I think it really depends on the game. I've seen this go both way where the i7s significantly outperform the i5s, and vice versa. The other advantage of a faster CPU is that it will open up so that the graphics card is sure to be performing at full potential.

This site shows the i7 leading the i5 in most games by a tiny-to-small margin
http://www.ocaholic.ch/modules... (random site I found on Google search):

Ultimately I think the big win for the i5 is you get nearly identical performance of an i7 (for a game), but for a much greater value. I have never read, other than your comment, that hyper-threading is a performance hit. I would love if you could point to some post / site with more info backing that claim. Cheers.

But the /. moderation system is infallible

I think his point is that fingerprint and DNA false positives dont lead to a suspect that looks like what a witness saw. Whereas facial regonition false positives almost guarantee that the person will at least look similar to what the witness saw. Thus for facial recognition, the witness-as-a-confirmation is not as compelling. It's almost the same piece of evidence, rather than two corroborating pieces.

Don't you remember? It was right there in the article. ;)

The Swedish Chef has started a new crypto currency.

I always thought it had something to do with the Swedish Chef.

I wonder what his viewing history would be like.

They have been doing it for years: http://lifehacker.com/5849589/...

Not sure about behavior, but as a 501c3, Mozilla is not allowed to donate to candidates and has limits on lobbying. But I do not know what exactly the limits are.

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikisource.org%2Fwiki...

Something in there...

Hopefully someone has a greater interest in deciphering that.^ It does not seem related to anything decided in Citizens v United as far as I can tell.

That's kinda the idea behind Aereo (except they do live TV)

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/2...

No, this particular exploit requires the malicious app be on a phone prior to an OS update. Additionally these apps would never* make it on the Play store as they have detectable characteristics (such as trying to use the same "Shared UID" of another app). In order to upload an app with the same Shared UID, you would need the same keystore to sign your app. Basically the way this bug works is exploiting the reverse of how the package manager grants precedence. The package manager give precedence to what is on the device first. So anything "updated" from the Play store, even if they spoofed the Shared UID and signature, would fail to install. The bug is that an app can "steal" the ability to control the permission completely, AND install itself or block the install of the legit version of an app.

So TL;DR: This definitely is a rather nasty privilege escalation bug in the package manager (if the paper is correct and I am reading it correctly), but one would likely need to side-load (or use a different app store) the malicious app prior to an OS update to get caught by it.

Agreed about permissions in general though. Personally I try not to give out contacts to any app unless they happen to be a type of "contact manager/replacement". Most apps can request a user use the default "contact picker" to add a contact, or share, or the like. No permission is required for this. The only reason apps request this is to prefill those "share with a friend" fields and to spam. This is similar to READ_PHONE_STATE, there are few legit reasons for an app to need this anymore. Apps can launch the dialer and prefill the number sans the permission, just not complete the call. They also have other ways to generate a UUID for the device without the IMEI, or the other info provided by READ_PHONE_STATE.

The USB storage permissions are antiquated, but not as sensitive. Apps do have private storage but this used to be quite limited in the earlier days of Android. The Nexus S was one of the first to come with a single, large internal storage (although even that was still partitioned). Prior to that you had a limited protected storage and an SD card. Nowadays they are adding better "Read" file permissions.

Finally, I think much of this stuff could be requested at time-of-use, rather than install. But they have to balance the "Are you sure you want to allow X?" disaster that was Windows UAC vs. sensible permissions. It is not as easy as it looks.

* (Well maybe not never, but very close to never...)

This was actually an episode on Star Trek DS9. O'Brien was punished by some alien culture and served a ~20 year sentence in a matter of ~hours (iirc). They claimed it was more humane and economical than prison. However I think the moral of the episode is that it really scarred him mentally (and he was innocent, again iirc).

Could there be a humane way to use something like this? Personally I highly doubt it, but I can't completely rule it out as just barely plausible (Kinda like Star Trek in general). I just can't imagine how this would be used without causing mental instability.

"Be sure to drink your Ovaltine"

And if they do a good job, they will push competition. This seems like a common theme with Apple. They come into a fractured mess of a product sector and make a good show of it. This is good news, car infotainment is terrible.

Plus maybe cars will be able to launch actual angry birds at each other to express road rage.

Not sure if trolling but that's not really what trivial means in this context.

Think "the average airspeed of an unladen swallow". "The atomic weight of cobalt"

ISPs are not peers though, they are endpoints. The "equal data" argument only works between two backbone/transit providers. ISPs are requesting that data be sent to them. they don't get to request the data be sent to them and request that they also be paid to receive it.

Also what makes you think you only pay for upload? That makes no sense. Though I agree in that bandwidth caps are bad -- though mostly because they are generally misleading advertising.