The news is also 4 months old. Original press release (unfortunately sans 'Bermuda Triangle scary secrets discovered? what do we know?'): https://news.uci.edu/research/all-powered-up/.
The sheer laziness of the article to not even link to the PR release is amazing.
I have just read through the mailing list thread referenced in the article, and with the important caveat that I am not an expert in this space, it seems that WoSign has failed to comply with the basic requirements a CA has to meet to be trusted by the major browsers. And compounding these failures, Richard Wang (apparently the managing director of WoSign) either doesn't grasp, or is intentionally trying to minimise the severity of the failures. Compounding the situation more, it seems that WoSign may have acquired StartCom. If true, this seems to be a much larger story, because of the (probable but not yet proven) concern that any failures WoSign is exhibiting, StartCom will exhibit too. Also Richard Wang seems to want to keep the nature of the relationship between WoSign and StartCom as vague and secret as possible. This is concerning because, in the case of CAs in particular, if they haven't done anything wrong, why are they trying to hide it?
The other thing I didn't realise until I read the thread is that this situation seems to be currently unfolding - there are posts on the thread from Richard Wang dated September 2nd.
I understand your general frustration, but to respond to your specific point here, AR does actually support executing generic parameterized SQL statements:
Yeah, I generally advocate for find_by_sql and select_all, but think about what that actually does. It instantiates a bunch of ActiveRecord objects that have to be of a particular model (what if the query joins tables together and returns a result set that doesn't actually neatly contain the intended columns of a given model? I can't even use ActiveRecord::Base.find_by_sql, I have to choose an actual ActiveRecord model arbitrarily), has the columns of the result set dynamically bound to it as methods during runtime (slow), also has the methods of the model itself bound to it, which may have unexpected behavior based on the query (especially if we just choose an arbitrary model), and in exchange we get to treat the result set as an array of structs rather than an array of hashes (which admittedly has its performance advantages, but not if the fields have to be dynamically bound to each object as methods!).
Oh, and if you're writing an INSERT statement you have to use connection.execute after all. Have fun!
I just tried this. Card: NAB Visa (payWave). Handset: Nexus 5. Merchant: 7-11.
The app read the card correctly and gave the card number and expiry. When I tried to use it in store the eftpos terminal returned roughly:
Err 226 contactless card not allowed. The terminal fell back to swipe/insert mode and the merchant told me 'contactless not allowed'. Inserted the (same) card and paid successfully.
I was disappointed because for me, being able to carry just mmy phone for day to day would be awesome, and NAB has no phone solution yet.
You may be interested in http://www.intidyn.com/Newsroom/article-0009.html - the probable cause of fibro has been identified - which will be a huge boon to the sufferers - including my girlfriend.
Than you. I'm very up to the news on r/fibro (reddit) and I already read that article but I'm glad you brought it up here. Since my diagnostic I'm also trying to make my way to develop health tech that could help mitigate (completely or partially) the pain and the other symptoms, so now I'm living in the bay area instead of my own country.
BlueRay in 1080p is encoded at most at 35Mbits/s. You only need a decoder on the other side and stream the video data to be decoded by the remote device.
There are a few protocols out there that manage to send high-performance video across remote devices without requiring lots of bandwith: RemoteFx is an extension of Window's RDP for instance; Citrix has stuff like HDX-3D Pro, etc.
You certainly do not need to send every pixel through.
From what 355.96 MB/s source are you receiving that video? For some very common use cases, it's either HDTV channels or Blu-Ray, both of which give you compressed bitstreams of less than 50 Mbps. 802.11n can handle that with ease. Granted that recompressing content in real-time doesn't do great things for the quality, but it's good enough. The point of HDMI is that it's a standard connector. Nobody's going to buy a VGA dongle these days.
OnLive and Sony/Gaikai are streaming game A/V over the public Internet, and Amazon has a new platform to do it for arbitrary Windows apps. Again, a decent in-home wireless network is a far superior medium and should have no problem.
This is compressing the video using either H.264 or WebM (it's a bit unclear; they include both x264 and WebM logos in their "open source software used"); it's similar to Apple's AirPlay mirroring or Google's Chromecast. Unlike those, however, it's not tied into a single company's ecosystem.
Also remember that most of the time you have two hops on your wifi network: PC -> router -> TV. (Newer wifi cards can skip the router if the software on both sides supports it.)
As I said in my previous post: I think DRM is crappy and stupid, but that's how things currently are. And since there are devices that support HDCP over the air (apple tv, HP Wireless Connect, DLNA) the "ease of use" factor is given. I doubt consumers will be all-pleased if they buy an Airtame and netflix doesn't work.
(BTW: I don't think that Streaming Services just implement DRM because they think it's fun and I don't expect right holders will be enlightened any time soon)
As a non-US non-sports fan, can someone explain the context for this? I have no real clue what this fight is about.
As far as I can tell, this fight seems to be between two ways to watch a sports game:
1. on over-the-air broadcast, which is free to receive.
2. cable television, which is not free to receive.
Apparently Aereo makes (1) easier, which presumably means more people will choose (1) instead of (2).
What I don't understand:
* If I could watch the sports game for free, why would I ever choose to pay for it instead?
* If they (I think in this fight 'they' refers to the NFL and MLB) don't want me to watch the sports game for free, then why do they allow/provide free broadcasts in the first place?
From what I can tell, the whole sports game watching market looks even more ludicrous than the arbitrary restrictions online TV/ebook market (the number of books in the kindle store that are available - then suddenly disappear when I log into my Australian amazon account - presumably publishers/authors love losing money).
To answer your questions about the context: over-the-air broadcasts generally only include the games for that particular region of the country. (Here's this week's map: http://506sports.com/nfl.php?yr=2013&wk=11 )
Having regional broadcasts allows the sports leagues to essentially sell the games twice: once for the local network and once for the cable network (though I'm sure the actual licencing is more complex than that). Access to all of the games is a selling point for cable, particularly when your favorite team hails from a different region than the one you are currently living in (which is fairly common in the US, particularly since team attachment is often based on where someone grew up or which college they went to).
This setup makes sense for the leagues, since it was based on the limits of the original technology. Aereo removes the technical limits, and is threatening to remove the legal limits.
> What I don't understand: * If I could watch the sports game for free, why would I ever choose to pay for it instead? * If they (I think in this fight 'they' refers to the NFL and MLB) don't want me to watch the sports game for free, then why do they allow/provide free broadcasts in the first place?
Because they currently have a way to monetize it: retransmission fees. If, however, Aereo becomes popular, the broadcasters claim this monetization model will be undermined; their response will be to stop doing over-the-air transmissions and instead directly license with premium content companies, such as ESPN.
The sheer laziness of the article to not even link to the PR release is amazing.