As with the existing technological hassles in my life, I would use a smart watch only if it did something significantly new.
In the old days (1980s), my laptop would go weeks without a battery charge. Now, my laptop barely makes it through a day, if I'm not actually using it much during that day. But my new laptop is vastly more capable, with high-DPI IPS display and 802.11ac WiFi and the ability to run a C++ compiler many times in a single hour.
In the less old days, my phone would go a bit over a week without a battery charge. Now, my phone usually makes it through a day, but not if I'm using its GPS or its processor extensively; and it's much bigger. But my new phone has a camera that doesn't entirely suck and a lot of apps, some of them useful, and visual voicemail. Still, I wouldn't have bought it if it didn't have another compelling feature: Really cheap unlimited plans.
That's 2 devices that I have to plug in every day to keep using. A smart watch would be a third. So far, I haven't heard of any compelling features. The current crop has what? The ability to show notifications. Which my phone already does when I leave it on the table next to my mouse, and which I'm already consciously choosing to ignore when I want to maintain focus. And Samsung's watch has its trademark heart rate sensor, which works only if you're not exercising.
I can imagine some uses for a smart watch, in concept, if it could do stuff independently of the phone. A camera that you don't even have to dig out of your pocket (or purse, if you have a Samsung). A communications device that you can carry without pockets. A security/control device (if it doesn't come from Google, Apple, or Microsoft, and runs free software). The concept is interesting. It just needs good execution.
Artificial islands could help China anchor its claim to waters that host some of the world's busiest shipping lanes. The South China Sea may hold as much as 11 billion barrels of oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, according to a 2013 report by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. China has considered the Spratlys—which it calls Nansha—part of its territory since the 1940s and on occasion has used its military might to enforce its claim. In 1988 a Chinese naval attack at Johnson South Reef, in the northern portion of the archipelago, killed 64 Vietnamese border guards.
The main purpose of AP Statistics (and AP Calculus) seems to be to teach limited subsets of the functionality of the TI-89 calculator series. The programmability features of that calculator are never taught in American schools.
Not that AP Computer Science is much better. Its main purpose seems to be to teach the Serious Programming Language du Jour, currently Java. Any algorithmic learning has to happen in between the struggles with that language.
I'm not pleased with the College Board's position in American society.
I refuse to build a Connected Home without Free Software. Imagine the security nightmares of SCADA and consumer electronics, together at last.
This has to apply to the drivers and the peripheral firmware, too, because the Linux kernel has its own vulnerabilities.
Richard Stallman is full of crap if he is claiming that Windows is endemically, technically less secure. Anyone remember the Pwn2Own games? Anyone remember what OS fell first every time? Thats right, fully patched OSX (think that changed ~2012). This could turn into a debate lasting days, but suffice it to say that from a technical level Windows is pretty secure.
You totally misunderstand Stallman's point. Stallman is not arguing that open source leads to better quality software. That would be Eric Raymond. Stallman is arguing that you can't trust Microsoft. More of an Auguste Kirchhoffs interpretation. And I don't see what OSX has to do with free software.
Stallman objects to closed source philosophically, and Windows especially. In addition to being proprietary, Stallman is arguing that Windows has features to report your use of Microsoft software and potentially lock you out (Windows Activation), to add or delete software without warning (Windows Update), to track you across any device around the world (Microsoft Account), and to keep you from using the computer in inappropriate ways (Protected Media Path, Driver Signing, Secure Boot). I don't see how he's wrong.
Somebody in the Chinese government seems to have noticed, and is now trying to get Windows banned there.
My hope is that all who take this like will grow up and abandon their zealotry before they enter the workforce.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
I know this is a joke, but seriously I think our houses are much more efficient that it used to be. I have no idea how much an old tube TV cost to run, but the new 40" tvs are rated at about $10 a year.
Yes, that was Jon's point, and it has been observed by economists as the Jevons paradox. As we get greater efficiency, we use more. An old TV was terribly inefficient, but you generally had only the one, and it wasn't running all day. Now, a typical house has a TV in every inhabited room.
Seems to me LibreSSL is the way to go, but I can also see why the corporations would just use it as a side-stream for hints on what to fix. They have enough resources to rewrite openSSL from the inside rather than the the LibreSSL tear-down approach.
I don't think companies really "have enough resources" to rewrite OpenSSL. The problem is that you can't just throw money at a project and have stuff happen. You need people to implement those changes. And we're still in the clutches of the software crisis.
The problem with OpenSSL is that it is really, really bad code. It's security code, which few people have the expertise to handle. It has an idiosyncratic style, which few people want to look at, it's so painful. And it is so littered with backwards compatibility hacks and defective functions that very few people can know whether it's doing something right. Even the OpenSSL people don't know what it's doing, given all the comments about OpenSSL functions that they're not using properly.
So, best of luck to the CII, trying to "improve" OpenSSL without getting rid of all its weirdness. I think the OpenBSD people are right, and they should just tear down everything and rebuild it.
We have that; it's called XMPP.
XMPP is almost as centralized as Twitter. You still communicate through a server that can be shut down. The only difference is that, if you lose access to one server, you can switch to another server, or start your own if you have enough money. (The other difference is that XMPP is not a broadcast medium.)
A proper uncensorable platform would be peer-to-peer. That's where IPv4's lack of true end-to-end connectivity has irritated me for years. There are attempts to work around this problem using, for example, BitTorrent's distributed hash table protocol or Bitcoin's blockchain or both or Onion routing. The problem is that there is no money in a truly peer-to-peer communications system, so development has always been slower than centralized systems.
The shackles of wealth, then?
Heavy is the head that bears the crown.
That refers to the burden of being a ruler. Has nothing to do with wealth.
What difference does that make in contemporary capitalism?
It seems that no matter which party we vote for, we get either corporate-funded stooges or patronizing paternalists, like Dianne Feinstein of California. The media are complicit in this miscarriage of justice with their anointed "serious" candidates and "wasted" votes, for various reasons probably including the high amounts of money that they receive during campaigns.
So, what do you think about Larry Lessig and his change of focus from free culture to Congressional corruption?
There will ALWAYS be situations where any sort of auto-pilot will NOT be able to handle it, and that is why aircraft still have manual controls with fully qualified and experienced pilots sitting there overseeing the autopilot's operation and taking control where necessary or desired.
There's a major difference: In an aircraft, you're always minutes away from falling out of the sky in fiery doom. A car has the option of pulling over and stopping. Also, I've been watching Mayday, and all of the autopilot accidents have been a result of poor user interface design. If an autopilot has difficulty, then a human pilot will have difficulty. On the other hand, the Miracle on the Hudson was facilitated by good use of the autopilot, to make corrections that a human would not be able to handle, in total contrast to that hijacking off Africa.
For precisely the same reasons all motor vehicle operators should continue to be trained, tested for competency, licensed, and should strive to be experienced as drivers.
Certainly, the operator of the car should be experienced and properly licensed. Again, as a bicyclist, I think more people should be using human power to move themselves, and not going around in multi-ton metal death boxes like it's a human right. I drive a manual transmission, so I already appreciate how people are deferring to the car's engineering, especially in boring situations.
Far from being a deus ex machina, an autonomous car is an engineered product. In principle, you can examine its code and analyze how it works. Once it works, it will work the same way every time, unless there are software updates or faults in the sensors. In contrast, your God-given brain is messy and unpredictable. The longer you go without an accident, the more complacent you become. The more safety features you have, the more careless you become. And as long as you go without accidents, the DMV does not bother testing your driving ability, but just renews your license sight-unseen. The current situation is demonstrably not safe.
The big question is whether having the car drive itself would make the humans' skills atrophy. My guess is that it would improve safety, having the humans drive only in tricky situations where they know they have to be careful. And the rest of the time, the computer would be driving with all of the safety techniques that it knows, constantly alert.