It might not recognize your voice correctly (in my case, Siri only understands about 20% of my questions). Apple's voice recognition requires Internet access for many of its functions (limiting functionality for people with no or small data-plans, or using Wi-Fi devices where there is no open accesspoint). Some songs have difficult to pronounce names. Sometimes it may not be appropriate to talk (for instance, in a library). Or perhaps I just don't know the name (but I would recognize it if I saw it in a list).
Worst is that - even if the voice control does work - Siri is awful about actually FINDING the song. Too often I've asked iOS to find a song - giving it the exact name - and it tells me there's no such song on my device (although it helpfully suggests that I can buy it on iTunes) which means I have to manually find it in my playlist. Older versions of the app had no such issue.
Adding voice-recognition is a nice feature, but it's no replacement for a well-designed graphic interface, all the more so when the voice-recognition has such serious limitations.
Your Shadowrun campaign sounds a lot like my D&D campaign. I think it has more to do with the DM and the players than the system.
Then again, we tend to avoid superhero-style characters so swording first, asking questions later in a dungeon is as likely to get you killed as storming the headquarters of a megacorp. Unfortunately, later editions of D&D make PCs so overpowered even at lower levels that it's hard for DMs to prevent PCs from becoming death incarnate. It's one of the reasons my group sticks to the older rules...
Your initial argument was that other products (automobiles, in this case) don't need to be "patched". I gave evidence that they do. Now you've changed the argument that they do not need to be patched as often or as soon.
I could probably find recalls for brand new cars if I really cared to. And doubtlessly a lot of minor issues - largely cosmetic - don't warrant a recall, leaving the customer to deal with it on their own (I remember a car where the pleather started peeling off the seats because of shitty glue; no recall for that one). These would still count as defects, except they never get patched. Does this make the products somehow superior to software? In this, software has it easier since a quick patch for cosmetic issues costs no more to distribute than one for a kernel-level security hole.
We accept a lot of products with defects. Software is no different. Software's faults are perhaps more visible BECAUSE they can be - and sometimes are - fixed.
This isn't to excuse shoddy software but let's be honest about it: we get what we pay for, and generally we as a society don't care to pay enough for quality, be it a secure OS or a car that doesn't burst into flames if you tap it gently on the rear bumper;-)
I do not have to "update" my car (made in 1982), tape deck or radio, unless some component wears out or just fails. Why does software come so unfinished and so full of defects?
(there were probably more, but those were three I found in just a quick Google search)
Oh sure, they're called "recalls" instead of updates but they are essentially the same thing: you get your product "patched" to fix a manufacturing flaw. Your tape-deck and radio probably had similar issues, except - unless they are life threatening - manufacturers aren't required to recall (replace or fix for free) the item; you just go out and buy a new one.
We've been accepting shoddy products into our lives for decades (centuries!). Price has beaten out quality, whether it is computer software, kitchen appliances or automobiles, and rarely do we hold the manufacturer responsible. Caveat emptor indeed!
A tender is an offer to provide a requested service for a government. Governments put out a request for a service (say, "we need somebody to help us ensure our computer systems are secure") and companies and individuals can tender an offer saying, "these are my qualifications, this is my price range". Government will then select one of those tenders to get the job.
Presumably, people who speak out against governmental practices are having their offers tossed.
Never trust a survey where they do not disclose the exact questions being asked of the participants, whether it supports your belief or discredits it. What is asked is often as important as who is being asked (the demographics of the questioner is important too). All of these factors can and have been manipulated by the survey-takers in order to reach a desired conclusion (and sometimes it is not even being done purposefully).
In this case, it sounds like the questions of the survey (there is no full list but a few hints scattered throughout the PDF) were intentionally difficult for people to understand unless they had a grounding in the topic - computers, encryption, networking and security - being discussed. People tend to turn off their brain when confronted with this level of complexity and assume that the authorities who do understand this sort of thing have our best interests at heart (it seems built into the human psyche). Likely had the questions been more grounded - e.g., "do you think the government should be able to read any and all of your private mails, be it electronic or paper?" the results would have been different.
The article talks about the customary "8 hours of sleep at night" not being required based on paleolithic evidence, and I'll accept the results of their study on face value. However, that does not necessarily mean that we don't need 6-9 hours (varies by person) of sleep per day. Our current sleeping patterns are very much based upon the demands of the modern industrial world where you wake up, go to work, put in your 8-10 hours of labor, go home, and go to bed. Prior to that, sleeping patterns were much more flexible; medieval sleep, for instance, was broken up into two parts with people waking up ~2am and doing minor chores, meals and familial interactions before tucking in again until dawn. Cultures from equatorial regions were infamous for their mid-afternoon "siesta" periods when little work would get done and many would rest or even nap out the hottest parts of the day. Edison was reputed to sleep 8 hours a day, albeit broken up into numerous half-hour catnaps (his employees were expected to remain awake throughout their shift, of course). Great apes are known to be partially active through the night, but they also rest and nap throughout the day.
I'm sure people can get by quite well on 5 hours of sleep at night... if you change the rest of your life to make up for the lack. But if you are otherwise maintaining an modern, industrial lifestyle then you are going to have a hard time at it.
(Besides, what's wrong with 8 hours sleep at night? Is it because we are allowing our employers to push us so hard that our paid-for 8-hours labor is stretching out to 10 or 12 hours per day that we need to make up the deficit by cutting it out of our sleep period? Maybe instead of risking our health with a "paleo sleep schedule" we ought to be pushing back at over-zealous bosses who seem to have a problem letting go the leash at 5PM)
Mind you, there's a significant difference between hitting a satellite orbiting at slightly more than 300 miles up, and hitting one that's 11,000 miles up.
A lot of the low-earth orbit satellites - which includes some reconnaissance satellites - are vulnerable to common fighter-launched ASATs, but hitting something in geosynchronous orbit is a bit more difficult. It would take large ground-based rockets to reach that altitude, and you would have to launch at least six to disrupt the GPS system over a particular area (and even then, the results would be only temporary as the network can compensate for some losses). Even ICBMs aren't powerful enough to reach them; you would need liquid-fueled rockets that need to be fueled up prior to launch (you don't just keep that stuff sitting around in the rocket's gas tank indefinitely) prior to launch, so your preparations would be very visible and very vulnerable. GPS satellites are also traveling at more than 10,000mph, which makes them a tricky target to hit, so you'll likely need to launch more than one rocket per satellite to ensure a successful interception.
It's not impossible but it is difficult and probably more costly in resources than it is worth.
While it isn't quite at the "800GB of random web page requests", there is a Firefox Add-On that can help with that sort of thing: TrackMeNot. At a user-configurable interval, it sends out semi-random search queries to a number of number of search engines (it pulls the search terms from a variety of RSS feeds of trending topics). It's aimed more at "poisoning the well" of search-engines databases than intelligence-agencies, but it helps;-)
3. The unhelpful belief that your guy has to WIN in order to get your voice heard is an equally serious problem. It is a mindset that makes people avoid third parties.
Yes, it is true; if you vote for a candidate and he doesn't get into office, it is less likely that your issues are going to be immediately dealt with. It is equally possible that the major-party candidate who is politically closest to your choice may also lose the election.
But here's the thing: the major political parties are aware of this danger too. Third-party candidates can cost them votes, or even an election. That's why they will do anything to shut them out of the process. Currently, the main way they do this is by convincing everyone that voting third-party is "throwing your vote away". But they will also COMPROMISE their policies if it will get them back the voters who would otherwise vote third-party. If enough people start voting for ultra left-wing candidates, you can bet the Democrats are going to swing further left (and vice versa for Republicans) in order to win back the support of their constituents. Voting third-party threatens the status quo; more than anything it sends a message to the old guard about the people's dissatisfaction with their performance.
Voting isn't about getting your guy to win; it is about making your voice heard. Shout loud enough (e.g., get enough people to vote for) for a particular policy and the politicians will listen. It might not happen in the current election but you can bet it will in the next. An election should not be a popularity contest; it is a referendum of the will of the people.
Its full 30-chapter text will not be available for perhaps a month
Doubtlessly to be released to public 24 hours before the Congressional vote...
If the reason for keeping it secret is that the negotiators didn't want to be swayed by day-to-day changing public opinion, what reason not to release the text immediately? It's not as if they have to print it all out; I'm sure there's many a web-designer who could whip up a site with the content of the treaty in less than a day.
Hell, stick it in a TXT file and dump it on an FTP site somewhere. Nominally this agreement is for the betterment of all involved countries; there is no reason not to make the information available immediately.
Unless... say, you don't think the negotiators weren't working in the best interests of the citizens they are supposed to represent, do you?
Well, it is the largest satellite compared to the size of its planet. Sure, there are bigger moons (Titan, Ganymede and Callisto) but they are dinky in comparison to their planets. The Moon is almost a quarter of Earth's diameter; that makes it unique in our solar system.
It also makes it very useful, since it is an obvious first step for large-scale exploitation of space. It has a lot of resources, a useful - but not overly strong - gravity field and is relatively close. Venusians or Martians would probably have a far harder time conquering the solar system due to their lack.
So I don't think out Moon is that boring after all.
It doesn't make sense to have an invented place speak a real language in lieu of an invented one. It just creates a confusing context.
Worse, it opens the studios open up to criticisms and accusations of bias. Imagine if they used an ancient dialect of Persian as the language of the Evil Wizard and his minions.; the uproar - both in the Middle East and the Western world - would be amazing (it works in reverse too; have the GOOD guys speak the language and they are accused of pandering or an anti-American bias). Either way, it's probably going to cost them some sales.
Made-up languages have the advantage of being neutral; nobody cares if the Orcs speak a butchered version of Sindarin except the geeks... and they'll just pay to see the movie three or four more times so they can gather evidence for their arguments;-)
Landing (and taking off) will definitely be the tricky bit; getting the descent/ascent module there with enough fuel would be expensive. But - again, assuming we say 'to hell with it!' and ignore all costs - it is definitely doable. We might have to use several vehicles (one for crew, one for fuel, one for the descent module, etc.) but it can be done. The actual transit isn't that much of a concern; NASA seriously studied using Apollo-era space-vehicles for a year-long manned trip to Venus in the mid-'70s (not to land, just go there and back). If they thought it was possible with the tin-foil spaceships of that era, think of what we could do with our overpriced but modern ceramics, capacitors, engines and computers.
The US (or whomever) would have to build (or rebuild) much of its space industry of course, but even with a 10-year deadline it is possible. We got to the moon in less than that. Remember, for this thought experiment we are supposing a "it doesn't matter how much it costs" attitude here and can assume the whole nation's industry has been suborned into this project. You can crank out a lot of rockets if you ignore any economic or safety limitations;-)
Our technology hasn't been the limiting factor for decades, only our will.
Of course, no nation is going to ignore the costs and - given that restriction - ten years is unfeasible. Not to mention it is a rather pointless effort at this juncture. We would be better off to build up space-industry in and around the Earth-Moon system first; not only might those have more immediate returns, but it would make manned Mars exploration and exploitation all the easier. But until we get those basics, exploration is best left to the robots while terraforming and colonization are little more than pipe-dreams. Sending people to Mars now would be little more than another penis-size competition for the involved nations.
Even that is wrong. Given enough resources and a reduced concern for the health and safety of the astronauts, we could probably reach Mars about as fast as we could build the ship and launch it towards the red planet. We've had the technology to launch - and land - men there since the '70s. But both the cost and risk were considered too extravagant, especially considering the lack of significant reward for all that effort. While a ten-year deadline might be a bit tight considering the US would have to build up the industry to support such an effort, if it really wanted to it could very likely get a man to Mars and back within that schedule. It would just cost A LOT more money than is prudent and we'd probably see a number of astronauts either splattered across the Martian surface or stranded down their until their life-support systems gave out (landings and lift-offs are hard).
Otherwise, most of Regis' other arguments are bunk. It would be a long, cramped, unpleasant journey? People have suffered far worse; the early antarctic explorers, or sailors from the Age of Sail. Hell, we have refugees cramming themselves for weeks at a time into tiny boxes that would seem luxuriously expansive to any astronaut in hopes of reaching a better life. And the lack of gravity only HELPS here; yes, it is initially disorienting to see people hanging at "nauseating angles" but it opens up a lot of wasted space, making what appears to be a very cramped habitat much more spacious because all that wasted space on the walls and ceilings can be put to use.
Nonetheless, I do ultimately agree with Regis' premise that Mars should not be the goal simply because Mars is a dead-end. I mean, what are you going to do once you get there that can't be done here on Earth? Dreams of terraforming aside, in the short term (read: next few centuries at least) man will only be able to live on Mars if encapsulated in climate-controlled metal-tubes. And if people are going to be stuck in metal tubes anyway, it might as well be tubes that can MOVE places instead of being anchored to rock at the bottom of a steep gravity well. L5 colonies, asteroid mining, and ultimately island-hopping our way through the Solar System, the Oort cloud and beyond are far more entertaining and profitable enterprises than being tethered to another planet just because its there. Forget Mars; it's a luxury that we can look into after we get the basics down. In the mean time, if you really want to explore off-world colonization options, use the Moon; it's closer.
It isn't fear of terrorism that causes this sort of reaction. At least, not directly. I don't think the police or teachers were necessarily worrying themselves that they might get blown up. Rather, it was a fear that - if the clock was a bomb used in a terror attack - THEY WOULD GET BLAMED for not doing something about it earlier. It's the same reason our politicians are so willing to pass the most obscenely unjust laws to chase down criminals: the penalty for not passing the law is disproportionately greater than passing it. If even one crime could have been prevented by the non-existent law (or had the clock been a bomb), far more blame is assigned to the people-of-authority who MIGHT have done something about the crime than to the actual criminal performing the act itself. It's no wonder people over-react in these situations. They aren't worried about being attacked by terrorists; they are worried about being attacked by us.
This case is a perfect example of why this sort of data should be encrypted on the device and in no way accessible to anyone except the owner. Because if there is a backdoor to this data, whether protected by "procedure" or a escrowed key, it/will/ be abused. If it is not the government abusing this privilege, then it will be by a corporation, or by an individual with a personal grudge, or by criminal elements (or even worse, by marketing departments!). It doesn't matter what sort of "controls" you put on those back-doors, ultimately they will be ignored and abused. The number of people who get "hacked" in this way may be low, but even one is too many.
This case should be dredged up every time a law-enforcement agency insists that easy access to personal data are a necessity in this digital age. They claim that there are protections in place to prevent this sort of thing; evidence (and common sense) show that this is nonsense. The only way to prevent this sort of abuse is not to remove the temptation from third-parties entirely; make the data on the device (or service) inaccessible unless you have the key to decrypt it, and ensure the only the owner of the data has that key.
Doesn't anyone do thi? Belkin - Seagate - Android. Isn't it about time companies check their products?
Why should they, when corporations aren't held accountable in any way?
In fact, stuff like this works to their benefit. "Oops," they say. "We recommend our newer product where this security issue has been fixed." And given the cost of entry for these markets and that apparently all corporations now engage in this sort of behavior, there is nothing for the customer to do but accept it. Writing properly audited code is not only expensive, it quite possibly would cost them sales.
I'd recommend regulation to fix this sort of thing, except the government has too much advantage in allowing these vulnerabilities to continue too.
Law suits might work for a while, at least until they start adding verbiage to the post-sale click-through license agreements that require us all to agree to these "accidentally" open ports as a requirement of use our of purchased products.
1) There is no such thing as climate change 2) Climate change exists, but it isn't happening now. 3) The climate is changing, but it isn't being caused by humans 4) The climate is being changed by humans, but we can't (or shouldn't) do anything about it. 5) We could have averted climate change, but it is too late now.
Apparently, we've just passed step 3. With step 4, expect a deluge of reports about how we shouldn't try messing with the climate because we just don't understand it well enough and probably will make things worse, or because any benefits from changes WE make will be lost because THEY following suit (for various values of "they", but most likely China or India) or because the potential loss of revenue to a few entitled mega-corporations is far too important to risk by imposing ecologically-responsible regulations. In short, the arguments will be that since we can't make everything 100% better, why should we make any attempt at all?
Climate change deniers will continue to be wrong until we reach step 5, when they will suddenly - and to all our misfortune - be right. We can only hope that the ecological mess they cause in the name of short-term profits won't be so catastrophic for the rest of us.
One Ethernet WAN port, one Ethernet LAN port, one USB port, and a jack for the power.
While I understand Google's logic behind this, but that's really a deal-killer for me. Even though many of my devices are wireless, I still rely on wired connections when I want a stable, fast and (comparatively) secure connection. Sure, I could pair this up with a second router or switch, but if I'm paying $200 for the damn thing, I'd expect it to cover those basics.
Of course, I was already wary about this just because it is a privacy-destroying Google device (having said that, I'm using Google's DNS servers in my current router so I probably don't have a leg to stand on in that regard). No web-based interface is a stupid idea too; touch-screen based interfaces are too fiddly for my liking. And despite TFAs claim that OnHub is "something you could put anywhere in your house without much embarrassment", I think the thing is hideously ugly. Anyway, in general I don't want people to see the networking infrastructure and a discreet flat box is much easier to tuck away than this round monstrosity. Not to mention the price is outrageous.
I'm really not sure who this device is aimed at. Sure it is easy to setup, but ordinary users are unlikely to drop $200 on a wireless router when they can get one that works fairly well (and really isn't that hard to configure either) for $50 from Walmart (or included "free" with their modem). Meanwhile, everyone else is going to look at OnHub's dearth of features and configurability and then pick up more capable hardware.
In short: No web-interface. Less Ethernet ports than an ASUS. Lame.
It is disappointing that free items sent to the vlogger by the manufacturer are excluded from this requirement.
While the reviewer is free in these situations to slag off items sent to him gratis, there is still a greater likelihood he will overlook issues and give the item a better review rather than risk losing the opportunity to get more free items. In many ways, the reviewer is still in the employ of the manufacturer, except instead of being paid in cash he is being paid in merchandise. There is an unspoken expectation from the company that the vlogger will give the free item a good review, and if the vlogger fails to perform to expectations, he is "fired" and no longer receives any further "paychecks", e.g., free items from that company.
The audience should be made aware of this connection between the reviewer and the company behind the product, even if no actual cash or editorial direction has been given.
You can use gpedit.msc to restore the option to verify before installing updates.
Do the Home versions of Windows10 come with GPEdit.msc? I know that - starting with Windows Vista - the Group Policy Editor (GPEdit.msc) was a feature reserved for the "enterprise" editions only (Pro, Ultimate) and was not included in the Home or Starter editions of the OS. Nominally this was acceptable because Home users have no use for domain-level tools such as a group policy, but unfortunately many Windows features can only be toggled with GPEDit.msc, including several Home users might have interest in.
Nominally there is nothing GPEdit.msc can do that can't be replicated through manual registry editing, but there is no readily available source mapping registry keys and strings to each of the GPEdit options (I am also not aware of any non-Microsoft alternative to GPEdit.msc, although there are hacks to transfer GPEdit.msc from the enterprise editions to the consumer editions).
Since Windows 10 Professional already has the option to disable updates, it is disingenuous to suggest GPEdit.msc as an alternative as an alternative unless that tool is included with the Home Edition.
I think I speak for all of us when I say, "Fuck this shit".
As importantly, tell your "regular user" friends to avoid Windows 10 too. Tell them about the spyware. Tell them how it takes away your ability to play DVDs. Share stories about how bad patches - now unavoidable - can break their machine. Tell them how they would need to pay $1.99 per month to play ad-free Solitaire. Point out that the Windows10 Start Menu is a still poor replacement for what they get with Windows 7 (and that a lot of the Windows 8 "Metro" interface still remains). Remind them there is very little Windows 10 does that Windows 7 does not.
Point out the negatives. Get the average person soured on Windows 10. They LISTEN to us when it comes to tech stuff. If we tell them they should avoid Windows 10 if they can, that - if they are buying a new PC - they should try to get one with Windows 7 (or even 8.1 if they absolutely have to). Don't rant or rave (and don't suggest Linux, that will just scare them away and brand you as a geek who doesn't understand "regular people" in their eyes); just point out your disappointment by another awful OS from Microsoft. You might be surprised by how much influence you have on them.
Honestly, I think the "hidden influence" of geeks had a lot to do with the failures of Vista and Windows 8, and the success of 7. Windows 10 has met some success because geeks have been receiving it more favorably than its predecessor. Show your disfavor and your less computer-savvy friends and family will pick up on it.
Slashdot Mirror
Except voice controls don't always work.
It might not recognize your voice correctly (in my case, Siri only understands about 20% of my questions). Apple's voice recognition requires Internet access for many of its functions (limiting functionality for people with no or small data-plans, or using Wi-Fi devices where there is no open accesspoint). Some songs have difficult to pronounce names. Sometimes it may not be appropriate to talk (for instance, in a library). Or perhaps I just don't know the name (but I would recognize it if I saw it in a list).
Worst is that - even if the voice control does work - Siri is awful about actually FINDING the song. Too often I've asked iOS to find a song - giving it the exact name - and it tells me there's no such song on my device (although it helpfully suggests that I can buy it on iTunes) which means I have to manually find it in my playlist. Older versions of the app had no such issue.
Adding voice-recognition is a nice feature, but it's no replacement for a well-designed graphic interface, all the more so when the voice-recognition has such serious limitations.
Your Shadowrun campaign sounds a lot like my D&D campaign. I think it has more to do with the DM and the players than the system.
Then again, we tend to avoid superhero-style characters so swording first, asking questions later in a dungeon is as likely to get you killed as storming the headquarters of a megacorp. Unfortunately, later editions of D&D make PCs so overpowered even at lower levels that it's hard for DMs to prevent PCs from becoming death incarnate. It's one of the reasons my group sticks to the older rules...
You're moving the goalposts.
Your initial argument was that other products (automobiles, in this case) don't need to be "patched". I gave evidence that they do. Now you've changed the argument that they do not need to be patched as often or as soon.
I could probably find recalls for brand new cars if I really cared to. And doubtlessly a lot of minor issues - largely cosmetic - don't warrant a recall, leaving the customer to deal with it on their own (I remember a car where the pleather started peeling off the seats because of shitty glue; no recall for that one). These would still count as defects, except they never get patched. Does this make the products somehow superior to software? In this, software has it easier since a quick patch for cosmetic issues costs no more to distribute than one for a kernel-level security hole.
We accept a lot of products with defects. Software is no different. Software's faults are perhaps more visible BECAUSE they can be - and sometimes are - fixed.
This isn't to excuse shoddy software but let's be honest about it: we get what we pay for, and generally we as a society don't care to pay enough for quality, be it a secure OS or a car that doesn't burst into flames if you tap it gently on the rear bumper ;-)
I do not have to "update" my car (made in 1982), tape deck or radio, unless some component wears out or just fails. Why does software come so unfinished and so full of defects?
Actually, you probably did did...
Ford E350
Product Recalls for Chevrolet S10 in 1982
Product Recalls for Ford Granada in 1982
(there were probably more, but those were three I found in just a quick Google search)
Oh sure, they're called "recalls" instead of updates but they are essentially the same thing: you get your product "patched" to fix a manufacturing flaw. Your tape-deck and radio probably had similar issues, except - unless they are life threatening - manufacturers aren't required to recall (replace or fix for free) the item; you just go out and buy a new one.
We've been accepting shoddy products into our lives for decades (centuries!). Price has beaten out quality, whether it is computer software, kitchen appliances or automobiles, and rarely do we hold the manufacturer responsible. Caveat emptor indeed!
A tender is an offer to provide a requested service for a government. Governments put out a request for a service (say, "we need somebody to help us ensure our computer systems are secure") and companies and individuals can tender an offer saying, "these are my qualifications, this is my price range". Government will then select one of those tenders to get the job.
Presumably, people who speak out against governmental practices are having their offers tossed.
At least, that's how I read it.
Never trust a survey where they do not disclose the exact questions being asked of the participants, whether it supports your belief or discredits it. What is asked is often as important as who is being asked (the demographics of the questioner is important too). All of these factors can and have been manipulated by the survey-takers in order to reach a desired conclusion (and sometimes it is not even being done purposefully).
In this case, it sounds like the questions of the survey (there is no full list but a few hints scattered throughout the PDF) were intentionally difficult for people to understand unless they had a grounding in the topic - computers, encryption, networking and security - being discussed. People tend to turn off their brain when confronted with this level of complexity and assume that the authorities who do understand this sort of thing have our best interests at heart (it seems built into the human psyche). Likely had the questions been more grounded - e.g., "do you think the government should be able to read any and all of your private mails, be it electronic or paper?" the results would have been different.
I'm all for them deleting fake reviews, especially those that are written in exchange for money. But they had better leave these comments alone!
The article talks about the customary "8 hours of sleep at night" not being required based on paleolithic evidence, and I'll accept the results of their study on face value. However, that does not necessarily mean that we don't need 6-9 hours (varies by person) of sleep per day. Our current sleeping patterns are very much based upon the demands of the modern industrial world where you wake up, go to work, put in your 8-10 hours of labor, go home, and go to bed. Prior to that, sleeping patterns were much more flexible; medieval sleep, for instance, was broken up into two parts with people waking up ~2am and doing minor chores, meals and familial interactions before tucking in again until dawn. Cultures from equatorial regions were infamous for their mid-afternoon "siesta" periods when little work would get done and many would rest or even nap out the hottest parts of the day. Edison was reputed to sleep 8 hours a day, albeit broken up into numerous half-hour catnaps (his employees were expected to remain awake throughout their shift, of course). Great apes are known to be partially active through the night, but they also rest and nap throughout the day.
I'm sure people can get by quite well on 5 hours of sleep at night... if you change the rest of your life to make up for the lack. But if you are otherwise maintaining an modern, industrial lifestyle then you are going to have a hard time at it.
(Besides, what's wrong with 8 hours sleep at night? Is it because we are allowing our employers to push us so hard that our paid-for 8-hours labor is stretching out to 10 or 12 hours per day that we need to make up the deficit by cutting it out of our sleep period? Maybe instead of risking our health with a "paleo sleep schedule" we ought to be pushing back at over-zealous bosses who seem to have a problem letting go the leash at 5PM)
Mind you, there's a significant difference between hitting a satellite orbiting at slightly more than 300 miles up, and hitting one that's 11,000 miles up.
A lot of the low-earth orbit satellites - which includes some reconnaissance satellites - are vulnerable to common fighter-launched ASATs, but hitting something in geosynchronous orbit is a bit more difficult. It would take large ground-based rockets to reach that altitude, and you would have to launch at least six to disrupt the GPS system over a particular area (and even then, the results would be only temporary as the network can compensate for some losses). Even ICBMs aren't powerful enough to reach them; you would need liquid-fueled rockets that need to be fueled up prior to launch (you don't just keep that stuff sitting around in the rocket's gas tank indefinitely) prior to launch, so your preparations would be very visible and very vulnerable. GPS satellites are also traveling at more than 10,000mph, which makes them a tricky target to hit, so you'll likely need to launch more than one rocket per satellite to ensure a successful interception.
It's not impossible but it is difficult and probably more costly in resources than it is worth.
While it isn't quite at the "800GB of random web page requests", there is a Firefox Add-On that can help with that sort of thing: TrackMeNot. At a user-configurable interval, it sends out semi-random search queries to a number of number of search engines (it pulls the search terms from a variety of RSS feeds of trending topics). It's aimed more at "poisoning the well" of search-engines databases than intelligence-agencies, but it helps ;-)
3. The unhelpful belief that your guy has to WIN in order to get your voice heard is an equally serious problem. It is a mindset that makes people avoid third parties.
Yes, it is true; if you vote for a candidate and he doesn't get into office, it is less likely that your issues are going to be immediately dealt with. It is equally possible that the major-party candidate who is politically closest to your choice may also lose the election.
But here's the thing: the major political parties are aware of this danger too. Third-party candidates can cost them votes, or even an election. That's why they will do anything to shut them out of the process. Currently, the main way they do this is by convincing everyone that voting third-party is "throwing your vote away". But they will also COMPROMISE their policies if it will get them back the voters who would otherwise vote third-party. If enough people start voting for ultra left-wing candidates, you can bet the Democrats are going to swing further left (and vice versa for Republicans) in order to win back the support of their constituents. Voting third-party threatens the status quo; more than anything it sends a message to the old guard about the people's dissatisfaction with their performance.
Voting isn't about getting your guy to win; it is about making your voice heard. Shout loud enough (e.g., get enough people to vote for) for a particular policy and the politicians will listen. It might not happen in the current election but you can bet it will in the next. An election should not be a popularity contest; it is a referendum of the will of the people.
Shake things up; vote third party.
Its full 30-chapter text will not be available for perhaps a month
Doubtlessly to be released to public 24 hours before the Congressional vote...
If the reason for keeping it secret is that the negotiators didn't want to be swayed by day-to-day changing public opinion, what reason not to release the text immediately? It's not as if they have to print it all out; I'm sure there's many a web-designer who could whip up a site with the content of the treaty in less than a day.
Hell, stick it in a TXT file and dump it on an FTP site somewhere. Nominally this agreement is for the betterment of all involved countries; there is no reason not to make the information available immediately.
Unless... say, you don't think the negotiators weren't working in the best interests of the citizens they are supposed to represent, do you?
Well, it is the largest satellite compared to the size of its planet. Sure, there are bigger moons (Titan, Ganymede and Callisto) but they are dinky in comparison to their planets. The Moon is almost a quarter of Earth's diameter; that makes it unique in our solar system.
It also makes it very useful, since it is an obvious first step for large-scale exploitation of space. It has a lot of resources, a useful - but not overly strong - gravity field and is relatively close. Venusians or Martians would probably have a far harder time conquering the solar system due to their lack.
So I don't think out Moon is that boring after all.
It doesn't make sense to have an invented place speak a real language in lieu of an invented one. It just creates a confusing context.
Worse, it opens the studios open up to criticisms and accusations of bias. Imagine if they used an ancient dialect of Persian as the language of the Evil Wizard and his minions.; the uproar - both in the Middle East and the Western world - would be amazing (it works in reverse too; have the GOOD guys speak the language and they are accused of pandering or an anti-American bias). Either way, it's probably going to cost them some sales.
Made-up languages have the advantage of being neutral; nobody cares if the Orcs speak a butchered version of Sindarin except the geeks... and they'll just pay to see the movie three or four more times so they can gather evidence for their arguments ;-)
Landing (and taking off) will definitely be the tricky bit; getting the descent/ascent module there with enough fuel would be expensive. But - again, assuming we say 'to hell with it!' and ignore all costs - it is definitely doable. We might have to use several vehicles (one for crew, one for fuel, one for the descent module, etc.) but it can be done. The actual transit isn't that much of a concern; NASA seriously studied using Apollo-era space-vehicles for a year-long manned trip to Venus in the mid-'70s (not to land, just go there and back). If they thought it was possible with the tin-foil spaceships of that era, think of what we could do with our overpriced but modern ceramics, capacitors, engines and computers.
The US (or whomever) would have to build (or rebuild) much of its space industry of course, but even with a 10-year deadline it is possible. We got to the moon in less than that. Remember, for this thought experiment we are supposing a "it doesn't matter how much it costs" attitude here and can assume the whole nation's industry has been suborned into this project. You can crank out a lot of rockets if you ignore any economic or safety limitations ;-)
Our technology hasn't been the limiting factor for decades, only our will.
Of course, no nation is going to ignore the costs and - given that restriction - ten years is unfeasible. Not to mention it is a rather pointless effort at this juncture. We would be better off to build up space-industry in and around the Earth-Moon system first; not only might those have more immediate returns, but it would make manned Mars exploration and exploitation all the easier. But until we get those basics, exploration is best left to the robots while terraforming and colonization are little more than pipe-dreams. Sending people to Mars now would be little more than another penis-size competition for the involved nations.
Even that is wrong. Given enough resources and a reduced concern for the health and safety of the astronauts, we could probably reach Mars about as fast as we could build the ship and launch it towards the red planet. We've had the technology to launch - and land - men there since the '70s. But both the cost and risk were considered too extravagant, especially considering the lack of significant reward for all that effort. While a ten-year deadline might be a bit tight considering the US would have to build up the industry to support such an effort, if it really wanted to it could very likely get a man to Mars and back within that schedule. It would just cost A LOT more money than is prudent and we'd probably see a number of astronauts either splattered across the Martian surface or stranded down their until their life-support systems gave out (landings and lift-offs are hard).
Otherwise, most of Regis' other arguments are bunk. It would be a long, cramped, unpleasant journey? People have suffered far worse; the early antarctic explorers, or sailors from the Age of Sail. Hell, we have refugees cramming themselves for weeks at a time into tiny boxes that would seem luxuriously expansive to any astronaut in hopes of reaching a better life. And the lack of gravity only HELPS here; yes, it is initially disorienting to see people hanging at "nauseating angles" but it opens up a lot of wasted space, making what appears to be a very cramped habitat much more spacious because all that wasted space on the walls and ceilings can be put to use.
Nonetheless, I do ultimately agree with Regis' premise that Mars should not be the goal simply because Mars is a dead-end. I mean, what are you going to do once you get there that can't be done here on Earth? Dreams of terraforming aside, in the short term (read: next few centuries at least) man will only be able to live on Mars if encapsulated in climate-controlled metal-tubes. And if people are going to be stuck in metal tubes anyway, it might as well be tubes that can MOVE places instead of being anchored to rock at the bottom of a steep gravity well. L5 colonies, asteroid mining, and ultimately island-hopping our way through the Solar System, the Oort cloud and beyond are far more entertaining and profitable enterprises than being tethered to another planet just because its there. Forget Mars; it's a luxury that we can look into after we get the basics down. In the mean time, if you really want to explore off-world colonization options, use the Moon; it's closer.
Imagine, using a computer for dating?
Doubtlessly the computer matches would be so perfect as to eliminate the thrill of romantic conquest. Ha-ho-ha-hey-hoo!
Alas, only the five richest kings in Europe will ever know for sure...
It isn't fear of terrorism that causes this sort of reaction. At least, not directly. I don't think the police or teachers were necessarily worrying themselves that they might get blown up. Rather, it was a fear that - if the clock was a bomb used in a terror attack - THEY WOULD GET BLAMED for not doing something about it earlier. It's the same reason our politicians are so willing to pass the most obscenely unjust laws to chase down criminals: the penalty for not passing the law is disproportionately greater than passing it. If even one crime could have been prevented by the non-existent law (or had the clock been a bomb), far more blame is assigned to the people-of-authority who MIGHT have done something about the crime than to the actual criminal performing the act itself. It's no wonder people over-react in these situations. They aren't worried about being attacked by terrorists; they are worried about being attacked by us.
This case is a perfect example of why this sort of data should be encrypted on the device and in no way accessible to anyone except the owner. Because if there is a backdoor to this data, whether protected by "procedure" or a escrowed key, it /will/ be abused. If it is not the government abusing this privilege, then it will be by a corporation, or by an individual with a personal grudge, or by criminal elements (or even worse, by marketing departments!). It doesn't matter what sort of "controls" you put on those back-doors, ultimately they will be ignored and abused. The number of people who get "hacked" in this way may be low, but even one is too many.
This case should be dredged up every time a law-enforcement agency insists that easy access to personal data are a necessity in this digital age. They claim that there are protections in place to prevent this sort of thing; evidence (and common sense) show that this is nonsense. The only way to prevent this sort of abuse is not to remove the temptation from third-parties entirely; make the data on the device (or service) inaccessible unless you have the key to decrypt it, and ensure the only the owner of the data has that key.
Doesn't anyone do thi? Belkin - Seagate - Android. Isn't it about time companies check their products?
Why should they, when corporations aren't held accountable in any way?
In fact, stuff like this works to their benefit. "Oops," they say. "We recommend our newer product where this security issue has been fixed." And given the cost of entry for these markets and that apparently all corporations now engage in this sort of behavior, there is nothing for the customer to do but accept it. Writing properly audited code is not only expensive, it quite possibly would cost them sales.
I'd recommend regulation to fix this sort of thing, except the government has too much advantage in allowing these vulnerabilities to continue too.
Law suits might work for a while, at least until they start adding verbiage to the post-sale click-through license agreements that require us all to agree to these "accidentally" open ports as a requirement of use our of purchased products.
1) There is no such thing as climate change
2) Climate change exists, but it isn't happening now.
3) The climate is changing, but it isn't being caused by humans
4) The climate is being changed by humans, but we can't (or shouldn't) do anything about it.
5) We could have averted climate change, but it is too late now.
Apparently, we've just passed step 3. With step 4, expect a deluge of reports about how we shouldn't try messing with the climate because we just don't understand it well enough and probably will make things worse, or because any benefits from changes WE make will be lost because THEY following suit (for various values of "they", but most likely China or India) or because the potential loss of revenue to a few entitled mega-corporations is far too important to risk by imposing ecologically-responsible regulations. In short, the arguments will be that since we can't make everything 100% better, why should we make any attempt at all?
Climate change deniers will continue to be wrong until we reach step 5, when they will suddenly - and to all our misfortune - be right. We can only hope that the ecological mess they cause in the name of short-term profits won't be so catastrophic for the rest of us.
One Ethernet WAN port, one Ethernet LAN port, one USB port, and a jack for the power.
While I understand Google's logic behind this, but that's really a deal-killer for me. Even though many of my devices are wireless, I still rely on wired connections when I want a stable, fast and (comparatively) secure connection. Sure, I could pair this up with a second router or switch, but if I'm paying $200 for the damn thing, I'd expect it to cover those basics.
Of course, I was already wary about this just because it is a privacy-destroying Google device (having said that, I'm using Google's DNS servers in my current router so I probably don't have a leg to stand on in that regard). No web-based interface is a stupid idea too; touch-screen based interfaces are too fiddly for my liking. And despite TFAs claim that OnHub is "something you could put anywhere in your house without much embarrassment", I think the thing is hideously ugly. Anyway, in general I don't want people to see the networking infrastructure and a discreet flat box is much easier to tuck away than this round monstrosity. Not to mention the price is outrageous.
I'm really not sure who this device is aimed at. Sure it is easy to setup, but ordinary users are unlikely to drop $200 on a wireless router when they can get one that works fairly well (and really isn't that hard to configure either) for $50 from Walmart (or included "free" with their modem). Meanwhile, everyone else is going to look at OnHub's dearth of features and configurability and then pick up more capable hardware.
In short: No web-interface. Less Ethernet ports than an ASUS. Lame.
It is disappointing that free items sent to the vlogger by the manufacturer are excluded from this requirement.
While the reviewer is free in these situations to slag off items sent to him gratis, there is still a greater likelihood he will overlook issues and give the item a better review rather than risk losing the opportunity to get more free items. In many ways, the reviewer is still in the employ of the manufacturer, except instead of being paid in cash he is being paid in merchandise. There is an unspoken expectation from the company that the vlogger will give the free item a good review, and if the vlogger fails to perform to expectations, he is "fired" and no longer receives any further "paychecks", e.g., free items from that company.
The audience should be made aware of this connection between the reviewer and the company behind the product, even if no actual cash or editorial direction has been given.
You can use gpedit.msc to restore the option to verify before installing updates.
Do the Home versions of Windows10 come with GPEdit.msc? I know that - starting with Windows Vista - the Group Policy Editor (GPEdit.msc) was a feature reserved for the "enterprise" editions only (Pro, Ultimate) and was not included in the Home or Starter editions of the OS. Nominally this was acceptable because Home users have no use for domain-level tools such as a group policy, but unfortunately many Windows features can only be toggled with GPEDit.msc, including several Home users might have interest in.
Nominally there is nothing GPEdit.msc can do that can't be replicated through manual registry editing, but there is no readily available source mapping registry keys and strings to each of the GPEdit options (I am also not aware of any non-Microsoft alternative to GPEdit.msc, although there are hacks to transfer GPEdit.msc from the enterprise editions to the consumer editions).
Since Windows 10 Professional already has the option to disable updates, it is disingenuous to suggest GPEdit.msc as an alternative as an alternative unless that tool is included with the Home Edition.
I think I speak for all of us when I say, "Fuck this shit".
As importantly, tell your "regular user" friends to avoid Windows 10 too. Tell them about the spyware. Tell them how it takes away your ability to play DVDs. Share stories about how bad patches - now unavoidable - can break their machine. Tell them how they would need to pay $1.99 per month to play ad-free Solitaire. Point out that the Windows10 Start Menu is a still poor replacement for what they get with Windows 7 (and that a lot of the Windows 8 "Metro" interface still remains). Remind them there is very little Windows 10 does that Windows 7 does not.
Point out the negatives. Get the average person soured on Windows 10. They LISTEN to us when it comes to tech stuff. If we tell them they should avoid Windows 10 if they can, that - if they are buying a new PC - they should try to get one with Windows 7 (or even 8.1 if they absolutely have to). Don't rant or rave (and don't suggest Linux, that will just scare them away and brand you as a geek who doesn't understand "regular people" in their eyes); just point out your disappointment by another awful OS from Microsoft. You might be surprised by how much influence you have on them.
Honestly, I think the "hidden influence" of geeks had a lot to do with the failures of Vista and Windows 8, and the success of 7. Windows 10 has met some success because geeks have been receiving it more favorably than its predecessor. Show your disfavor and your less computer-savvy friends and family will pick up on it.