Of course the publisher was doing something wrong, you are effectively stealing someones electricity to mine crypto for your benefit. For me this is plain theft and I would be surprised if a court would not come to the same conclusion.
Actually I'll rephrase, it more like a trojan horse that is pushed to the victim without their knowledge which then steals electricity and processing power on behalf of the author.
I don't think its that easy. People buy the right to use a Getty image and then host it on their own web server. That is why Getty are unhappy that Google Image Search allows a user to easily find that photo someone else has paid for and reuse it for free.
Therefore removing getty.com hosted images won't fix the problem as all their customers host them.
There has been numerous articles like this now. Apple has already explained that Face ID stores info about a persons face once a successful PIN code is entered to keep up with the users appearance over time.
So whats most likely happened again is that the parents give their phones to their kids to try, the Face ID scan first fails and when the parents then put in the correct PIN code the phone stores information about the kids face together with the parents until eventually it learns to accept the kids face too.
Read more here, https://www.theverge.com/2017/...
A lot of the posts above are saying you need a high frame rate camera but the video uses a 60fps camera at the end. Am I misunderstanding something or are people above not watching the whole video?
Seriously, as many people here have already pointed out, there is nothing worse than finding that a website won't take your usual password because of some obscure reason. Usually its either some extremely low risk site where you will only log in once a year which requires your password to be 12 characters long with upper and lower cases, numbers and symbols all in one. Or it will be your bank which requires a 6 letter password but won't take any special characters.
We need some sort of ISO or RFC standard which promotes companies to follow a standard requirement/restraint on passwords. As many people have already said in the comments, a sensible system would have your average joe only needing to remember four "levels" of passwords, one for email, one for financial websites, one for sites with personal information and one for throw away/unsafe/log in once websites.
Its irrelevant, at least 30 of those men will be tech works and we all know that us nerds don't have girlfriends so that leaves 100 guys for a 100 women...
Drugs don't hurt anyone? So you think drug cartels who kill thousands of people every year to feed our western need for drugs don't hurt anyone? And you don't think the cost to our health systems to deal with substance abuse "hurts" or at least costs our society money (the victims being the ones who loose out because resources are instead spent on dealing with the problems caused by drugs)? The expression "there is no such thing as a victimless crime" is correct in almost all cases...
Ok well maybe I'll come find you and I'll just stand next to you all day in public and film you and record all your conversations. Then we'll see if you still believe that CCTV cameras are the same as having someone standing right next to you with a 720p camera.
People seem to be on either two sides of this. For the people who argue that everyone carries a camera in their cellphone and could be recording you, or that anyone can buy a cheaper spy camera, here is my argument for you.
This is obviously a extreme parallel I am about to draw, but I am going to compare Google glasses to to guns...
I see the arguments being very similar (in the US). People can legally (in several states), carry guns, even concealed ones. This is bad enough as there are people who feel uncomfortable if they just saw someone carrying a gun in a holster. Now my comparison is that what Google Glasses is doing is that they are taking it one step too far. They are basically doing to equivalent of allowing the person who carries a gun today to basically walk around with it, holding it 24/7 in a shooting position (arms straight out, finger on trigger). This would obviously scare the living hell out of most people if someone was holding a gun this way in a bar.
This is effectively what they are doing with a camera now. Yes everyone has a camera on their cellphone these days, but most of the time its in peoples pockets or bags. And if it is out it is either pointing to the floor, to a table or towards a friend if you are taking a picture. People dont walk around with their phones out 24/7 and pointing it faces of random people in bars. Yes someone could sneakily film someone by holding it in a subtle way or by using a spy camera. But someone could also hold a concealed gun under their jacket and have it pointed it towards you. Just because they can do that already, doesnt automatically give them the right to walk around with it pointed towards you at all times.
My point is not that cameras == guns. My point is that the step from having a camera on a cellphone in a your pocket to wearing a camera in your glasses is the same length step as going from carrying a gun in public to carrying it whilst pointing it straight out in front of you.
Come on, your view on women contribution compared to men is outdated. The problem is you live in a country where paternity leave is probably close to none existent. Give the father just as much paternity leave as the women. If they then both take out equal amount of leave then how is the man any better than the women?
Physical obstructions will obviously always affect any satellite connection. But I strongly disagree that all connections are affected by weather. There are lot of government services and lower frequencies services like Inmarsat which can operate through any weather conditions.
Ohh yeah and I forgot to mention weather. It will work fine through cloud, but you will loose service during heavy rain (at either your end or the earth stations end). To be weather proof you will want to look into a C-band based VSAT service (the previous service I was referring to was a Ku-band based VSAT).
I know you say that you know of solutions which cost 2-10K, but what is your actual budget? A fixed VSAT install seems to be what you are after, it will give you 600-700ms return latency but it will give your decent speed (go for a DVB-S2 service for good value for money). However, you will be looking in that price range you mentioned... I only working with roaming VSAT services (where you have access to beams on various satellites all over the world). We pay $18K per month for a committed rate of 2048/256 which is burstable up to 10240/256. A fixed service on one beam will be significantly cheaper then that though...
Why are the majority of people in this thread assuming this is an response to the Snowden releases? To me this seems to be a law which has nothing to do with the NSA's activities but instead to prevent oppressive regimes from purchasing european made software which will allow them to suppress their citizens even further by spying on them etc.
Haven't we already got similar laws to prevent sells of software used by oppressive regimes which could enable them to censor their citizens?
I see this kind of articles all the time, but the numbers just dont add up for me personally. Sure a lot of my friends and family have Android phones, but not 80% of them. Where I live (London) I would say its a 50/50 toss between iPhones and Android users. Or is it maybe the case that iPhone users keep their phones for longer? (my old iPhone has been passed down to my mum, then to my sister and now to my cousin). Are Android users just buying new phones more often than iPhones users?
Surely the criminals would pick up on this new technique very quickly? If its a stolen car (which I would assume most police chases are caused by), wouldn't the criminals just dump the car and flee on foot since there is no cops chasing right up behind them? I guess one could argue that its better that a car thief gets away and no one gets hurt rather than a car chase were innocent people might be injured or killed, but I don't see how this system would catch even close to the same amount of criminals as the police catch today...
Last time I checked it is still possible to downgrade to iOS 6... They have not blacklisted those upgrades yet so if you download the ipsw file you should be able to downgrade it until a fix is available...
You are going at this the wrong way. First off you cant compare a full PC operating system to a mobile device, so lets throw that out of the window.
The question is why is OS X so good at power management? Windows is actually not bad at power management, most people here on Slashdot (even die hard Linux users) will admit that Linux is by far the worst out of the 3 on a PC platform.
As someone else above me stated earlier, Apple have put a lot of R&D into researching battery run time performance. Their inclusion of two inbuilt graphic cards (one high performance and one for general usage) being a big step they took into improving battery runtime. This is why even Windows on a Macbook will not perform as well as OS X because it just havent got support to switch between two graphic cards based on what the system actually needs at that time.
There are obviously a lot more tweaks Apple have done as well, but there are too many to list here...
This is all good when it comes to semiconductors, but the important question is what kind of a difference we can now expect to see in implants compared to the ones offered today?
If you read the actual survey you'll find that it was only taken on people aged between 18-24. Not many people with alzheimers etc in that age bracket...
Whilst I am all for freedom of speach, I do agree something needs to be done to help protect children or adults who choose not to view these kind of websites.
I completly disagree with you that it is "your own will to go there" as we all now is not usualy the case. I haven't got any statistics to back this up with but I bet you most people see this contents by somehow being tricked into seeing it by others.
How often is this material not disguised as something else, or you are in a public place (schools unfortunatly being the most common place) where someone will open it up and ask someone else to come over and have a look at something on their screen?
I believe in freedom of speech, but I do feel that we need somesort of "option" when someone subscribes to a ISP to give them a option to filter out contents like this which I belive 95% of the population is not interested in.
The article states that the ISP can't restrict "legitimate service through the Internet", but doesn't that mean they can restrict "unlawful" activities? So how is this really different from what other western countries like Australia is trying to do where officially they say they are doing it to restrict illegal activities like child pornography or bit-torrent (which politicians still don't seem to understand is not illegal by itself)?
Slashdot Mirror
Of course the publisher was doing something wrong, you are effectively stealing someones electricity to mine crypto for your benefit. For me this is plain theft and I would be surprised if a court would not come to the same conclusion. Actually I'll rephrase, it more like a trojan horse that is pushed to the victim without their knowledge which then steals electricity and processing power on behalf of the author.
I don't think its that easy. People buy the right to use a Getty image and then host it on their own web server. That is why Getty are unhappy that Google Image Search allows a user to easily find that photo someone else has paid for and reuse it for free. Therefore removing getty.com hosted images won't fix the problem as all their customers host them.
There has been numerous articles like this now. Apple has already explained that Face ID stores info about a persons face once a successful PIN code is entered to keep up with the users appearance over time. So whats most likely happened again is that the parents give their phones to their kids to try, the Face ID scan first fails and when the parents then put in the correct PIN code the phone stores information about the kids face together with the parents until eventually it learns to accept the kids face too. Read more here, https://www.theverge.com/2017/...
A lot of the posts above are saying you need a high frame rate camera but the video uses a 60fps camera at the end. Am I misunderstanding something or are people above not watching the whole video?
Seriously, as many people here have already pointed out, there is nothing worse than finding that a website won't take your usual password because of some obscure reason. Usually its either some extremely low risk site where you will only log in once a year which requires your password to be 12 characters long with upper and lower cases, numbers and symbols all in one. Or it will be your bank which requires a 6 letter password but won't take any special characters. We need some sort of ISO or RFC standard which promotes companies to follow a standard requirement/restraint on passwords. As many people have already said in the comments, a sensible system would have your average joe only needing to remember four "levels" of passwords, one for email, one for financial websites, one for sites with personal information and one for throw away/unsafe/log in once websites.
Its irrelevant, at least 30 of those men will be tech works and we all know that us nerds don't have girlfriends so that leaves 100 guys for a 100 women...
Drugs don't hurt anyone? So you think drug cartels who kill thousands of people every year to feed our western need for drugs don't hurt anyone? And you don't think the cost to our health systems to deal with substance abuse "hurts" or at least costs our society money (the victims being the ones who loose out because resources are instead spent on dealing with the problems caused by drugs)? The expression "there is no such thing as a victimless crime" is correct in almost all cases...
Ok well maybe I'll come find you and I'll just stand next to you all day in public and film you and record all your conversations. Then we'll see if you still believe that CCTV cameras are the same as having someone standing right next to you with a 720p camera.
People seem to be on either two sides of this. For the people who argue that everyone carries a camera in their cellphone and could be recording you, or that anyone can buy a cheaper spy camera, here is my argument for you. This is obviously a extreme parallel I am about to draw, but I am going to compare Google glasses to to guns... I see the arguments being very similar (in the US). People can legally (in several states), carry guns, even concealed ones. This is bad enough as there are people who feel uncomfortable if they just saw someone carrying a gun in a holster. Now my comparison is that what Google Glasses is doing is that they are taking it one step too far. They are basically doing to equivalent of allowing the person who carries a gun today to basically walk around with it, holding it 24/7 in a shooting position (arms straight out, finger on trigger). This would obviously scare the living hell out of most people if someone was holding a gun this way in a bar. This is effectively what they are doing with a camera now. Yes everyone has a camera on their cellphone these days, but most of the time its in peoples pockets or bags. And if it is out it is either pointing to the floor, to a table or towards a friend if you are taking a picture. People dont walk around with their phones out 24/7 and pointing it faces of random people in bars. Yes someone could sneakily film someone by holding it in a subtle way or by using a spy camera. But someone could also hold a concealed gun under their jacket and have it pointed it towards you. Just because they can do that already, doesnt automatically give them the right to walk around with it pointed towards you at all times. My point is not that cameras == guns. My point is that the step from having a camera on a cellphone in a your pocket to wearing a camera in your glasses is the same length step as going from carrying a gun in public to carrying it whilst pointing it straight out in front of you.
Come on, your view on women contribution compared to men is outdated. The problem is you live in a country where paternity leave is probably close to none existent. Give the father just as much paternity leave as the women. If they then both take out equal amount of leave then how is the man any better than the women?
Physical obstructions will obviously always affect any satellite connection. But I strongly disagree that all connections are affected by weather. There are lot of government services and lower frequencies services like Inmarsat which can operate through any weather conditions.
Line of sight is lost at around 80 degrees. But your signal will suffer between 70-80 (however not impossible to use).
Ohh yeah and I forgot to mention weather. It will work fine through cloud, but you will loose service during heavy rain (at either your end or the earth stations end). To be weather proof you will want to look into a C-band based VSAT service (the previous service I was referring to was a Ku-band based VSAT).
I know you say that you know of solutions which cost 2-10K, but what is your actual budget? A fixed VSAT install seems to be what you are after, it will give you 600-700ms return latency but it will give your decent speed (go for a DVB-S2 service for good value for money). However, you will be looking in that price range you mentioned... I only working with roaming VSAT services (where you have access to beams on various satellites all over the world). We pay $18K per month for a committed rate of 2048/256 which is burstable up to 10240/256. A fixed service on one beam will be significantly cheaper then that though...
Why are the majority of people in this thread assuming this is an response to the Snowden releases? To me this seems to be a law which has nothing to do with the NSA's activities but instead to prevent oppressive regimes from purchasing european made software which will allow them to suppress their citizens even further by spying on them etc. Haven't we already got similar laws to prevent sells of software used by oppressive regimes which could enable them to censor their citizens?
I see this kind of articles all the time, but the numbers just dont add up for me personally. Sure a lot of my friends and family have Android phones, but not 80% of them. Where I live (London) I would say its a 50/50 toss between iPhones and Android users. Or is it maybe the case that iPhone users keep their phones for longer? (my old iPhone has been passed down to my mum, then to my sister and now to my cousin). Are Android users just buying new phones more often than iPhones users?
Surely the criminals would pick up on this new technique very quickly? If its a stolen car (which I would assume most police chases are caused by), wouldn't the criminals just dump the car and flee on foot since there is no cops chasing right up behind them? I guess one could argue that its better that a car thief gets away and no one gets hurt rather than a car chase were innocent people might be injured or killed, but I don't see how this system would catch even close to the same amount of criminals as the police catch today...
Why cant you buy a normal smartphone and just remove the camera from the phone? Not very hard to open a phone up and remove the camera?
Last time I checked it is still possible to downgrade to iOS 6... They have not blacklisted those upgrades yet so if you download the ipsw file you should be able to downgrade it until a fix is available...
You are going at this the wrong way. First off you cant compare a full PC operating system to a mobile device, so lets throw that out of the window. The question is why is OS X so good at power management? Windows is actually not bad at power management, most people here on Slashdot (even die hard Linux users) will admit that Linux is by far the worst out of the 3 on a PC platform. As someone else above me stated earlier, Apple have put a lot of R&D into researching battery run time performance. Their inclusion of two inbuilt graphic cards (one high performance and one for general usage) being a big step they took into improving battery runtime. This is why even Windows on a Macbook will not perform as well as OS X because it just havent got support to switch between two graphic cards based on what the system actually needs at that time. There are obviously a lot more tweaks Apple have done as well, but there are too many to list here...
This is all good when it comes to semiconductors, but the important question is what kind of a difference we can now expect to see in implants compared to the ones offered today?
If you read the actual survey you'll find that it was only taken on people aged between 18-24. Not many people with alzheimers etc in that age bracket...
So what systems are 100% safe in userland? Or have you already forgotten about the recent Linux kernel fix which solved the problem where any X.org GUI application (like a Trojan) could escalate its own privilege to root? http://it.slashdot.org/story/10/08/18/1534258/Linux-Xorg-Critical-Security-Flaw-Silently-Patched?from=rss
Whilst I am all for freedom of speach, I do agree something needs to be done to help protect children or adults who choose not to view these kind of websites. I completly disagree with you that it is "your own will to go there" as we all now is not usualy the case. I haven't got any statistics to back this up with but I bet you most people see this contents by somehow being tricked into seeing it by others. How often is this material not disguised as something else, or you are in a public place (schools unfortunatly being the most common place) where someone will open it up and ask someone else to come over and have a look at something on their screen? I believe in freedom of speech, but I do feel that we need somesort of "option" when someone subscribes to a ISP to give them a option to filter out contents like this which I belive 95% of the population is not interested in.
The article states that the ISP can't restrict "legitimate service through the Internet", but doesn't that mean they can restrict "unlawful" activities? So how is this really different from what other western countries like Australia is trying to do where officially they say they are doing it to restrict illegal activities like child pornography or bit-torrent (which politicians still don't seem to understand is not illegal by itself)?