And not a single one of them was backlighted.
So don't set the backlight to be brighter than paper.
It is strange to me that people complain that the white background is too bright, when the brightness is adjustable. Do you complain that the sun is too bright, when you have your sunglasses hanging around your neck?
I don't think the major US parties follow any ideology at all. It's not that the views shift over time, it is that they are inconsistent at any given instant.
For example, Democrats support social welfare for minorities and the disabled; Republicans support social welfare for the elderly and veterans. To be more specific: Republicans supported the Medicare prescription drug program, while Democrats supported the ACA. This is because the elderly vote Republican, while minorities vote Democrat. This is ideologically inconsistent because Republicans claim that they are against welfare, while the Democrats will say they are in favor of it. But both parties are actually supporting welfare, just aimed only at their particular constituent groups.
Another example: Republicans generally support a strict interpretation of the second amendment, but a loose interpretation of the first. Democrats take the opposite view. There is no consistent ideology here. The reality is that Republicans are more likely to own guns, and Democrats are more likely to be employed in mass-media.
Another one: Republicans claim Obama could not be president because if he was born in Kenya, but Republicans claim that Ted Cruz can be even though he was born in Canada, and Republicans also claimed that George Romney could even though he was born in Mexico. The underlying philosophy is the definition of the term "natural born citizen" for which the party members hold no consistent ideology.
It is for this reason, that I don't see political parties as aligning to an ideology at all. The align to whatever group will vote for them. Most voters have no concept of a philosophy or ideology on these matters. They merely vote for the party that is most likely to help them out.
A political party is typically an organization whose members share a common political view, or ideology.
Perhaps I am just jaded as an American, but in the US political parties aren't like that. They change their stance according to whoever is the leader of the party. There are some consistencies: In the US, the Republicans are against gun control and abortion. But then major issues like privacy rights and war switch every decade or so.
Perhaps, the word itself has become political.
I am just as disinterested in this as I was when all the other phone manufacturers did it years ago.
However, the fact that Apple is shipping a camera with a significantly wider aperture, dual cameras, 2x optical zoom, and RAW support is a marvel! How about focusing (no pun intended) on that? If dual-cameras truly become standard, there's lots of interesting uses for that. Part of the reason it hasn't take-off has been that no manufacturer has offered dual-cameras consistently, so app makers had to make one-off apps that only worked on specific phones. Apple doing it could make it a standard thing. Think: 3D pictures, 3D scanner apps, better augmented reality games,
I don't agree with your terminology. I thought ideological consistency was the opposite of being "political." Wouldn't being "political" lean more toward following a party, rather than an ideology?
Back when I was growing-up, every book, newspaper, magazine, and billboard had a white background. It was terrible on the eyes! They even went out of their way to use horrible chemicals like bleach to make the paper even whiter. Imagine how bright that was if you were reading in the sunshine!
I doubt you could make a meaningful security improvement.
No password retry limit?????? Storing and giving out router and email passwords?????? It would be so easy to make meaningful security improvements in this device it isn't funny.
My toaster has an IPX address you insensitive clod!
This could be handled just like how UL approval is. Most stores won't sell electronics unless they are UL approved, but it isn't a government agency. We need something like that, but who checks device security. Homeowners insurance policies don't have to pay out from a fire if was caused by a non UL-approved device. So maybe we could have something like that: You are liable for the damage your hacked devices cause, unless they are UL approved.
We need a trade for this. Just like you call pest control when you have a mouse, you call someone to find out what hacked device is connected to your network.
Maybe we need some kind of minimum security standards for any network-connected device. Like how we have FCC and UL, we need something else.
While I agree, there's a bigger picture to it.
1) We don't know about it until after they are hacked. So that ban comes too late.
2) It's not just one device. It's hard to even know what the devices are.
3) This attack is just a small piece of the damage that could be inflicted. It was a DDOS conducted by stupid devices like home security cameras. But what happens when IOT devices in gas stations and power plants are hacked? It could be used for far more nefarious acts. Stuxnet showed us the damage that could be done when industrial devices are hacked.
I hope some white-hat runs the same tools used to hack all those devices, and uses it to permanently disable them.
A better link is the one from ScienceDaily which points to here: the actual paper. My employer blocks sci-hub because they regularly post papers in violation of copyright.
Which is fine, right up until the point where I go to news.google.com and start seeing Onion headlines there sourced directly from the Onion.
Which didn't happen.
If you're labeling it "news", you really should be making some rudimentary effort to filter out that kind of material.
They didn't label it news. The summary says it was labeled "Trending Topics."
The IBM 2250 is impressive ... if you compare it with a system selling for a tenth its price. -- D. Cohen