At DNC fewer attendees will connect to the "I vote Trump!" network.
At DNC fewer attendees will connect to the "I vote Trump!" network.
I'm happy that you're charging me a fee so you can continue to offer "best support". If at any time I find you are not offering me the best support, or indeed have no occasion or need to offer me support since everything just works fine, I shall be obliged to issue a chargeback.
an ad blocker for edge. last time I tried it they didn't have any ad blocker (please no host file APK spam) I refuse to run a browser without ad blocking because of malware.
Yes, the ad blockers so far released for Edge are "Adblock" and "Adblock Plus"
They're for the anniversary update, currently available on the insiders program, due for general release on August 2nd.
The authorities seem clueless as to how to stop terrorists attacks around the world. What's are all the spying and warrantless requests actually going towards?
They don't seem clueless. Here, from the BBC: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi...
How Britain has been kept safe for a decade
Since the London bombings of a decade ago, Britain has managed to avoid such a mass attack. But statistics show it has been a close-run thing. Forty terrorist plots have been disrupted since 2005 - including seven in the past 18 months.
It's no accident that this country has not yet endured a Paris, Brussels or Nice. Britain's defences against terrorist attack depend not just on the watery buffer of the English Channel and our non-membership of Schengen - Europe's border-free area. Crucially they also rely on the way in which intelligence is now intimately shared between all the agencies: the Security Service (MI5), MI6, GCHQ - and the police. This is the key to keeping Britain safe - although it's by no means guaranteed.
But effective intelligence-sharing in the UK didn't happen overnight - as the history of combating Irish and Islamist terrorism shows. In many years of covering the conflict in Northern Ireland, I lost count of the number of times I was assured that intelligence-sharing had never been closer and the IRA was on the run. Both were fictions.
All that has dramatically changed. The Security Service and local counter-terrorism police officers now work closely together and share all intelligence. The barriers are down. MI5's door is open. This shared intelligence is then passed upwards to the pinnacle of Britain's counter-terrorist pyramid where it's sifted and analysed by MI5, MI6, GCHQ and the police at their weekly meetings in MI5's London headquarters. A further benefit of shared intelligence is that the agencies and police - both at home and abroad - now all work from a single list of targets - the contents and length of which are a closely guarded national secret.
These are the hard-learned lessons that have kept Britain relatively safe for the past decade. But, as the intelligence services and the police here are at pains to point out, there is no guarantee that it will always be so.
Now this BBC news story looks like it came directly out of a PR spokesperson from the intelligence agencies, so I don't know how much of it is true. But I wouldn't automatically assume it's all false.
If the telemetry says only things like "10 days since last crash" or "browser was switched from Edge" then I struggle to see any privacy or security issues.
If the telemetry is "this software was installed and these apps have crashed" then I certainly hope the IT managers are collecting this telemetry and it's up to them to figure a secure way to do it, maybe with Microsoft maybe without, as they see fit.
If the telemetry is "this sequence of keystrokes was pressed" then there are obvious security and privacy risks.
I haven't yet been able to find solid details on what telemetry and when... Only rumours and insinuations.
Disclaimer: I work at Microsoft, but in OSS C# language area, not Windows.
They have either evidence or assumption that the demographic ratio within their employees is different from the demographic ratio of the "best and the brightest". Therefore their hiring practices failing to catch all of the best and brightest.
Some ways to move to that demographic ratio aren't progress. Other ways are. If any company is in the business of gathering data about people and their activities (in order to tell whether it's progress or not), surely that company is Facebook.
OTHER THAN AS EXPRESSLY SET OUT IN THESE TERMS OR ADDITIONAL TERMS, NEITHER GOOGLE NOR ITS SUPPLIERS OR DISTRIBUTORS MAKE ANY SPECIFIC PROMISES ABOUT THE SERVICES.
Maybe he'll sue on grounds other than "broken promise".
And there are lots of grounds for suing even when something is "as is". For instance, attractive nuisance (doesn't apply here); negligence (would have to establish duty, breach, causation, damages); defective product; that the terms in the TOS aren't enforceable; intentional infliction of emotional distress (would have to establish that Google's behavior was extreme, outrageous and caused harm).
I'm not evaluating the strength of any of these grounds. Just saying that the TOS isn't a blanket "off-the-hook" as your post suggests.
When I bought my house there were 40+ pages of documents that I had t sign at the end, for deed transfer I think.
I skimmed through them, noticed one term that looked wrong, pointed it out. They said "you're right! In our ten years of doing business no one has ever noticed this mistake before. I'll fix it up for you here and now."
For everyone who swore up and down that Windows 10 will never be a subscription and Microsoft will always stick with their old business model (pay once for the OS, additional support by subscription): hope the crow is tasty!
What? Who would have said that? Microsoft have been offering Windows by subscription for many years already.
The problem being nobody actually understood what 'full access' through Google's API actually does, or bothered to go look it up.
RTFM kids, you'll look a lot less stupid.
What is the "FM"?
I see a lot of google OAUTH scopes listed at https://developers.google.com/.... I don't think there is a "FM" which tells us how to map the poorly-phrased UI dialog to the actual OAUTH scopes. If the UI claims to be asking for "full access", which of those scopes do you think it's asking for? All of them? Including the scope "https://www.googleapis.com/auth/gmail.modify"?
I've not used Google OAUTH, but I have used Microsoft OAUTH where the scopes had very badly worded UIs, and I bet the same is true of Google.
For instance, if your app requests the Microsoft scope "wl.signin | wl.offline_access" then all it technically does is let your app use a Microsoft ID to sign into the app but without giving even one iota of access to any of your account information. However the way it's presented to the user is "This app wants to sign you in automatically and access your info anytime". My users (reasonably) thought this meant that my app could access any of their account details anytime, and a portion of them declined to grant permission.
In this Microsoft case I don't think anyone was being stupid, and no one should be expected to RTFM, and the fault lies squarely with the folks who design the UI for the Microsoft signin process. My hunch is that the same is true of Google's OAUTH too.
Not that I'm defending the shooting, but by now everyone knows what the police officer will want when they pull you over. Get your license out of your wallet and registration/insurance out of the glove compartment, and have them ready in your hands while the officer is walking towards your car.
Leave your hands in sight at all times, like on the steering wheel.
Those two things you've said are self-contradictory. If the police officer comes over, is the officer going to see you rummaging in your glovebox for your registration (and think you're reaching for a gun)? Or is the officer going to see you with your hands in sight at all times?
Well,a plane autopilot's only job is the boring "uneventful freeway" of the air, and the pilot has to take over in unexpected situations.
The normal phrase "I was on autopilot" is always used to describe subconscious activity that doesn't handle well the unexpected.
So yes, "autopilot" is exactly the right word for what tesla does today.
Once they start calling it "self driving", that'll be something different.
There may be situations where a landlord has a good reason to limit who is accessing and modifying the cable/wire infrastructure of a property
Curious -- what kind of reasons? What's a good reason for which a landlord would allow Comcast to come modify the cable infrastructure but not, say, Time Warner? I honestly can't think of any.
Do you really think at a certain point data will have every single possible scenario? There will always be edge cases that may make AI too dangerous to use ever.
Oh no! I just think they'll gather edge scenarios at 50x the rate at which Google gathers them.
Tesla didn't recorded anything. They don't have any hardware that would provided the data, i.e. laser radar system. They don't have enough connection bandwidth to transfer the data in real time. For autonomous driving, their system is dead (sometimes literaly) end from yesterday that will be replaced soon with better systems that will provide more advanced data anyway. You can't teach a pig to fly no matter how many million miles you will run with it.
It seems like for every incident they do somehow get detailed logs of what their sensors recorded. Sure it's not realtime, and sure it's not cases where the system performed fine. It feels like a variation of what ESR said -- "given enough eyes, all bugs are shallow". In this case Tesla is getting a load of real-world "bug reports" about their software.
You seem to be arguing that historical sensor reading data for a system with "X" sensors (and software developed for it) will be irrelevant for a system with "X+Y" sensors. That's a plausible assertion, although I'd bet against it.
"Morality is one thing. Ratings are everything." - A Network 23 executive on "Max Headroom"