We look back on the Galaxy evolution over the last nine years.
Even if you haven't seen the show, the music offers a fascinating, toe-tapping, semiaccurate history lesson. There are at least three ways to hear it without spending a penny.
Bokeh in the front. Bokeh in the back.
We seem to be on the cusp of a revolution in storage. Various technologies have been demonstrated that have speed approaching that of current RAM chips but can hold on to the memory when the power shuts off—all without the long-term degradation that flash experiences. Some of these, like phase-change memory and Intel's Optane, have even made it to market. But, so far at least, issues with price and capacity have kept them from widespread adoption.
But that hasn't discouraged researchers from continuing to look for the next greatest thing. In this week's edition, a joint NIST-Purdue University team has used a material that can form atomically thin sheets to make a new form of resistance-based memory. This material can be written in nanoseconds and hold on to that memory without power. The memory appears to work via a fundamentally different mechanism from previous resistance-RAM technologies, but there's a small hitch: we're not actually sure how it works.The persistence of memristors
There is a series of partly overlapping memory storage technologies that are based on changes in electrical resistance. These are sometimes termed ReRAM and can include memristors. The basic idea is that a material can hold a bit that is read based on whether the electrical resistance is high or whether electrons flow through like it was a metal. In some of these, the resistance can be set across a spectrum that can be divided up, potentially allowing a single piece of material to hold more than one bit.
How does Apple's most affordable 2018 iPhone compare to the discounted iPhone 8 Plus of last year?
Journos, politicos trolled, abused 'once every 30 secs'
In March, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey promised to stem the tide of toxic content that has plagued his antisocial network for years.…
Customers will receive refunds and free streaming service.
More ways to interact with friends and Instagram celebrities.
The information came in the form of an almost-overlooked tweet.
Female journalists and politicians received a "problematic" or "abusive" tweet every 30 seconds on average, says a study by Amnesty International and Element AI.
Vice President Mike Pence also says Space Force is still on the table.
But spare a thought for 'nauts coming home in punctured Soyuz
Roundup It's been a packed week to round out the year for rocket fans still giddy from Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo sub-orbital jaunt.…
Two surveys claim that most people would rather stay in for New Year's Eve. Of course, that's good news for Netflix.
Sometimes you just don't want to see tweets from last night's basketball game on your timeline.
Pricing for the I6 model isn't out yet, because the V8 variants hit dealerships first.
In an interview, the head of Disney+ says resurrecting the likes of Daredevil, Iron Fist and Luke Cage is a possibility.
We won't be having a word with local firms until then
Germany's top cybersecurity official has said he hasn't seen any evidence for the espionage allegations against Huawei.…
Have you ever been to a website where the back button just doesn't work? In these instances, you press "back" to go back but instead you just end up at the same page where you started. A new commit on the Chromium source (first spotted by 9to5Google) outlines a plan to stop weird website schemes like this, with a lockdown on "history manipulation" by websites. The commit reads: "Entries that are added to the back/forward list without the user's intention are marked to be skipped on subsequent back button invocations."
The back button moves backward through your Web history, and, along with the close button, it's one of the most common ways of leaving a website. This is very bad if you're a shady website designer, and sites have tried to mess with the back button by adding extra entries to your Web history. It's not hard to do this with a redirect—imagine loading example1.com from a search result, which instantly redirects you to example2.com. Both pages would get stored in your history, so pressing "back" from example2.com would send you to example1.com, which would redirect you again and add more troublesome history entries. This doesn't make it impossible to leave (quickly hitting the back button twice might work), but it does make it harder to leave, which is the end goal.
To stop this kind of history manipulation, bad history entries will soon get a "skippable" flag, which means the back button will ignore them when it navigates through the history order. One commit says Google still needs to come up with some kind of "pruning logic" to declare a website as skippable, but that could probably be done with something like a timestamp. You spent zero seconds on that redirect page, so that's probably not a good history entry.
Now that's one heck of a holiday gift.