too dissimilar to the ones we make today about isolated
peoples such as isolated
tribes in the Amazon rain forest - only it would be more similar to travelling back 5000 years to the bronze age - round about the time when Stonehenge was built and Papyrus
invented.
Future propulsion
technologies, would not fare much better. The more efficient the propulsion technology, the faster the rate of travel. This
might appear to be the answer, except that special
relativity would mean that while time slowed down for the travelling explorers, hundreds or even thousands of years
could pass here on Earth for a few years of time for our hyper-speed interstellar travellers. So, while interstellar
travellers travelling at hyper-speed could reach their destination in a single life time, they too could be beaten to the
punch by a later departure hundreds of years later (or just a months days later in time passed aboard the interstellar
ship).
That special relativistic time dilation thingamajig can be a bitch!
It matters because 100 years from now, people will want to know in much the same way we want to know the people who gave birth to much of our present day civilisation... the Newtons, Marconis, Teslas, Edissons, Berners-Lees, Da Vincis, Graham Bells, Franklins, Einsteins, Pasteur, Curies, Wright Brothers and lots more.
Bitcoin may not still be around in 100 years, but the distributed ledger and crypto currency genies are never going back into their bottles and they will transform the world as we know it in more ways than the internet and world wide web has. The concept of centralised control over the generation, storage and transmission of tokens of value is unravelling faster than the centralised control and distribution of information and knowledge has.
It matters because 100 years from now people will want to know more than a pseudo name... they will want to know to who Nakamoto really was, where he lived, what inspired him, what he ate for breakfast, and all the other stuff that make our modern day legends more than myths.
It matters because if we do not solve this mystery in our lifetime, the genius of Nakamoto will remain a myth forever.
Surely we are beyond this... don't we already have self destructing software?
Making a self destructing chip, will not destroy the software and data on the electronic device powering and commanding the chip (chips need, power, storage, memory and other i/o stuff to be useful)
You can see why Google had to shaft Apple and push Android though. Imagine the situation they would be in now if Apple dominated all mobile and they were dependent on their 'generosity' to allow advertising and services through...
To a large extent Google's mobile advertising business is already dependent on Apple's "generosity". Up to 75% of Google's mobile ad revenue is dependent on Apple's continued placement of Google as the default search engine on its iOS devices http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05... - a treasured position which Google pays Apple an estimated $2 billion a year to hold onto http://bgr.com/2015/05/27/ipho.... The loss of of mobile advertising revenue from iOS platforms would knock over 13% off Googles total revenue (nearly $9 billion in 2014 numbers)
Yes, things could be a lot worse if Google had not entered the market with its own mobile operating system... But with support for ad blocking, Apple is going after Google, not Android (after having earned 90% of the smartphone profits in 2014, Apple needs Android as much as Microsoft needed the Mac in the late 1990's to stave off the scrutiny of regulators around the world).
According to Jason Calacanis https://www.linkedin.com/pulse..., Tim Cook is slowly getting revenge on Google on behalf of Steve Jobs - without doing it directly... "We did not enter the search business," Jobs said. "They entered the phone business. Make no mistake they want to kill the iPhone. We won’t let them..." So, Tim Cook is playing the slow revenge game....
Given the revenue challenges that all Android OEMs are facing (with the obvious exception of Samsung), by going after Google's ability to remain Android's the benevolent benefactor - i.e. ad revenue - Apple may yet give Steve Jobs the revenge he sought... only it will not be the thermonuclear victory he envisaged... its a slow war of attrition.
Slashdot Mirror
Any fast charge capable (10W) wireless charger works just fine with an iPhone.
Google is being worse than Apple in this case.
Just about any fast charge capable wireless charger from Anker, Samsung, Belkin, Mophie, Logitech, etc. works just fine with an iPhone.
Even a no-name-brand fast wireless charger will charge an iPhone 8 and X at 7.5w, and iPhone XS and XR at 10w
From what I understand ANY anti-virus or anti-malware tool is susceptible to being targeted by powerful nation-state actors for use is accessing user's computers... not just those from the US or Russia. That means that F-Secure, or any other such tool from any other country could still be hacked by the China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, the US or any other nation-state with an active cyber intelligence programme and used to violate the user's privacy and confidentiality.
I do not know what the real answer is... but I believe that the recent cyber intrusions are going to strengthen the advocacy for sandboxed application models and strict or explicit permissioned based access to computer hardware, software, network and data resources that have become prevalent on modern mobile platforms. Powerful nation-state actors will still try to hack and find vulnerabilities in the underlying operating system host or hypervisor layer, but at least it would give security practitioners a single concerted layer to focus their intrusion detection efforts on.
Protecting the cloud and the various systems, protocols, etc that make up the disparate components of cloud based systems is a whole other kettle of fish, which i think is beyond the scope of the question posed by the original poster.
It is true... bluetooth still has some ways to go before it can satisfy the reliability, consistency and quality of most audiophiles. Bluetooth, in its current incarnations, is a convenience technology that is mostly aiming to be good enough for most people... much like MP3 did for audio and MP4 did for video.
In choosing a bluetooth headset, one weighs the convenience of wireless listening with the inconvenience of having to make sure that one's headset is always charged before use and balances all that with having a further reduction in audio quality and intermittent connectivity issues. For most people, there is a headset at a price-point at which the convenience balances with the hassles and the quality of the headset offering is at a bearable price that they can live with.
Enter Apple AirPods (and W1 Beats headsets) and now Google Pixel Buds... all promising to improve the basic bluetooth experience in every way... as long as you use their headsets with a compatible device that knows how to interface with the enhanced protocols (i.e. one made by themselves). Since this is a game that any OEM that has a large consumer device footprint can play, we can expect Samsung to also have a headset offering that layers proprietary protocols on top of the basic bluetooth stack soon.
Isn't Laurene Powell (Steve Jobs' wife) a significant Disney shareholder... she should pick up the phone and call somebody.
In the old days, Steve would have picked up the phone and called Bob Igor (current Disney CEO) to remind him what happened to Michael Eisner, the last Disney CEO who tried to stand up to him.
For those who do not remember, Eisner was fired when it looked like Jobs (then CEO of Pixar) and John Lasseter (CCO) were going to take their Pixar ball and go and play with someone else (Warner Bros); and Igor was brought in with one task: Do not lose Pixar. Disney's subsequent acquisition of Pixar made Jobs the largest single shareholder of Disney and gave him a seat on its board of directors - which is presumably now filled by Powell.
Anyway... Tim Cook, at Apple, should call Powell and ask her to call Igor, at Disney, and have a gentle conversation about the difficulty he might have in a few months when he submits his new streaming app for approval for the Apple iOS and tvOS app stores.
Definitely Russian hackers...
Probably Russian hackers... all the evidence points to this being the case...
It must be Russian hackers... who else could it be...
The Cyrillic character found in the code is proof that the Russians could have possibly did it... maybe... definitely...
The computer logs are obviously classified... and that proves that the Russians may have definitely had a hand in possibly directing the hackers that did it...
What more proof does anyone need... there is no doubt in my mind that the Russians directed this hacking group to bring the State Department email down...
All the evidence leads directly to the Kremlin... all the way to the top...
:
:
:
How is this even possible!?
Although I have owned a few Android phones over the last few year, my primary smartphone has been an iPhone since the iPhone 3G. So, the idea that a third party app could turn on radios in my mobile device without my permission or knowledge is simply insane to me.
Besides just the loss of personal privacy and violation of confidentiality (depending on what the app is doing when it turns on the radio), many people still have capped or metered internet services, and this app could be draining that without the handset owner's permission!
Unbelievable... just unbelievable.
I get...
Your browser is not supported.
Unfortunately this browser does not support the web technology that powers
Firefox Send. You’ll need to try another browser. We recommend Firefox!
...when I try to access the service.
If Mozilla's strategy is to lure back old users with web based services like Send, they are going to have to ensure that the service works seamlessly for the people that I exchange files with, without trying to force them to change their browser first. Even if I eventually make the switch to Firefox, I can hardly expect everyone that I exchange files with to do the same in order to be able to receive the files that I send.
Many company's register their trade marks in adjacent industries, not just the classes that they operate in. This it to allow possible future expansion, as well as to prevent something like this from happening - a company in a different, but adjacent industry, having a similar mark as your own.
I headed up payments and collections innovation in a large major bank, and we defined adjacent industries quite broadly. Most people think of adjacent industries or sectors as being those related to what they do... but we defined it as being " ...where there is a strong likelihood of there being significant customer or enduser overlap with a small or negligible symmetric difference. "
I would guess that PayPal believes that there is a high overlap in Pandora's and PayPal's users, with a very small symmetric difference, making the likelihood that most of the people seeing the new Pandora logo will do so within a materially narrow time-space of having interacted with the PayPal logo - which would lead to both brand dilution as well as brand association, at least in the short term while people are getting used to the revised Pandora logo.
Many people around the world buy their games from US based online stores when that game is not readily available from their local game store... These sales will have been recorded as US sales, even if the product might have ultimately been shipped overseas.
The iPhone exhibited a similar phenomenon during 2007-2009 when it was not yet readily available around the world. Apple reported significantly higher US unit sales than AT&T was reporting new subscribers - even though the phone was network locked to AT&T in the US - that was because many iPhones were being purchased in the US for use on other (often overseas) networks (after being jailbroken).
As impressive a feat as this might appear, at first, one must remember that Apple devices running last year's A9X are already faster than the Apple MacBook running Intel's equivalent processor, according to the latest GeekBench numbers - http://wccftech.com/apple-a9xi.... So, I fully expect that newer devices running Apple's A10 or Qualcomm's Snapdragon 821 (that are slightly larger than a credit card due to some additional features that Intel's compute cards lack, such as a touch screen, gyro, motion, barometric, gps, cdma, gsm, lte, wifi, dsp, hsm, etc.) to already be a lot faster than Intel's fastest Compute Cards (assuming that the MacBook remains the benchmark performance).
I think that what Intel's Compute Cards will have going for them will be accessibility, programability, price and the ease of interfacing them to custom devices for developers... That is what Intel should be emphasizing. Vending machines, signage displays, self service kiosks, home automation hubs, assembly line robots, etc. do not need lots of computing power... but they need reliability, availability and dependability with minimal human intervention in some of the harshest environments, every single day of the year.
I wonder if all the other apps that use the Apple Maps integration, such as Lyft, OpenTable, and Yelp, also exhibit the same behaviour of changing the location tracking setting from "While using the app" to "Always"? Furthermore, if Siri integration can pass the location information to the ride hailing app just in time as it is invoked, why can't Maps integration accomplish the same feat? Finally, while I understand why Apple Maps would need location tracking to be set to be "Always" to accomplish some of its magic, why isn't this being reported as such... instead of misreporting it as being the app using Apple Maps integration that has its location tracking setting to "Always"
The bigger issue is that anyone who leaves their laptop unattended for a short period of time can have their laptop stolen, and the thief can actually gain access to it.
This is not true... as the article clearly states:
Therefore simply leaving your laptop unattended is not going to automagically disable the built-in anti-DMA protections that kick in during the boot up process and enable a passerby with PCILeech to steal your password and access your encrypted disk.
To gain access to your MacBook, the attacker needs to have the PCILeech plugged into a Thunderbolt 2 port when the computer is first switched on to perform a cold boot and you need to be running an unpatched pre-16C63a build of macOS and you need to login with your password at that very moment while it is plugged in. The prototype PCILeech is much bulkier than a spy camera and has to be plugged into the computer (and its own power source) while you are logging in in order to extract the password from memory... so it is highly unlikely that you are not going to notice this big external hard disk-like looking device plugged into your computer when you return from a bathroom break.
However, immunity from the PCILeech hack is free and easy... just upgrade to macOS 10.12.2
From the Article:
Far-Right, New-Right, Tea-Party, Alt-Right, Hard-Right... What's Next: Neo-Right!?
Throughout history, the English world has referred to political or social groups that espouse populist ultraconservative and extreme nationalist ideologies as far-right groups or parties. But, recently I have observed an explosion of new terminology being invented to try to distinguish the multitude of far-right groups - all of which share the same ultraconservative, ultranationalist rejection of modern egalitarianism. It is almost as if far-right groups are jostling for position to see who can pronounce themselves to be at the furthest right of the left-right socio-political ideological spectrum.
It may be that if one splits hairs, one may identify unique characteristics that distinguish the different groups' neoreactionary philosophies - and many people will point these out to confused detractors like myself. Far-right groups have as much right to exist and espouse their ideological views as any other socio-political group... but, for the sake of clarity, lets stop inventing completely new terminology to describe how much further to the right one group may be than the ones that came before it.
Never since the formalisation of the struggles for independence, self determination and emancipation by the long suffering subjects of British, French and Portuguese colonies have we seen the emergence of so many political and social "movements" as we have seen in recent far-right politics of America. Calling one's social, political or pressure group a movement, no matter how well funded it is, does not automatically bestow upon it a mark of legitimacy if it is not borne out of the organisation of legitimate grass-root and civil societal formations that will sustain it as a movement long after the big cheques stop flowing because the socio-economic issues that are the fuel of real movements very rarely follow the ebb and flow of the electoral cycle. So, enough already with the "it's a movement" when referring to the shiny new vehicle a particular group may be using to rally its supporters behind its latest socio-political ideological project.
Okay... I'll get off my soapbox now and shut up.
1,440 articles, videos and other pieces of content would be too much for any one person to try to read or watch in a single day.
It is also highly unlikely that any one person could be interested in all the articles, videos and other pieces of content, in all the categories and sub-categories offered by the Washington Post. So the real number of articles, videos and other pieces of content published that one would want to read would probably be mush much smaller
I don't think that it matters... we are talking about innocent people who were later found to have done nothing to deserve death, rather than people who the police had legitimate cause to seek to apprehend... people who did not seek a violent confrontation with the police, but got one nevertheless.
I think that what you are getting at is something that my mother used to say to me when I was a kid... the friends one associates with, the way one presents themselves through dress, demeanour, etc., the neighbourhood that one hangs out at and more, all go towards other people's characterisation of you as an individual. If you hang out with your friends who sell drugs in a crime ridden neighbourhood, you are going to have more encounters with the police, regardless of race. The question is: is there a greater likelihood that one of those encounters might spiral into a violent and possibly fatal encounter because of one's race.
This is the problem with selecting a single element of detail out of a body of data and using it to make an argument that completely ignores the rest of the data.
If you look at the data in its entirety you will realise that no race, sex, or whatever is immune to being killed by the police... especially if you charge at the police with a knife or point something that may look like a firearm at them... the police will shoot you no matter who or what you are - this is just Darwin's theory of natural selection in action - weeding out the stupid gene so that it hopefully does not multiply, regardless of race.
However, if you look at all the data... not just the part that support the argument that you have already decided you want to make... all of the data... you will see that from time to time innocent men and women, black, white and everything in between, are sometimes killed needlessly by police. Sometimes it is an error - a civilian crossing the street in the middle of a shoot out with criminals - sometimes it is a cop who has had a bad week and that innocent person just happened to in the wrong place at the wrong time when the police officer lost control of their faculties. Regardless of the reasons, if you look deeper into the data... once again all of the data at the same time, not individual strands separated from the rest of the data... you will see that all too often, when this happens... when an innocent person is killed by the police... there is a disproportionate probability that that innocent person is going to be a black male than any other race or sex.
This is not a point of view to be debated... this is a matter of fact as evidenced by the publicly available data - we can debate why this might be the case, but not whether or not it is happening... that would be disrespectful to all he innocent people, of all races, whose deaths at the hands of the police make up the data we are discussing.
Now lets go out and celebrate one more gangster, murderer, rapist, etc who was stupid enough to go toe-to-toe with the police... and is now six feet under pushing daisies. We should not forget that sometimes the officers may not have had an alternative option that would safeguard life and property at the time or may have already exhausted non-lethal options at the time they took the lethal action.... sometimes.
The Guardian has been running a live counter of people killed by police in the US. The site is pretty haunting... showing a picture of the deceased as a normal smiling person before they died. While statistics can be projected so as to further any agenda, even a racist one as you rightly state, the raw data - without any biased analysis or interpretation - speaks for itself: 1145 people were killed by police in the US last year, and if you were black, you were 2.5 times as likely to be killed by the police as a white person.
But this is only part of the story... the Guardian counter allows you to click a link in the image of each person killed by the police to read about the circumstances under which they were killed, and it is clear that the vast majority of these people (regardless of race, ethnicity or sex) were out looking for trouble when they met their demise - criminal intent knows no racial or genetic boundaries - and maybe many of these people got what they deserved.
I think that the issue that many people take umbrage of is the clear disparity in which police handled the 226 unarmed people they killed in 2015. Once again, many of these so-called unarmed people were not innocent in their endeavours at the time they had their untimely encounter with the police. However, what the facts tell us is that if you were an unarmed black person and had a violent encounter with the police in 2015, you were 3.8 times as likely to be killed by the police as a white person. This includes people such as Keith Childress who failed to drop an object in his hand when instructed to do so by the police - the object turned out to be his cell phone, and one might understand why he might have hesitated flinging that onto the floor - as well as Leroy Browning who allegedly reached for a deputy's firearm during a physical struggle, prompting officers to open fire; Keith did not deserve to die while Leroy probably got what he deserved.
To be fair, Google has not made much from Java either... APIs on their own do not make money, it is what you do with the API that makes you money.
The challenge or the jury will be in quantifying the extent to which building the Java APIs into Android might have been responsible for the success of Android.
I wonder what changed in the last 6 months.
So... my question would be... Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? who will appoint, monitor and document the decisions of these administrators and if necessary revoke their anointed status as the determiners of what is or isn't acceptable evil (e.g. is sharing a commercial movie evil enough to attract the attention of "the nine"... how about a casual statement calling for the non-constitutional overthrow of a government... clearly child porn would be considered evil, but what would the cut off age be, 16, 17 or 18... would planning to blow up a public facility in a western country be more evil than threatening to blow up a public facility in a country already mired in a civil war)? Will they be accuser, prosecutor, judge and jury? who will take cases to them and which legal system will apply... can they be sued in the event that they err? what will keep them beyond reproach and will their decisions be made public? will it be possible to appeal their decisions?
Lots of questions and no clear answers.
Any ship embarking on interstellar travel in the near future using any of the first two methods (a generation ship using conventional propulsion or a hyper speed ship using fuel, thrust or time improvements) is likely to be beaten to the destination by a explorers leaving earth hundreds of years later using superior interstellar travel technology.
Although a generation ship carrying massive amounts of fuel and a gigantic solar sail could boost up to speeds of hundreds of km/s, it could still be thousands of years before such a ship reached even the nearest star system... and then it would have to expend vast amounts of stored fuel to slow down, slip into a suitable orbit around the local sun and commence a search for potentially habitable planetary bodies, with no hope of ever being able to generate sufficient thrust to move on to a further star system, should the first prove to have no suitable planets to settle on.
Consider the rate of communications, propulsion, etc. advancement that would have taken place in the intervening 5000- odd years between the departure of interstellar explorers leaving earth over the next 100 years and those leaving earth, say, 2-3000 years from today. How would our present day explorers even communicate with earth using 5000 year old communication technology - heck, it would be tough to communicate with just 100 year old technology, let alone 5000 year old relics. And suppose the mission was successful... later and technologically more advanced departures travelling in the same direction would have to make first contact decisions not too dissimilar to the ones we make today about isolated peoples such as isolated tribes in the Amazon rain forest - only it would be more similar to travelling back 5000 years to the bronze age - round about the time when Stonehenge was built and Papyrus invented.
Future propulsion technologies, would not fare much better. The more efficient the propulsion technology, the faster the rate of travel. This might appear to be the answer, except that special relativity would mean that while time slowed down for the travelling explorers, hundreds or even thousands of years could pass here on Earth for a few years of time for our hyper-speed interstellar travellers. So, while interstellar travellers travelling at hyper-speed could reach their destination in a single life time, they too could be beaten to the punch by a later departure hundreds of years later (or just a months days later in time passed aboard the interstellar ship).
That special relativistic time dilation thingamajig can be a bitch!
Just my thoughts and observation
It matters because 100 years from now, people will want to know in much the same way we want to know the people who gave birth to much of our present day civilisation... the Newtons, Marconis, Teslas, Edissons, Berners-Lees, Da Vincis, Graham Bells, Franklins, Einsteins, Pasteur, Curies, Wright Brothers and lots more.
Bitcoin may not still be around in 100 years, but the distributed ledger and crypto currency genies are never going back into their bottles and they will transform the world as we know it in more ways than the internet and world wide web has. The concept of centralised control over the generation, storage and transmission of tokens of value is unravelling faster than the centralised control and distribution of information and knowledge has.
It matters because 100 years from now people will want to know more than a pseudo name... they will want to know to who Nakamoto really was, where he lived, what inspired him, what he ate for breakfast, and all the other stuff that make our modern day legends more than myths.
It matters because if we do not solve this mystery in our lifetime, the genius of Nakamoto will remain a myth forever.
Surely we are beyond this... don't we already have self destructing software?
Making a self destructing chip, will not destroy the software and data on the electronic device powering and commanding the chip (chips need, power, storage, memory and other i/o stuff to be useful)
Do not project your racism on others
You can see why Google had to shaft Apple and push Android though. Imagine the situation they would be in now if Apple dominated all mobile and they were dependent on their 'generosity' to allow advertising and services through...
To a large extent Google's mobile advertising business is already dependent on Apple's "generosity". Up to 75% of Google's mobile ad revenue is dependent on Apple's continued placement of Google as the default search engine on its iOS devices http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05... - a treasured position which Google pays Apple an estimated $2 billion a year to hold onto http://bgr.com/2015/05/27/ipho.... The loss of of mobile advertising revenue from iOS platforms would knock over 13% off Googles total revenue (nearly $9 billion in 2014 numbers)
Yes, things could be a lot worse if Google had not entered the market with its own mobile operating system... But with support for ad blocking, Apple is going after Google, not Android (after having earned 90% of the smartphone profits in 2014, Apple needs Android as much as Microsoft needed the Mac in the late 1990's to stave off the scrutiny of regulators around the world).
According to Jason Calacanis https://www.linkedin.com/pulse..., Tim Cook is slowly getting revenge on Google on behalf of Steve Jobs - without doing it directly... "We did not enter the search business," Jobs said. "They entered the phone business. Make no mistake they want to kill the iPhone. We won’t let them..." So, Tim Cook is playing the slow revenge game....
Given the revenue challenges that all Android OEMs are facing (with the obvious exception of Samsung), by going after Google's ability to remain Android's the benevolent benefactor - i.e. ad revenue - Apple may yet give Steve Jobs the revenge he sought... only it will not be the thermonuclear victory he envisaged... its a slow war of attrition.