This thread is about Apple Maps, so yes, Apple has a maps search engine. It's limited to searching for POIs that exist on Apple Maps, but it's there.
Even so, there's nothing preventing Apple from gathering anything you search through using their browser anyway. Whether or not they actually do I can't really say: the privacy policy is vague on what exactly counts as "Apple services" where they absolutely do collect search queries.
Which one hurts more when dropped on you: a pound of iron, or a pound of feathers?
It wasn't money at stake. It was user privacy. I'm glad Apple didn't "pay".
Huh? Apple collects the exact same user information Google does, the change is that they now keep it in-house instead of sharing it. If you value privacy, you won't be using either Google or Apple's products. (And if you value "getting to where you're going," you still won't be using Apple's maps.)
In their defense, it is because eEconomics perfectly follows t his Douglas Adams quote:
There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened.
As soon as an algorithm is created that can accurately predict the market, investors will start using it, thus altering the market so the algorithm no longer works.
This kind of economic theory is really attaching a name and a measurement system to a phenomena that is already understood. To say the Q-value predicts bubbles is a bit backwards since the Q-value is defined in terms of bubbles. So it really isn't a predictor of anything, any more than a ruler is a predictor of the length of an object or a scale is a predictor of the weight of an object.
I'm reading... but it is like reading a patch file for a language I don't understand, when I don't have the file that is being patched.
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking “an order” and inserting “an order or emergency production”; and
That might as well be:
Go to line 57 and insert "else break;"
It looks like they are trying to say that, in order to bulk collect data, they must have a specific search they are running that involves a specific telephone line. See SEC 201.
Can someone define "tangible things" as in "SEC. 103. Prohibition on bulk collection of tangible things" or "“(i) Emergency authority for production of tangible things."
I would come here more often if orasio wrote the summaries.
The problem with the summary is that it assumes the reader is already familiar with the device. Your summary does not suffer from that problem. For instance "prototype eight-terminal device consisting of a magnetic matrix with micro-antennas to excite and detect the spin waves." WHAT spin waves? What is a terminal in this context and why is the a key thing in the summary? The summary already presupposes too much, even for a technical news site.
On the flip side, it would be nice if you didn't also insult the person who asked for clarification. The summary is indeed confusing.
+1 for insightful explanation.
-1 for being an asshat about it.
Before this new version of Firefox, the DRM was delivered via Silverlight. Either way, you are running a closed-source binary blob that handles DRM.
DRM = encryption + key obfuscation.
If DRM was merely encryption that would be great. Then we could save the encrypted streams to our hard disk, then play them while on vacation. Or we could copy those encrypted streams for time shifting. We could decrypt them, then re-encode them into another format for playing on another device. Or take fair-use protected clips from them.
The goal of DRM is to prevent the the end-user from doing the things listed above. But encryption alone isn't enough to do that. You need a way to give the key to the user, but obfuscate the key so that they can only use it limited circumstances. It's infuriating to the user.
Before getting alarmed about numbers with no context, take a look at Charity Navigator. Compare The Wikimedia foundation with your favorite charity and see how they look.
Charity navigator rates the Wikimedia foundation as 4/4 stars. The system they use is quite fascinating: the site is generates the numbers mathematically from non-profit tax filings. What the site doesn't tell you is if the charity is actually doing good work. If a charity's goal is to feed babies to demons, and they do it efficiently, they will get good marks.
Did they try all the shapes from Lucky Charms? I want to know which marshmallow is going to give me the best delivery of time-release aspirin.
Code can be a weapon (stuxnet, et al.). It isn't, in this case, of course - but it can be.
Yeah, that is a good counterexample. It's interesting because in both cases you need something else to actually make it work. With stuxnet: a computer to run it on. With the gun design: a 3d printer, plastic, a bullet, and a human to pull the trigger. The stuxnet example is much closer to the code being an actual thing.
It varies based on your electricity source.
That isn't the best article, but the chart makes it very clear how much this varies. Be aware that in many states in the US, you can choose your power provider. So if you really care, pick a power provider who uses mostly renewables.
The article makes the very same mistake that Code Wilson is trying to correct via the law suit. The article says:
Only this time the fight isn’t over code erroneously labeled as a weapon. The code in question actually is a weapon.
No! The code is not a weapon. A blueprint is not a weapon. A drawing is not a weapon.
Guess who pushed that rule through, though.
Did you guess "the New England Patriots quarterback who we now know was cheating using that rule?"
Because, guess what, you'd be right!
It's a report written by a lawyer. "More probably than not" is a legal term meaning "guilty in the civil sense, but not in the criminal sense." Essentially the lawyers writing the report are saying "yes, they're definitely guilty, but I'm not willing to say this meets the standards of criminal justice."
Happiness is twin floppies.
