I'm probably missing out on something but couldn't most of the C64 code be run on most other BASIC interpreters as well? Especially if the code was intended to be child / introductory level?
Much of it probably could. Peek and poke graphics would get interesting though
Yes, privacy and secrecy are not the same thing. That's what they don't get.
That I have all the usual parts is no secret. But I don't display them because they are private. Simple.
I was thinking the same thing. This could easily be something like the Edge browser going out and updating its Certificate Reputation (https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/ie/2014/03/10/) list in the background.
In true Slashdot fashion, I didn't read TFA just the TFS. Assuming that the source is capable (ie, did everything practical to disable telemetry, including any weakly published registry settings, etc) and is accurately counting firewall hits (how many of these are one telemetry source retrying relentlessly?) and not attempting to be an anti-MS shill, this really sucks that disabling it per MS instructions doesn't actually disable it.
That being said, does it affect functionality? Does stuff not work (for all definitions of not work -- from not all to pokey slow because it's trying and faiiling to hit a telemetry server)?
While I would expect corporations with an eye on security to object, I would also expect places like that to have a fairly stern outbound firewall policy and filtering system that would block a lot of telemetry by default, mitigating some of this but still not eliminating the annoyance of a machine that does what it wants.
I'm also curious how much analysis of telemetry has been done. Do we know what processes on the machine are responsible for telemetry, and are there any ways to disable them? Have the telemetry messages been analyzed to develop firewall rule groups to block them by IP, URL or DNS?
The problem is that we don't KNOW what it's doing with these connections. Is it possible that one of these server could be compromised in same way? What if that happens and one of these mysterious connections hits the server and it returns a malicious payload?
Fantastic explanation, thank you!
$165,000.00 for a 972 sqft mobile home on 1.08 acres? Christ, I could buy over 200 acres for less than that around here, and still have plenty left over to build a house.
Free state my ass. More like rip you off on cost of living state.
The trouble with cheap land is that it's a long way from where you want to be.
Sounds like it's where he wants to be, though.
That's not our APK! APK made a program. It does more than addons for less for more speed, security, reliability from 1 file you have http://www.start64.com/index.p...
Sounds legit guys.
... an app cannot disrupt or interfere with devices, networks or other parties' apps and services.
I imagine these rules are meant to apply to unintentional/unknown actions, not ones by design for which the user specifically installed the app to perform. Otherwise, all those call/text/spam blocker apps (like Mr. Number) need to go, 'cause they're interfering with things too...
Google made the rules, and they are the ones that say the ad blocker is breaking them. I'm pretty sure they are the definitive source on what the rules were "meant to do".
FTA: "Using the size data he had gathered from 4,063 pilots, Daniels [Lt. Gilbert S. Daniels, who majored in physical anthropology at Harvard before joining the Air Force] calculated the average of the 10 physical dimensions believed to be most relevant for [optimal cockpit] design, including height, chest circumference and sleeve length. These formed the dimensions of the “average pilot,” which Daniels generously defined as someone whose measurements were within the middle 30 per cent of the range of values for each dimension. So, for example, even though the precise average height from the data was five foot nine, he defined the height of the “average pilot” as ranging from five-seven to five-11. Next, Daniels compared each individual pilot, one by one, to the average pilot.
Before he crunched his numbers, the consensus among his fellow air force researchers was that the vast majority of pilots would be within the average range on most dimensions. After all, these pilots had already been pre-selected because they appeared to be average sized. (If you were, say, six foot seven, you would never have been recruited in the first place.) The scientists also expected that a sizable number of pilots would be within the average range on all 10 dimensions. But even Daniels was stunned when he tabulated the actual number.
You just quoted the article, that doesn't explain at all HOW bad cockpit dimensions killed 17 pilots in one day.
" an example from the 1950s US Air Force where the "myth of the average resulted in a generation of planes that almost no pilots could reliably fly, and which killed as many as 17 pilots in a single day"
Did I miss the part of the story that explains HOW it managed to kill 17 pilots in one day?
If at first you don't succeed, you are running about average.