当前位置:黑龙江地方站首页 > 龙江新闻 > 正文


2019年06月27日 11:13:46    日报  参与评论()人

湖州曙光整形美容医院抽脂减肥价格长兴县中医院脱毛多少钱湖州曙光医院祛疤手术多少钱 It may come as a surprise to hear that the FBI are trying to force Apple to help them hack an iPhone: one used by one of the killers from December’s mass shooting in San Bernardino, California. Does the FBI not aly know everything that people are doing on their phones? In fact, Apple’s devices are among the most secure around — and chief executive Tim Cook’s loud proclamation of his wish to keep them so marks the latest broadside in a battle over just how far the remit of national security reaches.听闻美国联邦调查局(FBI)正试图迫使苹果(Apple)帮助他们解锁一部去年12月加州圣贝纳迪诺大规模击案一名行凶者使用过的iPhone,你或许会感到惊讶。FBI难道不是早已知晓人们在手机上所做的一切吗?事实上,苹果的设备是目前最安全的产品之一,而苹果首席执行官蒂姆錠克(Tim Cook)希望保护iPhone安全性的公开宣言,标志着一场关于国家安全之手应该伸多长的争论中的最新火力点。For the security services, no technology should be secure beyond penetration in the fight against terrorism. For tech firms, protecting users’ privacy is a cornerstone of both business models and trust. And if you think this is a little rich coming several years after Edward Snowden’s revelations of corporate co-operation with the National Security Agency, Google’s chief executive Sundar Pichai has posted some clarifying messages on Twitter. It would, he argues, be a “troubling precedent” to require companies actively “to enable hacking of customer devices and data” — something quite distinct from giving “law enforcement access to data based on valid legal orders”.对安全部门而言,在反恐斗争中,任何技术都不应成为无法破解的障碍。但对科技公司来说,保护用户隐私既是商业模式的基石,也是赢得用户信任的基石。如果在爱德华斯诺登(Edward Snowden)将企业与美国国家安全局(NSA)之间的合作曝光几年后,你觉得这有些让人费解,那么谷歌(Google)首席执行官桑德尔皮查伊(Sundar Pichai)在Twitter上的发帖则让人明白问题所在。他指出,这将成为一个“令人不安的先例”——要求企业积极“帮助破解用户的设备和数据”,这与“让执法部门基于有效法律命令访问数据”可远远不是一回事。The issue has arisen because Apple’s latest mobile operating system prohibits anyone from accessing users’ data without their unique passcode. (The killer, Syed Rizwan Farook, died in a police shootout). If an incorrect passcode is entered too many times, an iPhone can irrecoverably delete all data. Hence the FBI’s request, via a court order served on February 16: that Apple create a specially adapted version of its operating system — dubbed the “FBiOS” by security expert Dan Guido — allowing law enforcement to make an unlimited number of passcode guesses.问题源于苹果最新的移动操作系统禁止任何人在没有用户唯一密码的情况下访问他们的数据。行凶者赛义德里兹万法鲁克(Syed Rizwan Farook)在与警察的交火中被击毙。如果输入不正确密码的次数过多,iPhone将删除所有数据,且不可恢复。因此,FBI通过2月16日的一项法院命令要求,苹果开发一个专门改编的操作系统——安全专家丹圭多(Dan Guido)称之为“FBiOS”——让执法部门可以无限次地猜测密码。Opinion has divided along predictable lines. Tech firms, digital rights activists and a good number of iPhone users tend to support the privacy principle. State officials and the more conservatively minded back law enforcement. What is not in dispute is that the precedent at stake is one law enforcement have been seeking to set for some time, and that its outcome will have profound consequences for security, encryption and privacy.舆论方面针对此事的分歧也在预料之中。科技公司、数字维权人士及很多iPhone用户倾向于持隐私保护原则。而政府官员及思想更为保守的人士持执法机构。不存在争论的是:这一利害攸关的先例是执法部门一段时期以来一直试图确立的,而其结果将对安全、数据加密及隐私权产生深远影响。So far as specifics are concerned, even the most ardent libertarian will have little sympathy for the privacy of a dead killer. What counts, however, is not the morality of one case, but whether this constitutes the thin end of a perilous wedge. Here, the proponents of privacy have a powerful case to make.就事论事,即便最狂热的自由论者也不会对一名被击毙的行凶者的隐私抱以丝毫同情。然而,重要的不是某一案例中的道德准则,而在于这一先例是否会造成一种愈演愈烈的风险。在这一点上,隐私权的持者有强大的理由。Slippery-slope arguments stand or fall on the strength of their evidence for movement from the particular to the general. How convincing is it to suggest that security services may deploy new powers promiscuously once obtained? In the case of technology, the answer seems to be “very”. The past five years show something little short of mania on the part of the NSA and others for hoovering up data and undermining every encryption going. This is hardly surprising. It is what they do.极具争议的观点是否站得住脚,取决于从特例到一般的过程中持它的据有多强。关于安全部门一旦获得新的权力就可能任意行使的论断有多大说力呢?就技术而言,似乎是“非常有说力”。过去5年,我们看到了美国国家安全局及其他机构在搜集数据、破坏加密方面几近疯狂的一面。这不足为奇。这就是他们的工作。Yet technology presents special hazards under such an approach. Escalation is the rule rather than the exception when it comes to tech — as are unintended consequences. The most damaging cyber attacks are invisible until they have aly begun; the most alarming data losses often go undetected, and may remain so for years. It is an unforgiving arena in which to juggle protection and deception. But it is also one in which the very nature of the terrain makes a certain shared level of security integral to the health of the whole.然而,在这种做法下,技术意味着特殊的危险。对科技而言,不断升级是必然,而非例外——意想不到的后果同样如此。最具破坏性的网络攻击在实施之前通常无影无踪;最令人担忧的数据泄露常常不会被察觉,并且可能持续数年不被察觉。这是一个残酷的领域,很难在隐私保护和欺骗之间把握平衡,同时,这一领域的本质决定了某种共享安全级别,而后者不可避免地影响整体安全。Undermining encryption and opening back doors does not just give good guys tools for detecting bad guys. It also creates official data repositories and tools that are themselves vulnerable to assault. It exposes everyone to risks of infection and compromise, and debases vital currencies of trust and co-operation, together with the industries they support.破坏数据加密、打开后门不仅仅会为好人提供发现坏人的工具,还会创建自身易遭攻击的官方数据库和工具。这样做会使每个人面临遭受病毒感染并做出让步的风险,同时降低重要的信任与合作,以及这种信任与合作所撑的行业。Once developed, a technique can be used again and again. This is why staying safe in a digital age is a moving target, and absolute privacy a fantasy. Yet in these fraught circumstances, Mr Cook is right. Our future safety is best served by the best security for all.一项技术一旦被开发出来,就可以反复使用。这就是为什么在数字时代保安全是一个不断变动的目标,而绝对隐私权只是一种幻想。然而,在这些令人担忧的情况下,库克是对的。只有在所有人都享有最高安全的情况下,我们未来的安全才能得到最大保障。 /201602/428205湖州曙光整形脱毛多少钱

德清县妇幼保健院吸脂手术多少钱Inside the sleek body of the latest iPhone is one of two chips made by different manufacturers.最新款的苹果手机光滑的机身里,内置有由不同厂家生产的两种芯片之一。After conducting tests, a number of iPhone users have claimed the battery life differs on the iPhone 6s depending on which chip is inside.经过测试,许多苹果用户称,iPhone 6s的电池寿命的长短因其内部使用的芯片而有所不同。But Apple has said these tests are #39;not representative of real-world usage,#39; claiming the battery life of 6s handsets varies within just two and three per cent.但苹果公司称,这些测试并不能“代表真实环境下的使用状态”,并声称苹果iPhone 6s的电池寿命差异仅有2-3%。Commentators have branded the issue #39;chipgate#39;.人士将这一事件称为“芯片门”。It has long been rumoured that the A9 chips inside the popular new iPhone 6s and 6s Plus handsets are made by two manufacturers - TSMC and Samsung - and teardowns recently confirmed this.大受欢迎的iPhone 6s和6s Plus手机中内置的A9芯片由两家不同制造商(TSMC公司和三星公司)生产的传言由来已久,近期的拆机实了这一传言非虚。A number of benchmark tests claim to show a theoretical difference in battery life depending on which A9 chip was tested, with one claiming a 50 minute difference between manufacturers.许多基准测试显示,根据测试的是哪一种A9芯片,电池寿命理论上存在差异,其中一个测试声称,两家不同制造商生产的芯片导致的电池寿命差别有50分钟。Tests first posted on MyDrivers showed that TSMC#39;s chip out-performed Samsung#39;s according to reports on BGR.com.根据BGR网站的报道,最先发布在MyDrivers公上的测试显示,TSMC公司生产的芯片表现优于三星公司生产的芯片。YouTubers Austin Evans and Jonathan Morrison then both claimed to show that TSMC#39;s chip is slightly more efficient.YouTube用户奥斯汀·埃文斯(Austin Evans)和乔纳森·莫里森(Jonathan Morrison)均认为TSMC公司的芯片略优。Mr Morrison said that Samsung#39;s processor #39;runs hotter and yields less battery life...there#39;s definitely a difference of battery life between these two chips#39;.莫里森表示,三星处理器“运行时更容易发热,电池寿命更短……这两种不同芯片的电池寿命差异相当明显”。Apple told MailOnline that its own testing, as well as data gathered from its customers since the handset launched, shows the battery life of the handsets varies between two and three per cent.苹果公司告诉《每日邮报在线》(MailOnline),其内部测试以及手机发布后收集自客户的数据均显示,手机电池寿命的差异仅有2-3%。This is regardless of the chips inside them.无论手机内置的是哪种芯片。The information from customers is collected automatically if they opted in when they set up their phones.如果顾客在设置手机时勾选允许,那么客户信息将会自动被收集。The firm said: #39;With the Apple-designed A9 chip in your iPhone 6s or iPhone 6s Plus, you are getting the most advanced smartphone chip in the world.苹果公司称:“iPhone 6s和iPhone 6s Plus的内置芯片均为苹果自主设计的A9芯片,这是全世界最先进的智能手机芯片。”#39;Every chip we ship meets Apple#39;s highest standards for providing incredible performance and deliver great battery life, regardless of iPhone 6s capacity, color, or model.“我们出货的每块芯片都符合苹果公司的最高标准,不论是哪种容量、颜色或款式的iPhone 6s,都能够实现卓越的性能和可观的电池寿命。”#39;Certain manufactured lab tests which run the processors with a continuous heavy workload until the battery depletes are not representative of real-world usage, since they spend an unrealistic amount of time at the highest CPU performance state.“某些捏造的实验室测试令处理器持续高负荷地运转,直至电池耗空。由于他们令CPU在最高性能状态运行的时间是不切实际的,这些测试并不能代表芯片在真实环境下的使用状态。”#39;It#39;s a misleading way to measure real-world battery life.“这绝非测量真实环境下电池寿命的正确方法。”#39;Our testing and customer data show the actual battery life of the iPhone 6s and iPhone 6s Plus, even taking into account variable component differences, vary within just 2-3 per cent of each other.#39;“即使把一些可变因素考虑在内,我们的测试以及用户数据显示,iPhone 6s和iPhone 6s Plus的电池寿命的实际差异仅为2%-3%。”Currently there is no way to tell which chip your iPhone uses.目前还没有办法知晓你手里的iPhone使用的是哪种芯片。TechCrunch has noted that the two to three percent difference in battery performance is within the manufacturing tolerances for any device.TechCrunch提示,对于任何设备而言,2%-3%的电池寿命差异都在加工误差的允许范围内。 /201510/402987湖州哪里绣眉最好 湖州去痣最好的医院

浙江湖州市去痤疮多少钱 The San Francisco-based buyout firm Francisco Partners recently published a delicious analysis relevant to anyone wondering about what the future holds for technology stocks. It is a bulletin in which both pessimists and optimists can find hope and it offers a helpful perspective for those wondering about the current valuations of technology companies.总部位于旧金山的收购集团Francisco Partners最近发表了一份精辟的分析,它对于任何揣测科技股未来的人都很重要。在这份分析中,悲观者和乐观者都能找到希望,它为那些对科技公司当前估值感到纳闷的人提供了一个有帮助的视角。First, the bad news. The 15 technology companies with the largest market capitalisations in 2000 have been decimated — losing about .35tn, or roughly 60 per cent, of their combined market value. Only one, Microsoft, has a market capitalisation that is higher than in 2000. One extraordinary aspect of this meltdown is that it did not occur, as some might suspect, in the much ballyhooed dotcom wonder companies of yesteryear. Instead it was a blight that affected most of what were once considered blue-chip technology holdings. In 2000, Nortel sported a market value of 9bn that, like those of its classmates, had been bloated by the enthusiasm of the era; it has since gone bankrupt. While other members of this corporate bracket have avoided that ignominy, their long-term stock charts present bleak pictures. Cisco’s market value has faded from 3bn to 4bn; Intel’s from 8bn to 1bn; and EMC’s from 8bn to bn.首先是坏消息。2000年市值最高的15家科技公司已严重萎缩,市值损失约1.35万亿美元,约占它们总市值的60%。只有微软(Microsoft)一家的市值高于2000年水平。市值滑坡的一个不寻常之处在于,它没有像一些人可能猜测的那样,发生在当年被大肆炒作的网络奇迹公司身上。相反,这种不幸落在了多数曾经被视为蓝筹科技股的公司身上。2000年,北电网络(Nortel)市值高达2090亿美元,与同业一样,该公司的市值因为当年的市场热情而膨胀;后来该公司破产。尽管其他科技巨擘避免了这种不光结局,但它们的长期股价图表惨不忍睹。思科(Cisco)市值已从4030亿美元降至1440亿美元;英特尔(Intel)市值已从2880亿美元降至1610亿美元;EMC的市值从2180亿美元降至510亿美元。For the class of 2000, the sharpest property price declines have been in the deteriorating neighbourhoods of systems, hardware and semiconductors. This is because of the continuing decline in the cost of computing, the rise of open-source software, the move to the “cloud” and the emergence of huge datacentres where companies such as Amazon, Google and Facebook are designing their own approaches.对于2000年的知名公司而言,最大跌幅出现在系统、硬件和半导体等表现日益恶化的业务领域。这是因为计算成本持续下滑、开放源软件崛起、转向“云计算”的趋势,以及大规模数据中心的兴起,在数据中心领域,亚马逊(Amazon)、谷歌(Google)和Facebook等公司都在设计自己的策略。Now a word from sunnier climes. Fifteen companies that were together worth less than bn in 2000 are now among the world’s 50 top technology companies as measured by market capitalisation, with a combined worth of .1tn. (Had Amazon been included, rather than being classified as a retailer, this number would have swollen by another 0bn). Apple, which even in 2000 was viewed as little more than a curiosity, has risen in value from bn to 9bn. A few themes jump out of this listing: the power of novelty, the shift towards China, the benefits of patience and the virtues of capital efficiency.现在说点让人比较愉快的事情吧。2000年总市值不到100亿美元的15家公司,如今就市值而言已跻身全球科技公司50强,它们的总市值高达2.1万亿美元。(如果加上亚马逊(而不是将其列为一家零售商),这个数字会再增加2500亿美元)。即使在2000年,苹果(Apple)仍只是被视为一家奇特的公司,如今其市值已从60亿美元飙升至6590亿美元。这份名单体现出这样几个主题:新颖性的威力、重心转向中国的趋势、耐心的好处以及资本效率的重要性。Several of today’s most valuable technology companies did not even exist in 2000. Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter together have a collective corporate history of only 33 years. Even Google and Salesforce were barely smudges on the horizon in 2000. These companies now have a combined value of about 0bn. Beyond some of the customised systems they operate in their own datacentres, and in Google’s case, some sideline activities such as its Nexus phones and Chrome notebooks, none of these companies sully their hands with anything as taxing as hardware. They have thrived from the artful deployment of software, in particular the “cloud based” variant, and — for Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter (and Google’s YouTube service) — organising and collating the contributions of their users.如今市值最高的几家科技公司在2000年甚至还未问世。Facebook、LinkedIn和Twitter三家公司的历史加起来也就33年。2000年,就连谷歌和Salesforce也还只是地平线上的小点。这些公司现在的总市值约为8500亿美元。除了它们在各自的数据中心运行的一些定制系统以及(就谷歌而言)像Nexus手机和Chrome笔记本等副业以外,这些公司都没有费神染指棘手的硬件业务。它们的成功来自于巧妙的软件部署,特别是“基于云”的软件,以及(就Facebook、 LinkedIn、Twitter以及谷歌的YouTube务而言)组织和整理用户生成的内容。Perched in a clump as the fourth, fifth and sixth most valuable technology companies of the day are Alibaba, Tencent and Baidu. This threesome is now worth 9bn — testament not just to how much China has progressed in a decade and a half but a harbinger of the next several decades as the country places increasing emphasis on spawning its own technology. Woe betide the management of any western technology company that underestimates the challenge posed by the vast number of emerging Chinese competitors, fuelled by an ambition and work regimen that is hard to match in Europe and the US.目前在市值排行榜上位居第四、第五和第六位的公司是阿里巴巴(Alibaba)、腾讯(Tencent)和百度(Baidu)。这三家公司目前的总市值为4090亿美元,这不仅明了中国在15年里取得了巨大进步,还预示着未来几十年的格局。中国正越来越注重发展自主技术。低估中国的大批新兴竞争对手将会带来的挑战,将给西方科技公司管理层带来厄运。驱使中国竞争对手的雄心和工作文化是欧美难以匹敌的。Finally, a note about two other themes that jump out of this listing: patience and profits.最后说一下这份名单体现出的另外两个主题:耐心和利润。Most investors in technology companies squander vast sums by reacting to short-term jitters or global jolts rather than concentrating on the staying power of those emerging enterprises on the right side of history.科技公司的多数投资者会浪费巨额资金,因为他们对短期恐慌或全球动荡做出条件反射式的反应,而不是专注于符合历史潮流的新兴企业的持久力。And for the founders and chief executives of all of the current billion-dollar “unicorns” there is another abiding message. Almost all of today’s technology juggernauts formed before about 2008 required smallish amounts of capital. Google, for example, consumed only m before turning profitable. Maybe this means that sooner or later a new class of company will come into vogue — a rare species known as the profitable unicorn.对于当前所有10亿美元级的“独角兽”企业的创始人和首席执行官而言,还有一条永恒的信息。在2008年左右之前创建的几乎所有科技巨擘,当初都需要很少的资金投入。例如,谷歌在实现盈利之前仅消耗了800万美元。这或许意味着,新一类的公司迟早会流行:它们将是被称为“盈利独角兽”的珍稀物种。 /201601/419983湖州曙光整形美容脱毛手术多少钱长兴县瑞兰美白针多少钱




湖州妇保院美容整形科 长兴县去眼袋多少钱最新共享 [详细]
湖州交通医院做祛疤手术多少钱 湖州无痕丰胸手术费用 [详细]
湖州哪里去痣比较好 问医共享湖州南浔区妙桃隆胸假体多少钱求医面诊 [详细]
千龙专家湖州曙光整形美容医院治疗狐臭多少钱 湖州哪个公立医院美容好普及健康湖州三院去痣多少钱 [详细]