Even if they were only releasing patches, it might not keep them out of legal entanglements, especially if they have to bypass authentication or copy-protection methods to get it to work. Publishers have successfully argued that offering such methods violates the DMCA.
With older games the fan-developers might get away with it since the copy-protection was usually built into the executable and only checked at launch; modifying the multiplayer code likely wouldn't touch the copy-protection at all. But bewer games also use access-control measures when they authenticate with online servers and bypassing that can get you into hot water. I am not sure how the Battlefield games do it.
Of course, regardless of the legality of their actions, EA has the resources to make the developer's life hell through extended legal battles. It sounds like - since the developers were posting full executables rather than diffs - they were caught red-handed and EA would probably be able to get a judgement against them. If they just switched to offering patches - even if the patches themselves were fully legal - EA would still be able to go after them for their prior actions. So the developers probably took the wiser course by settling and just took everything down.
Now, if some other group took their work and released diffs based on those previously-released executables (and if these patches didn't violate the DMCA clause against trafficking in bypassing access-control measures), EA would have a much harder legal battle. Of course, for a company that makes $800 million per year on FIFA alone, they could still terrorize the patch-makers with endless law-suits, no matter how spurious, so it still might not be worth the effort on the part of the patchers..
But people playing old classics aren't playing - and buying - the new hotness... and more importantly, the new hotness' DLC, microtransactions and loot-boxes (that's where the real money is). And gamers have repeatedly shown that they will keep buying new games regardless of how poorly a publisher treats them. So there is absolutely no advantage to a publisher to keep old game servers running: it cannibalizes new sales, shutting them down doesn't dissuade new sales, and servers cost money.
Would releasing patches - which don't contain any copyrighted material - that can be applied to end-user's executables be a legal work-around? Although ensuring the correct version might be difficult; I am guessing these games went through a multitude of updates.
More than just being scripted, it wasn't even real-time. The actual fight was filmed over multiple days. This was the most entertaining cut of all that work, which is rather sad. The moves were all pre-programmed and carefully choreographed. 30 years on and millions of dollars later and we still end up with something that looked significantly less impressive than the power-loader fight in Aliens and had just about as much verisimilitude.
How the hell will the delivery guy fit food into my fridge? I can barely fit stuff in there and it usually requires a clean-out first before I can tetris the new stuff into the machine.
Firefox supports EME, but you can disable it by unchecking "Play DRM-controlled content" in preferences.
For now. Until two or three versions from now, when that feature is removed from Preferences and can only be toggled via about:config, or five or six versions of Firefox later when even that is removed...
A similar thing happened to me. I found a telephone book from 1990 and none of the phone numbers were accurate either.
Also, I rediscovered a stash of business cards I received from colleagues and business associates back in the 80s and not only were the phone numbers wrong, so were most of the mailing addresses (and NONE of the fax numbers worked!)
Why is this news? Contact information changes. Is it because "it's on a computer" that it is suddenly noteworthy?
(That said, I really miss the days of logging in anonymously to FTP sites to see if there was new stuff to download. There was always an aura of mystery and surprise that is missing from modern archives which very dutifully have change logs telling you what's been added and removed. And no nasty SysOp telling you that you've exceeded your download quota either.).
Every document that you print can be tracked back to you, along with the exact time that you printed it.
Every document I print cannot be traced back to me since it is unlikely the government has a record of all the serial numbers of every printer and who bought which one. Arguably, with a good deal of investigation they might be able to find out that a printer with a specific serial number was shipped to a certain store near me, and - assuming I used a credit-card - that I bought a similar model printer from the same store but that's still not a direct connection (especially - as is likely - if more than one of that model printer had been sold in that store). Were I really worried about such things, I'd go to the next state (or even two or three states over) and buy a printer with cash to get my print-outs; good luck tracing a print-out back to me then.
The yellow-dots aren't there to identify people, they are there to identify forgeries (specifically, counterfeit monies). They basically say, "Hey, this wasn't printed on a proper press but instead slid out from a consumer-grade printer". The government was only able to identify Reality Leigh Winner because they happen to own the printer and thus can easily match up the serial number.
Aside from all the other issues people have already mentioned with this bill, this seems like a great way for the government to do an end-run around those pesky warrant requirements. It's such a chore for law enforcement to go to a judge and have to offer a valid reason for breaking into somebody's property to collect evidence. With this bill, you simply let the victims gather the evidence, completely unbound by law, and have them turn over any findings - whether related to the hacking or not.
I'm sure this loophole wouldn't be used unscrupulously by any three-letter agencies, no sir.
It's also wrong in that you don't "head straight for the sun". The Earth (and any probe launched from it) has an orbital speed of around 100,000kmh. If you launch from Earth and then head towards the sun - e.g., point the nose of the probe at the sun and thrust - you are going to miss our nearest star by a wide margin.
There are two options you can take: 1) you can decelerate 100,000kmh and then let the sun's gravity pull you inwards (then the "point nose at sun and thrust" works as expected) or you can accelerate, which will cause you to loop inward (the usual example of how this works is to take a yo-you and spin it around your body; the faster you spin it, the smaller the orbit). Counter-intuitively, this has the advantage of using less fuel too (instinct tells us slowing down would require less fuel, but that's because we've been spoiled by 4 billion years of evolution in an environment with ample gravity and friction). The probe will orbit the sun in ever-decreasing circles (technically, huge wobbly S-curves because both the probe and the sun are careening through galactic space)
But in neither case are you really heading TOWARD the Sun; the probe is moving on an indirect path to where the sun will be seven years from now.
All pedantic I know, but fun to think about. Orbital mechanics are weirdly fascinating. You go in to go out, up to go down, and speed up to slow down.
Now we'll see if AFRINIC, the internet registry, is more than hot air.
"No IP addresses for governments that shut down internet access," they said. If you cut access or start censoring feeds from tools like Google, Twitter, and Facebook to deny their citizens access, the infringing government could find themselves refused new IP addresses. Well, this seems exactly what Britain seems to be thinking of doing. They say that the Internet views censorship as damage and routes around it; is it time to start routing around the UK?
Okay, technically, this was a measure that was to be considered in June. However, the proponents of the measure really should speak up about it now. The Manchester attacks were terrible but the Investigatory Powers Act is even scarier.
Except this doesn't sound like a backdoor in Windows. The article is short on details, but if it uses a "custom installer", this sounds more like a trojan. Once the software is installed, your machine is compromised but that's pretty much true for every consumer OS. As it is a customized trojan, its signature won't show up in anti-virus databases. Once it is installed, it can co-op the target system, ensuring it can't be easily detected or removed. Its a bit trickier to write this sort of spyware these days, but in no way impossible even for run-of-the-mill criminals, much less an organization with the resources and talent of the CIA
How they get the target to install the trojan is probably different in each instance, and possibly requires the assistance of software vendors (Microsoft, McAfee, whatever) or the target's ISP so that when the already-running and legitimate software is served the trojan when it checks for an update (alternately, they might just sneak an agent with a USB drive into the target's home and install the trojan when the target is out to lunch or something).
It's like really nasty spyware customized for a very specific user.
In fact, that the CIA is forced to use these sorts of tactics speaks against the idea of there being a universal backdoor in Windows (beyond, you know, the usual and sadly universal backdoor of insecure coding and bad security practices on the part of the user).
I really do not see that much of an issue with this.
The government got a warrant to search the electronic devices. These devices were seized at the time of arrest. Rather than require the owners to unlock the phones - potentially violating our protected right against self-incrimination - they are using third-party software to hack the devices. The government intends - admittedly, as legally required - to share all gathered information with the defense lawyers - and are pledging to delete any information not relevant to the case.
You can make the argument that some of the people arrested during the riots are innocent. That may be true, but irrelevant to the issue at hand: that the government is searching these devices. You might argue that the government may use the information gleaned from the devices in ways that are not covered by the warrant, and that is a legitimate worry but there is no evidence that is happening. But given that these people were arrested, we should expect the prosecutors to use all available legal means to build a case against the defendants. That they are searching the phones is as much a story if the police had gotten a warrant to seize the defendants diaries (which is to say, not much of a story) .
The fact is, there were apparently riots during the inauguration. I am no supporter of Trump but that's just shameful; there's nothing wrong with assembly and protest but some people went beyond that. People were arrested and honestly I would expect the government to try them for their actions. There is a lot I find worrisome about Trump's government, but this is not one of them; this is a case where everything seems to be done legitimately and by-the-book.
I'm getting emails that are warning me of "security issues" because I am accessing the account using Thunderbird, and not their ultra-secure website or mobile app. They don't offer any information to back up this assertion and it feels more an attempt to get me into using something where I will be forced to view their advertisements.
However, I was amused that their solution to this "problem" was to follow a bunch of links in the email, many of which led to a landing page which prompted me to type in my username and password. While I believe these emails were legitimate, it's/exactly/ the same sort of thing you would see in a phishing email, and contrary to what IT people have been trying to teach people for decades, mainly don't click on links in email!
Eh, whatever. The yahoo account is mainly a spamtrap for websites that are so dodgy I don't even want to associate them with the/hotmail/ account.
Battery compartments are really difficult case design for mobile devices.
Bullshit. Ask me how I know.
Alright. How do you know?
I am going to asking not because I disbelieve you and more because I hope the answer is "I design battery compartments for mobile devices" and you'll give us some interesting insights into the process. Honestly, it is one of those areas of engineering I realize I have taken for granted and I'd like to learn more about some of the challenges there.
"... to some speculation that the Earth may be losing its magnetic field -..." Since the data ultimately suggests that fluctuations are completely normal, I submit that this also starts to explain why people are taking scientists less and less seriously.
Don't blame this on the researchers; blame this on the "science writers" (including the author of the summary here on Slashdot). The actual study - at least the abstract and the supplemental material, which was all I could read without a PNAS subscription - says no such thing and that particular wording is just a click-bait addition in order to garner more views. Science journalism - like so much journalism this day - has gone on a real decline over the past twenty years and tries to "spice up" every study rather than simply reporting the science. The end result is that scientists end up sounding inconsistent and hyperbolic ("Coffee Cures cancer!", no wait, "Coffee Causes Cancer"), when they usually are neither; it is the people reporting on their work that are to blame.
Feed it minecraft screenshots and japanese porn, and see what the result is.
I was thinking Super Mario Brothers sprites myself. Those were 8x8 sprites, if I remember correctly.
As the article points out, this is less, "Zoom, Enhance" and more "Best Guess". Unfortunately, years of bad computer science on TV is just going to confuse people into believing this algorithm can do far more than it actually does. I wish Google would open it up so we could test it with our own images and show others how untrustworthy these programs really are.
More useful are the programs which enhance an image from a video based on data from surrounding frames. I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing fast-shooting CCDs coupled with similar "enhancement" algorithms built into cameras eventually; you take one picture, the CCD takes five or ten, and then in the background builds a higher-resolution image than the sensor itself would normally allow.
On the other hand, while Google's software isn't itself that useful, it does show how quickly computers are advancing in recognizing images, which is probably the whole point.
The Windows media player - at least through Windows 7 - had an option to "download usage rights automatically when I play or sync a file". I wonder if this "attack" still takes place if this feature is not enabled.
Brick and mortar retail runs at a margin of between 60% to 80%
A new game can cost the store about $40-50, depending on the game's popularity, number of pre-sales, etc. That's about 10-15% of the $60 price. The stores used to demand a larger cut - about 20% - but their clout - and thus ability to demand lower prices from the publishers - decreased as digital marketplaces started offering them competition; the brick-n-motor storefronts had to compete by cutting their take so publishers would still deal with them.
For/used/ game sales, it might very well be 60-80%, but overall the stores only get a small chunk of the change with new games. It's why places like Gamestop rely so heavily on used-game sales (to the point that employees will lie about not having a new game in store in order to get you to buy the game used).
From what I remember, the division of the sale is about 10% spent on marketing, 10-15% to the retailer, 25% to the publisher, 30% to the developer, and 20% goes to the guys who built the console (I'm doing this from memory, it's been a while since I needed to worry about this sort of stuff).
Still half price for the westerner, shady middle man gets 14$ total profit and steam gets a buck instead of 60.
Steam doesn't get $60 bucks in any event; they have to pass on the bulk of the collected monies to the publisher and developer of the game. Steam is just as much a middle-man as the guy reselling the serial numbers (and, as anyone who has ever had to deal with their customer service, are only slightly less shady;-).
Steam reportedly gets a 30% cut from sales (so about $18 dollars of that $60 goes to Steam), compared to the ~10-15% cut most brick-n-mortar retailers take from the sale. Game prices in Russia are about 1/2 to 1/3 the cost of the game in the US. Assuming the cut remains the same, Steam gets about $6 dollars from the sale of a full-priced game in Russia. So I wouldn't cry too heartily for them.
It's probably the "best-behaved" because it is one of the least effective anti-virus. It has terrible detection rates compared to its competitors. The other anti-virus programs may be pushier and embed themselves deeper into the host system, but that's necessary in order for them to (try to) root out the infections.
Arguably end-users do not need this sort of protection offered from better AV packages, that Microsoft's product is "good enough" for most users. Certainly, better Antivirus is no panacea; even the best scanner can still miss some viruses. Personally - having cleaned out too many virus-infected machines - I'd rather the end-user have the maximum available protection if only to slow down the infection rate a little, although that still doesn't help when the end-user deactivates the AV, never updates it or just flat-out ignores its warnings . But regardless of your opinion of the/necessity/ of the software, you can't simply judge Microsoft's offering without taking into consideration its effectiveness. It is "best behaved" (for whatever that means) because it simply/does less/.
Microsoft has long been interested in becoming a service provider. Initially the idea was to get paid monthly or annually for the use of their software (Windows, Office, etc.) but recently it seems that they are more interested in becoming a distributor of other publisher's software, where they offer a standardized platform (Windows OS, UWP apps, Azure) for developers to target and they get a cut of the proceeds. To ensure that they could provide the largest market, the platform the end-users use would be offered free (hence, Windows10). Windows 10 Cloud just seems to be a furtherment of this objective, albeit stripped down to lessen the cost to Microsoft (and possibly to ensure that end-users would/have/ to use the app-store if they want to get anything done by not providing any built-in applications).
Also, he is blowing up the very foundational concepts of the country that happen to be the things that made America powerful and great (like freedom of movement, freedom of speech, immigration etc) - he is fundamentally anti-American.
Furthermore, the core philosophy of America was that all men are created equal and have inalienable rights, not just its own citizens. The US government can only ensure that those rights are protected for people living within its borders but even somebody living under a totalitarian regime is, according to to this philosophy, endowed with the same rights as the most privileged US citizens (it just happens that that poor schlub's government is preventing him from exercising those rights. US intervention is often based on the philosophy that we must remove these unlawful government so that the innate freedoms of those foreigners can be practiced).
Within the confine of the United States, however, the rights of all can be protected. Yes, in certain cases We-the-People might have to sacrifice some of those rights for the common welfare (so though I may have the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded room, we've agreed - in the form of law - that this would be a bad idea and have laid that right aside). Certain privileges and responsibilities (voting, holding public office) are restricted to citizens, but these are quite limited. It is possible through criminal action for certain individuals to abrogate some of their rights, but these will only be lost through a decision of the courts, and made on a case-by-case basis.
Specifically targeting a group - whether because of race, creed, sexual orientation or citizenship - and saying "No rights for you!" is contrary to the basic concepts of America. It's why slavery was so wrong, it is why the incarceration of the Japanese-Americans in WW2 was wrong, it is why it is wrong to deny homosexuals marriage, and it is why it is wrong to specifically say that foreigners are not afforded the smae privacy protections as the USA's own citizens.
This is a story I've wanted told for a long time. I think it is a story worth reading, even if you do not necessarily agree with its conclusions because I think it offers an interesting alternate view of our politicians.
The thing is, this isn't really/my/ story to tell. Rather, it is a recounting of various conversations I have had with a friend? (Peer? Acquaintance? A guy I did business and with whom I had some interesting discussions.) While I myself have had little contact with politicians, this gentleman has, and over several years he has shared some of his insights on them; how they think and why they do the things they do. I've actually asked him to come here and share these thoughts with the people on Slashdot, but he has always demurred. Partly - although he has never said so in as many words - because he doesn't think it's worth his bother talking with IT geeks on a tiny, fairly inconsequential website but mostly because he values his discretion and feels that were he to make a public statement it might be traced back to him and reflect badly not only on him but on the people for whom he works. On the other hand, I have mentioned that I intended to share his thoughts - properly anonymized - and he didn't seem too upset about it.
So who is this gentleman? I guess the best description for him would be an "Aide" or "Secretary", although I recall him once self-effacingly describing himself as an "incredibly overpaid intern" and a "go-fer". He is one of those mostly faceless people who work with our politicians, actually going and and doing most of the things they order. His tasks have varied from simply mundane chores as fetching coffee, to meeting and negotiating with other power brokers, to helping read and write bills his patron intended to back. He himself has no official rank and his position has varied over the years, but it probably would not be too far off the mark to consider him second behind his master. He has worked for politicians on both sides of the Aisle - although he tends to favor those on the Left - and has over the years worked with politicos of all levels, from local government, to state legislative, to members of Congress. It's allowed him to garner an interesting viewpoint of the hows and whys of government.
I met this gentleman many years ago when he needed assistance with some IT work. It was a very brief professional acquaintance, but over the years we have kept in touch; he often reached out to me to answer a quick IT-related question. Over the years we have had a number of chats and he told a number of interesting anecdotes - all sanitized of names to protect the innocent - and it's from these discussions that I have distilled the following insights. I will be the first to admit that my friend has his own biases and - like most of us, works in his own bubble - but I think that's partly what makes these stories so interesting. You might not agree with his conclusions or argue that he is defending the indefensible, but I think he was being honest. I - like many here - tend to revile our political leaders, thinking them all untrustworthy and corrupt, waffling on important issues, indebted to corporate masters, etc. These tales offer a different light on thing. It's all going to be a bit stream-of-consciousness, I'm afraid, as I remember things he told me, but I hope you find it interesting as well.
So.
One of the first insights he gave me was that most politicians tend to enter into the game because they have one issue they really care about. Maybe some of them have two, or even rarely three, but - whether it is gun-control, or military spending or health care, pushing that issue is usually the primary force behind not only their entry into politics but also the reason they stay in politics and keep pushing up the ladder seeking positions of more power and authority. They want their issue to succeed, and they keep reaching upwards in hopes of not only getting it achieved, but also - if they are successful -
The same company also has a staff appraisal rating from 1 to 5. Anyone with a rating of 1-2 shouldn't be working there as they're no good. 5 is considered an impossible target as there's no such thing as a perfect employee. 4 is considered really good, but there's no incentive to improve. So everyone with a job gets 3: meets their role's requirements but needs to improve.
I had a similar experience, except the reasoning behind it was more blatantly self-serving. Raises were tied to your rating, with "5"s getting a raise (although it was barely a cost-of-living increase), "4"s getting to keep their jobs but no raise, "3"s getting warnings and "1-2s" were basically "we're looking for your replacement". I was specifically instructed numerous times not to give any employees any "5"s, because that would cost the company money; only give the very best employees a "4" (to show we "appreciated" them), give everybody else a "3" (to put the fear of unemployment into them so they would work harder), and was required to give out a few "1-2"s, because new employees tend to be cheaper.
I said fuck that, gave my best direct reports "5"s and most of the "4"s rest (it was a great group), got chewed out for it, successfully fought for the "5"s, lost out on the "4"s, and generally got reamed for not playing ball. I left the company shortly thereafter and later learned that my reviews were "re-done" by my replacement, and they got "4"s instead (a year later, the division was closed down and shipped to India). Yeah, it was that sort of place.
I have no doubt customer satisfaction surveys are treated similarly, where they are ignored if they don't meet the expected narrative of the executives. They are pointless and probably mostly used to prove the employee is in the wrong rather than truly encourage and reward good service.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if they were only releasing patches, it might not keep them out of legal entanglements, especially if they have to bypass authentication or copy-protection methods to get it to work. Publishers have successfully argued that offering such methods violates the DMCA.
With older games the fan-developers might get away with it since the copy-protection was usually built into the executable and only checked at launch; modifying the multiplayer code likely wouldn't touch the copy-protection at all. But bewer games also use access-control measures when they authenticate with online servers and bypassing that can get you into hot water. I am not sure how the Battlefield games do it.
Of course, regardless of the legality of their actions, EA has the resources to make the developer's life hell through extended legal battles. It sounds like - since the developers were posting full executables rather than diffs - they were caught red-handed and EA would probably be able to get a judgement against them. If they just switched to offering patches - even if the patches themselves were fully legal - EA would still be able to go after them for their prior actions. So the developers probably took the wiser course by settling and just took everything down.
Now, if some other group took their work and released diffs based on those previously-released executables (and if these patches didn't violate the DMCA clause against trafficking in bypassing access-control measures), EA would have a much harder legal battle. Of course, for a company that makes $800 million per year on FIFA alone, they could still terrorize the patch-makers with endless law-suits, no matter how spurious, so it still might not be worth the effort on the part of the patchers..
But people playing old classics aren't playing - and buying - the new hotness... and more importantly, the new hotness' DLC, microtransactions and loot-boxes (that's where the real money is). And gamers have repeatedly shown that they will keep buying new games regardless of how poorly a publisher treats them. So there is absolutely no advantage to a publisher to keep old game servers running: it cannibalizes new sales, shutting them down doesn't dissuade new sales, and servers cost money.
Would releasing patches - which don't contain any copyrighted material - that can be applied to end-user's executables be a legal work-around? Although ensuring the correct version might be difficult; I am guessing these games went through a multitude of updates.
More than just being scripted, it wasn't even real-time. The actual fight was filmed over multiple days. This was the most entertaining cut of all that work, which is rather sad. The moves were all pre-programmed and carefully choreographed. 30 years on and millions of dollars later and we still end up with something that looked significantly less impressive than the power-loader fight in Aliens and had just about as much verisimilitude.
Forget all that:
How the hell will the delivery guy fit food into my fridge? I can barely fit stuff in there and it usually requires a clean-out first before I can tetris the new stuff into the machine.
Firefox supports EME, but you can disable it by unchecking "Play DRM-controlled content" in preferences.
For now. Until two or three versions from now, when that feature is removed from Preferences and can only be toggled via about:config, or five or six versions of Firefox later when even that is removed...
A similar thing happened to me. I found a telephone book from 1990 and none of the phone numbers were accurate either.
Also, I rediscovered a stash of business cards I received from colleagues and business associates back in the 80s and not only were the phone numbers wrong, so were most of the mailing addresses (and NONE of the fax numbers worked!)
Why is this news? Contact information changes. Is it because "it's on a computer" that it is suddenly noteworthy?
(That said, I really miss the days of logging in anonymously to FTP sites to see if there was new stuff to download. There was always an aura of mystery and surprise that is missing from modern archives which very dutifully have change logs telling you what's been added and removed. And no nasty SysOp telling you that you've exceeded your download quota either.).
Every document that you print can be tracked back to you, along with the exact time that you printed it.
Every document I print cannot be traced back to me since it is unlikely the government has a record of all the serial numbers of every printer and who bought which one. Arguably, with a good deal of investigation they might be able to find out that a printer with a specific serial number was shipped to a certain store near me, and - assuming I used a credit-card - that I bought a similar model printer from the same store but that's still not a direct connection (especially - as is likely - if more than one of that model printer had been sold in that store). Were I really worried about such things, I'd go to the next state (or even two or three states over) and buy a printer with cash to get my print-outs; good luck tracing a print-out back to me then.
The yellow-dots aren't there to identify people, they are there to identify forgeries (specifically, counterfeit monies). They basically say, "Hey, this wasn't printed on a proper press but instead slid out from a consumer-grade printer". The government was only able to identify Reality Leigh Winner because they happen to own the printer and thus can easily match up the serial number.
Aside from all the other issues people have already mentioned with this bill, this seems like a great way for the government to do an end-run around those pesky warrant requirements. It's such a chore for law enforcement to go to a judge and have to offer a valid reason for breaking into somebody's property to collect evidence. With this bill, you simply let the victims gather the evidence, completely unbound by law, and have them turn over any findings - whether related to the hacking or not.
I'm sure this loophole wouldn't be used unscrupulously by any three-letter agencies, no sir.
Well, if we want to be pedantic...
It's also wrong in that you don't "head straight for the sun". The Earth (and any probe launched from it) has an orbital speed of around 100,000kmh. If you launch from Earth and then head towards the sun - e.g., point the nose of the probe at the sun and thrust - you are going to miss our nearest star by a wide margin.
There are two options you can take: 1) you can decelerate 100,000kmh and then let the sun's gravity pull you inwards (then the "point nose at sun and thrust" works as expected) or you can accelerate, which will cause you to loop inward (the usual example of how this works is to take a yo-you and spin it around your body; the faster you spin it, the smaller the orbit). Counter-intuitively, this has the advantage of using less fuel too (instinct tells us slowing down would require less fuel, but that's because we've been spoiled by 4 billion years of evolution in an environment with ample gravity and friction). The probe will orbit the sun in ever-decreasing circles (technically, huge wobbly S-curves because both the probe and the sun are careening through galactic space)
But in neither case are you really heading TOWARD the Sun; the probe is moving on an indirect path to where the sun will be seven years from now.
All pedantic I know, but fun to think about. Orbital mechanics are weirdly fascinating. You go in to go out, up to go down, and speed up to slow down.
Now we'll see if AFRINIC, the internet registry, is more than hot air.
"No IP addresses for governments that shut down internet access," they said. If you cut access or start censoring feeds from tools like Google, Twitter, and Facebook to deny their citizens access, the infringing government could find themselves refused new IP addresses. Well, this seems exactly what Britain seems to be thinking of doing. They say that the Internet views censorship as damage and routes around it; is it time to start routing around the UK?
Okay, technically, this was a measure that was to be considered in June. However, the proponents of the measure really should speak up about it now. The Manchester attacks were terrible but the Investigatory Powers Act is even scarier.
Except this doesn't sound like a backdoor in Windows. The article is short on details, but if it uses a "custom installer", this sounds more like a trojan. Once the software is installed, your machine is compromised but that's pretty much true for every consumer OS. As it is a customized trojan, its signature won't show up in anti-virus databases. Once it is installed, it can co-op the target system, ensuring it can't be easily detected or removed. Its a bit trickier to write this sort of spyware these days, but in no way impossible even for run-of-the-mill criminals, much less an organization with the resources and talent of the CIA
How they get the target to install the trojan is probably different in each instance, and possibly requires the assistance of software vendors (Microsoft, McAfee, whatever) or the target's ISP so that when the already-running and legitimate software is served the trojan when it checks for an update (alternately, they might just sneak an agent with a USB drive into the target's home and install the trojan when the target is out to lunch or something).
It's like really nasty spyware customized for a very specific user.
In fact, that the CIA is forced to use these sorts of tactics speaks against the idea of there being a universal backdoor in Windows (beyond, you know, the usual and sadly universal backdoor of insecure coding and bad security practices on the part of the user).
I really do not see that much of an issue with this.
The government got a warrant to search the electronic devices. These devices were seized at the time of arrest. Rather than require the owners to unlock the phones - potentially violating our protected right against self-incrimination - they are using third-party software to hack the devices. The government intends - admittedly, as legally required - to share all gathered information with the defense lawyers - and are pledging to delete any information not relevant to the case.
You can make the argument that some of the people arrested during the riots are innocent. That may be true, but irrelevant to the issue at hand: that the government is searching these devices. You might argue that the government may use the information gleaned from the devices in ways that are not covered by the warrant, and that is a legitimate worry but there is no evidence that is happening. But given that these people were arrested, we should expect the prosecutors to use all available legal means to build a case against the defendants. That they are searching the phones is as much a story if the police had gotten a warrant to seize the defendants diaries (which is to say, not much of a story) .
The fact is, there were apparently riots during the inauguration. I am no supporter of Trump but that's just shameful; there's nothing wrong with assembly and protest but some people went beyond that. People were arrested and honestly I would expect the government to try them for their actions. There is a lot I find worrisome about Trump's government, but this is not one of them; this is a case where everything seems to be done legitimately and by-the-book.
Can we say RICO?
No.
No we can't.
I'm getting emails that are warning me of "security issues" because I am accessing the account using Thunderbird, and not their ultra-secure website or mobile app. They don't offer any information to back up this assertion and it feels more an attempt to get me into using something where I will be forced to view their advertisements.
However, I was amused that their solution to this "problem" was to follow a bunch of links in the email, many of which led to a landing page which prompted me to type in my username and password. While I believe these emails were legitimate, it's /exactly/ the same sort of thing you would see in a phishing email, and contrary to what IT people have been trying to teach people for decades, mainly don't click on links in email!
Eh, whatever. The yahoo account is mainly a spamtrap for websites that are so dodgy I don't even want to associate them with the /hotmail/ account.
Battery compartments are really difficult case design for mobile devices.
Bullshit. Ask me how I know.
Alright. How do you know?
I am going to asking not because I disbelieve you and more because I hope the answer is "I design battery compartments for mobile devices" and you'll give us some interesting insights into the process. Honestly, it is one of those areas of engineering I realize I have taken for granted and I'd like to learn more about some of the challenges there.
"... to some speculation that the Earth may be losing its magnetic field -..."
Since the data ultimately suggests that fluctuations are completely normal, I submit that this also starts to explain why people are taking scientists less and less seriously.
Don't blame this on the researchers; blame this on the "science writers" (including the author of the summary here on Slashdot). The actual study - at least the abstract and the supplemental material, which was all I could read without a PNAS subscription - says no such thing and that particular wording is just a click-bait addition in order to garner more views. Science journalism - like so much journalism this day - has gone on a real decline over the past twenty years and tries to "spice up" every study rather than simply reporting the science. The end result is that scientists end up sounding inconsistent and hyperbolic ("Coffee Cures cancer!", no wait, "Coffee Causes Cancer"), when they usually are neither; it is the people reporting on their work that are to blame.
Also see for a more graphic comment on the same problem.
Feed it minecraft screenshots and japanese porn, and see what the result is.
I was thinking Super Mario Brothers sprites myself. Those were 8x8 sprites, if I remember correctly.
As the article points out, this is less, "Zoom, Enhance" and more "Best Guess". Unfortunately, years of bad computer science on TV is just going to confuse people into believing this algorithm can do far more than it actually does. I wish Google would open it up so we could test it with our own images and show others how untrustworthy these programs really are.
More useful are the programs which enhance an image from a video based on data from surrounding frames. I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing fast-shooting CCDs coupled with similar "enhancement" algorithms built into cameras eventually; you take one picture, the CCD takes five or ten, and then in the background builds a higher-resolution image than the sensor itself would normally allow.
On the other hand, while Google's software isn't itself that useful, it does show how quickly computers are advancing in recognizing images, which is probably the whole point.
The Windows media player - at least through Windows 7 - had an option to "download usage rights automatically when I play or sync a file". I wonder if this "attack" still takes place if this feature is not enabled.
Brick and mortar retail runs at a margin of between 60% to 80%
A new game can cost the store about $40-50, depending on the game's popularity, number of pre-sales, etc. That's about 10-15% of the $60 price. The stores used to demand a larger cut - about 20% - but their clout - and thus ability to demand lower prices from the publishers - decreased as digital marketplaces started offering them competition; the brick-n-motor storefronts had to compete by cutting their take so publishers would still deal with them.
For /used/ game sales, it might very well be 60-80%, but overall the stores only get a small chunk of the change with new games. It's why places like Gamestop rely so heavily on used-game sales (to the point that employees will lie about not having a new game in store in order to get you to buy the game used).
From what I remember, the division of the sale is about 10% spent on marketing, 10-15% to the retailer, 25% to the publisher, 30% to the developer, and 20% goes to the guys who built the console (I'm doing this from memory, it's been a while since I needed to worry about this sort of stuff).
Still half price for the westerner, shady middle man gets 14$ total profit and steam gets a buck instead of 60.
Steam doesn't get $60 bucks in any event; they have to pass on the bulk of the collected monies to the publisher and developer of the game. Steam is just as much a middle-man as the guy reselling the serial numbers (and, as anyone who has ever had to deal with their customer service, are only slightly less shady ;-).
Steam reportedly gets a 30% cut from sales (so about $18 dollars of that $60 goes to Steam), compared to the ~10-15% cut most brick-n-mortar retailers take from the sale. Game prices in Russia are about 1/2 to 1/3 the cost of the game in the US. Assuming the cut remains the same, Steam gets about $6 dollars from the sale of a full-priced game in Russia. So I wouldn't cry too heartily for them.
It's probably the "best-behaved" because it is one of the least effective anti-virus. It has terrible detection rates compared to its competitors. The other anti-virus programs may be pushier and embed themselves deeper into the host system, but that's necessary in order for them to (try to) root out the infections.
Arguably end-users do not need this sort of protection offered from better AV packages, that Microsoft's product is "good enough" for most users. Certainly, better Antivirus is no panacea; even the best scanner can still miss some viruses. Personally - having cleaned out too many virus-infected machines - I'd rather the end-user have the maximum available protection if only to slow down the infection rate a little, although that still doesn't help when the end-user deactivates the AV, never updates it or just flat-out ignores its warnings . But regardless of your opinion of the /necessity/ of the software, you can't simply judge Microsoft's offering without taking into consideration its effectiveness. It is "best behaved" (for whatever that means) because it simply /does less/.
Microsoft has long been interested in becoming a service provider. Initially the idea was to get paid monthly or annually for the use of their software (Windows, Office, etc.) but recently it seems that they are more interested in becoming a distributor of other publisher's software, where they offer a standardized platform (Windows OS, UWP apps, Azure) for developers to target and they get a cut of the proceeds. To ensure that they could provide the largest market, the platform the end-users use would be offered free (hence, Windows10). Windows 10 Cloud just seems to be a furtherment of this objective, albeit stripped down to lessen the cost to Microsoft (and possibly to ensure that end-users would /have/ to use the app-store if they want to get anything done by not providing any built-in applications).
Also, he is blowing up the very foundational concepts of the country that happen to be the things that made America powerful and great (like freedom of movement, freedom of speech, immigration etc) - he is fundamentally anti-American.
Furthermore, the core philosophy of America was that all men are created equal and have inalienable rights, not just its own citizens. The US government can only ensure that those rights are protected for people living within its borders but even somebody living under a totalitarian regime is, according to to this philosophy, endowed with the same rights as the most privileged US citizens (it just happens that that poor schlub's government is preventing him from exercising those rights. US intervention is often based on the philosophy that we must remove these unlawful government so that the innate freedoms of those foreigners can be practiced).
Within the confine of the United States, however, the rights of all can be protected. Yes, in certain cases We-the-People might have to sacrifice some of those rights for the common welfare (so though I may have the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded room, we've agreed - in the form of law - that this would be a bad idea and have laid that right aside). Certain privileges and responsibilities (voting, holding public office) are restricted to citizens, but these are quite limited. It is possible through criminal action for certain individuals to abrogate some of their rights, but these will only be lost through a decision of the courts, and made on a case-by-case basis.
Specifically targeting a group - whether because of race, creed, sexual orientation or citizenship - and saying "No rights for you!" is contrary to the basic concepts of America. It's why slavery was so wrong, it is why the incarceration of the Japanese-Americans in WW2 was wrong, it is why it is wrong to deny homosexuals marriage, and it is why it is wrong to specifically say that foreigners are not afforded the smae privacy protections as the USA's own citizens.
A story about politicians
This is a story I've wanted told for a long time. I think it is a story worth reading, even if you do not necessarily agree with its conclusions because I think it offers an interesting alternate view of our politicians.
The thing is, this isn't really /my/ story to tell. Rather, it is a recounting of various conversations I have had with a friend? (Peer? Acquaintance? A guy I did business and with whom I had some interesting discussions.) While I myself have had little contact with politicians, this gentleman has, and over several years he has shared some of his insights on them; how they think and why they do the things they do. I've actually asked him to come here and share these thoughts with the people on Slashdot, but he has always demurred. Partly - although he has never said so in as many words - because he doesn't think it's worth his bother talking with IT geeks on a tiny, fairly inconsequential website but mostly because he values his discretion and feels that were he to make a public statement it might be traced back to him and reflect badly not only on him but on the people for whom he works. On the other hand, I have mentioned that I intended to share his thoughts - properly anonymized - and he didn't seem too upset about it.
So who is this gentleman? I guess the best description for him would be an "Aide" or "Secretary", although I recall him once self-effacingly describing himself as an "incredibly overpaid intern" and a "go-fer". He is one of those mostly faceless people who work with our politicians, actually going and and doing most of the things they order. His tasks have varied from simply mundane chores as fetching coffee, to meeting and negotiating with other power brokers, to helping read and write bills his patron intended to back. He himself has no official rank and his position has varied over the years, but it probably would not be too far off the mark to consider him second behind his master. He has worked for politicians on both sides of the Aisle - although he tends to favor those on the Left - and has over the years worked with politicos of all levels, from local government, to state legislative, to members of Congress. It's allowed him to garner an interesting viewpoint of the hows and whys of government.
I met this gentleman many years ago when he needed assistance with some IT work. It was a very brief professional acquaintance, but over the years we have kept in touch; he often reached out to me to answer a quick IT-related question. Over the years we have had a number of chats and he told a number of interesting anecdotes - all sanitized of names to protect the innocent - and it's from these discussions that I have distilled the following insights. I will be the first to admit that my friend has his own biases and - like most of us, works in his own bubble - but I think that's partly what makes these stories so interesting. You might not agree with his conclusions or argue that he is defending the indefensible, but I think he was being honest. I - like many here - tend to revile our political leaders, thinking them all untrustworthy and corrupt, waffling on important issues, indebted to corporate masters, etc. These tales offer a different light on thing. It's all going to be a bit stream-of-consciousness, I'm afraid, as I remember things he told me, but I hope you find it interesting as well.
So.
One of the first insights he gave me was that most politicians tend to enter into the game because they have one issue they really care about. Maybe some of them have two, or even rarely three, but - whether it is gun-control, or military spending or health care, pushing that issue is usually the primary force behind not only their entry into politics but also the reason they stay in politics and keep pushing up the ladder seeking positions of more power and authority. They want their issue to succeed, and they keep reaching upwards in hopes of not only getting it achieved, but also - if they are successful -
The same company also has a staff appraisal rating from 1 to 5. Anyone with a rating of 1-2 shouldn't be working there as they're no good. 5 is considered an impossible target as there's no such thing as a perfect employee. 4 is considered really good, but there's no incentive to improve. So everyone with a job gets 3: meets their role's requirements but needs to improve.
I had a similar experience, except the reasoning behind it was more blatantly self-serving. Raises were tied to your rating, with "5"s getting a raise (although it was barely a cost-of-living increase), "4"s getting to keep their jobs but no raise, "3"s getting warnings and "1-2s" were basically "we're looking for your replacement". I was specifically instructed numerous times not to give any employees any "5"s, because that would cost the company money; only give the very best employees a "4" (to show we "appreciated" them), give everybody else a "3" (to put the fear of unemployment into them so they would work harder), and was required to give out a few "1-2"s, because new employees tend to be cheaper.
I said fuck that, gave my best direct reports "5"s and most of the "4"s rest (it was a great group), got chewed out for it, successfully fought for the "5"s, lost out on the "4"s, and generally got reamed for not playing ball. I left the company shortly thereafter and later learned that my reviews were "re-done" by my replacement, and they got "4"s instead (a year later, the division was closed down and shipped to India). Yeah, it was that sort of place.
I have no doubt customer satisfaction surveys are treated similarly, where they are ignored if they don't meet the expected narrative of the executives. They are pointless and probably mostly used to prove the employee is in the wrong rather than truly encourage and reward good service.