I didn't make a claim if they were trustworthy. Google has leveraged their properties to force people to trust them with the rest of the internet, regardless of if you think they are trustworthy or not.
"If you are building products that intends to connect to a Google property moving forward you need to at a minimum include the above Root Certificates."
The foundation of a more secure web apparently requires you to trust Google with the entire internet, using their properties as leverage to force it to be so.
I've noticed this just starting to happen to me much more aggressively in the last few days. Now the Gmail app will pop up that same modal box in your screenshot every time I make the Gmail app have focus (from the home screen or from the square-button-menu), and every time I open any email.
None of the Google apps respect me. The maps app makes me disagree to giving enhanced location tracking every time I turn on location. The music player has a big bar constantly at the top that says "Downloaded Only," which if I accidentally tap it turns off downloaded only mode and kicks me to the store. If I leave location on accidentally, the camera app will sometimes use location to guess where I took a picture and ask me to "share" that. I don't use Google search, but I can't remove the giant search bar from the main screen or the shortcut if I accidentally hold the menu button.
Those are the only Google apps I use, and they all disrespect me. I only use a bit of Google but it's exhausting to even use just that bit.
Comcast (a BB sponsor) is holding a contest in which you design your own virtual apartment in "Comcast Town." They invited Boing Boing to judge but, even more fun, they asked us to suggest some Boing Boing furniture that people could use to decorate their pads! Above is the living room I designed. (I'm obviously not eligible to win. Sniff, sniff.) Notice the steampunk computer, carnivorous plant, and Flying Spaghetti Monster statue. I think the illustrator did a terrific job. In fact, I wish it was my real living room! The grand prize winning design gets a real-world room remodel, 40-inch HDTV, a new laptop, and a digital phone. I'm just helping select the ten finalists -- then it's up to The People.
Thanks Louis :) I've put so many hours on NGG it's ridiculous. Childhood and current favorite, great full-package game at its best. Set it at a steep pitch with no outlane post and Fire Down Middle on. Full throttle, ignore the wall!
Also, flipper EOS switches are leaf switches, not microswitches.
Through the early 90s the flipper button switches were also leaf switches. In the early 90s some time after the introduction of the Fliptronics system by Williams/Bally, they switched to using a plastic opto-interrupter and U-shaped opto(s) rather than a leaf switch.
Games with upper flippers often used ganged leaf switches and later dual optos to allow independent "staged" control of lower and upper flippers on the same side of the machine. That allows you to press the flipper button in half way to engage only the lower flipper, and then all the way to also engage the upper flipper(s).
What does the article say to advance "single page apps" as the "best thing ever" over other application models that use a clean interface and separation of concerns between client and service?
I haven't directly worked on Roslyn (although I work in another area in Cloud and Enterprise) but my understanding is that by providing its client an abstract representation on semantic C# source, Roslyn allows applications like this to be developed.
If a traditional compiler has an API of "source files and configuration flags in, object files out", the Roslyn API is completely different. Roslyn is about designing and providing a semantic API over C# language analysis and compiler services.
Some of the features of the reference source website enabled by Roslyn's semantic understanding of symbols (assemblies, namespaces, types, members) are color-coding, search, browse, jump-to-definition, and deep-linking.
For example, I can deep-link to part of WPF like so:
I can see which assemblies depend on it, which assemblies it depends on, and browse the source of the assembly in a tree view either by source file or by namespace -> type -> member name.
The article itself was basic and didn't really talk to the specific Toyota case, but the linked slides did... if you're going to speculate about the trial, look at Barr's slides, not that article..
I didn't read the linked article but I did look through the slides, which were very interesting and talked about
- the abhorrent state of the engine control module code,
- the RToS's design,
- the critical data structures right above the stack,
- that those critical data structures weren't mirrored to detect corruption as is standard and as they did for other data,
- that single bit changes in that critical data structure right above a stack can cause the death of tasks in the RToS whose failsafe capabilities were located in those same tasks, and whose death was tested and confirmed to cause unintended acceleration consistent with accounts and descriptions of the event
- that the failsafe monitoring CPU was not designed to detect this failure, and in fact Toyota outsourced its design and didn't even have the source code to it...
Great job putting together a prototype. Although I'm going to list specific complaints, I appreciate the effort in creating and risk in sharing, so good job and thanks.
- I don't follow the circle photo fad. It seems like an unnecessary complication (implementation and design element)
- By moving information to the back, you're assuming that the facilities which create these badges have the ability to do double-sided prints on the badges, and if they have the technical ability that it won't increase the time or work required to print a badge.
- You're assuming that the badge printer can print completely to the edge.
- Removing the "Employee" text and relying on the blue color is an accessibility problem (color-blind people need this information)
- Customizing your badge photo adds security policy complications.
It's less "in theory" and more "in practice" when lots of people are telling you it's not funny, it's offensive. Also, it's not funny, it's immature, it's offensive.
You can continue to be as oblivious and boorish as you want, I can't control your behavior. But I'll be blunt in telling you it's not funny, it's offensive, because you seem to have a self-indulged ignorance that people who feel that way exist in any meaningful way. It's true that those voices aren't as loud and may not exist in your echo chamber, but you can't feign ignorance and claim that everyone telling you it's stupid, not funny, immature, and offensive don't exist/are a vanishingly small minority.
>> Isn't it way more offensive to assume that women are such dainty delicate creatures that like, they won't get the joke?
>> If the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it,
