This screenshot says it all: the first line, the header, shows the installed iOS version:
So iTunes would like me to update from 10.1.1 to 10.1.1... hmm.
I had a server with a complex network configuration: 2 network interface cards, with various VLAN configurations. When upgrading, i decided to use Migration Assitant only for the Network Settings. It's nice, so i deselected everything but the Network Settings. It took 16 minutes and a reboot. When the server came back up, guess what? Network Settings were not imported at all! I think it actually imported some other settings, but no Network Settings. Boo.
Se una persona non sa cosa significa CAD e cerca su internet, troverà referenze praticamente solo per Computer Aided Design. Mentre se uno volesse sapere il significato di CAD nella sicurezza software italiana, troverà ben poco. Ed i siti che contengono quell'acronimo, non ne contengono il significato o la definizione. Semplicemente danno per scontato che si sappia cosa abbrevi.
Il sito ufficiale del Codice Amministrazione Digitale (CAD): http://archivio.digitpa.gov.it/amministrazione-digitale/CAD-testo-vigente
il sito specifica all'inizio:
Si pecisa che il testo normativo qui di seguito esposto (così come quello di qualsiasi altra disposizione normativa pubblicata sul sito dell'Agenzia) non ha alcun carattere di ufficialità.
Il che mi fa pensare: se si tratta di "testo normativo" non ufficiale, allora non dovrebbe essere un "testo informativo"? Quale è il senso di una normativa non ufficiale?
Check this out! https://wbw.typeform.com/to/NqEp2V
I just completed the survey for the event. I'm pretty excited. Sounds like it could go really bad, or really good!
I recently heard an interview where Elon Musk was asked about simulation theory, which sparked some more reading and thinking, until i viewed the topic from this angle presented here, so i decided to write a blog post.In other words, if we had computers so powerful, that they were able to simulate our reality 100%, so simulate life, and consciousness as well, do you think we would actually use them to run experiments about ourselves, maybe to predict what will happen with us, or where we originated from? Kind of like: "Hey, let's write a real life simulator, feed it some human consciousness data, and see what happens. Do you think the simulated beings will act like us? And how will they act in the future?" You know, kind of what we do now with the weather: we collect lots of data from the environment/weather, then we write models that can fit that data, then we run simulations, and see what would happen if the initial conditions are x and y. And what would happen in a million years. And what would happen tomorrow, given that today is like this. So, since we do this for the weather, (and many other things) why would we not do it for human beings and consciousness?
And if this is the case, then most likely this very reality we live in is actually a simulation. Because at this rate of technological advance, it will not take much (at an evolutionary scale) to reach a point in which we will have these resources, these computers that could be able to run such simulations. I mean at the current rate, it probably shouldn't take more than a few decades. But even if it took 1000 times more than that, then say 10, 20, 30 thousand years. That's still not much considering the millions of years we have been around, right?
But did Elon really say we are most likely part of a simulation?
Elon Musk was asked to talk about simulation theory at an interview in June at Recode's National Conference. Here are two articles about that.
So the above article feed on an interview that Musk gave early June 2016, and insist that Musk's point of view is that it is almost certain that we live in a simulation. However, the way i see it, that is not quite what Musk said. What Musk did say, is that if his argument is true, than we probably are living in a simulation.
Here's what he did:
- First he makes an argument. But he doesn't state he believes that argument. Quite the contrary, he actually asks for it to be challenged: "Tell me what's wrong with that argument. Is there a flaw in that argument?"
- The interviewer, however, doesn't challenge the argument. And states there is no flaw with it.
- Then he reaches the conclusion that, if there is no flaw in the argument (which he never stated there wasn't any flaw in it), then there is 1 in billions chance that we live in base reality.
Basically what he stated is that if you believe in that argument, then most likely we live in base reality. He didn't directly say he believes most likely we live in base reality. Indeed, there are other outcomes (which have been widely discussed, here's a collection of some) he didn't discuss, for example:
- we, as humans, might never reach the point in which we can simulate consciousness.
- we might be extinct before we can reach that point;
- we can simply not be interested in running simulations, because we might somehow understand how consciousness can be linked to suffering, and therefore why create more suffering by creating more (even if just simulated) individuals?
Some of my thoughts
Certainly, one thing i can say. Looking back in time and what we believed in (being at the center of the universe, that eyes emitted beams that allowed us to see, etc) and what we believe in now, it certainly seems like the rate of understanding things increases, and it feels like we are able to model more and more of our perceived reality. Therefore, it feels just logical to infer that at this rate, there should be no reason why we should not be able to simulate consciousness as well. No logical reason, at least. Religious and tradition and fear based reasons, plenty. Logical though? How logical did it feel to believe that the earth was flat, and just not being able to explain what happened at the end of earth? Maybe just as logical as it is to believe that humans have this spearate thing called consciousness, that we will never be able to reproduce.
However, whether we live in a simulation or not, makes absolutely no difference to us... or shouldn't at least. Because simulation or not, we have but the rules of this game to play with. And it feels like there is really just one universal instruction code set universally programmed in all living beings: reduce suffering as much as possible. So if we want to live a life with the least amount of suffering, it makes little difference whether we are part of a simulation or not, unless we could be capable of popping out of it. Dwelling in these thoughts, therefore, feel to me like investing energy and time into something that doesn't ultimately help me reduce my suffering any more than watching a movie.
Quantum uncertainty and simulation theory
So basically we do not know the exact location and momentum of an electron, according the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, until we are actually able to measure it. Or the double slit experiment, where, until we don't actually measure which slit an electron goes through, it behaves as if it goes through both. But when we observe, the wave function collapses and it behaves like a single particle.
But if we were in a simulation, then there certainly would be no need to simulate everything down to the tiniest particle. As long as the humans in the experiment can't infer something "strange" is going on, then the simulation experiment would not be ruined. So one detail of the simulation theory would be, that details are simulated only when required. Kind of like what we do now with our awesome video games: the graphics, the shadows, the details, the resolution and the physics is rendered only where player is looking. There is no need to waste computing power to simulate everything in the entire video game reality at one time. There just has to be enough to ensure consistency. So in the unseen world, it's good enough that say an object stays there where the player put it, unless some other player comes and moves it.
Could this also explain the mysterious consciousness that the electron in the double slit experiment suddenly gains when it "knows" it's observed, and now turns from a wave of probable positions into a single 4 dimensional coordinate?
I've always been a fan of Carla Bley and her Escalator Over the Hill. Love that kind of work. But i never heard her work with Swallow, duets and the trios. Loved the simple simple song. Ingenious.
Did anyone else get this email by Google? OK. So i had to read it like 3 times and i still didn't understand it. So i use Google calendars regularly, and i don't understand this email. It would take me like 20-30 mins of research to figure out exactly what this all means and how it would affect me.
- How does it work now, before the change?
- What are the domain's external sharing options?
- What changes will take effect immediately?
- What are primary and secondary calendars?
This is the gist of the email, stripping down all the rest, which discusses the changes:
Change from what? To what? What has changed? The reader doesn't care much about the new state today, because the reader doesn't know or remember most of times what the old state was. But almost everyone will have an opinion, if they read something for example, like "Google Calendar team has changed how usernames are displayed: Before the change, no real names were displayed. After the change, on June 23 2023, real names will be displayed with usernames." No we can go into detail, thank you.
I think people who write publicly, could be more aware, when covering something technical, to start out really simple, so everyone can understand. Then, go into more details. This way everyone can understand and decide immediately if this is something that interests them or not.
In this particular case, there are changes in the Google Calendar which has to do with sharing or visibility or privacy. That's it.
Subject: Important change in behavior of Google Calendar events with public visibility
We will send a copy of this message in your account's primary language as soon as the translations are available. We anticipate this process to take 1-2 weeks.
On May 16, 2016, the Google Calendar team will change the behavior of calendar events that users have intentionally marked as public to strictly follow a domain’s external sharing options setting for both primary and secondary calendars, set from the Admin console. This change gives domain administrators more control over how users are sharing their calendar events with people outside of the domain.
Note: If your domain external sharing setting is set to Share all information, then there's no behavior change.
The change will take effect immediately on the web. Calendars and events synced on mobile may remain visible until the device re-syncs. All events created after May 16, 2016, will appear as free/busy on all platforms.
If users want to share calendar events with external users, but keep their primary work calendars private or free/busy, they can still create separate secondary calendars for that purpose.
We recommend the following actions:
- If you want to continue sharing calendar events with external users but keep primary calendars private, set the access for primary calendars to Only free/busy information, while setting the access for secondary calendars to Share all information. Then, encourage your users to create public events on secondary calendars.
- Confirm your current Google Calendar External sharing options in the Admin console (Apps > Google Apps > Calendar > Sharing settings). Learn more about how to Set calendar sharing options.
If you have additional questions or need assistance, contact Google Apps Support.
The Google Apps Team
I am upgrading from an iPad Mini 2 retina Cellular to an iPad Mini 4 Cellular. Should be pretty straight forward right? This was my strategy:
- Backup up iPad Mini 2 with iTunes via USB;
- Turn iPad Mini 4 on, setup as new iPad and upgrade to latest iOS.
- Restore iPad Mini 2 backup on to iPad Mini 4.
I have been using a Mac for about 12 years now, and have just recently decided to start with a completely fresh account, instead of upgrading all the time, to clean up all the leftover stuff from very old apps and OSs i no longer need. So keep this in mind too.
This is what actually happened:
- Backup went fine. It was very fast.
- After setting up iPad mini 4, i had to iOS upgrade, but it kept failing. It only worked after a reboot. So i had to reboot a first-time-booted iPad Mini 4 to make the iOS upgrade work (from 9.0 to 9.2.1)!!
- Restore started OK. Then iTunes started to give me useless warnings and alerts that it was not able to connect to the iPad, while it connect the iPad just fine.
- Then iTunes started telling me that the new iPad, which i have just finished updating, needed to be updated. It said, the current software installed on it was 9.2.1 and the latest software was 9.2.1.
- OK, ignore that too. Now it's restoring all my apps, and, wait, i'm getting more error messages, saying that some 96 apps cannot be installed because they cannot be found. What? I have just performed a full USB backup! Probably iTunes didn't backup the apps when doing the backup. That's why it was so fast...
- Then, while the restore of music files is in progress, i decide to browse around the new iPad mini, to look and see what's there. So i open iTunes, and it's just all white. I'm connectd to the gogoinflight wifi, without internet, so i figure, maybe it's tryint to connect to the iTunes store and failing. So i put the iPad in Airplane Mode. Now the iPad should know it cannot connect, but it start to pop up the login to iTuens probmpts every second.
- OK, so the apps aren't there, just their shadow is there. So i decide to do a second sync, and try to add one App manually. I get the same error, but this time, all the apps in the dock disappear, except one! OK, strange. So i sync again, now the shadow apps in the dock came back. So now i sync again, and they disappear again. Sync again and they stay disappeared.
- Eventually i repeat the entire procedure with a better internet connection, and similar simptoms appear. At the end, i still have a bunch of apps which simply didn't restore: they are stuck in that greyed out state, where the only thing one can do, is manually open the App store, and download them. Not possible to simply delete them.
- Some other apps restored without an icon!
- The restore process didn't even bother to restore many iPhone apps. OK. WTF?
Now it's iTunes and the playlists. Gone. I was able to restore from a backup, however i lost some information. Just can't rely on Apple software any longer. I'm moving away from iTunes as well now.
Apple software i had to move away from
- 2014 Apple Mail: would not connect/synchronize IMAP properly; would not open some messages; would create duplicate emails drafts.
- 2015 Apple Calendar: skipped appointment reminders; not able to edit some appointments; new events added on one device would at times not sync to other device.
- 2016 Apple Contacts: lost all contacts within Categories; categories still there, just only populated with "company" entries, no persons.
- 2015 Apple Photos
- 2016 iTunes: lost playlists
It's not that hard to get Windows 3 up and running again, if one has the resources to do so. One needs to enter the correct keywords in Google...
I've had most success with DOSBox, because it provides with the following advantages over pure virtualization, such as VirtualBox, Parallels or VMWare:
The entire system can be easily packaged up and distributed as a whole. So i can create an optimal configuration for one game, duplicate the entire dosbox folder, and install a a different game that needs different settings on the duplicated folder, and setup win.ini and autoexec.bat to automatically launch the game. Now i have a fully functioning DOS game that i can just double click to launch!
There is a shared folder! No need to setup network, which is very tedious on bare DOS, slightly better on Windows 3.11.
DOS with sound and network already installed.
- CPU tweaking on the fly at runtime.
Good resources as of 2015
These are links i used to download windows, download word for windows and download other software like drivers and other utilities.
È successo oggi, mentre ero fuori casa. Ha preso fuoco il regolatore di carica. €700 di danno, circa. A giudicare dalle foto, il colpevole è stato il cavo del negativo dei pannelli fotovoltaici, con area troppo piccola.
La App ufficiale 119 di Telecom Italia Mobile promuove un'offerta che non è esistente, con controsenso.
Da una parte c'è scritto che si tratta di 1GB aggiuntivo, dall'altra che si tratta solo di 500MB aggiuntivi. Dopo aver attivato la promozione, la verità viene fuori essere solamente 500MB aggiuntivi.
Sul sito web, sembra essere correttamente pubblicizzata come 500MB.
Interesting article about Docker and security on opensource.com: Docker security in the future
I had two 56k modems, got an extra phone line and had a modem sitting illegally in the office i had at work at the university, taking up a phone line 24/7. The connection was slow, but it was also very cheap. I was sharing it with the neighbors. I built the LAN with old RG-58 cable that they were throwing away at the university. Then i ended up getting an SDSL line, i think it was 1Mbps up, 1Mbps down.