Posts by Craig 2 605 publicly visible posts • joined 1 Jul 2009
Many times have I given a device back to a customer and they say "wow you're great, how did you fix it? I was trying for hours..."
Yea, I just put in your correct password or read the popup dialog and did what it said...
Normally I would say it's such a convoluted process and "damn Microsoft" etc etc so they don't feel bad.
Lawyers: To do everything by the book it's going to cost £X to license all this data acquisition and get regulatory permissions...
MS: Fuck it, we'll just grab it anyway and ask for forgiveness later...
Lawyers: That sounds like a bad idea and could end up with thousands of hours of litiga.... err, yes that sounds like a great plan.
AFAIK one of the triggers is if the tag owner ISN'T present. So hundreds of trackers in suitcases would presumably have their owners on the same flight.*
* Yes, we've all been there... When you know more about where your luggage is than the airline helpdesk they tend to be more like an unhelpdesk.
"When is it an idiot doing a "brake check" in a road rage incident, and when is it simply evidence that a vehicle is coming to a safe stop in a short period of time"
Like any thorough data analysis you would hope a single outlier wouldn't immediately skew your insurance premiums. ie. The safe but sharp stop.
However, the `idiot` is likely performing constant aggressive manoeuvers which builds an overall picture of their perceived riskier driving.
nb. This is just a technical point, the idea itself is horrendous.
Either disable all Starlink IDs close to the contested front that aren't on the list of IDs sold/given to Ukraine.
Or the nuclear option: Disable all Starlinks there and then re-enable as requested by the Ukranian military.
They could even ask Ukraine for a whitelist first.
" if you're close enough to be able to actually see the driver's facial expressions, then you're arguably too close already..."
Tell me you've never ridden a bike on the road without telling etc..
On a bike, you look at car driver's eyes ALL the time! Drivers pulling out of junctions (either way) or turning right (thus crossing the road in the UK) are prime examples. You then know when a driver has actually seen you. Of course, this doesn't guarantee they won't still pull out in front of you anyway, because: They misjudge your speed and think they have plenty of time, or they know that *you* have also seen them and will brake because you would prefer to avoid getting flattened today...
Too right, it did so poorly because in typical Sony style, it was a complete money-grab. It should have been £99 with 100+ PS1 games on there. Instead it was £99 for 20 games, crappy emulation, region issues and locked down.
Look up Anbernic for much better Android handheld retro emulators.
All good points, but you don't need an Apple watch to do 99% of those things... I use a Garmin watch mainly for sport but it's very handy for messages, alarms, weather, paying, health stats etc etc. The battery lasts a week or more...
As for `Why track your walks or health stats` - it's interesting... Have you ever watched a documentary, read a newspaper or article or absorbed any information not strictly related to your survival? Why is that any different?
“Even more evidence that the walled garden doesn't so anything but let Apple assert control”
The app was removed, so obviously you are wrong.
Well the app wasn't removed until reaching at least this news outlet who then emailed Apple, after which it was removed.
So obviously and more importantly demonstrably, you're wrong.
I doubt Putin single-handedly decided to invade Ukraine. I imagine advisors (civil and military) were increasingly concerned about Ukraine pivoting to Western values. If you're a authoritarian regime gradually losing your sphere of influence and failing to install puppet governments, it's a last desperate attempt to regain control. It's looking to be ill-advised and woefully misinformed and will certainly be remembered in history as an epic blunder. (History in the civilized world anyway, in Russia I'm sure it will be a glorious victory)
...and the most frightening thing about JE's post is that there's a chance he/she actually believes everything written and isn't just trolling.
Do you really, truly ignore them though? Studies have shown even if you're fully aware you're being manipulated, it can still have an effect on decision-making.
I sometimes wonder if my own psyche is subverting conscious decisions.... Who fancies a bowl of Crunchy Nut Cornflakes?
It's entirely possible that whatever failed on the launch test was modeled or simulated and found to be ok. How else do you improve your modelling and simulations if not from real world testing of those predictions?
As soon as they get a starship / booster back in one piece I'm sure it will be examined in great detail to find parts that "almost broke". Then it will probably be launched again to see what breaks next time. Of course simulations and modelling are important but there's no substitute for doing it for real...
Also, ref planes: Boeing would like a word...
I think this is just written in a way open to confusion - I interpreted it as "Google can see the user's IP, but the websites being visited cannot."
Aside from that, NOBODY should be praising Google for this. It's purely a monopolistic land-grab since Google control the overhwelming majority of both advertising and browser markets. By locking them together they will become the identity gatekeepers and websites will have no option but to pay up for any kind of analytics.
I'd have thought advertisers would have caught on to the fact that anybody actively blocking adverts really does NOT want to see them. If you've taken the extra steps to install software and deal with all the other crap on most websites that breaks when you use blocking software then you are probably not a ripe target for advertising. My initial reaction to unwanted adverts is pure hate and that's not the kind of brand awareness most companies are looking for!
Absolutely, this is the crux of "what is copying" or "what is reproducing". If an actual person manually performed the same categorization as OpenAI does then would there be any copyright issues? Obviously impossible in the lifetime of the universe*, but just because computers can perform tasks insanely quickly compared to humans doesn't automatically make it "copying".
*Or at least extremely improbable unless you have access to an infinite supply of monkeys.
This is novel situation #24863 - I'm sure it will be added to the database for the AV to deal with next time. Unfortunately there are millions more novel situations out there waiting to be discovered and each is subtly different.
I've said for years that trains* will be the first widespread automated mode of transport. Until that happens, automated cars are a distant dream.
*Or maybe ships, or planes, or spaceships, or whatever. But not cars.
`AI` generates human-looking text by having digested an insane amount of historical human-generated text. So an AI detector would have to digest large amounts of AI-generated text to have a reference point. I would assume it could eventually become just as proficient at detecting artificial content as both generation and detection models improve.
A problem is that there is now an increasing amount of AI generated text in the public domain and future models could be training on this content. AI could eventually, as someone earlier put it `crawl up it's own arse`.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
