There is some kind of grand conspiracy of unimaginable stupidity going on with router vendors. I cannot for the life of me fathom how it is even possible to implement a consumer router so full of holes. You have to either not give a shit at all or be involved with intentional sabotage to explain the outcomes we are seeing.
Even if routers offered no local authentication whatsoever and just simply checked HTTP_REFERER first this crap would fail outright. What is it... 2...3..4..5.. lines of code max and whole categories of remote exploitation possibilities disappear overnight.
Unbelievable how f*****lame these exploits continue to be and how vendors are not in any way held accountable for not even trying.
Let's suppose that there is a collection of evil hackers out there who could make that happen when the technology arrives.
Are you seriously suggesting that these people would rack up a body-count that even approaches what humans do to themselves in cars right now? And that they won't be caught, or stopped as exploits are discovered and fixed?
We have seen cars getting hacked and attackers disabling steering controls, stopping cars, accelerating cars.. things that can easily get people killed under the right circumstances. If some terrorist outfit decided they were going to create self propagating worm and systematically enable this globally at a predetermined time you would certainly find and fix the exploit but not after massive carnage had been inflicted.
It is critically necessary to understand what it is your weighing these risks against. How many lives does V2V save specifically over other technologies such as AEB/CTA which essentially accomplish the same general tasks using passive sensors in a way that does not depend on other vehicles squawking valid data. We just don't have the data available to weigh the risks and come to any kind of coherent decision. All of the government figures I've ever been able to find does not account for safety technology that is currently being rolled out commercially and which has a credible track record of improved safety.
Exactly... this is the part that worries me... they talk about 128 bit encryption and all that jazz, but this isn't a negotiated connection people... it's transmitting your telemetry in the blind, hoping that others will act on it. As such, everyone will be using the same encryption key, which will make it trivial for someone to transmit false information. There are literally dozens of ways I can think to abuse this capability for fun and profit.
From what I understand they are using PKI. Everyone has their own private key signed by a hierarchy of government authorities I presume.
The problem with the approach is the general idea trusting everyone is the same as trusting no one. Since all vehicles have the capability of transmitting messages seen by all other vehicles as valid "encryption" becomes a moot point.
The other issue is this: The expected range these operate at is defined by the size and quality of the antennas they intend to use, but with improved listening capability the range is much further.
This is a massively important point. The bullshit we are hearing about 300 feet or whatever it is disappears the moment you switch to a bigger antenna.
They claim to not transmit any specific identifying information
This as near as I can tell is not actually physically possible. You can't have trust and not concurrently have the means to identify who it is your talking to unless you either give everyone or a large subgroups of everyone the same encryption key or overlapping group identifiers which of course is tantamount to not using encryption at all.
, but if it broadcasts 10x/second, then it's pretty trivial to follow if you can receive real time. Imagine how easily you can tail a car now that you can stay out of visual range and still know exactly where they are? Tell me the police won't want that capability.
It's exactly what they want.
Industry gets to be enriched by a mandate, government gets an excuse for mass surveillance... everyone is happy except common citizens who get to pay for the honor of public experiments and being stalked with zero credible data articulating an objective safety benefit over other safety technologies which respond to the world as it actually is... not the world according to a 5.9ghz transceiver.
Did you know that *right now* you can go get into a vehicle, drive it any direction at high rate of speed and cause as much damage as you want? No technology needed.
You can drive the wrong way on the highway. You can light a car on fire and roll it down a hill. You can put a brick on the accelerator and set it loose into a crowd of people. You can throw nails on the road to stop any vehicle you fancy. You can string up wire across the road for motorcycles.
No technology required.
Sick and tired of these lame arguments.
You can already do X therefore concern Y is invalid.
Or the classic "BUT UR CELL PHONE!!" battle cry whenever someone has any privacy concern about anything.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Existence of one vulnerability does not excuse responsibility for piling on of new ones.
Convenience and stealth matter. If you can broadcast a signal that causes LOLz or havoc or renders wholesale cyber stalking trivial with minimal effort or risk to yourself this is to quote our outgoing VP a "big fucking deal".
For reference Bluetooth was supposed to be a near field technology good for up to a few dozen feet max. People have demonstrated communication with unmodified devices at a range of well over a mile. What you can do with V2V while standing off out of sight out of mind with the proper equipment is bound to get quite interesting.
The worse part of V2V is no public information detailing the benefits of V2V alone without factoring in the very significant overlap with existing sensor/CV approaches for AEB/CTA is completely nonexistent by intentional design. People don't even have coherent data with which to make any rational decisions about V2V specifically. All we get is propaganda that says stone age or V2V are the ONLY options. This is a false choice. It is indefensible BS.
You can already abuse tons of things. As usual, there will be a generally decent technology barrier to abuse, and the laws again abuse will be sufficient to keep it an reasonable level. And we make adjustments along the way as appropriate.
Saying something is going to be abused doesn't really add anything. Everything can and will be abused against mechanisms in place to a degree we can live with.
This argument is non-falsifiable.
Parent provided a specific scenario about spoofing signals that can be falsified and the merits of his specific argument weighed.
What you have done is discounted his specific scenario by saying "you can already abuse a ton of things" This concept cannot be falsified. The same argument can just as easily be used to justify giving a Windows XP computer with no services packs a public IP address.
will be over. More than 20 million were killed in car accidents in the 21st century alone.
So what does 20 million have to do with V2V? Are you saying when V2V is rolled out nobody is going to die? If this is not your claim what are you saying?
What is the benefit of V2V specifically over other technologies in terms of lives saved? What does it prevent specifically that rollout of technologies based on sensors and CV does not already prevent?
In some ways cable companies get the same rap as insurance companies for costs largely beyond their control. This of course is not to excuse Comcast for playing games with HOW that cost is recorded and associated indefensible marketing schemes which essentially lie about actual prices and fuck over those on contract.
Used to be broadcasters were thrilled to get as many eyeballs as they could to tune in as bigger audience translated into more advertising revenue..at some point long ago cable stopped being dominated by access fees and is now dominated by carriage fees. Now even local broadcasters who broadcast the same signal over the air for free to anyone able to receive it are in the business of extracting carriage costs from cable and satellite providers just because they feel they can get away with it to make more money.
The FCC never said cable companies were REQUIRED to carry local stations for a price other than FREE. Consumers should have the right to opt out of the local crap and should not be forced to pay if they don't want it. I can throw up an antenna in the Attic for $30 and an hour of my time if I want local channels.
Price insanity is particularly egregious given cable/sat industry is on the brink of becoming the next home telephone/portable cd player.
Get a grip. Trump has not remotely denounced white nationalists.
Why should a president denounce any group of people? What good would that do? If it's not illegal why alienate people unnecessarily even if you strongly disagree with their ideology? Is this how you work to build the legitimacy of your office and country?
Trump has said a number of times he does not support nor does he seek the support of these groups. Obviously it will never be quite clear enough for race baiting media perpetually pushing racial narratives to enrich themselves.
The last youtube ad they ran was a straightforward white nazi dogwhistle
The code word / dog whistle is a magical device granting the invoker unlimited power to invent whatever connections fit their predetermined narrative.
If Trump loves the KKK or whatever your claim is your probably much better off convincing others by providing direct credible evidence to support your claims. It's fricking Trump shouldn't be that hard.
The keyboard is not a widely used technology for navigation. Most people use the pointer device and most have a scroll wheel or some equivalent scrolling gesture to them.
It's essential for web applications the same people will be depending on every day to get their jobs done. I never design systems without keyboard navigation.
Trying to make sure your web site/web application supports all those crazy keystrokes they did doesn't make much sense. And would require much more effort than to appease some old guys habits.
The only metric I care about is productivity. "Doesn't make much sense" and "appease some old guys habits" convey no objectively useful information.
I can get to any screen I want from anywhere instantly without looking at the screen and without navigation aids even being visible. This provides ability to navigate faster and improve my productivity v. exclusively touch screen / mouse usage. Those who chose not to learn keyboard navigation consistently underperform those who take the initiative to learn.
I don't want to hear "it works" until you have something that makes more useful energy than it consumes.
It can run for a few milliseconds before requiring days or months of repair/refuel before the next run. It can be so far from cost competitive with existing energy generation methods nobody would dare ever build one commercially or even military use.
It can drain the worlds oceans and or destroy gravity for all I care... Before you say "it works" you must have demonstrated extracting more useful energy than you put in.
EVERYONE knows this is a tax write-off even if you honestly didn't intend it to be that way it is how it will universally be interpreted.
If you didn't want to give Christmas bonus simply not giving them to people may be a disappointment but pulling this shit is far worse. It is essentially telling your employees to go fuck themselves while announcing they will not be receiving a bonus.
Given current labor environment whoever made this decision to announce donations like this should probably be asked to resign.
The trouble with these technologies is they don't offer any value to users. There is nothing (I|V)2V offers which is both worth doing and can't be achieved with CV and common signage.
All these system do is provide windfalls for technology firms lobbying for legislative mandates while encouraging mass surveillance and criminal exploitation of technology. Technology for technologies sake isn't just a waste of time and money but also inherently dangerous.
I believe NHTSA is being knowingly dishonest and misleading both the public and policy makers in pursuing their V2V aims.
Their material and estimates fails to take into consideration current commercial deployment of CV sensor technologies for AEB/CTA with its avoidance estimates of which there is significant overlap. They are knowingly providing worthless data to justify their policy recommendations.
VR is fine, so long as the content keeps up more or less up and doesn't deliberately make the user sick...Making Descent work will be a huge challenge. Descent 2 was the most puky VR game ever.
Descent is currently being developed: http://playoverload.com./ Early alpha builds I've played in VR have so far been a lot of fun no sickness at all except some areas with piss poor frame rates. Not what I expected going in.
After this experience it is very hard to take VR makes you sick crowd seriously.
VR is a joke. You cannot solve the problem of motion sickness caused by the disconnect between what the eyes see and the inner ear senses. VR is a dead end, but AR has promise.
The joke is on everyone who hasn't tried it. I'll pray for your misguided souls while I'm piloting my own space ship across the galaxy and drifting like a feign in my SRV on distant worlds thousands of light years away.
I read this blog post and wish I could get a refund for the minute of my time wasted on this companies rank nonsense.
They dump everything, say you should expect what you purchased to fail to work properly, assert all warranties retroactively null and void attempting to zero out all outstanding liabilities... They then sell all assets to another company and finally have the guts to promote that new company.
If I owned a pebble I would sue them to just to prove a point. There is something really wrong with tech industry culture and it is only getting worse.
The United States DoD is doing large rollouts of Win 10 to replace ageing systems. Put it this way, if it weren't secure, do you think DoD and The Dept of the Navy would be going with it?
Why not? Since when has security ever stopped them from going with previous versions of Windows?
improvments, as well as security improvements that include better support for strong (mil spec) encryption out of the box, better protection against malicious "rootkit" like software with tools like Secure Boot and better tech to
The word "encryption" does not mean "secure". It is a marketing term with no intrinsic value of any import.
protect credentials from pass the hash attacks.
Now that right there is one hell of a low bar.
All this relies on native UEFI support, an area where Win10 is far and away above Win7.
The most compelling feature for preventing "rootkits" is hyper-v virtualization of the desktop environment. There is narrow fleeting hope it will one day be tractable to make hypervisors secure. Yet the very concept of a rootkit is mostly irrelevant. Even if rootkits disappeared entirely it won't make a lick of difference as you can still do plenty of damage within the security context of the end user.
Make all the jokes you want about ads and such in the consumer builds (i dont like it either btw) but as a windows deployment specialist who is fielding regular head hunter calls when they find me on Linkedin, I can tell you Win10 enterprise is very desirable for many companies.
The joke is they are still using Kerberos and anyone who attempts password authentication is still subject to having their credentials compromised via offline attack.
I hate to break it to you, but streaming services use TCP to transfer video for things like Netflix, etc. It sounds insane, since UDP is the "obvious" choice for streaming video, but in fact they make lots of small TCP (actually HTTP) requests because they have to adjust the quality of the stream to meet the quality target (e.g don't stutter and keep playing no matter what). That's why your evening streaming movie sometimes goes to very low quality for a few seconds and then goes back to high-quality.
Content streaming (e.g. Netflix) is bulk transmission. All that matters is whether or not there is sufficient bandwidth available in the aggregate to keep receive buffer from emptying completely.
UDP is used for "streaming" real-time data such as voice or video calling and has very different channel requirements from that of content streaming. Here latency and jitter are critical to quality of service while these same characteristics are essentially irrelevant for Netflix.
Streaming (things like audio, video, phone calls) requires relatively small and constant bandwidth (though compression adds variability) but isn't good at tolerating dropouts or variations in transit time. When it does get dropouts it's better to NOT send a retry correction (and have the retry packet risk delaying and/or forcing the drop of another packet).
Low latency and jitter are only helpful for real-time communications otherwise mostly irrelevant for Internet based content "Streaming" services.
Put them both on a link and treat the packets equally and TCP causes streaming to break up, stutter, etc. Overbuilding the net helps, but if the data to be tranferred is big enough TCP will ALWAYS saturate a link somewhere along the way.
Nonsense. You maintain low latency and minimize jitter with queue management. There are a many different fair queues you can pick from that will do this without caring at all about content.
TCP connections (things like big file transfers) error check and retry, fixing dropouts and errors so the data arrives intact
TCP can only retransmit. Only place meaningful error correction occurs is link layer. IP layer "checksums" are at best decorative.. at worst a useless waste of bandwidth and silicon.
Identify the traffic type and treat their packets differently - giving higher priority to stream packets (up to a limit, so applications can't gain by cheating, claiming to be a stream when they're not) - and then they play together just fine. Stream packets zip through, up to an allocation limit at some fraction of the available bandwidth, and TCP transfers evenly divide what's left - including the unused part of the streams' allocation.
But the tools for doing this also enable the ISPs to do other, not so good for customers, things. Provided they chose to do so, of course.
Content based prioritization is mostly pointless in the real world. It doesn't work across administrative domains and when it works at all tends to be a result of either a network being hopelessly oversubscribed or not properly managed.
Treat things like throttling high-volume users
Metering total packets to or from a customer isn't a net neutrality issue.
Would gladly support repeal of net neutrality just as soon as ALL large providers are broken up into separate companies no bigger than 1M subs each, all incumbent protection laws are outlawed and telecom providers forbidden from owning any stake in content creation or delivery.
I love when vendors think they are so big it magically earns them a license to dictate terms to their customers.
Depending on where you live anywhere between 25% and 75% iPhone owners around you will have chosen to place their phones in bulky protective cases. Millions of people want shit that works not glossy marketing gimmicks that are actually a liability (piss poor battery life, fire hazard, fragile, harder to use)
Then we have issue of vendors giving their customers the one finger salute by removing widely used features and justifying it with PR bullshit.
And do you know why MS is so successful? It's because users do not run OS's they run applications.
The vast majority of people have no problem with MS automatically pushing bug and security related fixes to their machine.
Interesting contradiction. The OS isn't important. Then comes assertion people have no problem being constantly harassed to update and then reboot their operating systems when all they care about is their applications? How does this even make sense?
Updates are widely seen as an annoyance or even harmful hence Microsoft's misguided attempt to strong arm people into having no choice. Especially as they turn the screws on transforming their customers into products we can't have people making their own decisions.
They have no problem with the anonymous telemetry being sent to MS.
In the same way people have no problem when criminals covertly case their homes without their knowledge.
I still don't see why people are upset with anonymous telemetry being communicated back to MS. Maybe they don't know what "anonymous" means.
Here is a little thought experiment for those who don't "get it". Would you accept someone sitting in a parked car in the morning waiting for you to leave your house then following you to work. When you walk across the street they are right behind you following your every move and recording everything you do? I have a feeling the response from most people would be either to call the police or get into a fist fight. The only difference between that and what tech companies are doing to users enmasse is stealth.
The top search engines use your online presence in order to feed you customized adds and links. To do this they need to capture and store enough information on me in order to target my user Id. Every corporation and telecommunication firm are in possession of quite a bit of your personal information of one type or another and to me that is a worse than anything MS might be doing.
"They do it too" isn't a justification it is an excuse. No more coherent an argument than attempting to justify a speeding ticket before a judge by pointing out the guy in front of you was going much faster asserting you shouldn't have to pay because he got away scott free.
What is even worse about this argument is that it is 100% backwards. People can chose to visit a website or not. They can elect to run software to mask their activities, encipher their communications and take other measures to protect themselves. If your own computer is always actively working against you even when you are not doing anything "online" then your fucked no matter what. It is a much more serious matter than any big content/advertising company or telecom.
There are some very intelligent people who work for MS and underestimating them is nonsense. In the beginning IBM grossly underestimated MS and ended losing control of an OS that earned MS billions in sales.
It doesn't matter how intelligent you are. The only thing that matters is what you accomplish. Technology is driven by hard work way more than it is driven by intellect.
I have to admit when I started hearing about all of this "fake news" everywhere I was like here we go again... puppeteers pushing social memes so that when they "crack down" either electronically or legislatively they will have public cover for censorship.
It certainly is no secret to anyone Russia has been targeting the west with propaganda campaigns for many years. Putin has made public statements gloating over ROI from such efforts. Neither is it news the Internet is chalk full of BS. What is so different today that warrants this "fake news" narrative to now be pushed so hard? Sore losers throwing tantrums over Drumpf win?
Once you understand the Islamic Doctrine of Abrogation (later verses replace earlier verses of the Koran) then you will see that Koran 9:29 is the only verse that really matters to non-Muslims. It commands that Islam take over the World until everyone has submitted to the rule of Sharia and the supremacy of Islam.
Islam is NOT founded on what we would call 'ethical good' but instead is based on the supremacy of Allah over all others. So mass rape and murder is considered 'good' because Allah clearly commands Muslims do these to the hated kaffir unbelievers (non-Muslims).
All of the Abrahamic religions are rife with this same bullshit. You can pull up chapter and verses about how swell it is to kill "infidels" in Christian texts all day long.
A core principal of all religion is spreading their seed and wouldn't you know it people are still as gullible today as they were back then.
Islam will only be defeated when the World understands that it is FICTION and is FALSE.
What makes you think anyone cares about reality to begin with?
If I were someone who actually cared about seconds and depended on high resolution timekeeping this would undoubtedly strike me as a really shit-headed idea.
Slashdot Mirror
There is some kind of grand conspiracy of unimaginable stupidity going on with router vendors. I cannot for the life of me fathom how it is even possible to implement a consumer router so full of holes. You have to either not give a shit at all or be involved with intentional sabotage to explain the outcomes we are seeing.
Even if routers offered no local authentication whatsoever and just simply checked HTTP_REFERER first this crap would fail outright. What is it... 2...3..4..5.. lines of code max and whole categories of remote exploitation possibilities disappear overnight.
Unbelievable how f*****lame these exploits continue to be and how vendors are not in any way held accountable for not even trying.
Let's suppose that there is a collection of evil hackers out there who could make that happen when the technology arrives.
Are you seriously suggesting that these people would rack up a body-count that even approaches what humans do to themselves in cars right now? And that they won't be caught, or stopped as exploits are discovered and fixed?
We have seen cars getting hacked and attackers disabling steering controls, stopping cars, accelerating cars.. things that can easily get people killed under the right circumstances. If some terrorist outfit decided they were going to create self propagating worm and systematically enable this globally at a predetermined time you would certainly find and fix the exploit but not after massive carnage had been inflicted.
It is critically necessary to understand what it is your weighing these risks against. How many lives does V2V save specifically over other technologies such as AEB/CTA which essentially accomplish the same general tasks using passive sensors in a way that does not depend on other vehicles squawking valid data. We just don't have the data available to weigh the risks and come to any kind of coherent decision. All of the government figures I've ever been able to find does not account for safety technology that is currently being rolled out commercially and which has a credible track record of improved safety.
Exactly... this is the part that worries me... they talk about 128 bit encryption and all that jazz, but this isn't a negotiated connection people... it's transmitting your telemetry in the blind, hoping that others will act on it. As such, everyone will be using the same encryption key, which will make it trivial for someone to transmit false information. There are literally dozens of ways I can think to abuse this capability for fun and profit.
From what I understand they are using PKI. Everyone has their own private key signed by a hierarchy of government authorities I presume.
The problem with the approach is the general idea trusting everyone is the same as trusting no one. Since all vehicles have the capability of transmitting messages seen by all other vehicles as valid "encryption" becomes a moot point.
The other issue is this: The expected range these operate at is defined by the size and quality of the antennas they intend to use, but with improved listening capability the range is much further.
This is a massively important point. The bullshit we are hearing about 300 feet or whatever it is disappears the moment you switch to a bigger antenna.
They claim to not transmit any specific identifying information
This as near as I can tell is not actually physically possible. You can't have trust and not concurrently have the means to identify who it is your talking to unless you either give everyone or a large subgroups of everyone the same encryption key or overlapping group identifiers which of course is tantamount to not using encryption at all.
, but if it broadcasts 10x/second, then it's pretty trivial to follow if you can receive real time. Imagine how easily you can tail a car now that you can stay out of visual range and still know exactly where they are? Tell me the police won't want that capability.
It's exactly what they want.
Industry gets to be enriched by a mandate, government gets an excuse for mass surveillance ... everyone is happy except common citizens who get to pay for the honor of public experiments and being stalked with zero credible data articulating an objective safety benefit over other safety technologies which respond to the world as it actually is... not the world according to a 5.9ghz transceiver.
Did you know that *right now* you can go get into a vehicle, drive it any direction at high rate of speed and cause as much damage as you want? No technology needed.
You can drive the wrong way on the highway. You can light a car on fire and roll it down a hill. You can put a brick on the accelerator and set it loose into a crowd of people. You can throw nails on the road to stop any vehicle you fancy. You can string up wire across the road for motorcycles.
No technology required.
Sick and tired of these lame arguments.
You can already do X therefore concern Y is invalid.
Or the classic "BUT UR CELL PHONE!!" battle cry whenever someone has any privacy concern about anything.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Existence of one vulnerability does not excuse responsibility for piling on of new ones.
Convenience and stealth matter. If you can broadcast a signal that causes LOLz or havoc or renders wholesale cyber stalking trivial with minimal effort or risk to yourself this is to quote our outgoing VP a "big fucking deal".
For reference Bluetooth was supposed to be a near field technology good for up to a few dozen feet max. People have demonstrated communication with unmodified devices at a range of well over a mile. What you can do with V2V while standing off out of sight out of mind with the proper equipment is bound to get quite interesting.
The worse part of V2V is no public information detailing the benefits of V2V alone without factoring in the very significant overlap with existing sensor/CV approaches for AEB/CTA is completely nonexistent by intentional design. People don't even have coherent data with which to make any rational decisions about V2V specifically. All we get is propaganda that says stone age or V2V are the ONLY options. This is a false choice. It is indefensible BS.
You can already abuse tons of things. As usual, there will be a generally decent technology barrier to abuse, and the laws again abuse will be sufficient to keep it an reasonable level. And we make adjustments along the way as appropriate.
Saying something is going to be abused doesn't really add anything. Everything can and will be abused against mechanisms in place to a degree we can live with.
This argument is non-falsifiable.
Parent provided a specific scenario about spoofing signals that can be falsified and the merits of his specific argument weighed.
What you have done is discounted his specific scenario by saying "you can already abuse a ton of things" This concept cannot be falsified. The same argument can just as easily be used to justify giving a Windows XP computer with no services packs a public IP address.
will be over. More than 20 million were killed in car accidents in the 21st century alone.
So what does 20 million have to do with V2V? Are you saying when V2V is rolled out nobody is going to die? If this is not your claim what are you saying?
What is the benefit of V2V specifically over other technologies in terms of lives saved? What does it prevent specifically that rollout of technologies based on sensors and CV does not already prevent?
In some ways cable companies get the same rap as insurance companies for costs largely beyond their control. This of course is not to excuse Comcast for playing games with HOW that cost is recorded and associated indefensible marketing schemes which essentially lie about actual prices and fuck over those on contract.
Used to be broadcasters were thrilled to get as many eyeballs as they could to tune in as bigger audience translated into more advertising revenue..at some point long ago cable stopped being dominated by access fees and is now dominated by carriage fees. Now even local broadcasters who broadcast the same signal over the air for free to anyone able to receive it are in the business of extracting carriage costs from cable and satellite providers just because they feel they can get away with it to make more money.
The FCC never said cable companies were REQUIRED to carry local stations for a price other than FREE. Consumers should have the right to opt out of the local crap and should not be forced to pay if they don't want it. I can throw up an antenna in the Attic for $30 and an hour of my time if I want local channels.
Price insanity is particularly egregious given cable/sat industry is on the brink of becoming the next home telephone/portable cd player.
Get a grip. Trump has not remotely denounced white nationalists.
Why should a president denounce any group of people? What good would that do? If it's not illegal why alienate people unnecessarily even if you strongly disagree with their ideology? Is this how you work to build the legitimacy of your office and country?
Trump has said a number of times he does not support nor does he seek the support of these groups. Obviously it will never be quite clear enough for race baiting media perpetually pushing racial narratives to enrich themselves.
The last youtube ad they ran was a straightforward white nazi dogwhistle
The code word / dog whistle is a magical device granting the invoker unlimited power to invent whatever connections fit their predetermined narrative.
If Trump loves the KKK or whatever your claim is your probably much better off convincing others by providing direct credible evidence to support your claims. It's fricking Trump shouldn't be that hard.
The keyboard is not a widely used technology for navigation. Most people use the pointer device and most have a scroll wheel or some equivalent scrolling gesture to them.
It's essential for web applications the same people will be depending on every day to get their jobs done. I never design systems without keyboard navigation.
Trying to make sure your web site/web application supports all those crazy keystrokes they did doesn't make much sense. And would require much more effort than to appease some old guys habits.
The only metric I care about is productivity. "Doesn't make much sense" and "appease some old guys habits" convey no objectively useful information.
I can get to any screen I want from anywhere instantly without looking at the screen and without navigation aids even being visible. This provides ability to navigate faster and improve my productivity v. exclusively touch screen / mouse usage. Those who chose not to learn keyboard navigation consistently underperform those who take the initiative to learn.
I don't want to hear "it works" until you have something that makes more useful energy than it consumes.
It can run for a few milliseconds before requiring days or months of repair/refuel before the next run. It can be so far from cost competitive with existing energy generation methods nobody would dare ever build one commercially or even military use.
It can drain the worlds oceans and or destroy gravity for all I care... Before you say "it works" you must have demonstrated extracting more useful energy than you put in.
You just don't do something like this.
EVERYONE knows this is a tax write-off even if you honestly didn't intend it to be that way it is how it will universally be interpreted.
If you didn't want to give Christmas bonus simply not giving them to people may be a disappointment but pulling this shit is far worse. It is essentially telling your employees to go fuck themselves while announcing they will not be receiving a bonus.
Given current labor environment whoever made this decision to announce donations like this should probably be asked to resign.
The trouble with these technologies is they don't offer any value to users. There is nothing (I|V)2V offers which is both worth doing and can't be achieved with CV and common signage.
All these system do is provide windfalls for technology firms lobbying for legislative mandates while encouraging mass surveillance and criminal exploitation of technology. Technology for technologies sake isn't just a waste of time and money but also inherently dangerous.
I believe NHTSA is being knowingly dishonest and misleading both the public and policy makers in pursuing their V2V aims.
Their material and estimates fails to take into consideration current commercial deployment of CV sensor technologies for AEB/CTA with its avoidance estimates of which there is significant overlap. They are knowingly providing worthless data to justify their policy recommendations.
VR is fine, so long as the content keeps up more or less up and doesn't deliberately make the user sick...Making Descent work will be a huge challenge. Descent 2 was the most puky VR game ever.
Descent is currently being developed: http://playoverload.com./ Early alpha builds I've played in VR have so far been a lot of fun no sickness at all except some areas with piss poor frame rates. Not what I expected going in.
After this experience it is very hard to take VR makes you sick crowd seriously.
VR is a joke. You cannot solve the problem of motion sickness caused by the disconnect between what the eyes see and the inner ear senses. VR is a dead end, but AR has promise.
The joke is on everyone who hasn't tried it. I'll pray for your misguided souls while I'm piloting my own space ship across the galaxy and drifting like a feign in my SRV on distant worlds thousands of light years away.
I read this blog post and wish I could get a refund for the minute of my time wasted on this companies rank nonsense.
They dump everything, say you should expect what you purchased to fail to work properly, assert all warranties retroactively null and void attempting to zero out all outstanding liabilities... They then sell all assets to another company and finally have the guts to promote that new company.
If I owned a pebble I would sue them to just to prove a point. There is something really wrong with tech industry culture and it is only getting worse.
The United States DoD is doing large rollouts of Win 10 to replace ageing systems. Put it this way, if it weren't secure, do you think DoD and The Dept of the Navy would be going with it?
Why not? Since when has security ever stopped them from going with previous versions of Windows?
improvments, as well as security improvements that include better support for strong (mil spec) encryption out of the box, better protection against malicious "rootkit" like software with tools like Secure Boot and better tech to
The word "encryption" does not mean "secure". It is a marketing term with no intrinsic value of any import.
protect credentials from pass the hash attacks.
Now that right there is one hell of a low bar.
All this relies on native UEFI support, an area where Win10 is far and away above Win7.
The most compelling feature for preventing "rootkits" is hyper-v virtualization of the desktop environment. There is narrow fleeting hope it will one day be tractable to make hypervisors secure. Yet the very concept of a rootkit is mostly irrelevant. Even if rootkits disappeared entirely it won't make a lick of difference as you can still do plenty of damage within the security context of the end user.
Make all the jokes you want about ads and such in the consumer builds (i dont like it either btw) but as a windows deployment specialist who is fielding regular head hunter calls when they find me on Linkedin, I can tell you Win10 enterprise is very desirable for many companies.
The joke is they are still using Kerberos and anyone who attempts password authentication is still subject to having their credentials compromised via offline attack.
I hate to break it to you, but streaming services use TCP to transfer video for things like Netflix, etc. It sounds insane, since UDP is the "obvious" choice for streaming video, but in fact they make lots of small TCP (actually HTTP) requests because they have to adjust the quality of the stream to meet the quality target (e.g don't stutter and keep playing no matter what). That's why your evening streaming movie sometimes goes to very low quality for a few seconds and then goes back to high-quality.
Content streaming (e.g. Netflix) is bulk transmission. All that matters is whether or not there is sufficient bandwidth available in the aggregate to keep receive buffer from emptying completely.
UDP is used for "streaming" real-time data such as voice or video calling and has very different channel requirements from that of content streaming. Here latency and jitter are critical to quality of service while these same characteristics are essentially irrelevant for Netflix.
Streaming (things like audio, video, phone calls) requires relatively small and constant bandwidth (though compression adds variability) but isn't good at tolerating dropouts or variations in transit time. When it does get dropouts it's better to NOT send a retry correction (and have the retry packet risk delaying and/or forcing the drop of another packet).
Low latency and jitter are only helpful for real-time communications otherwise mostly irrelevant for Internet based content "Streaming" services.
Put them both on a link and treat the packets equally and TCP causes streaming to break up, stutter, etc. Overbuilding the net helps, but if the data to be tranferred is big enough TCP will ALWAYS saturate a link somewhere along the way.
Nonsense. You maintain low latency and minimize jitter with queue management. There are a many different fair queues you can pick from that will do this without caring at all about content.
TCP connections (things like big file transfers) error check and retry, fixing dropouts and errors so the data arrives intact
TCP can only retransmit. Only place meaningful error correction occurs is link layer. IP layer "checksums" are at best decorative.. at worst a useless waste of bandwidth and silicon.
Identify the traffic type and treat their packets differently - giving higher priority to stream packets (up to a limit, so applications can't gain by cheating, claiming to be a stream when they're not) - and then they play together just fine. Stream packets zip through, up to an allocation limit at some fraction of the available bandwidth, and TCP transfers evenly divide what's left - including the unused part of the streams' allocation.
But the tools for doing this also enable the ISPs to do other, not so good for customers, things. Provided they chose to do so, of course.
Content based prioritization is mostly pointless in the real world. It doesn't work across administrative domains and when it works at all tends to be a result of either a network being hopelessly oversubscribed or not properly managed.
Treat things like throttling high-volume users
Metering total packets to or from a customer isn't a net neutrality issue.
Would gladly support repeal of net neutrality just as soon as ALL large providers are broken up into separate companies no bigger than 1M subs each, all incumbent protection laws are outlawed and telecom providers forbidden from owning any stake in content creation or delivery.
I love when vendors think they are so big it magically earns them a license to dictate terms to their customers.
Depending on where you live anywhere between 25% and 75% iPhone owners around you will have chosen to place their phones in bulky protective cases. Millions of people want shit that works not glossy marketing gimmicks that are actually a liability (piss poor battery life, fire hazard, fragile, harder to use)
Then we have issue of vendors giving their customers the one finger salute by removing widely used features and justifying it with PR bullshit.
And do you know why MS is so successful? It's because users do not run OS's they run applications.
The vast majority of people have no problem with MS automatically pushing bug and security related fixes to their machine.
Interesting contradiction. The OS isn't important. Then comes assertion people have no problem being constantly harassed to update and then reboot their operating systems when all they care about is their applications? How does this even make sense?
Updates are widely seen as an annoyance or even harmful hence Microsoft's misguided attempt to strong arm people into having no choice. Especially as they turn the screws on transforming their customers into products we can't have people making their own decisions.
They have no problem with the anonymous telemetry being sent to MS.
In the same way people have no problem when criminals covertly case their homes without their knowledge.
I still don't see why people are upset with anonymous telemetry being communicated back to MS. Maybe they don't know what "anonymous" means.
Here is a little thought experiment for those who don't "get it". Would you accept someone sitting in a parked car in the morning waiting for you to leave your house then following you to work. When you walk across the street they are right behind you following your every move and recording everything you do? I have a feeling the response from most people would be either to call the police or get into a fist fight. The only difference between that and what tech companies are doing to users enmasse is stealth.
The top search engines use your online presence in order to feed you customized adds and links. To do this they need to capture and store enough information on me in order to target my user Id. Every corporation and telecommunication firm are in possession of quite a bit of your personal information of one type or another and to me that is a worse than anything MS might be doing.
"They do it too" isn't a justification it is an excuse. No more coherent an argument than attempting to justify a speeding ticket before a judge by pointing out the guy in front of you was going much faster asserting you shouldn't have to pay because he got away scott free.
What is even worse about this argument is that it is 100% backwards. People can chose to visit a website or not. They can elect to run software to mask their activities, encipher their communications and take other measures to protect themselves. If your own computer is always actively working against you even when you are not doing anything "online" then your fucked no matter what. It is a much more serious matter than any big content/advertising company or telecom.
There are some very intelligent people who work for MS and underestimating them is nonsense. In the beginning IBM grossly underestimated MS and ended losing control of an OS that earned MS billions in sales.
It doesn't matter how intelligent you are. The only thing that matters is what you accomplish. Technology is driven by hard work way more than it is driven by intellect.
I have to admit when I started hearing about all of this "fake news" everywhere I was like here we go again... puppeteers pushing social memes so that when they "crack down" either electronically or legislatively they will have public cover for censorship.
It certainly is no secret to anyone Russia has been targeting the west with propaganda campaigns for many years. Putin has made public statements gloating over ROI from such efforts. Neither is it news the Internet is chalk full of BS. What is so different today that warrants this "fake news" narrative to now be pushed so hard? Sore losers throwing tantrums over Drumpf win?
Once you understand the Islamic Doctrine of Abrogation (later verses replace earlier verses of the Koran) then you will see that Koran 9:29 is the only verse that really matters to non-Muslims. It commands that Islam take over the World until everyone has submitted to the rule of Sharia and the supremacy of Islam.
Islam is NOT founded on what we would call 'ethical good' but instead is based on the supremacy of Allah over all others. So mass rape and murder is considered 'good' because Allah clearly commands Muslims do these to the hated kaffir unbelievers (non-Muslims).
All of the Abrahamic religions are rife with this same bullshit. You can pull up chapter and verses about how swell it is to kill "infidels" in Christian texts all day long.
A core principal of all religion is spreading their seed and wouldn't you know it people are still as gullible today as they were back then.
Islam will only be defeated when the World understands that it is FICTION and is FALSE.
What makes you think anyone cares about reality to begin with?
If I were someone who actually cared about seconds and depended on high resolution timekeeping this would undoubtedly strike me as a really shit-headed idea.