Qualcomm's Snapdragon 850 processor may be intended for PCs, but it's still a half step — it's really a higher-clocked version of the same processor you'd find in your phone. The company may be more adventurous the next time, though. WinFuture say…
So this is my understanding of the scene so far. Everything is done with the jailbreak besides the rootfs remount that is needed in order to read/write for the jailbreak and make sure that no tweaks/data gets deleted when you accidentally restart your phone. Especially even adding extra features such as sound (which is causing many people to be pissed; as well as the constant teasing of the finished jailbreak, the workable tweaks, and how the electra team continues to show off their working jailbreak).
Also, there are multiple 0day remounts out there (3 by my count?; Electra Teams, Morpheus, and sparkzheng) but the electra team is waiting for either Morpheus or Sparkzheng to release their 0day. However, Morpheus sternly states that he is not a part of the electra team (probably arising from the constant spam of his twitter, which people should stop). Morpheus and the electra team are waiting for ios 12 to release their 0day.
If this is the case and there are potentially 3 0days out there that can solve the rootfs remount for the jailbreak. Couldn't the electra team just use their 0day and then wait for the others to release their 0day on ios 12, especially when an exploit/bug might not be found for ios 12 to create a jailbreak? Or is there something else?
EDIT: So Sparkzheng has released his remount, but it is unstable. So Morpheus is working to improve it and incorporate it into the LiberiOS. The Electra Team is waiting for this chance to save their 0day for ios 12, for electra. Morpheus is also saving his 0day for ios 12, for LiberiOS. Makes a lot more sense now. Thanks everyone.
The Silicon Valley-military industrial complex is increasingly in the crosshairs of artificial intelligence engineers. A few weeks ago, Google was reported to be backing out of a Pentagon contract around Project Maven, which would use image recognition to automatically evaluate photos. Earlier this year, AI researchers around the world joined petitions calling for a boycott of any research that could be used in autonomous warfare.
For Paul Scharre, though, such petitions barely touch the deep complexity, nuance, and ambiguity that will make evaluating autonomous weapons a major concern for defense planners this century. In Army of None, Scharre argues that the challenges around just the definitions of these machines will take enormous effort to work out between nations, let alone handling their effects. It’s a sobering, thoughtful, if at times protracted look at this critical topic.
Scharre should know. A former Army Ranger, he joined the Pentagon working in the Office of Secretary of Defense, where he developed some of the Defense Department’s first policies around autonomy. Leaving in 2013, he joined the DC-based think tank Center for a New American Security, where he directs a center on technology and national security. In short, he has spent about a decade on this emerging tech, and his expertise clearly shows throughout the book.
The first challenge that belies these petitions on autonomous weapons is that these systems already exist, and are already deployed in the field. Technologies like the Aegis Combat System, High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM), and the Harpy already include sophisticated autonomous features. As Scharre writes, “The human launching the Harpy decides to destroy any enemy radars within a general area in space and time, but the Harpy itself chooses the specific radar it destroys.” The weapon can loiter for 2.5 hours while it determines a target with its sensors — is it autonomous?
Scharre repeatedly uses the military’s OODA loop (for observe, orient, decide, and act) as a framework to determine the level of autonomy for a given machine. Humans can be “in the loop,” where they determine the actions of the machine, “on the loop” where they have control but the machine is mostly working independently, and “out of the loop” when machines are entirely independent of human decision-making.
The framework helps clear some of the confusion between different systems, but it is not sufficient. When machines fight machines, for instance, the speed of the battle can become so great that humans may well do more harm then good intervening. Millions of cycles of the OODA loop could be processed by a drone before a human even registers what is happening on the battlefield. A human out of the loop, therefore, could well lead to safer outcomes. It’s exactly these kinds of paradoxes that make the subject so difficult to analyze.
In addition to paradoxes, constraints are a huge theme in the book as well. Speed is one — and the price of military equipment is another. Dumb missiles are cheap, and adding automation has consistently added to the price of hardware. As Scharre notes, “Modern missiles can cost upwards of a million dollars apiece. As a practical matter, militaries will want to know that there is, in fact, a valid enemy target in the area before using an expensive weapon.”
Another constraint is simply culture. The author writes, “There is intense cultural resistance within the U.S. military to handing over jobs to uninhabited systems.” Not unlike automation in the civilian workforce, people in power want to place flesh-and-blood humans in the most complex assignments. These constraints matter, because Scharre foresees a classic arms race around these weapons as dozens of countries pursue these machines.
At a higher level, about a third of the book is devoted to the history of automation, (generalized) AI, and the potential for autonomy, topics which should be familiar to any regular reader of TechCrunch. Another third of the book or so is a meditation on the challenges of the technology from a dual use and strategic perspective, as well as the dubious path toward an international ban.
Yet, what I found most valuable in the book was the chapter on ethics, lodged fairly late in the book’s narrative. Scharre does a superb job covering the ground of the various schools of thought around the ethics of autonomous warfare, and how they intersect and compete. He extensively analyzes and quotes Ron Arkin, a roboticist who has spent significant time thinking about autonomy in warfare. Arkin tells Scharre that “We put way too much faith in human warfighters,” and argues that autonomous weapons could theoretically be programmed never to commit a war crime unlike humans. Other activists, like Jody Williams, believe that only a comprehensive ban can ensure that such weapons are never developed in the first place.
Scharre regrets that more of these conversations don’t take into account the strategic positions of the military. He notes that international discussions on bans are led by NGOs and not by nation states, whereas all examples of successful bans have been the other way around.
Another challenge is simply that antiwar activism and anti-autonomous weapons activism are increasingly being conflated. Scharre writes, “One of the challenges in weighing the ethics of autonomous weapons is untangling which criticisms are about autonomous weapons and which are really about war.” Citing Sherman, who marched through the U.S. South in the Civil War in an aggressive pillage, the author reminds the reader that “war is hell,” and that militaries don’t choose weapons in a vacuum, but relatively against other tools in their and their competitors’ arsenals.
The book is a compendium of the various issues around autonomous weapons, although it suffers a bit from the classic problem of being too lengthy on some subjects (drone swarms) while offering limited information on others (arms control negotiations). The book also is marred at times by errors, such as “news rules of engagement” that otherwise detract from a direct and active text. Tighter editing would have helped in both cases. Given the inchoate nature of the subject, the book works as an overview, although it fails to present an opinionated narrative on where autonomy and the military should go in the future, an unsatisfying gap given the author’s extensive and unique background on the subject.
All that said, Army of None is a one-stop guide book to the debates, the challenges, and yes, the opportunities that can come from autonomous warfare. Scharre ends on exactly the right note, reminding us that ultimately, all of these machines are owned by us, and what we choose to build is within our control. “The world we are creating is one that will have intelligent machines in it, but it is not for them. It is a world for us.” We should continue to engage, and petition, and debate, but always with a vision for the future we want to realize.
DNA evidence could put criminals behind bars, but only if there's something to compare it to. That's why a project that aims to combat illegal logging is now building a DNA database of trees, which could help authorities determine if logs being sold…
You didn't think scientists would let IBM's "world's smallest computer" boast go unchallenged, did you? Sure enough, University of Michigan has produced a temperature sensing 'computer' measuring 0.04 cubic millimeters, or about a tenth the size of I…
A security researcher has found a way to brute force a password on a current iOS device. In doing so, he was able to bypass the security mechanisms for iOS, thereby putting encrypted data at risk, according to ZDNet…. Read the rest of this post here
“Hacker learns how to brute force iPhone passwords, breaking security” is an article by iDownloadBlog.com.
Make sure to follow us on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+.
On Tuesday we reported that several YouTube channels had all their videos blocked worldwide. This included those belonging to MIT OpenCourseWare,’ the ‘Blender Foundation,’ and many others.
The error message that was displayed typically appears for copyright reasons. However, in this case, the problem was more complicated, related to a new license agreement, among other things.
While some prominent channels have now been restored, others still face similar issues. The people at Human Beatbox, for example, tell us that they are experiencing the same problem, which at the time of writing is still not fixed.
YouTube simply informed them that its a “technical issue” which the engineers are trying to resolve. Meanwhile, all videos of theirs and many other channels have been inaccessible for nearly a week…
Whatever the problem is, it’s clearly a ‘mistake’ of epic proportions.
While YouTube probably has no intention to ‘censor’ these channels, it shows what can go wrong if creators put their faith in the hands of a single service. A service they have no control over at all, which removes your content, erroneously or not.
Luckily there are some alternatives that put creators in control again. PeerTube is one of these options.
When the Blender Foundation had all its videos blocked by YouTube earlier this week, a decision was taken to give this alternative a try. In a matter of hours, Blender had a fully operational streaming site, one which they had complete control over.
This prompted TF to take a closer look at PeerTube and what it has to offer.
Put simply, PeerTube allows anyone to set up their own video streaming site. This can run independently, but it can also be linked, or federated, with other PeerTube instances to create a broader reach. All with P2P steaming support.
The first version of PeerTube launched last year. It’s operated by the small French company Framasoft, and thus far it hasn’t really broken through in English-speaking countries. The Blender Foundation’s problems, while very unfortunate, may change that.
“Blender’s example illustrates our main goal: autonomy, independence from external platforms. When you centralize videos and attention, you gain power over the users. Our approach goes the other way,” Framasoft’s Pouhiou tells TF.
PeerTube comes with built-in WebTorrent support. This means that viewers also contribute their bandwidth, which can come in handy if a video goes viral.
To ‘federate’ with other PeerTube instances, the software uses the ActivityPub protocol, which is also used by the popular social networking software Mastodon. This helps to grow the video library if needed, but it’s entirely optional.
“Federation allows diversity in the governances: each PeerTube Instance Hoster can determine their own set of rules, their settings, their moderation policy, etcetera,” Pouhiou says.
The idea behind PeerTube is to let creators regain control over their content. This helps to avoid censorship in the broadest sense of the word, and also “problems” that block videos for days on end.
It’s this spirit that also drives the developers to make the software entirely free and open.
“To us, it is really about taking back the web into our own hands. We have a joke about the ‘Power to the people’ song of John Lennon: PeerTube is kind of ‘Software to the people’,” Pouhiou tells us.
“That’s why PeerTube has to be Free-Libre software: not even we should be able to ‘close’ the code, it would give us way too much power, which we don’t want.”
Of course, there are plenty of downsides to alternatives like PeerTube. For one, in terms of costs, they are not free to operate. Even though WebTorrent can limit the bandwidth bill to a degree, it requires hosting and some technical skills.
Monetizing PeerTube videos will also require more work. You can’t just click a button and magically start earning money. And then there’s the issue of reaching a wide audience, which may be harder for creators who are ‘locked’ into external services.
That said, for outfits such as Blender and MIT OpenSourceWare which are non-profit and have their own sites which people know how to find, it makes a lot of sense.
At the least, everyone who relies on external platforms might want to stop and think for a minute if they really want to put all their eggs in someone else’s basket.
More information on PeerTube can be found on the official site. The company recently launched a crowdfunding campaign to ensure continued development, which has raised over €20,000 at the time of writing.
We hope you weren't dead set on buying one of Mercedes' existing plug-in hybrids, as they won't be long for this world. Autocar has learned that Mercedes has stopped producing PHEV versions of the C-Class, E-Class, S-Class and GLE. This doesn't mea…
It's not easy breaking into a locked iPhone. Try too many times and you can get locked out for years, even decades, or lose the device's data altogether. That's why law enforcement had to put pressure on Apple to unlock the San Bernardino shooter's i…
Think you know the answer? Click through to see if you’re right!
Tesla is still rushing to give the Model 3 some of the features you might take for granted in its EV stablemates. As part of a broader update across the lineup (including increased Autopilot nagging), Model 3 units now support a few key features, mos…
Apple has seemingly discontinued the Modern Buckle Apple Watch band. The $149 band, which was exclusive to the company’s 38mm wearable device, launched alongside the first Apple Watch in 2015. A visit to Apple’s Watch band page shows that the item is no longer for sale. … Read the rest of this post here
“This original Apple Watch band is no longer available” is an article by iDownloadBlog.com.
Make sure to follow us on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+.
Back in February, Netflix CFO David Wells said that his company was set to spend more than $8 billion on content in 2018, a figure that contributes to the 700 original TV shows and 80 movies it will offer globally this year. There can be little doubt, Netflix is now a powerful creator and commissioner of content in its own right.
This shift in strategy raises some interesting points, not least concerning the company’s attitude toward piracy. While the MPAA has spat venom over the issue for decades, Netflix has appeared somewhat more relaxed. Quietly, however, Netflix understands that scraping every possible dollar from consumers while restricting the availability of pirated content is something it must sink resources into.
Back in 2017, we revealed the existence of Netflix’s Global Copyright Protection Group when the company advertised for a Global Copyright Protection Counsel. Since then the company has recruited more individuals to the cause and this week advertised for another new recruit.
Netflix’s new Copyright and Content Protection Coordinator will work with the Global Copyright & Content Protection Group to protect Netflix Originals, the TV shows and movies for which Netflix owns the rights.
“The ideal candidate will have carried out a similar role at another company and can hit the ground running,” the listing for the position reads.
“He or she should have experience of anti-piracy initiatives and be very well versed in managing an effective notice and take down program and experience of working with YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Google, Bing, VK, Daily Motion and other well known platforms.”
Although Netflix’s business model is somewhat different to that of more traditional studios, the company faces the same problems with pirate links appearing online. To that end, the successful applicant will be expected to disrupt this availability as much as possible, particularly through the management of the company’s DMCA notice sending systems.
The company’s new coordinator will be expected to carry out daily scanning of Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Periscope, Google Search, Bing, VK, DailyMotion and other platforms used for piracy. Fingerprinting technologies on YouTube (ContentID) and Facebook (Rights Manager) will also need to be monitored, with attention paid to content that’s uploaded in a way that circumvents those recognition systems.
Of course, these legitimate platforms are just the tip of a very large iceberg. It seems likely that Netflix content is more likely to be found illegally on torrent and streaming platforms so these will need to be tackled too, with Netflix advising that the candidate will gather data on “pirate streaming sites, cyberlockers and usenet platforms.”
While Netflix is now a true competitor to the mainstream Hollywood studios and companies like Amazon, they all have to deal with piracy in roughly the same way. These synergies were formalized last June with the debut of the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment, a coalition of 30 companies dedicated to presenting a united front against piracy.
As a founding member of ACE, Netflix contributes $5m per year to the alliance. This expensive relationship needs to be nurtured so the new coordinator will have responsibilities there too, working with other ACE members to tackle the piracy threat.
The full listing can be found here.
Apple regularly kills off products in silence, simply yanking it from stores without so much as a notice. That's how its super expensive gold Edition watches and even something as big as the iPod Classic went the way of the dodo. This time, Apple has…
Do you have an older Mac that you still use? Or maybe an older retro Mac is sitting in a closet that you’d like to dust off and get some use out of? Maybe it’s a PowerBook that is running Snow Leopard, an original iMac with Tiger, an older Macintosh LC 475 with System 7.0.1, … Read More
How 'Desus & Mero' conquered late night
The New York Times
It's nothing new for a popular podcast to make the leap to a television show or movie, but that's not stopping Showtime. This week, the network tapped Desus Nice and Th…
A good week for privacy, an alleged leaker indicted, and more security news this week.
AMC’s new show, which depicts the doomed Franklin expedition to the Arctic, is the right kind of historical fiction.
Hey, good morning! You look fabulous.
Welcome to the weekend. Before looking back at some highlights from the last week, you should take a minute to find out what's up with Babylon 5 on Amazon Prime and get all the details on a key Supreme Court rul…
When sitting, it’s important to keep your back well supported.
YouTubers are the lifeblood of YouTube. Without the people creating content, YouTube would cease to be. Unfortunately, YouTube has not always remembered that, and the so-called Adpocalypse of 2017 led to bad blood between YouTube and its content creators.
However, YouTube has now unveiled a trio of new ways for YouTubers to make money. And together they represent YouTube looking beyond advertising revenue. Which, given that YouTube is owned by Google, one of the online advertising giants, is important.
YouTube’s New Revenue Streams
In a post on the YouTube Blog, Chief Product Officer, Neal Mohan, explains how YouTube now boasts almost 2 billion users every month. However, YouTube wants content creators to be able to earn a serious crust, which is why YouTube is looking beyond advertising.
New on YouTube!
??Channel Memberships help Creators build community & earn more money
??Merch makes it easier for Creators to sell custom merchandise on their channels
??Premieres records pre-recorded content as a live momenthttps://t.co/KN5mahgv62
— YouTube Creators (@YTCreators) June 22, 2018
Channel Memberships are an extension of the existing Sponsorships. Viewers pay $4.99/month to a content creator, and in return get unique badges, new emoji, members-only posts, and “access to unique custom perks offered by creators”.
YouTube is initially limiting Channel Memberships to “eligible channels with more than 100,000 subscribers,” which means you need to be popular before you can cash in. However, YouTube suggests that these requirements may change in the future.
Lots of YouTubers sell merchandise to help bring in some extra cash. However, YouTube is now providing the means to do so directly on the platform. With Merchandise, YouTubers (based in the U.S.) will be able to customize 20 different items from Teespring.
Last but not least is Premieres, which enables YouTubers to debut pre-recorded video as a live moment. This means lots of viewers will be watching simultaneously, allowing creators to use Super Chat (and its tipping system) on traditional uploads for the first time.
YouTubers Bring Home the Bacon
These are all solid ways for YouTubers to bring in extra revenue, and a much-needed shot in the arm for YouTube’s relationship with its partners. And for the rest of us, who merely watch YouTube videos, these should help us connect to the YouTubers we follow.
It should be noted that YouTube isn’t the only game in town, even though everyone is still using YouTube. However, if you have already tried some of the YouTube alternatives before returning to the fold, here are the monetization tactics used by the pros.
Image Credit: Rego Korosi/Flickr
Read the full article: YouTube Adds New Ways for YouTubers to Make Money
Two years ago, we learned that a Tesla Model S-based electric racing series was in development. This week Electric GT holdings showed off its first race-spec Model S P100DL in Barcelona ahead of the series' planned debut in November. Its builders say…
This week’s edition of our Apps of the Week roundup features a new app for spicing up your selfies, a powerful weather app with nostalgic graphics, and a new kind of news app. And as always, we’ve selected two great new games for you to check out…. Read the rest of this post here
“Placr, Pixel Weather, Views, and other apps to check out this weekend” is an article by iDownloadBlog.com.
Make sure to follow us on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+.
Until the turn of the decade, obtaining online pirate content was almost exclusively achieved by individuals with desktop and laptop computers. With the rise of streaming, set-top devices are now the major entry point.
With Kodi-enabled Android devices grabbing much of the attention (and criticism), other platforms have also been feeling the heat.
Despite offering plenty of legitimate content such as HBO Go, Hulu, and Netflix and playing no active role in the provision of unlicensed media, Roku is one of those enduring a bumpy ride.
Last year following a complaint from Cablevision, the Superior Court of Justice of the City of Mexico handed down a ban, prohibiting stores like Amazon from importing and selling Roku devices due to third parties offering unlicensed content via the platform.
It didn’t take long for Roku to react. Last August the company began displaying warnings to users who added channels to their device that weren’t obtained via the official Roku store. Then just a month later, it was revealed that Roku was assembling its own anti-piracy team.
In the background the legal wheels turned, with Roku trying everything in its power to have the Mexico ban overturned. As of today the ban remains with no clear end in sight but that doesn’t mean that Roku has been standing still.
It appears that on May 23, a group of Mexican journalists was welcomed to Roku’s Silicon Valley headquarters. Just days later, Roku CEO Anthony Wood and Marketing Director Matthew Anderson visited Mexico City. While these events were no doubt designed to build bridges, Mexico’s Telecommunications Law Institute (IDET) painted the efforts in a rather different light.
According to El Economista, IDET said the moves were designed to exert pressure on the judiciary and to sway public opinion in favor of Roku.
“[Roku’s] intention is to influence the judges who are reviewing this case, which formally has not begun,” said IDET member Gonzalo Rojón.
“We feel they are doing that because they want to influence the judges, but the truth is that intellectual property rights are still not respected and the truth is that this is a very strong problem for Mexico.”
In a response, Roku denied this interpretation, stating that their aim is to introduce Mexico to its business and to demonstrate the measures it takes to counter copyright-infringing content.
“On May 23, we invited a group of Mexican journalists to the Roku headquarters in Silicon Valley to introduce them to the company and our history in the streaming market and also to explain the strong anti-piracy measures we have implemented in Mexico and around the world,” Marketing Director Matthew Anderson explained.
“Right now, we feel it is very important to help journalists and the public understand more about Roku and our history, that we are a reliable company, particularly for the leading content generation companies in the world that distribute their content on the platform. We want to explain the anti-piracy measures we are taking.”
While both IDET and Roku agree that piracy is a problem, there is a difference of opinion on where the bounds of responsibility lie. IDET holds Roku to blame when unlicensed content appears via its service but Roku insists that piracy is an Internet-wide issue that has spread to platforms everywhere.
IDET has been extremely vocal on the topic and has published three press releases on the subject of Roku during the last couple of weeks. They say that Roku needs to do more, holding up competitors such as Apple TV and Google Chromecast as examples of set-top devices that tackle piracy well.
“Roku seeks to become the most economical, simple and accessible device in the streaming market. Its competitors in this segment are Apple TV and the giant Google that have similar devices which, however, do not face legal conflicts similar to those of Roku,” IDET writes.
“It is a cheap and accessible technology but it allows the streaming of stolen signals directly to the television screen. [Roku’s] Matthew Anderson, who comes from the legitimate content generation industry, assures that Roku strives to bring to the market a ‘legal’ means of downloading content. But with a presence in 23 countries, more than 45,000 associated channels, and more than 21 million accounts, Roku – unlike Apple TV and Google – is still vulnerable.”
There is no dispute that Roku wants to reduce piracy and IDET agrees that Roku in no way advertises or encourages any means to infringe and it is third-parties abusing Roku that are to blame. However, Roku and IDET seem to have a difference of opinion as to how this should be tackled.
For its part, Roku says that once it’s advised that infringing content is being made available via its platform, it takes steps to eliminate it. It’s a system employed by Internet platforms all over the world and recognized as being at the core of the DMCA, for example.
IDET, however, wants Roku to be more proactive. It says that once the content has been made available via Roku the damage has already been done and it appears that unlike some of its competitors, Roku has not found a solution to that problem.
“Why can Apple or Google prevent this situation? Because their devices eliminate the possibility of distributing stolen material in advance. It’s just a technology issue. It is not understood why an important streaming platform, such as Roku, has not been able to turn this problem around,” IDET says.
With the import and sales ban stubbornly in place, IDET says that no one wants Roku devices off the market. They’re good for competition and provide consumers with more options. However, Roku will have to do more if it wants to do business in Mexico, a solution that IDET insists is merely a technical step away.
“No one is against selling Roku devices in the market. On the contrary, the promotion of competition is applauded and the consumers of audiovisual content have more and better and better options to decide,” IDET writes.
“What is unfortunate is that this high caliber competitor can not resolve the intrusion of piracy on his device. In the end it is just a matter of technology to invest in an appropriate software. Hopefully it will be resolved soon.”
Reports that 40% of all Roku users in Mexico are pirates certainly don’t help the company’s case (Roku contests the figure) but by banning services such as the popular cCloud, the company shows good intent that may eventually pave the way for the ban to be lifted in Mexico.
You don't have great choices for non-Intel processors on Chromebooks at the moment — the Rockchip-made parts you often see in low-end systems keep costs down, but they struggle with intensive tasks. That might not be an issue in the future. About…