I use it as the central logic controller in a custom-built industrial PLC... which is used to drive automation systems in Beer Breweries (think large craft brewers) and greenhouses. They're awesome little devices.
I plan on that... but this was my first experience with this issue, and now they have my data against my will. Stopping shopping there is a protest, but doesn't solve the initial problem.
I was buying groceries at Target, and happened to get a case of beer - for which I was fully expecting to have to show ID (I'm >40 years old btw).
When the cashier asked to "see my ID" (emphasize the "SEE"), I held out my license. She physically snatched it from my fingers and before I could even react she turned it over and scanned the barcode on the back into their POS system. That bar code contains all kinds of personal data including my address and biometric info. I did NOT consent to them collecting that info, and yet I have no way to get them to expunge it from their system. Not only am I being tracked in 17 different ways with their marketing and other systems, but they're likely selling that info of to other "partners", and putting it at risk WHEN they eventually have a systems breach.
That type of collection should be illegal. I've contacted their guest relations team about my concern, and have yet to hear back.
> Who validates the new data that comes in?
I'm basically wondering if anyone can create junk identities and junk providers and can associate any type of data to them, or if there are some kind of central authority around that. Nothing in the blockchain technology enforces the ledger to be fully public or the quorum to be fully open, and that any type of entry becomes valid. I find the article scarce on the topic.
As for my other questions, they are rhetorical and express my concerns.
From TFA: "Microsoft reckons the technology holds promise as a superior alternative to people granting consent to dozens of apps [...]"
I believe the intend is more related to authorization (knowing the user has given or been granted access to X resource) than authentication (identifying the user) in this case. Instead of querying some local database or black box API, a public ledger is shared and can be queried by anyone.
Storing identity information in a blockchain seems to be the hype in many sectors
Also, I think most implementation of such blockhain protocols do not store data directly in the public ledger but simply store hashes to external data entries, for which it's not clear who has the ownership and if they are publicly available or not.
Why assume the worst?
Consider:
- Apple makes device
- 3rd party replaces part with something that works
- Apple makes changes to software to add features/fix bugs/etc.
- New changes use previously-unused function or uses something in a new way... but this is verified with Apple's device
- 3rd party part only supports 90% of the actual features of the Apple part... which was previously "good enough" but no longer is.
- Update breaks phones with non-Apple parts
As a hardware/software developer I can EASILY see how this happens. 3rd party parts are NOT exact copies. They're reverse-engineered to simulate the same functionality... but they can't test/develop for functionality that isn't yet in use. They may work now, but may not always work. This is ABSOLUTELY a valid reason that Apple doesn't support 3rd part parts. The fact that they "fixed" it for these 3rd-party screens is actually pretty uncharacteristic of them - they didn't have to.
That's assuming you believe they didn't break them on purpose in the first place.
Well, that's only valid if the 80% or more of the trip that it CAN handle are known ahead of time. If the 20% of cases that it can't handle are "surprise, there's a deer on the road ahead!" or "surprise, the guy in front of you slammed on his brakes!", then you still have to sit there 100% of the time ready to react.
you need 100% confidence that the care is fully capable of handling EVERYTHING that comes up for the next XYZ minutes/hours/miles/whatever to be able to really have a useful Level 5.
Personally I'd rather be driving the car than sitting there prepared to take over just in case something goes wrong. Until I'm not needed at all for driving, I'll keep the control thank you.
You have to admit... what army/navy/etc. would sink a nuclear ship in their own waters during war? You'd have to think twice about that - it could be a good deterrent to being attacked. If sunk, it could be a major issue in your region for generations to come.
I'd better hide...
Apple has always taken the role of change agent. If you don't forcefully abandon the past, it drags on. You end up supporting legacy requirements forever.
They've always taken that approach (remember abandoning floppies on the iMac, and what a hoo-ha there was over that?). It's painful at the start, but it acts as an impetuous for change in the market. A year from now you'll see PC's with only USB-C ports, and you'll see a proliferation of USB-C devices... starting with USB-C to USB-A converters.
It's painful, but it drives progress. Apple is "brave" enough to take the risk of impact to their bottom line to lead that change.
Needed all that endorphin to sleep tight tonight.
| OMG! If Snowden wiped his ass then it makes it REAL!
I think there are enough evidences to make this a real event. Now I didn't bring Snowden to give any ethical bias, just to highlight it is in fact very current and news-worthy.
The debate seems twofold: first of all why the chief of police gave orders to hunt on police sources / leaks in the media (on this topic it seems the mayor was putting a lot of pressure on the head of police), and then why municipal judges don't challenge such requests (on this it seems such judges are mostly municipal stamp pushers and underpaid 50% relative to their colleagues, and may have work-history related bias towards law enforcement).
The fact that a well-known journalist backed by its journal is involved makes it maybe a little more sensational than it seems. But for example, the first thing LaPresse did when learning about it was request a court order to censor all phone numbers in any documents from this operation, because if any of this is used in any kind of process, it could unintentionally unveil other hidden journalistic sources non-related to the affair.
We can be pretty much sure this guy won't have any more exclusive news for a while as confidential sources will no longer trust contacting him.
I am not sure if your comment is aimed at minimizing the impact of police spying over journalists (business as usual?), but you should note that this snippet from the article is completely unrelated to the main case with the Montreal police.
About the main case with the Montreal police, it is currently considered a big enough thing that it is monopolizing the news in Quebec and all government levels are actively seeking answers and solutions to this unprecedented abuse of power against freedom of press.
It now appears that Montreal police has started mass spying over journalists last spring in order to find whistle-blowers inside their organization (http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/montreal/201611/01/01-5036642-le-spvm-avait-lance-une-chasse-aux-sources-journalistiques-au-printemps.php).
Edward Snowden even twitted on the topic yesterday: https://twitter.com/Snowden/st...
> outside of some really non-professional home stuff
Who do you think Paint target audience is?
I think paint is quite effective for most Windows "household tasks" (converting images, cropping, resizing, writing annotations, combining, saving screenshots etc.)
I've used GIMP and Photoshop enough to know my way around but I've never been an expert. And opening GIMP for most of the tasks listed above is just troublesome (very long load time, bloated UI).
> MS Paint falls way, way, way short for illustration
Of course! That I will not deny.
Just a guess: you don't have young kids.
Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky
