Re: "targeting [..] companies within Saudi Arabia [..]"
Being rivals, Iran treating Saudi as 'one of their own' is not a thing.
1950 posts • joined 6 Feb 2015
Yes in the tiny subset of star/frequency combinations they looked at, they found nothing they could interpret as an artificial signal.
Our own galaxy is believed to have at least a billion stars, never mind the bilions of other galaxies. Maybe there's nothing out there, but they've barely scratched the surface.
Signals could be too weak to detect, could be disguised to appear natural (why advertise?), maybe not using radio. Some species must be the first to achieve radio comms - statistically it's as likely to be us as it is any other species that might exist.
Galactically speaking searching for 3 years, even 35 years (SETI) is a blink of an eye. It's a very, very narrow observation window - we could so easily miss the few decades of high-powered broadcasts before emitters become more directed and efficient.
I can and do...
Sky fibre (last mile over phone lines) for domestic: 76Mb for about £20/month.
Virgin business broadband (cable) for work: 100Mb £40/month.
No comment on customer service of either. They were available and decent value for my needs. YMMV.
Price cap for paltry 10MB down / 1MB up should be no more than a tenner.
Sure, if such animals exist. Colour me skeptical. Citation needed.
Aside from humans, I've ever heard of such a thing, but I happily admit lacking detailed knowledge of the intricacies of nocturnal animal navigation.
How would such animals cope with... oh I don't know... clouds? Plus, the night sky changes signifcantly as the Earth orbits the sun and rotates on its axis. In all cases the night sky is far from constant.
I suspect any animal using stars for navigation can probably cope. Filter out faster moving stuff as noise, focus on the more constant, static stars.
If this really is a thing.
“Leaders in the public sector are often faced with unique challenges when considering how to apply AI to improve the speed and quality of the government services they offer their citizens,” said Mitra Azizirad, corporate vice president for Microsoft AI marketing.
Here's a challenge... how about public sector leaders just don't bother with something that usually doesn't work properly (if at all), stop cutting corners in the name of topping up their pension funds, and employ real people. AI is proven time again to be universally shit outside it's specially crafted training set. Get off the fucking bandwagon. It's not going anywhere.
Nah. As others have suggested, they'll still make the stuff in China, then ship it to Taiwan where they slap a "Made in Taiwan" sticker on it and shove it in a different box. Simples. At least until Uncle Sam investigates the supply chain.
It will be neither.
We're entering the era of mobility as a service. This can have pro's and con's for service users, but sadly I fear the con's win out long term. Every journey will be charged the maximum the market will bear, varying by time of day, week, month, year, local traffic conditions, demand an a gazillion other factors..
Competition won't help as even without cartels, pricing will naturally tend to the local bearable maxima. Sure there might be some initial loss-leader effects as newcomers try to undercut and kill off the established players (e.g. bus, taxi), but once those are dealt with watch the prices jump.
Fleet sizes will cover the 80-90% average use requirement at best. Service providers certainly will not have extra vehicles sitting unused just in case they're needed. That's poor resource management. They will just surge-price during peak demand, discouraging enough customers to keep service within acceptable wait times for those still willing/able to pay the exta.
And here's the huge, gaping flaw in the subscription model.
What compels anyone who bought (presumably expensive) perpetual licensing to pay again for a subscription? And to become tied into cloud services which may not suit their needs.
Sure there is the promise of regular updates, but some organisations may have a long compatibility and validation process before allowing any update onto their system, or legacy hardware/software which just isn't compatible.
And if your system already works as you want it to, there must be a feeling of why bother?
Also... turning a $284M loss into a $166M profit hardly seems like a failure. Guess that extra $400M+ just isn't enough :|
You know it's possible to design for and build both at the same time, right?
In fact, to get the thing working right they have to be done simultaneously. Can't really bolt security on afterward. Well you could, but it usually ends up a half-arsed clusterfuck.
If there really is an 'issue' as our American friends say - and that's yet to be proven - EU seems to be skirting the issue of approving/banning outright and passing that buck to individual member states.
Or, to put it slightly more bluntly, EU doesn't want to piss of China and can point to this saying "we didn't say to ban Huawei", but is happy for individual member states to piss off China and face their ire.
Just my tuppence worth. For whatever that's worth. Probably nothing.
Genuine question... you really think an EMP from an airburst nuke over SF would have enough energy after travelling 5351 miles to take out London?
Stuggling to believe that given inverse-square scaling of enery over distance, and that there's a significant amount of planet between SF and London.
Unless the airburst was pretty much in orbit. And even then it's gotta be a high orbit to see London from above SF.
Shirely this requires manufactures to, oh I don't know, fucking provide updates!
That's the weak link. Right now they ship insecure shit and never provide updates because they can't be arsed, and aren't in any way compelled to do so.
Right so even if the car had alerted the driver at T minus 1.3 seconds, there was no time to react, never mind stop.
Suggests the collision detection algorithm is seriously flawed if it can't properly classify a high-probability collision outside the human thinking time required to take action.
Indications are the driver was watching some streaming thing from Hulu at the time of impact, instead of watching the road.
This at least means she wasn't doing her job properly. Negligence leading to death suggests she is personally liable. If Uber expected her to do housekeeping tasks instead of watching the road, Uber should reasonably be considered liable too.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022