Slashdot Mirror

You can star issue 152430 to get support reenabled.

This requieres Mozilla JS enhancements (asm.js) currently on nightly builds, It can work on other browsers but without the performance tuning made for the JS subset that is asm.js it will run slow. Chromium bug proposing to add support for asm.js http://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=2599

It doesn't require special asm.js optimizations (asm.js is a subset of JavaScript, so it already runs properly in all modern browsers). The demo works fine in the stable release of Firefox for example, which has no special asm.js optimizations. It is faster in Firefox nightly though which does have those optimizations. But how much faster depends on the CPU and GPU, it might matter a lot or it might matter a little. In this demo a lot of time is spent in WebGL, so a fast GPU and good WebGL implementation matters a lot too.

The demo should work in any browser with WebGL and JavaScript support. For example the only reason it currently fails in Chrome is due to a bug related to memory use. Hopefully that will be fixed soon.

This requieres Mozilla JS enhancements (asm.js) currently on nightly builds, It can work on other browsers but without the performance tuning made for the JS subset that is asm.js it will run slow. Chromium bug proposing to add support for asm.js http://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=2599

It doesn't require special asm.js optimizations (asm.js is a subset of JavaScript, so it already runs properly in all modern browsers). The demo works fine in the stable release of Firefox for example, which has no special asm.js optimizations. It is faster in Firefox nightly though which does have those optimizations. But how much faster depends on the CPU and GPU, it might matter a lot or it might matter a little. In this demo a lot of time is spent in WebGL, so a fast GPU and good WebGL implementation matters a lot too.

The demo should work in any browser with WebGL and JavaScript support. For example the only reason it currently fails in Chrome is due to a bug related to memory use. Hopefully that will be fixed soon.

What can fiction tell us about anything? Man that's pretty narrow-minded. I don't know how that's insightful.

http://www.google.com/think/articles/yesterdays-sci-fi.html

Very often sci-fi becomes reality. Okay, maybe we won't have wormholes opening any time soon. But like- widespread, debilitating cyber attacks to cripple an enemy? You need to follow Slashdot and even classic news better. Cyberwarfare IS becoming the new norm. I'm going to take a screenshot of this now for when this particular scifi becomes reality.

I show a hell of a lot more than just hosts files here -> http://www.google.com/search?output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000/XP%22&btnG=Submit&gbv=1&sei=x3yEUcTEC7Wh4APx4IDwDg

* :)

APK

P.S.=> You're also MORE THAN WELCOME to disprove what I DO STATE about custom hosts files here:

--

APK Hosts File Engine 5.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74

--

Good luck - you'll need more than that though! I've watched 100's of you naysayer idiot trolls attempt to do so... not a single one of you has, not a one (which makes me laugh)...

... apk

Maybe a shotgun with ceramic bearings instead of lead pellets?

I believe the invention you're looking for is a gristle gun.

This demo is plain Javascript, but only uses as subset of it (asm.js), the VM needs performance enhancement to run (asm.js) efficiently so it is not an easy task to support other browser, unless you call "supported"to run it very slow http://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=2599

This requieres Mozilla JS enhancements (asm.js) currently on nightly builds, It can work on other browsers but without the performance tuning made for the JS subset that is asm.js it will run slow. Chromium bug proposing to add support for asm.js http://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=2599

I don't know what 'best practices' are, but I can tell you, if it takes 193 days to fix a vulnerability, on average, from the time you are notified about it, then you are not following best practices.

Or, if you are this guy, and claim "bugs are not a big deal," then you are not following best practices.

It's not clear what the author of the present study believes are best practices, but it's clear there are a lot of people who are doing things horribly wrong.

Sweden's population growth rate has been under 1% for the last 50 years. Doesn't look like the policy is successfully encouraging much to me.

I would point out that there is enough evidence that the bond between mothers and their children are sufficiently weak that states like CA (I would presume most states) have literally made laws that allow mothers to abandon their children at drop off points in an attempt to keep them from murdering them.

https://www.google.com/search?q=california+safe+surrender+law&safe=off&hl=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=o-GCUe6LMKbliwL_yIGQCQ&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1920&bih=928

This reminds me of the patent that was granted (and later revoked) for the method of swinging on a swing. http://www.google.com/patents/US6368227
So I'm forced to ask the obvious. How is virtual page turning novel and unique compared to doing it with paper?

There is no test for obviousness, despite it being a requirement that patents must not cover obvious innovations.

There's a difference between "there is no test for obviousness" and "I don't know what the test for obviousness is," and they should not be used interchangeably when you mean the latter. The Examiner can make a prima facie case that a claimed invention is obvious by showing that one or more pieces of prior art, alone or in combination, teach or suggest each and every element in the claim. So, if a claim recites A+B+C and the Examiner can show one piece of prior art that teaches A+B and another that teaches C, and they can be combined without undue experimentation or changing their functions, then the claim is obvious. If, on the other hand, the Examiner can't find anything that teaches C anywhere, then the claim is not obvious.

Happy to help clarify that for you.

Now, to clear up a few other things you say:

The cost to invalidate a patent is in the millions, but the cost to file and receive a patent is in the hundreds.

It costs about $25k to file and prosecute a patent to issue, not "hundreds". And they can be invalidated for just a few hundred via post grant review.

First to File means that patent application secrecy is needless -- If you're filling a patent it should be public knowledge so we can protest anything that is obvious / file our prior art.

That doesn't change anything, as all patent applications were published under the first-to-invent system, too, and the public could protest by submitting prior art to the Examiner.

Look at the Automotive and Fashion industries -- Neither of which have design patents or copyright, and yet design is their core sales point, and they are very innovative in design.

Here are tens of thousands of design patents in the automotive industry. And here are thousands of design patents on dresses. A search for design patents on "jeans" will turn up a similar number, as will socks, shoes, etc. Your premise is demonstrably false.

Anyone who fears Trade Secrecy / Trade Unions locking up innovation has never met a reverse engineer from this century. We strip layers off of microchips to discover their wiring at the nano scale.

Yes, but without patents, there would be more efforts to protect trade secrets - like you wouldn't actually ever own a physical microchip to strip it apart. You'd merely be renting it under a lease agreement, with massive liquidated damages if you do damage it. Do you really want to have to have a subscription to use your computer? I don't.

We have spectrograms and readily derive the secret recipes for foodstuffs and medicines -- Hence the generics market existing.

Actually, the generics market exists because of patent disclosures and the FDA orange book. Would you buy a "generic" reverse engineered version of a brand new medicine that the FDA hadn't approved, much less tested?

It's not economically feasible for secrets to exist in consumer products today, you can't hide the molecules and machine code from me (and yes, I do read and write fluently in machine code).

Watch out, Slashdot, we've got a badass over here.

There is no test for obviousness, despite it being a requirement that patents must not cover obvious innovations.

There's a difference between "there is no test for obviousness" and "I don't know what the test for obviousness is," and they should not be used interchangeably when you mean the latter. The Examiner can make a prima facie case that a claimed invention is obvious by showing that one or more pieces of prior art, alone or in combination, teach or suggest each and every element in the claim. So, if a claim recites A+B+C and the Examiner can show one piece of prior art that teaches A+B and another that teaches C, and they can be combined without undue experimentation or changing their functions, then the claim is obvious. If, on the other hand, the Examiner can't find anything that teaches C anywhere, then the claim is not obvious.

Happy to help clarify that for you.

Now, to clear up a few other things you say:

The cost to invalidate a patent is in the millions, but the cost to file and receive a patent is in the hundreds.

It costs about $25k to file and prosecute a patent to issue, not "hundreds". And they can be invalidated for just a few hundred via post grant review.

First to File means that patent application secrecy is needless -- If you're filling a patent it should be public knowledge so we can protest anything that is obvious / file our prior art.

That doesn't change anything, as all patent applications were published under the first-to-invent system, too, and the public could protest by submitting prior art to the Examiner.

Look at the Automotive and Fashion industries -- Neither of which have design patents or copyright, and yet design is their core sales point, and they are very innovative in design.

Here are tens of thousands of design patents in the automotive industry. And here are thousands of design patents on dresses. A search for design patents on "jeans" will turn up a similar number, as will socks, shoes, etc. Your premise is demonstrably false.

Anyone who fears Trade Secrecy / Trade Unions locking up innovation has never met a reverse engineer from this century. We strip layers off of microchips to discover their wiring at the nano scale.

Yes, but without patents, there would be more efforts to protect trade secrets - like you wouldn't actually ever own a physical microchip to strip it apart. You'd merely be renting it under a lease agreement, with massive liquidated damages if you do damage it. Do you really want to have to have a subscription to use your computer? I don't.

We have spectrograms and readily derive the secret recipes for foodstuffs and medicines -- Hence the generics market existing.

Actually, the generics market exists because of patent disclosures and the FDA orange book. Would you buy a "generic" reverse engineered version of a brand new medicine that the FDA hadn't approved, much less tested?

It's not economically feasible for secrets to exist in consumer products today, you can't hide the molecules and machine code from me (and yes, I do read and write fluently in machine code).

Watch out, Slashdot, we've got a badass over here.

The first one I checked is still active. I'm not about to waste my time doing an exhaustive search. The fact that you use sports as an example tells me you aren't actually concerned with using newsgroups for anything important. It may well be true that the useless newsgroups have gone out of style. The ones that matter seem to still be around. As far as LKML being a mailing list I agree that it is in the name (ML) but it is also a newsgroup. If it can be accessed via NNTP it qualifies as a newsgroup, just as a website that can also be accessed via ftp is also an ftp site.

The idea is in fact so old that it was used in pre-computer arcade games, from back in the days when there were electro-mechanical arcade cabinets with parts that get moved around by motors.

On the plus side, at least the patent is expired. Here is a patent from 1946, describing a rather bizarre rabbit hunting game. If you shoot the rabbit successfully, a colored light turns on to illuminate the rabbit's face in red, which the patent describes as the rabbit blushing (I guess rabbits are embarrassed at being shot). But if you miss the rabbit with your shot, then the rabbit turns around and shoots you, which the cabinet implements by delivering a mild electric shock.

We're really living in amazing times.

Most online courses to date have been lacking in one aspect or another, most notably student interest - drop rates of over 95% are common. Teething pains probably, as teachers begin to recognize that a) courses online must be presented in a different way, and b) teaching techniques must be effective (in terms of keeping student interest) when the audience is not captive.

Recently I saw this gem, which is extremely good. Good presentation, good technical quality (web form scoring &c), good content, and some experimental techniques in keeping student interest.

While I don't like the techniques used for keeping student interest in this course, they are at least experimenting with new techniques and learning from past mistakes. The quality keeps getting better.

Their business model varies, but one site hopes to provide an MBA ensemble for $50 (Udacity) and another gets finders fees from companies that hire the top scorers (edX). And of course there's Kahn academy, which is turning high-school education upside down.

In a couple of years, you will probably be able to get a complete high-quality education by self-study over the internet for thin money. You'll be able to study as much as you want for whatever topic you want and for as long as you want.

No more massive student loans just to get a decent education.

Another example of a moribund business model being overtaken by new technology.

Amazing times indeed.

Keep on working for a company that advocates a future without privacy, capitalist faggot.

I really shouldn't respond to this, but...

I, personally, care a great deal about privacy. I was an active participant on cipherpunks when it was a going concern, ran a mixmaster remailer for years, strongly advocated (and contributed to) PGP and S/MIME email encryption tools, still run a Tor node and an open Wifi access point on a 100Mbps connection, am a strong advocate for cryptographic privacy assurance tools of all sorts -- and my day job at Google is building the encryption systems that ensure critical user data is kept properly secured, including from Googlers. My day job used to be security and privacy consulting.

I mention all of that to give you a feel for my general attitudes about security and privacy... and I'm perfectly comfortable with working for Google. I think the company takes great care to do the right things. Not that there aren't occasional screwups -- in a company this size, and especially one where decisions are almost entirely bottom-up, there will be mistakes. But that's what they are: mistakes, not evidence of a subtle conspiracy to destroy privacy. In fact, I'd argue that the fact that there have been so few mistakes and they've all been relatively harmless is strong evidence for Google's good intentions and excellent execution.

Google's stance on privacy is that it's very important. However, it's reasonable to trade personal information for access to goods and services. Google wants to make such a compelling suite of services, and to behave so responsibly with the data you provide, that you want to make that trade. Google also wants you to have the option of deciding not to make that trade.

That's why Google provides:

https://www.google.com/dashboard
https://www.google.com/settings/ads/plugin/
http://www.dataliberation.org/
http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/

And others.

It does concern me a little bit that a future version of Google, under different leadership, could begin to abuse the data access it has. It also concerns me a little that government can leverage Google (and Facebook, etc.) to obtain way too much insight into private information. No matter how careful Google is to secure and properly manage user information, government can always compel its release. But that's primarily an issue to be addressed through public policy.

I'm a staunch privacy/security advocate (and no, those things are not at all the same, though there are intimate relationships between them), and I'm quite comfortable working for Google -- and quite comfortable calling attention internally to any privacy missteps I think the company is making. Google actually makes it very easy for employees to speak up on such issues in a way that can't be swept under the rug, at the weekly TGIF meetings. If I see a serious issue I can -- and will -- stand up in front of the whole company and take Larry Page to task. But I suspect if I felt the need to do that, I'd have to get in line. There are a lot of hardcore geeks at Google who care a great deal about privacy.

Of course, you'll just dismiss this whole comment, because you'll assume I'm bought and paid for. Fine. Whatever. But do you really think a Google engineer can't easily get a job elsewhere? Hell, isn't actively recruited on a regular basis? I speak my mind, and I wouldn't say any of this just because my employer wanted me to. In fact, if this post comes to HR's attention, they'll likely gently suggest that I should shut up (gently, though... Google is a company of nerds and understands that nerds have strong opinions and object strongly to being silenced without very good reason).

IHBT and shall have a nice day.

Keep on working for a company that advocates a future without privacy, capitalist faggot.

I really shouldn't respond to this, but...

I, personally, care a great deal about privacy. I was an active participant on cipherpunks when it was a going concern, ran a mixmaster remailer for years, strongly advocated (and contributed to) PGP and S/MIME email encryption tools, still run a Tor node and an open Wifi access point on a 100Mbps connection, am a strong advocate for cryptographic privacy assurance tools of all sorts -- and my day job at Google is building the encryption systems that ensure critical user data is kept properly secured, including from Googlers. My day job used to be security and privacy consulting.

I mention all of that to give you a feel for my general attitudes about security and privacy... and I'm perfectly comfortable with working for Google. I think the company takes great care to do the right things. Not that there aren't occasional screwups -- in a company this size, and especially one where decisions are almost entirely bottom-up, there will be mistakes. But that's what they are: mistakes, not evidence of a subtle conspiracy to destroy privacy. In fact, I'd argue that the fact that there have been so few mistakes and they've all been relatively harmless is strong evidence for Google's good intentions and excellent execution.

Google's stance on privacy is that it's very important. However, it's reasonable to trade personal information for access to goods and services. Google wants to make such a compelling suite of services, and to behave so responsibly with the data you provide, that you want to make that trade. Google also wants you to have the option of deciding not to make that trade.

That's why Google provides:

https://www.google.com/dashboard
https://www.google.com/settings/ads/plugin/
http://www.dataliberation.org/
http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/

And others.

It does concern me a little bit that a future version of Google, under different leadership, could begin to abuse the data access it has. It also concerns me a little that government can leverage Google (and Facebook, etc.) to obtain way too much insight into private information. No matter how careful Google is to secure and properly manage user information, government can always compel its release. But that's primarily an issue to be addressed through public policy.

I'm a staunch privacy/security advocate (and no, those things are not at all the same, though there are intimate relationships between them), and I'm quite comfortable working for Google -- and quite comfortable calling attention internally to any privacy missteps I think the company is making. Google actually makes it very easy for employees to speak up on such issues in a way that can't be swept under the rug, at the weekly TGIF meetings. If I see a serious issue I can -- and will -- stand up in front of the whole company and take Larry Page to task. But I suspect if I felt the need to do that, I'd have to get in line. There are a lot of hardcore geeks at Google who care a great deal about privacy.

Of course, you'll just dismiss this whole comment, because you'll assume I'm bought and paid for. Fine. Whatever. But do you really think a Google engineer can't easily get a job elsewhere? Hell, isn't actively recruited on a regular basis? I speak my mind, and I wouldn't say any of this just because my employer wanted me to. In fact, if this post comes to HR's attention, they'll likely gently suggest that I should shut up (gently, though... Google is a company of nerds and understands that nerds have strong opinions and object strongly to being silenced without very good reason).

IHBT and shall have a nice day.

Keep on working for a company that advocates a future without privacy, capitalist faggot.

I really shouldn't respond to this, but...

I, personally, care a great deal about privacy. I was an active participant on cipherpunks when it was a going concern, ran a mixmaster remailer for years, strongly advocated (and contributed to) PGP and S/MIME email encryption tools, still run a Tor node and an open Wifi access point on a 100Mbps connection, am a strong advocate for cryptographic privacy assurance tools of all sorts -- and my day job at Google is building the encryption systems that ensure critical user data is kept properly secured, including from Googlers. My day job used to be security and privacy consulting.

I mention all of that to give you a feel for my general attitudes about security and privacy... and I'm perfectly comfortable with working for Google. I think the company takes great care to do the right things. Not that there aren't occasional screwups -- in a company this size, and especially one where decisions are almost entirely bottom-up, there will be mistakes. But that's what they are: mistakes, not evidence of a subtle conspiracy to destroy privacy. In fact, I'd argue that the fact that there have been so few mistakes and they've all been relatively harmless is strong evidence for Google's good intentions and excellent execution.

Google's stance on privacy is that it's very important. However, it's reasonable to trade personal information for access to goods and services. Google wants to make such a compelling suite of services, and to behave so responsibly with the data you provide, that you want to make that trade. Google also wants you to have the option of deciding not to make that trade.

That's why Google provides:

https://www.google.com/dashboard
https://www.google.com/settings/ads/plugin/
http://www.dataliberation.org/
http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/

And others.

It does concern me a little bit that a future version of Google, under different leadership, could begin to abuse the data access it has. It also concerns me a little that government can leverage Google (and Facebook, etc.) to obtain way too much insight into private information. No matter how careful Google is to secure and properly manage user information, government can always compel its release. But that's primarily an issue to be addressed through public policy.

I'm a staunch privacy/security advocate (and no, those things are not at all the same, though there are intimate relationships between them), and I'm quite comfortable working for Google -- and quite comfortable calling attention internally to any privacy missteps I think the company is making. Google actually makes it very easy for employees to speak up on such issues in a way that can't be swept under the rug, at the weekly TGIF meetings. If I see a serious issue I can -- and will -- stand up in front of the whole company and take Larry Page to task. But I suspect if I felt the need to do that, I'd have to get in line. There are a lot of hardcore geeks at Google who care a great deal about privacy.

Of course, you'll just dismiss this whole comment, because you'll assume I'm bought and paid for. Fine. Whatever. But do you really think a Google engineer can't easily get a job elsewhere? Hell, isn't actively recruited on a regular basis? I speak my mind, and I wouldn't say any of this just because my employer wanted me to. In fact, if this post comes to HR's attention, they'll likely gently suggest that I should shut up (gently, though... Google is a company of nerds and understands that nerds have strong opinions and object strongly to being silenced without very good reason).

IHBT and shall have a nice day.

Google already did this. Gmail Tap

Cool! Google "upgrades" to Morse Code!

Was that an April 1 post?

Google already did this.

Gmail Tap

Google don't even want to enable ad-hoc wifi in Android... https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=82 .. but it can be added if you are willing to install a modified cyanogenmod: http://www.thinktube.com/android-tech/46-android-wifi-ibss

Google has zero control ver Android-based product productization. All those decisions are made by the device vendor during the final productization phase by the partner (read: device vendor). This is also why there are so many versions of Android out there; each device has its own Android variant based on the exact state of the source tree at the time they did a local replica in order to start the productization phase.

If Google moved productization in-house, they could cause a more uniform environment for specific release versions, but this would not control UI differences or configuration file differences or feature differences instituted by the partner.

Nor could they force a partner to update the version of Android running on their devices. Once fielded, this would require carrier recertification of the devices before it could be deployed, and it is against the partners best interests to update devices, as that would cannibalize sales of new devices.

Ad Hoc is against the carriers best interests, since the alternative is to charge you SMS charges instead, and it's against the partners best interestes to enable UI for it, since they sell through the carriers, and the carriers do not want it enabled.

So basically you are attempting the Sisyphean task of fighting both the carriers, and their thralls, the partners, and you are holding an uninvolved third party responsible for not doing your job for you.

Google, who seems to be running the advertising network that's actually doing well, makes around 98% of its money from selling ads.

FYI, Google does make the vast majority of its money from ads, but not 98%. Here are recent percentages (calculated from http://investor.google.com/financial/tables.html):

2011: 96.3%
2012: 94.9%
2013: 91.9% (Q1 only, obviously)

For Q1 2013, Google's non-advertising revenues saw 150% year-on-year growth and 27% quarter-on-quarter growth, to just over $1B for the quarter. At that rate, Google is on track to have ~6B in 2013 in non-advertising revenues, and for advertising revenues to drop to less than 90% of total revenues. Perhaps even more.

Note that none of the above includes Motorola Mobility revenues. If you count Motorola, Q1 advertising revenues were 85% of total revenues.

Also note that this isn't because Google's advertising business isn't doing well, it's because it's non-advertising business is doing even better (except for Motorola, which is still posting losses).

(Disclaimer: I work for Google, but this is all public information.)

Google Goggles
I think you are thinking of their other product, Google Glass.

This new amendment recalls the Mansfield Amendment ( http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2000/nsb00215/nsb50/1970/mansfield.html ), which is listed by J. Storrs Hall in "Beyond AI" as being one of the causes of the "AI Winter" during the 1970s. (See http://books.google.com/books/about/Beyond_AI.html?id=j6ofAQAAIAAJ page 82.)

To be honest, I think they're fairly well polished, especially when compared to the Microsoft equivalent "Run Advertised Programs"" .

And if you are shopping for a family, cycling isn't an option because of the load you have to haul back.

Only if you have to worry about hills. I mean, bike trailers exist.

What would be the mountains of garbage and how empty the purse in this country, if that would make anyone like that? Schwerin Ministry of Education made with 170 virus-infected computers, leaving them short shrift unceremoniously throw in the trash. The State Court of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern has carried out the initial purchase of 170 computers now reprimanded. "The approach taken is not up to the principle of efficiency and economy." € 187,300 cost of the new equipment and installation services to taxpayers.

The seemingly insurmountable pest, the computer of the teacher training institute (IQMV) in Schwerin, Rostock, Neubrandenburg and Greifswald was seized in September 2010, was the Conficker worm . In addition, the computer should have been more affected by some other viruses, such as the Ostsee-Zeitung reported first.

As the Court in its report criticizes for 2012, the Ministry of Education have had "no IT security concept" and established the new purchase with "faulty IT equipment". Further explanation and evidence remained the Ministry guilty. It "could [...] not state whether the IT systems of the IQMV were actually affected the extent mentioned above. Protocols of anti-virus software could only be provided for the location of Greifswald, despite repeated requests, which, however, no massive fund of was to remove viruses at the relevant time. "

In addition, the Department did not properly consider how costly cleaning the computer had actually been. The Ministry of Education guess the cost of cleaning initially to around 130,000 euros. The cost of 152,300 euros for an already registered for the fiscal years 2010/2011 published by new acquisition in a different light. The additional costs for installation were estimated at around 35,000 euros. Thus, the Ministry decided only to clean the affected server and otherwise replace all systems.

As the Court points out the country, the Ministry has now committed an IT security concept and develop "its supervisory task perceive so that an efficient and goal-oriented control and monitoring will be necessary." For since the Ministry has provided no "evidence of the actual damage and the causes for the occurrence of the damage," "should [...] be left open whether carried out by the complete replacement of the [computer] is a repetition of the damage is excluded http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heise.de%2Fnewsticker%2Fmeldung%2FSchwerin-Virus-verseuchter-Rechner-Ab-auf-den-Muell-damit-1851718.html

Did you seriously just suggest that we should look at a comic book for a likely model of how we'll run our society in the future?

Science fiction has been wrong in the past, but it has also been right in the past. Read the article "5 Important Things You Won't Believe Comic Books Invented" by Diana McCallum, and once you finish that, there are more. If an idea appears plausible, and the implementation described in a work of fiction appears plausible, why not? Jonathan Swift described the welfare state of Lilliput in Travels into Several Remote Nations long before "welfare state" was a household name. And now you even.

Welcome to post-modern slavery: where a small "aristocracy" composed of slaves is forced to labor to provide for the needs of a massive herd of uneducated livestock who contribute nothing to society

"Livestock"? Really? Next thing you'll tell me is that 800 millennia from now, humankind's descendants will have speciated into above-ground fatted cattle and the below-ground cave dwellers who tend them. The subterraneans provide the necessities of life for the upworlders, who turn a garden full of food that food eats into flesh that the subterraneans' carnivorous digestive systems can handle. Oh wait, that's an H. G. Wells novel.

We could have traded some productivity for leisure time. Europe does it more than the English speaking world. I mean, how hard have you tried to make it happen? :-)

Everyone will point out how "doom and gloom" predictions of automation have been made before, and the historical results.

This is extrapolating future conditions from past events. All previous predictions of "doom and gloom" turned out to be a non-problem.

The question is, will it be a problem this time? To answer this, we must examine whether the current situation is like the historical examples. If the same assumptions hold, then we can be reasonably confident that future events will play out as they have done in the past. If the assumptions are different, then there is chance for a different outcome.

In this situation, macroeconomics makes an assumption with one corollary: the assumption of infinite consumption, and the corollary of infinite need for labor.

If people are like microorganisms, then consumption increases exponentially. Humans will tend to consume more and more goods and services if given the chance. Who wouldn't own a mansion and a yacht if given the choice? And more mansions and more yachts if they were essentially free.

Furthermore, like microorganisms, people will increase in population without limit if given the chance. If population increases exponentially even at constant per-capita consumption, consumption must increase exponentially.

Corollary: With infinite consumption, there will be an infinite need for labor. No matter how efficient and effective the system is at providing goods and services, there will always be a need for labor to produce more. Infinite consumption implies infinite labor.

Those are the assumptions. Now let's see if the assumptions are valid this time.

The population in industrialized nations is declining. Industrialized nations are below the "replacement rate" fertility level and have been for some time. The US would have negative population growth if we had no immigration, and since the fertility rate has been steadily dropping it's likely that we will have negative growth even *with* immigration in the near future. Third world nations are predicted to enjoy the same decline in population once they become modernized.

That's population, how about consumption?

The productive level of America has about doubled since 1970. If the productive wealth were evenly distributed, every man, woman, and infant in the country could spend $38,000 on goods and services this year, and then do it again next year. Every "family of four" could have 4 times this amount in spending power each year, while breadwinners put in the same number of hours at work.

The question we should ask: Is consumption infinite? Will people always say "it's not enough - I need more in my life than I have at the moment"?

If the answer to this (largely psychological) question is no, then the assumptions of macroeconomics are false in this instance and we must predict from a different model. We cannot rely on historical evidence to guide future decisions, because the situation is different.

If the answer is yes, then continue on as before. Doom and gloom naysayers are simply Luddites, and we all know how that movement turned out.

https://www.google.com/search?q=tripod+sprinkler#q=adjustable+tripod+sprinkler&source=univ&tbm=shop

Indeed, many such things exist, though it looks like the difference is that in the ones on the first page of google shopping, you adjust the height by adjusting the leg length rather than raising or lowering the center column as in this patent. Adjusting the leg length would better handle uneven ground.

Ah, but those don't have wheels! This is obviously something completely different and innovative!

On the one hand, yes, the lawyer goes a bit overboard. But on the other, let's consider this: http://www.google.com/patents/US6368227 Aside from other strange patents, the swinging method patent illustrates a couple of problems. First, regardless of the current state of validity of the patent, the fact that it was granted in the first place shows that prior art doesn't mean what a lot of people think it means. Apparently, to the patent office, it means "we have nothing on file" as opposed to "kids have been doing this since the swing was invented". Second, the patent was granted and then later revoked. That means that examiners time was spent looking at it, then granting it, then subsequently looking at it and revoking it. It should come as no surprise that it takes so long to get a patent seriously looked at when stuff like this is in the pile.

On a related note, I'm not convinced that the new "first to file" rule is a good thing. Suppose you spend years working on an invention and somebody breaks into your offices, copies all the application documents, and then mails them in. How then can you get back what was stolen?

https://www.google.com/search?q=tripod+sprinkler#q=adjustable+tripod+sprinkler&source=univ&tbm=shop

Indeed, many such things exist, though it looks like the difference is that in the ones on the first page of google shopping, you adjust the height by adjusting the leg length rather than raising or lowering the center column as in this patent. Adjusting the leg length would better handle uneven ground.

Spam accounts needn't be a problem. You could use the usual account creation mechanism with all its checks, then allow an OAUTH provider to be associated with the account. Or add the anti-spam checks to the login path the first time an OAUTH identity is used.

This was the page: "Google sends a random code to third-party sites to enable you to sign in to these sites with your Google Account. This code doesn't reveal any personal information.". I was assuming this was done properly and the random code was unique for each third-party site, but I may well be wrong.

Stackoverflow isn't great. It won't accept an "anonymous" logon from Google. If you won't give up your email address you can't log in.

Anyway, thanks for engaging. AC is usually ignored.

This guy.

[ link found as # 14 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bio-inspired_robotics ]

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roboboa = Roboboas has 4 angled body sections, allowing Roboboa to coil by rotating adjacent sections. A motorized tail roller and casters on the midsection allow Roboboa to move in a straight line.

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake-arm_robot

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snakebot = Snake robots come in all shapes and sizes, from the three meters long, fire fighting snakebot developed by SINTEF,[1] to a medical snakebot developed at Carnegie Mellon University that is thin enough to maneuver around organs inside a human chest cavity. Though snakebots can vary greatly in size and design, there are two qualities that all snakebots share. First, their small cross section to length ratio allows them to move into, and maneuver through, tight spaces. Second, their ability to change the shape of their body allows them to perform a wide range of behaviours, such as climbing stairs or tree trunks.

And my favorite section is at

72 = http://www.snakerobots.com/

73 = http://www-robot.mes.titech.ac.jp/robot/snake/acm-r5/acm-r5_e.html with cool pictures of swimming snake robots

74 = Swimming snake robot (commentary in Japanese)

BZZT

Oh dear, showing your old-man syndrome again. When was this juvenile comeback last popular, in the early 90s Usenet?

Defining a word with itself - fail.

"gave consideration to" is just another way of saying "considered it". Just fucking google it if you don't believe me and want to see some examples. The only failure here is your pitiful lack of English skills. I referred you to the dictionary if you really have a problem with "considered".

Selective misquoting to avoid answering the hard question - fail.

I'm not avoiding any hard questions, nor have I misquoted anything. What "hard" question did I not answer? Now avoiding -- you are doing that by not acknowledging your original statement, along with your continual dance away from it.

Yawn

http://www.google.com/search?q=can+you+drink+fracking+fluid

"Rooting" means exploiting a security flaw to get root privileges in a device that is designed to prevent users from doing that (e.g. the iPhone or the Android phones sold by some US network operators).

Bootloader unlocking and root access was available and well documented on the first Android device designed by Google (the Nexus One), simply by running the command "fastboot oem unlock".

The same command worked on the second Android phone by Google, the Nexus S, and all subsequent devices, including tablets: Galaxy Nexus, Nexus 4, Nexus 7 and Nexus 10. Unsurprisingly it also works on Glass.

It's just a well know feature of all the devices created by Google. Details: https://plus.google.com/112413860260589530492/posts/jYHhKHYwUJ2.

Google's documentation on how to "root" your Android devices: http://source.android.com/source/building-devices.html.

Maybe you're on the wrong mailing list?

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.zpwebsites.linuxonandroid&hl=en

OK, it's chroot'd ARM Debian/Ubuntu on Android, but it works well enough for my purposes (well, except for my CyanogenMOD phones that don't have the loop device module compiled in for some silly reason :/ )

... except that in this case you actually can install Linux on Android.

One could argue that, but one would be talking out of one's ass in doing so.

I don't think the code signing is directly screwing Microsoft, but it's part of an element of 'customer hatred' that really shows the way they are going. We all know how development works. You choose to do one feature or another. Code signing the way Microsoft chose it, has almost no customer benefits and plenty of long term customer negatives in terms of reducing competition and your own freedom to fix your system when needed (even fixing the bottom layer of Windows is blocked). Almost certainly one of the key features which makes Android better was dropped to do this. For example maybe Gesture Typing - a bit like the Swype Nokia used to have on the N9 before it was cancelled.

Compare that to Google's "Data Liberation Front" features designed to let you export your data when you want to. This has very little direct benefit for Google, but the customer benefit is massive and comes at the point when you least expect it. Short term this looks stupid, but long term it means that users come to "trust" Google which is to Google's long term advantage as well.

Microsoft has a long history of choosing features like Active-X and directly executable email content which allow them to deliver proprietary control of your machine to themselves at the cost of problems (in those case security problems) for customers later. Customers may not know that they are being screwed now, but they remember that they were screwed before and are beginning to expect that. The Microsoft ban on GPL software in Windows Market place is an example. They don't like the software so they make the choice for you. The choice to have a fixed user interface around hubs, not allowing Apps to change things is another example - at the beginning it makes things more consistent; it makes it easier for them to sell you more similar devices; but later on it means you can never achieve the full power of a customized mobile device and is part of a whole attitude problem leading to continual app disappointment.

Simply put, code signing is a symptom of Microsoft's hatred of their own customers (just one of the first links to pop up searching for Mirosoft customer hatred. They look at their "ecosystem partners" as a bunch of suckers ready to be screwed when the chance comes up. That used to work in the old days when every tech company had to come round Redmond to get permission before doing a big new launch. Now it's just getting users and partners annoyed.

Anyone who likes Chrome OS can just use "Chrome for Android". https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/browser/mobile/android.html It's not exactly the same as running straight Chrome OS, but it's close enough. You get the best of both worlds.

Not only do you get a shell

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=jackpal.androidterm

you get a complete command line based environment with compiler, editor, etc.:

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.spartacusrex.spartacuside

It doesn't require jailbreaking or root, and it's even free.

Not only do you get a shell

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=jackpal.androidterm

you get a complete command line based environment with compiler, editor, etc.:

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.spartacusrex.spartacuside

It doesn't require jailbreaking or root, and it's even free.

Or at least that's what the pundits has been saying.

Except the tradition market was killed off to preserve the Windows Monopoly, and the higher priced laptops. Ironically simply handing the more mobile market to tablets...Giving both ARM and Android (oooh Google) a massive window (giggle) of opportunity (at least they Killed off another GNU/Linux opportunity).

Although its a guilty secret of PC industry that Surface/MacBook are are simply overpriced netbooks. The reality is https://plus.google.com/+LinusTorvalds/posts/dk1aiW4JjHd this is Linux on Chromebooks. It shows the future of Debian looking very exciting.

Ignoring that Ubuntu is a success. Your question is the meme When will Linux be successful on the Desktop? The answer to most of us is obvious who see than Microsoft has no competitors left. Even if it backstabs its customers and manufactures causing a loss of 14% of Sales. It still celebrates its best quarter ever...and almost 80% Gross Profit Margin. In short because of Microsofts Abusive Monopoly or simply that it exists. The right question is why Android on the Desktop? This is Linus on Chrome (I know its not Android but the points are the same) https://plus.google.com/+LinusTorvalds/posts/dk1aiW4JjHd yet its a massive opportunity. The reason is Google (and Apple although they don't have a desire to compete!?) sidestepped Microsoft and captured (More) Mobile computing, with a new breed of easy to use computing (or old client server computing depending on your age). Android alone is set to overtake Windows this year!!. These companies are so large that Microsoft itself cannot bully or bribe them, and Android is a popular product with both end customers and manufacturers.

...but again Linux on the Desktop is continuing to grow, its just the Desktop is not sexy right now.

How about we just attach a giant magnet to the back of space craft similar to what you'd see behind the rear or front tires of an RV to pick up road debris before it punctures the tires.

Citation: http://www.google.com/patents/US3956111

Going to point out if you put magnets behind the wheels, you aren't going to stop it from being punctured.