For a kid's device, sure you can do that. Or just use the family stuff built in to do basically the same thing. I don't understand why you'd do that on your personal device though. Do you make a habit of drunk purchasing apps?
About the fifth time you get the this accessory is not supported by this iPhone message on the included cable and charger, you'll start to realize why the whole Lightning system is a horrible idea.
I've never had this message with an official cable, or a licensed one. I've seen it plenty with cheap unlicensed clones. Given how cheap licensed lightning cables are (finally), there's really no reason anymore to buy the crappy ones.
That's the charger, not the cable. Poorly built chargers can catch fire, and they can do that just fine with an Apple approved Lightning cable
So you're telling me a cable can't possibly short? Or overheat? Or deliver current down the wrong pin? I'm not saying there's much chance of actual damage, particularly assuming the device is well built, but cables are not faultless.
Of course, you also need an Apple approved charger, because iOS won't draw anything past the absolute minimum USB charge if not connected to an official Apple charger.
Absolute bullshit. All the Apple devices I own (30 pin & lightning) charge perfectly well (and at full speed) from any USB port I've ever used - be it on a computer or dumb charger. Everything from Amazon Kindle chargers to random in-car 12v adapters to high-power Anker chargers to Playstations. That's way more than can be said for a lot of devices (Blackberry & Sony - I'm looking at you).
I think it's probably a bit of both. In our case, we're absolutely not trying to make the ads look like editorial content (we don't have any) - they "look like" user posts, they're just obviously branded as being paid. The real trick (I think) is that before we take any of these ads on we work with the brands in question to get them to understand our audience and what appeals to them, and can even provide them with creative services to help make stuff which resonates. When we get really good paid content, users don't just click on it, they actually share it with their friends. It's the online version of the "did you see that commercial for xyz" water cooler conversation. The downside is that it's a long and involved process to get advertisers on board, as they can't just reuse their existing inventory. Some brands are more receptive than others to that idea.
The site I work on uses native advertising (as well as more conventional ads). We prefer the native ads not because we're trying to fool blockers (or indeed users) - the ads are still clearly labelled as such. The reason we prefer them is they perform hugely better. When the ad content fits with the overall content of the site and is actually tailored to the audience it turns out people engage with it - and that makes the advertisers happy and makes us more money.
I can "maintain control of my own data" while still using external services. All my data sits locally, and is backed up to multiple locations, but I also put plenty of it out there in the world. But Flickr or Tumblr or Facebook or whatever could go away tomorrow without me losing anything material.
I'm not sure what the whole "corporate overlord" thing is all about...either use the services or don't. I don't see either as a significant victory for good or evil.
I have a UAV, it's a fun toy and gives me some different perspectives as a landscape photographer. I seriously don't see the issue in registering it - it costs $5 (or $0 if I'm quick) and I only have to provide my name and address, which any vaguely determined cop could already get from my credit card records if they really wanted.
Given that some people do seem to have trouble using them sensibly, mandating a record (despite the fact that no, it won't catch everyone) seems reasonable. I mean having cars be registered is pretty uncontroversial and does help with tracking down irresponsible drivers, even if it's not 100% effective. The potential for misuse seems pretty small to me.
Someone in the town clearly profited from the land sale. Why does the town as a whole deserve something in addition? Unless it's causing some negative impact outside of that private land (in which case compensation would be appropriate).
I actually wouldn't want to be hourly. The reason is, my work (and that of my employees) is measured by success, by what we do and what we produce - not by how long it takes to do so. Paying by the hour is, in my view, rewarding slowness. My workplace gives me the flexibility to work when/wherever I need to - yesterday for example I took the morning to go to an event at my kids school. Had I been on some 9-5 hourly rate that would have cost me $$$, as it was, no big deal.
I literally Do. Not. Care what hours my staff work, with the exception that if I notice someone overdoing it (which is a temptation for younger engineers) I'm gonna talk to them about it. We agree on the work that's going to get done in advance, and as long as people are pulling their weight it's all good.
Go watch this video, it's long but it makes the point better than anything I've seen previously.
Summary - this whole argument about what "engineering" really is ignores what most engineers actually do. Civil and Structural Engineering is not all of engineering, there are so many other fields which all do things their own way and which are not at all comparable to the oft-quoted bridge building or skyscraper construction. The process of creating software is part science, part art, part craft and part engineering. That's OK, it's alright to be lots of things. They're not exclusive.
Well a lot of their biggest companies are in real trouble (ex Sony). They also have an extremely high suicide rate (double the US). I have no idea if any of this is related, but the comments I've read about people doing menial jobs which could be automated simply to keep employment up sounds like a recipe for depression, and I doubt it's sustainable. People know when their job is actually useful and feeling like you're not doing anything worth while is incredibly demotivating.
I'm well aware of industrial controllers. I'm also aware that many of them are networked in one way or another, be it ethernet or something else, and most have some mechanism for introducing code or data (floppy disk, USB, whatever). It's not like one of the biggest malware incidents in recent years was targeted towards PLCs or anything.
Why aren't you writing in assembler? Actually scrub that - how's your microcode? What always amuses me about the bare metal brigade is that they're often not actually that close to the metal.
Different levels of abstraction work for different tasks, and it's always a trade off. Security vs Reliability vs Performance vs Resource Usage vs Developer Time vs Maintainability vs... you get the picture. Anyone who tells me their tool of choice is appropriate for all tasks is telling me they have a very restricted view of the world. I write mainly in Scala these days but there are plenty of things I wouldn't try to use it for, and I sure as hell wouldn't write my services in C!
If Java is controlled by Oracle then Go is controlled by Google. Neither worries me particularly.
I don't personally see much of a need for Go in my world (high throughput web services), but I know some of the ops folks in my company like it for the stuff they do - and anything which gets more C out of the stack gets my vote:)
If your program runs on a machine which is connected to a network then it's an attack vector, even if it doesn't directly offer network services. Look at the huge number of vulnerabilities in things like file viewers or graphics rendering libraries.
Sure, if you're writing an application which you know will only ever be run on airgapped machines with no removable storage then maybe you can not worry about security. Those applications are few and far between.
I disagree - the last season with just the two of them has been a great return to form. You know, actually doing science, actually showing the build process and failures as well as successes. As much as I liked the three other hosts (and I did like them) they were a distraction and devolved the show into the quest for larger explosions.
Data, please? People make this claim all the time, but given that there are over a billion trips a day in the US and only around 120 fatalities, I'd say humans drivers pretty much have this thing down. The fact that people can make it around in their cars in myriad weather conditions, successfully navigate unfamiliar terrain, and quickly respond to sudden changes in circumstances (kid darting out in front of them) speaks volumes to how good human drivers are.
So I'm going to try. Putting aside fatalities, as the Google cars have not been involved in any, there were approx 5.5m traffic accidents in the US in 2010. Taking your number of 1b trips per day, we get a figure of ~66k miles per accident. According to Google they have been involved in 11 accidents over 1.7 million miles which is ~154k miles/accident. Now this is a combination of fully automatic and driver assisted miles, so the comparison isn't exact, but it's pretty safe to assume the computer is at least as good as your average driver. And maybe twice as good.
I watched a Google self-driving car cross an intersection this weekend (in Austin). It was moving very cautiously and then slowed down to a walking pace on the other side of the intersection, leaving a trail of human-driven cars stuck in the intersection while it decided to turn down a side street.
That may be evidence of it driving badly. Or it may be evidence of it driving well, because it was responding to a potential danger that the human drivers didn't see or didn't care about. Remember - if we're saying we want the computers to drive better than humans we have to accept that they will at times drive differently.
You actually think that will help? There's gonna be like 1 second at maximum when you realize something bad is about to happen. That's going to be long enough for a driver who hasn't been paying attention to react, grab whatever emergency only steering wheel replacement is hidden in the glove box and execute some perfect maneuver?
Right now if you're in a cab do you insist there's a second set of controls in case the driver fucks up? No - you trust in statistics. With the automated drivers it's the same, you either trust them or you don't. There's no "emergency backup".
It's nothing to do with women. I'm a guy and I have no interest in being part of these "communities" for precisely this reason. I also run an engineering team and if anyone came to work with this kind of attitude they'd be out so fast their head would spin, I don't give a flying crap how good they think they are.
It seems to me as if a lot of these OSS groups suffer from the same problem with self appointed Masters of the Universe as Wikipedia.
I like to think we're pretty open minded when it comes to experience. For example, when I joined the company I had many years of development experience, but in a totally different domain. It was a tough learning curve but they helped me through it. We also do hire grads straight out of school, typically through our intern program which has identified a number of really awesome people.
It's the mid-level 3-7 year crowd. There is no shortage of people applying, but the SNR is terrible. So much resume stuffing, lots of people lying about their experience and knowledge. If you come along saying you're an 8 year Java veteran who's been building performance critical stuff and you can't tell me the difference between a LinkedList and an ArrayList you're either lying or just really bad at your job.
Oh well I guess I'll stop complaining and go back to reading terrible resumes:)
Actually we are very famous for being a good workplace, we've won awards for it. We compete directly with Google for talent and are competitive with them on both pay and benefits - a number of our staff are ex-Google. So yeah, when I said it wasn't pay or benefits I meant it.
I've been a hiring manager at a few large companies over the years. It's never been easy to find good people with or without H1-Bs. Right now I'm sitting on 3 open seats for devs, it's not because of pay or benefits - on the face of it these are pretty desirable jobs - it's just really hard to find qualified candidates. Once I'm turning great people away I'll believe we don't have a talent pool problem.
A PIN doesn't help. The Target hack (and all the hundreds of similar attacks) took everything you enter on the pinpad, including the card number, expiry etc. If you entered a PIN they'd have that too. Using a contactless system the card number presented is one time use - you can grab whatever you like from the terminal and it's useless. So using Google/Apple Pay (I haven't read up on the Samsung one) is demonstrably more secure than a swipe card.
Now of course it's not a financial loss we're guarding against here, the card issuer agreements cover you from that, but having to get new cards and numbers issued is a real hassle.
As regards convenience - I was in a store today and paid just by holding my watch over the pinpad. Useful seeing as my other hand was busy trying to stop my 3 year old daughter running off!
You're making the assumption that the CEO was personally involved. He may have been, he also may not have been. His resignation was a given regardless due to the size of the problem, he is 100% responsible for the actions of his employees. Doesn't mean he was aware or actually approved of what went down. Yes he resigned and got his package but a decent amount of that (and his current wealth) is likely tied up in VW stock for quite a while, and may also be subject to clawbacks if it is determined he acted against the best interest of the company.
When it comes down to it an engineer wrote the code, knowing full well (we have to assume) that it wasn't legit. I'm sure he didn't do it on his own, and all those responsible up the chain should be identified. But I'd actually be kinda surprised if it went as high as the C-suite.
Slashdot Mirror
For a kid's device, sure you can do that. Or just use the family stuff built in to do basically the same thing. I don't understand why you'd do that on your personal device though. Do you make a habit of drunk purchasing apps?
I've never had this message with an official cable, or a licensed one. I've seen it plenty with cheap unlicensed clones. Given how cheap licensed lightning cables are (finally), there's really no reason anymore to buy the crappy ones.
So you're telling me a cable can't possibly short? Or overheat? Or deliver current down the wrong pin? I'm not saying there's much chance of actual damage, particularly assuming the device is well built, but cables are not faultless.
Absolute bullshit. All the Apple devices I own (30 pin & lightning) charge perfectly well (and at full speed) from any USB port I've ever used - be it on a computer or dumb charger. Everything from Amazon Kindle chargers to random in-car 12v adapters to high-power Anker chargers to Playstations. That's way more than can be said for a lot of devices (Blackberry & Sony - I'm looking at you).
I think it's probably a bit of both. In our case, we're absolutely not trying to make the ads look like editorial content (we don't have any) - they "look like" user posts, they're just obviously branded as being paid. The real trick (I think) is that before we take any of these ads on we work with the brands in question to get them to understand our audience and what appeals to them, and can even provide them with creative services to help make stuff which resonates. When we get really good paid content, users don't just click on it, they actually share it with their friends. It's the online version of the "did you see that commercial for xyz" water cooler conversation. The downside is that it's a long and involved process to get advertisers on board, as they can't just reuse their existing inventory. Some brands are more receptive than others to that idea.
The site I work on uses native advertising (as well as more conventional ads). We prefer the native ads not because we're trying to fool blockers (or indeed users) - the ads are still clearly labelled as such. The reason we prefer them is they perform hugely better. When the ad content fits with the overall content of the site and is actually tailored to the audience it turns out people engage with it - and that makes the advertisers happy and makes us more money.
I can "maintain control of my own data" while still using external services. All my data sits locally, and is backed up to multiple locations, but I also put plenty of it out there in the world. But Flickr or Tumblr or Facebook or whatever could go away tomorrow without me losing anything material.
I'm not sure what the whole "corporate overlord" thing is all about...either use the services or don't. I don't see either as a significant victory for good or evil.
I have a UAV, it's a fun toy and gives me some different perspectives as a landscape photographer. I seriously don't see the issue in registering it - it costs $5 (or $0 if I'm quick) and I only have to provide my name and address, which any vaguely determined cop could already get from my credit card records if they really wanted.
Given that some people do seem to have trouble using them sensibly, mandating a record (despite the fact that no, it won't catch everyone) seems reasonable. I mean having cars be registered is pretty uncontroversial and does help with tracking down irresponsible drivers, even if it's not 100% effective. The potential for misuse seems pretty small to me.
Someone in the town clearly profited from the land sale. Why does the town as a whole deserve something in addition? Unless it's causing some negative impact outside of that private land (in which case compensation would be appropriate).
I actually wouldn't want to be hourly. The reason is, my work (and that of my employees) is measured by success, by what we do and what we produce - not by how long it takes to do so. Paying by the hour is, in my view, rewarding slowness. My workplace gives me the flexibility to work when/wherever I need to - yesterday for example I took the morning to go to an event at my kids school. Had I been on some 9-5 hourly rate that would have cost me $$$, as it was, no big deal.
I literally Do. Not. Care what hours my staff work, with the exception that if I notice someone overdoing it (which is a temptation for younger engineers) I'm gonna talk to them about it. We agree on the work that's going to get done in advance, and as long as people are pulling their weight it's all good.
Go watch this video, it's long but it makes the point better than anything I've seen previously.
Summary - this whole argument about what "engineering" really is ignores what most engineers actually do. Civil and Structural Engineering is not all of engineering, there are so many other fields which all do things their own way and which are not at all comparable to the oft-quoted bridge building or skyscraper construction. The process of creating software is part science, part art, part craft and part engineering. That's OK, it's alright to be lots of things. They're not exclusive.
Well a lot of their biggest companies are in real trouble (ex Sony). They also have an extremely high suicide rate (double the US). I have no idea if any of this is related, but the comments I've read about people doing menial jobs which could be automated simply to keep employment up sounds like a recipe for depression, and I doubt it's sustainable. People know when their job is actually useful and feeling like you're not doing anything worth while is incredibly demotivating.
I'm well aware of industrial controllers. I'm also aware that many of them are networked in one way or another, be it ethernet or something else, and most have some mechanism for introducing code or data (floppy disk, USB, whatever). It's not like one of the biggest malware incidents in recent years was targeted towards PLCs or anything.
Why aren't you writing in assembler? Actually scrub that - how's your microcode? What always amuses me about the bare metal brigade is that they're often not actually that close to the metal.
Different levels of abstraction work for different tasks, and it's always a trade off. Security vs Reliability vs Performance vs Resource Usage vs Developer Time vs Maintainability vs ... you get the picture. Anyone who tells me their tool of choice is appropriate for all tasks is telling me they have a very restricted view of the world. I write mainly in Scala these days but there are plenty of things I wouldn't try to use it for, and I sure as hell wouldn't write my services in C!
If Java is controlled by Oracle then Go is controlled by Google. Neither worries me particularly.
I don't personally see much of a need for Go in my world (high throughput web services), but I know some of the ops folks in my company like it for the stuff they do - and anything which gets more C out of the stack gets my vote :)
If your program runs on a machine which is connected to a network then it's an attack vector, even if it doesn't directly offer network services. Look at the huge number of vulnerabilities in things like file viewers or graphics rendering libraries.
Sure, if you're writing an application which you know will only ever be run on airgapped machines with no removable storage then maybe you can not worry about security. Those applications are few and far between.
I disagree - the last season with just the two of them has been a great return to form. You know, actually doing science, actually showing the build process and failures as well as successes. As much as I liked the three other hosts (and I did like them) they were a distraction and devolved the show into the quest for larger explosions.
But it's still immature. I wouldn't personally use it for anything important.
Data, please? People make this claim all the time, but given that there are over a billion trips a day in the US and only around 120 fatalities, I'd say humans drivers pretty much have this thing down. The fact that people can make it around in their cars in myriad weather conditions, successfully navigate unfamiliar terrain, and quickly respond to sudden changes in circumstances (kid darting out in front of them) speaks volumes to how good human drivers are.
So I'm going to try. Putting aside fatalities, as the Google cars have not been involved in any, there were approx 5.5m traffic accidents in the US in 2010. Taking your number of 1b trips per day, we get a figure of ~66k miles per accident. According to Google they have been involved in 11 accidents over 1.7 million miles which is ~154k miles/accident. Now this is a combination of fully automatic and driver assisted miles, so the comparison isn't exact, but it's pretty safe to assume the computer is at least as good as your average driver. And maybe twice as good.
I watched a Google self-driving car cross an intersection this weekend (in Austin). It was moving very cautiously and then slowed down to a walking pace on the other side of the intersection, leaving a trail of human-driven cars stuck in the intersection while it decided to turn down a side street.
That may be evidence of it driving badly. Or it may be evidence of it driving well, because it was responding to a potential danger that the human drivers didn't see or didn't care about. Remember - if we're saying we want the computers to drive better than humans we have to accept that they will at times drive differently.
You actually think that will help? There's gonna be like 1 second at maximum when you realize something bad is about to happen. That's going to be long enough for a driver who hasn't been paying attention to react, grab whatever emergency only steering wheel replacement is hidden in the glove box and execute some perfect maneuver?
Right now if you're in a cab do you insist there's a second set of controls in case the driver fucks up? No - you trust in statistics. With the automated drivers it's the same, you either trust them or you don't. There's no "emergency backup".
It's nothing to do with women. I'm a guy and I have no interest in being part of these "communities" for precisely this reason. I also run an engineering team and if anyone came to work with this kind of attitude they'd be out so fast their head would spin, I don't give a flying crap how good they think they are.
It seems to me as if a lot of these OSS groups suffer from the same problem with self appointed Masters of the Universe as Wikipedia.
I like to think we're pretty open minded when it comes to experience. For example, when I joined the company I had many years of development experience, but in a totally different domain. It was a tough learning curve but they helped me through it. We also do hire grads straight out of school, typically through our intern program which has identified a number of really awesome people.
It's the mid-level 3-7 year crowd. There is no shortage of people applying, but the SNR is terrible. So much resume stuffing, lots of people lying about their experience and knowledge. If you come along saying you're an 8 year Java veteran who's been building performance critical stuff and you can't tell me the difference between a LinkedList and an ArrayList you're either lying or just really bad at your job.
Oh well I guess I'll stop complaining and go back to reading terrible resumes :)
Actually we are very famous for being a good workplace, we've won awards for it. We compete directly with Google for talent and are competitive with them on both pay and benefits - a number of our staff are ex-Google. So yeah, when I said it wasn't pay or benefits I meant it.
I've been a hiring manager at a few large companies over the years. It's never been easy to find good people with or without H1-Bs. Right now I'm sitting on 3 open seats for devs, it's not because of pay or benefits - on the face of it these are pretty desirable jobs - it's just really hard to find qualified candidates. Once I'm turning great people away I'll believe we don't have a talent pool problem.
I'm a big fan of Apple Pay, but this thing is actually new. It doesn't use NFC and works on any swipe reader, unlike Apple/Google Pay.
Shame it'll be useless soon when we switch to chipped cards!
A PIN doesn't help. The Target hack (and all the hundreds of similar attacks) took everything you enter on the pinpad, including the card number, expiry etc. If you entered a PIN they'd have that too. Using a contactless system the card number presented is one time use - you can grab whatever you like from the terminal and it's useless. So using Google/Apple Pay (I haven't read up on the Samsung one) is demonstrably more secure than a swipe card.
Now of course it's not a financial loss we're guarding against here, the card issuer agreements cover you from that, but having to get new cards and numbers issued is a real hassle.
As regards convenience - I was in a store today and paid just by holding my watch over the pinpad. Useful seeing as my other hand was busy trying to stop my 3 year old daughter running off!
You're making the assumption that the CEO was personally involved. He may have been, he also may not have been. His resignation was a given regardless due to the size of the problem, he is 100% responsible for the actions of his employees. Doesn't mean he was aware or actually approved of what went down. Yes he resigned and got his package but a decent amount of that (and his current wealth) is likely tied up in VW stock for quite a while, and may also be subject to clawbacks if it is determined he acted against the best interest of the company.
When it comes down to it an engineer wrote the code, knowing full well (we have to assume) that it wasn't legit. I'm sure he didn't do it on his own, and all those responsible up the chain should be identified. But I'd actually be kinda surprised if it went as high as the C-suite.