Difficult to remove?
C:\Program Files (x86)\Pokki\uninstall.exe
Wow, that was tough.
1507 posts • joined 16 Jul 2011
C:\Program Files (x86)\Pokki\uninstall.exe
Wow, that was tough.
you'd rather have a malware vector than
Windowsthe primary malware vector (version 8).
Information prior to question: One1 principal concern raised by some people is that ONLY the five members of an unelected2 Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, will decide the future of the Internet3 without providing an opportunity for the public to see and understand the regulations prior to a vote. Opponents of the Internet regulation plan to seek public disclosure of the exact rules and specific regulations prior to the FCC's official vote. These groups say that, given the importance of the Internet in the daily lives of Americans, the FCC should provide greater information about the proposal to regulate the Internet to better understand its costs and benefits.
1. Providing only one side of the debate to people already determined to be unfamiliar with the issue biases responses in favor of that one side.
2. Loaded term "unelected" creates impression of political overreach.
3. Stressing (to the point of exaggeration) the importance of the proposed regulations increases the odds of an emotionally-influenced response.
Information prior to question: Over the past 22 years, the Internet has developed and grown into what we have today, with little government oversight, and has resulted in major private investment by the nation's wired and wireless providers in modern, high-speed broadband networks.4 President Obama5 is now proposing that the federal government regulate and oversee the Internet similar to how it oversees the electric or gas public utility industry. Specifically, President Obama proposes allowing the FCC, for the first time, to regulate the Internet with the same authority it has used in the past to regulate monopoly telephone service.
4. Rose-tinting the past without ever discussing ISPs plans to restrict/tier access.
5. Tying it to Obama to guarantee a strong Republican response.
And what is the opinion of the pollsters?
“These findings suggest that the FCC’s bid to impose outdated telephone regulations on the Internet is driven more by professional activists than by the public, which seems instinctively to resist the idea,” said Will Marshall, PPI President. “That’s why Congress should take a closer look at what the FCC is up to and make sure these issues get a thorough public airing.”
Wow. They're not even trying to hide their bias at all. Are we so cynical, or so lazy, that we're willing to allow these people to pass off a clearly manipulated piece of bullshit as a set of legitimate data?
Even setting that aside, you could have stopped with:
74 per cent of Americans are unfamiliar with the term "net neutrality" or what it refers to
Given that, what's the point of asking people who don't understand the issue to begin with more detailed questions about how to deal with it?
(all quotes taken from the PPI press release about their poll, linked in the article.)
What systems are both vulnerable and will still be used in 23 years?
If you know, list them, publicly, in fora where you know those people responsible for those systems will be paying attention.
If you don't, shouting vague generalizations about it won't help.
I cannot think of a single thing I have which relies on time values and is over ten years old, let alone twenty, but that's just me.
I'm sure there some systems out there which will have to be fixed or replaced, but we already have a model of how to do that, which is closer to now that the problem we are discussing, and which was resolved in even less time than the 15 years between the present time and the trigger of the previous problem.
Ironically, you've directly alluded to one of the common solutions to the Y2K issue: What do you do when 'the server taking the inputs sees the year 1901 and decides to throw out the obviously corrupt input?' Change the server to recognize that "obviously corrupt input" as coming from the next epoch.
We did this for Y2K issues with a sliding window, so as we get later into the 2000s, those systems which absolutely cannot be replaced with one that takes more than two digit years will advance their window of what belongs to this epoc vs the previous one.
Properly adapted, such systems could even survive Y21C. They'd just keep sliding that window. Of course, many systems weren't adapted that well, but nobody's gonna keep using these things for a full century, right?
Problem solved -- and nobody needs to buy a new IoThingy -- for another 68 years or so, anyway.
It wasn't too late in 1999, and it's not too late now.
Well, that depends.
Given the quality of some of the comment threads, a working black hole icon might be just the thing...
The same was said of the Higgs Boson. They did find something like that, though.
The cool thing is, even a negative result will be informative.
That doesn't discredit the acoustic analysis because it's irrelevant. They were testing how and why the Cremonese-era violin makers improved so dramatically over instruments of previous ages, not how they stack up against subsequent ones.
Modern violins, being by definition made after the Cremonese era, are made with the benefit of the experience of that era. Any modern violin intended for professional use which does not sound better than (or at the very least as good as) a Cremonese-era violin is a failure of epic proportions.
The fact that the Stradivarius violins still rate within the same class as modern high-end instruments after 3+ centuries of opportunity to exceed their quality indicates that they are truly advanced works of craft.
But they are not in the pursuit of science themselves. I'd rather a scientist be wrong and know why, than an artist accidentally be right and think they understand. We need both understanding and the correct goals.
This is very much in the pursuit of science. Science goes (1) observation -> (2) hypothesis -> (3) prediction -> (4) test (via observation or experimentation) -> (5) replacement/refinement of hypothesis -> (3).
This is a prediction based on current hypotheses of the behavior of black holes. The method used for this can be extended beyond visible light and to distances further than used for the movie. So this prediction model can be tested against future observations to further test our understanding, and may be useful in determining if and how much a given black hole is spinning.
And your mischaracterization of "scientist" vs "artist" and how they interact with their world does disservice to both.
@Arnaut the less
Chris G is correct, because he says baking soda.
Anyone who does even a smattering of baking can tell you that baking soda and baking powder are two different things, not to be confused under any circumstances.
I do it regularly for one specific case: when I need to use the change management site we use at work.
It's an internal site with a self-signed certificate, and a specific internal address.
If there were an intuitive way in Chrome to trust the self-signed certificate, I'd do that and be done with it.
As it currently stands, it's less work to ignore the warning.
Want to improve compliance, Google? Make it easier for your users to configure your software to work in their environment.
I don't think you want people who actually understand this hypothesis* of yours commenting here.
Find someone who will do a rational analysis of the assumptions in your hypothesis, and the testability of its predictions, and listen to them.
* What you have proposed is a hypothesis, not a theory. A theory has been tested against observed evidence.
Renault is to be applauded for building the Twizy: it’s clever, innovative and very, very different. But don’t confuse that with something you’d actually want to use every day.
So many extraneous words. Might I suggest:
Renault: different, [b]ut [not] something you’d actually want to use.
... changing the windows store icon from green to grey is awesome!
Yes, it'll be good to get out of this artificial universe and back to the real one at last!
Today we know those "earth-shattering discoveries" are a dime a dozen, limited only by your R&D budget...
Any R&D department held to a 12-discovery per $0.10 spent standard would fold within a year.
Let's look at some real-life R&D budgets:
IBM: In 2013*, they had the most (utility) patents granted by the USPTO, at 6,788. Your valuation would imply that they spent $56.57 on R&D in 2013. In actuality they spent $6.5 billion on R&D in 2013. Cost per dozen: ~11.5 million.
Samsung: had 4,652 patents, worth (apparently) $38.77. Actual 2013 R&D spending: $4.3 billion. Cost per dozen: ~11 million.
So it's a closer approximation to say that these "earth-shattering discoveries" are approximately $11,000,000 per dozen. I'm sure someone with more time to research or better sources could come up with a more accurate figure.
In fact, just to pay the wages (not including benefits, facilities, etc) of a single minimum-wage full-time US worker, an R&D department would, based on your standard, have to develop 1,809,600 ideas to patent-eligible status per year. That's 6.5x the number of US patents granted in 2013 (277,835), and nearly half of all US Patents granted in the past 25 years (3,803,188).
* Based on most recent USPTO statistics, available here.
is not necessarily positive. I'm sure Portugal's lovely, but the dangers of Facebook are too great to downplay...
They are affected if they used IMAP or SMTP client software connecting to Outlook/Hotmail and disregarded security alerts during the attack.
Even if the content of their e-mails during that time is unknown, the fact that they encrypt their e-mails has likely put them on a list somewhere.
First off, they're not changing two: level of income, market type, yes, but also cultural environment, etc.
Second, perhaps the authors of the paper conclude nothing more than that the results are non-generalizable, but that's certainly not Worstall's conclusion:
So it turns out that the inhabitants of poor and non-market economies are much more like that entirely rational homo economicus than we luxuriating in the riches of a capitalist and free marketish one may be – which was a bit of a shock to be quite frank.
Note that Worstall here is concluding not that they are simply more likely to accept because of some unknown factor (such as, possibly, the relative economic value of $1), but specifically because they are more economically rational.
I'm not surprising that it was a bit of a shock, as it doesn't follow from the limited nature of the study. The study only shows that the threshold of "fairness" varies by environment, which should only come as a shock to someone who has no concept of social variety.
Are there more seats than shown, or do you just throw the children into the boot?
Why not get an interview with the developer and give us a proper look at this battery technology?
Perhaps the developer doesn't want to give interviews to other publications? Whether the technology in question has merit or not, control over the release of information is critical in properly exploiting it.
I want to know if I'll really be able to charge my phone in less time than it takes to brush my teeth.
You're not old enough to remember SyQuest? Baby.
To hold Apple, or any other tech giant that happens to use tin-based solder (all of them) responsible for what's happening at the bottom here seems rather harsh. Why not critique the government itself?
You say that as if it's an either/or proposition. That's not how responsibility works. Let's walk up the chain again:
1. Some (relatively) poor people mine some tin without a license or whatever they need from the government. They are fully responsible for the legal, environmental, and ethical consequences of their actions.
2. The miners then sell the ore to a smelter. By accepting the ore in trade, the smelter is accepting responsibility for where it came from. This does not negate the miners' responsibility; it is a separate but equal responsibility.
3. The smelter then sells their tin via the state-owned exporter. At this point the state accepts responsibility.
4. Solder manufacturers buy the tin to make solder, adding themselves to the list of responsible parties. But their are many solder manufacturers, and they don't all use all of the tin, so their responsibility is proportional to the amount of tainted tin they take on.
5. Electronics manufacturers buy the solder; now they're sharing the responsibilty as well, again, proportional to their use.
6. Now we buy the electronics and must accept our share of the responsibility. But of the 55,000 metric tons of tin produced in Indonesia annually, each of us individually may be responsible for a few to a few hundred kilograms, depending on what we buy and what we make.
In short, responsibility is not like a hot potato to be passed around; it's a virus. Passing it on doesn't mean you're rid of it.
Looking down the chain, we each individually bear a small burden of responsibility. Apple, the solder manufacterers, and the Indonesian state can all be considered aggregators of responsibility, because they hold responsibility equal to that of all of their customers. From the state to the smelters and then to the miners, responsibility is spread back out a bit.
So from that point of view, the Indonesian state seems the most logical point of attack, because as you say its monopolistic position means it aggregates the sum total of responsibility for illicit tin mining in Indonesia. From a purely ethical standpoint, it is the largest holder of responsibility.
But from a strategic change management position, Indonesia is a very poor target, because it is a sovereign nation, giving it the explicit right to control both the definition and the enforcement of laws within its borders. If it decides to define laws such that these people are mining illegally, but not to enforce those laws, then it has that right. Certainly there are international treaties and human rights laws which can trump these national laws, but enforcing those is difficult and has unpredictable levels of success.
Apple, on the other hand, is an excellent target, for reasons which appear to be deliberately engineered by Apple. Apple has positioned itself in the high-end aspirational range of the electronics goods market, partly by setting very clear social responsibility goals for itself and its suppliers, and by enforcing them.
So if you actually want to effect such change in an arena where Apple is a serious player, you highlight Apple's responsibility, because Apple's position is sensitive to such criticism.
ResellerExpress accepts liability for when its software messes up, and has an escrow account set up to handle those cases where the sale will go through, right?
The small businesses read the TOS/licensing contracts for the software and verified that they were covered -- right?
I mean, it's not like we live in a society where software companies can just throw products out there willy-nilly with no fear of liability, relying on excessively long contracts with overly complicated language in miniscule fonts to minimize the chance of customers even knowing their rights and a torturous legal system to dissuade those complainants who do have valid cases ... right?
A GIANT picture to introduce a video piece, which is presented off the initial screen in a much smaller frame.
I thought for a second I had accidentally clicked on some stupid Suckerberg* story.
If you insist on the preschool picture angle, USE THE VIDEO AS THE PICTURE.
* I absolutely, honestly, tried, several times, to start that name with a Z. I don't know if it's the angle of my keyboard or some subconscious impulse, but my ring finger kept hitting the S...
(after the stereotypical kneejerk "OMFG UI CHANGE" reaction)
But when you have ONE GIANT STORY at the top of the page, taking up almost all of the initial screen, you're alienating your major audience, who, let's face it, are return readers. We've either seen the top
stories already or we'll get to them.
Tone it down so they take up less than 1/3 of the home page.
That medical bankruptcies stat is a little off. It's more like "x million went bankrupt owing some medical bills" rather than "x million went bankrupt because of medical bills".
Actually, it's closer to the latter, not the former.
CNBC's source is this Nerdwallet article: http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/health/2014/03/26/medical-bankruptcy/
As NerdWallet explains their methodology:
Bankruptcy: We relied on a widely cited Harvard study published in 2009. NerdWallet Health chose to include only bankruptcy explicitly tied to medical bills[emphasis mine], excluding indirect reasons like lost work opportunities. Thus we conservatively estimated medical bankruptcy rates to be 57.1% (versus the authors’ 62.1%) of US bankruptcies. We also used official bankruptcy statistics, released this month through March 2013, from US Courts.
1. Can the lasers double as space debris defense?
2. How can we get some frikkin sharks up there?
It takes two days to pick out all of those extra u's.
The second (and almost never followed) rule is to also have a less powerful computer than your end users.
That way, you can see what happens when you write and test code on a Core i7 with 32GB of RAM, and a user tries to run it on an AMD A4 with 1GB of RAM.
You can then choose a course of action somewhere on the spectrum between spending weeks of development time optimizing for old hardware, or the Microsoft approach.
The Daleks have been in films.
You do not want to see the films they were in, but they were...
They just haven't fitted the flashy light to it yet.
GCSE needs a HUGE more expertise to pass.
For example, a basic understanding of the different parts of speech and how they work together to create a coherent expression.
It's way simpler than that harebrained conspiracy theory.
Every time we get better batteries, we use that improvement to make them work harder, rather than last longer.
Compare what the average person does with a smartphone now with what they did just ten years ago.
And you're surprised that the batteries don't last longer?
As for the car battery analogy, the amount of power needed to move something as heavy as an automobile for even a few miles at any reasonable speed is at least a full order of magnitude greater than that needed to power a high-end smartphone for a week.
My Samsung Galaxy S5 gets 2-3 full days at moderate usage on a 3.85v 2800mAh (= 10.78Wh) battery. At 3x my usage, it would take a 75Wh battery to keep that phone running for a week.
My Prius C, on the other hand, can drive for 1-2 miles at up to 30MPH on its battery, which is a 144-volt 6.0Ah (=864Wh) battery.
As for a 1000+ mile range on a 15-minute charge? Bollocks.
To get a 1,000 mile range at a pedestrian 30MPH that Prius C would require a 432kWh battery (assuming best case scenario, and increased battery weight fully offset by motor efficiency improvements), or roughly 4,007 Samsung Galaxy S5 batteries.
(For a check, gasoline contains about 33.3kWh per US Gallon. Since a good gasoline engine pushing a small car might get 50MPG (US) at 30MPH, that would mean 660kWh of energy to go 1,000 miles. So I am being quite optimistic for the battery here.)
To charge that battery in 15 minutes with a perfectly efficient charger would require 1,728kWh, or about 7,200 amps at 240 volts.
While the trend line looks nice, the latter results clearly show a pattern of seasonality, which had likely been previously masked by NetApp's growth. Separate quarterly trend lines would be more appropriate.
is a 24-month span considered a "rigid date".
Since the primary victims were the server versions of Windows, it stands to reason that the vulnerability is exploitable via services such as SMTP, MSSQL or IIS (to name but a few.) Any of these might be configured to use the SChannel stack. Pass an encrypted packet to these services, and they send it to SChannel to decrypt.
Essentially, if you've provisioned a network service on a Windows box, and thought you were making it safer by turning on encryption, you may have actually made it worse...
Isn't the endurance issue with flash caused by degradation from multiple overwrites?
If so, then a write once, read rarely, overwrite rarely* use pattern should be fine at all but the most sensitive endurance level.
Or is there degradation over time (or reads) as well?
*Which, for those who like to stretch acronyms to the limit, could be called Write Once, Read Rarely, overwrite rarelY. I'll just go and chastise myself for thinking that up, thank you very much.
But remember, you only need one fact. to disprove an invalid theory.
Okay. The sky is blue, therefore, your theory that 97% of published climate papers are wrong is itself wrong.
Any one fact will not prove or disprove a theory, especially not one as complex as AGW. A preponderance of relevant evidence is needed. I won't go into why your observation does not rise to a preponderance of evidence here; I've answered that in a response to your response to my post below.
1. First, you have provided no citation for your fact of no change for 18 years, 1 month. No problem, though. Promise to identify your sources in the future, and I'll give you a source which almost agrees with you: https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq#t2507n1344 (according to them, though, it's only been about 16 years.)
2. This doesn't bother me, though, because they also point out the gaping flaw in your logic: you're using short-term (i.e, annual) trends to try to analyze a long-term issue. If you check the annual change in temperature, it's been rather flat. But if you check the decennial, the increase is still happening. Climate scientists tend to use 30 years, because relatively minor events (e.g, volcanoes) can affect climate trends for several years.
Think of it this way: if you go climb a mountain, there will be quite a few places along your ascent where you can walk along a level path, or even downhill slightly. That doesn't mean you've hit the peak, only that the ground is not uniform. To identify where the mountain starts, peaks, and stops you have to zoom out to get more perspective.
Nobody with an understanding of science believes in evolution.
Scientists (both professional and amateur) in general accept that evolutionary theories provide the best explanation to date of the observational and experimental evidence we have of the origin and diversity of life on Earth. As with AGW, there are some scientists who do not agree with the consensus, for various reasons.
But anyone with a basic understanding of evolutionary theory can see why it's not really relevant in this case. In general, the time frame necessary for evolutionary processes to effect significant change in a species is longer than the time frame under which climate change is occurring.
Indeed, that is the primary concern with climate change -- not the change itself, but the rate of change. It's happening faster than evolutionary processes, and possibly human technology, can adapt.
They may have made it their life's work to thoroughly understand their own subject, but many scientists in the field of climate change could really have done with spending a little less time on that and a little more time studying statistics.
Do you have specific examples and evidence, or are you just engaging in a bit of general slander? What percentage of scientists constitutes "many"? What, curriculum, specifically, do you endorse for climate science? What methodology did you use to develop that curriculum and compare it to existing curricula?
Maybe if you gave the full details of those 97% published papers - something about the vast majority of published papers being rejected before they found a few that agreed with their foregone conclusion and that 97% is of those few.
Yeah, you've never read the study. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
So either they've discovered a particle which resolves unanswered questions, or they've discovered a particle which raises yet more questions, including the requirement of the existence of heretofore unobserved fields.
Absent specific evidence that this is not the Higgs Boson, the former theory remains the simpler, and hence more useful.
I wonder why it is then that so many films insist on wandering into showing characters are "straight" when it has no real bearing on the story? Double standards at play methinks.
No, savvy producers manipulating horny bastards at play. Those scenes aren't there to show that people are straight, they're there because sex sells.
Actually, most of these class action suits result in out-of-court settlements that set no legal precedent whatsoever.
Unlimited is supposed to refer to the amount of data transferred. No one says you'll have unlimited speed,
A limit on speed is by design a limit on amount of data transferred. The former is a derivative of the latter, over time.
The people who work at GCHQ would sooner walk out the door than be involved in anything remotely resembling ‘mass surveillance’.
We access the internet at scale so as to dissect it with surgical precision.
Ah, I see. It's all a matter of emphasis. It's clear that his point is that if the GCHQ were limited to doing things which only remotely resemble mass surveillance, they would quit.
Since the resemblance between their activities and mass surveillance is in no way remote, they're fine with it.
Makes perfect sense now.
This being said counterarguments based on the wisdom of unspecified "experts" doesn't cut it for me either.
Read Page 2. The experts are specified there. Tim even gave you a link to their wisdom. Simples.
To be fair, Pauli didn't call her a Republican -- he called her a "Republication".
Give him the benefit of the doubt -- perhaps she was out of print for a while.
do you think Apple will pay for the facility at the sale...?
Bet those questions are a thinly disguised attempt to get your password...
From the whitepaper, they've simply identified an ideal target, in that pretty much all information in an Android system passes through Binder at some point.
While they've been able to simulate an exploit by hacking their own system compiled from Android code, they haven't actually produced a working attack against a production Android device.
So this is more to the point of where should smart criminals or defenders focus their efforts in Android, rather than "ZOMG WERE ALL PWND!"