What is even worse is that you cannot simply unplug the cable and plug another, like in the previous models. This cable is permanently attached to the display assembly and you have to replace the whole display just because of a cheap broken cable.
I'm sorry but you are wrong. Boiling water nuclear reactors are inherently insecure and this is their fundamental flaw. You can add as many security systems as you want... Their complexity would start to work against them.
Both Chernobyl and Fukushima are result of human errors. While Fukushima disaster came as result of natural disaster, there was a point when they could have prevented the meltdown, by pouring a chemical that would stop the reaction, but also make the reactor core unusable in future. They wanted to save the reactor and there was nobody brave enough to pick safety over monetary loss.
I'm personally fan on LFTR that is radical change in design and is inherently more secure. In addition, since it is type of breeder reactor, it could also burn waste from the previous generation of reactors.
Unfortunately despite all work done towards LFTR there is currently not even one in operation.
As j-b has said in the bugreport, the bug is in external library "libebml".
If you have an old version of the library installed on the system, any version of VLC that is linked to it may be affected.
This is why j-b said that you should update your distribution. Assuming Ubuntu still does bugfix/security updates for that version.
VLC own distributed binaries since 3.0.4 (including) should contain builds with the new library.
Have in mind, the commit in question may trigger the bug, but the commit itself may not be buggy.
I've been using Preview Web Skipe on Firefox (actually Waterfox) for a few months now.
All you need is to use "User Agent Switcher" and to pretend to be Chrome.
I don't use it to make calls, just occasional chat. So far I have not encountered any kind of problem or issues.
Given the rumors that you need special Chrome plugin for the voice and video calls, there is absolutely no reason to oust FF or Opera.
Microsoft are deliberately blocking these browsers.
I think that they did exactly that, lowered the precision of the timers.
However if you have threads, you can make your own high precision timer by running a loop in a single thread while doing the side channel in another.
By Copyright law.
The only thing that Youtube/Google cannot do is claim that this is their own video. By removing the authors logo and all identifying information, they have done just that.
To be fair, there is a legal line connecting those dots, and there is a legal reason it doesn't matter.
The key is that the resale of like-new products is fine because it's not going to cause any brand confusion. The old iPhone you're selling is still an iPhone, and (assuming everyone plays by the rules) still has Apple's hardware inside the case. Legally, you're just selling an intact product (as you're entitled to under the first-sale doctrine), and you're not claiming to have changed its value in any way.
However, once you do something that changes the product's value, you have to be absolutely clear what that change was. If you replaced the battery or otherwise refurbished the product, you're supposed to declare that, so customers know exactly what they're buying. You could upgrade or overclock some components, and call it "modified", and even charge more for it. That's all fine, as long as you're making effort to say "this isn't exactly what that label might make you think".
You see, you are claiming first sale doctrine, but then you are completely undermining it. Once I buy something it is completely mine. Every part of it is mine. I can do whatever I want with it. Including reselling it.
You are talking about changing value and declaring it. What is the legal authority I should declare these things to? What is the law that mandates I do that? What even "value" means in this context!!
If you as consumer accept such erosion of the first sale doctrine, soon there will be no first sale doctrine.
The moment you remove the product from its wrapping, its "value" is diminished.
Apple may not allow you to resale product with diminished "value" that bears the Apple logo.
If you don't fight such interpretation, soon they will become the norm.
I can buy iMac, take its battery out and sell it.
All I have to do is say that it is a second hand.
Been second hand means I have bought it legally, I own it, and its "value" is diminished.
There is something more. The batteries are not visible part of the product. You cannot find out what is the logo on the battery of a working MacBookPro. You have to use special screws to open it and look inside.
The brand recognition is completely useless if it cannot be seen.
The only reason these parts have Apple trademark logo on them, is to claim counterfeit if they are been resold.
At the point where he is repairing computers that Apple WILL NOT repair themselves I don't care if the batteries are legit or counterfeit. He is not costing Apple anything.
Every repair of old Apple product is a missed sale of new Apple product.
It's the Broken Window fallacy.
They may have come from the same manufacturer as actual Apple batteries, or even been part of a batch made under an Apple contract with Apple designs, but they still have the Apple logo on them. Since Rossmann isn't buying the batteries (even indirectly) from Apple, nor is he himself allowed to use the Apple logo, it's indeed illegal to use the Apple logo on them.
Your argument sums up to that only Apple could sell goods with Apple logo.
Do you understand how far this reasoning could be applied to? For example, you will not be allowed to sell your old iPhone, or iMac to somebody else, because it has Apple logo and you are not Apple and you are not allowed to use the Apple logo.
If these batteries has been sold as part of Apple product, then removed and then sold second hand, they are definitely not counterfeit. (To be honest, this doesn't seem to be the case here.)
If parts are bought from manufacturer who has contract with Apple, then their status would depends on that contract. It is very likely that Apple would explicitly forbid the manufacturer from selling these part to others. And that would make them counterfeit.
(Still, you never know with the Chinese.)
The argument is that if you release CO2 that has been (recently) captured from the atmosphere you are not increasing the carbon in active circulation, thus not breaking the existing balance.
The current problem with Global Warming / Climate Change is the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere due to the fact that a lot of fossil carbon is been released as gas in the atmosphere (faster than it can be captured by plants). That fossil carbon has been turned into solid or liquid form eons ago and has remained inert, burred deep underground.
So the carbon in plants comes from the atmosphere and it can safely be ignored when it goes back into the atmosphere. The carbon in animals comes from other animals or plants.
The plants can grow without synthetic fertilizers and food can be processed transported without burning fossil fuel.!!
So taxing/limiting the exhaling of CO2 is absurd and won't change anything.
Taxing transportation that uses fossil fuel might lead to use of cleaner solutions, like fully electric trains/trucks, powered by renewable or nuclear power. Fertilizer production could also use clean energy sources, methane from organic sources or another source of Hydrogen.
PCID should help with this kind of vulnerability too.
When mitigating Meltdown, one way was to separate completely the kernel memory from user process memory, this involved switching the virtual paging memory and this flushed TLB entries.
This causes speed decrease. To mitigate this, (some) CPUs have a feature where it writes the process ID into the TLB entry, so it could remain in the cache, but it would remain inactive while another process is running.
While this sound like the perfect solution, the problem is that the ID field is not big enough and should be switched and recycled.
Not exactly.
Meltdown affect only Intel, because only Intel CPU allow userland process to successfully load a register with supervisor (kernel) data, when the page flags indicate that data should not be readable by userland.
There is absolutely no reason to allow the read to complete. Checking the permission flags is just a couple logical operators and should be done at the same time as TLB lookup. TLB is special kind of cache that hold essential data from the Page Table.
TLB contains the access flags, cache type, and the physical memory address. You need that info first, before you can check the caches and do the actual read.
This is why AMD processors are not affected by Meltdown.
I do recommend you to try "Tree Style Tabs" and place them on the side of the window.
The extension is been ported to WebEx, but it seems that FF57 doesn't have the API to hide the original tab bar and you have to do that manually. That API is scheduled for FF58.
If you stay with FF56, then AMO will offer you the XUL version, not the WebEx one. That's what I run now.
The patches themselves are not derivative, because they are entirely owned by their authors.
The patch can just check if the executable binary is original by using checksum, then write the new binary data at fixed locations.
There is absolutely no reason for the patch to contain portions of the old executable, since these portions could just be copied by the patching program to their new location(s).
The patched executable would be derivative work and this means that it cannot be distributed. But it can still be used by its legal owner.
The first sale doctrine states that once a person had obtained legal copy (aka he has paid for it) then he can do whatever he wants with it, except distribute other copies of it (or its derivatives) -
thus copy-right.
Unfortunately the article does not support your claim.
What it says is:
It was not until April 2008, at the height of the intensely bitter Democratic presidential primary process, that the touch paper was properly lit.
An anonymous email circulated by supporters of Mrs Clinton, Mr Obamaâ(TM)s main rival for the partyâ(TM)s nomination, thrust a new allegation into the national spotlight â" that he had not been born in Hawaii.
Do you have evidence that Mrs Clinton or her staff have supported or spread these rumors/emails?
About the "Washington Post" articles, I couldn't find them with google. Would you kindly provide links to them?
I also hope you know the difference between investigating a rumor and spreading it.
In computing, the mean time to failure keeps getting shorter.
