I've been saying for years that "dark matter" and "dark energy" aren't really things.
Which would make you right, and in accordance with every scientist that's looking at this, anywhere. And when we find those types of matter, or interaction, or weird gravitational effect, or whatever, we'll likely still call it "dark matter". Does that mean it becomes a thing then, but wasn't before?
Anyway, this isn't dark matter, or energy, it's the missing baryonic matter. Baryonic just basically means "regular stuff". Dark matter means "something else, not regular stuff".
Baked-in applications on an unmodifiable, non general-purpose computing device, like a TV or Xbox, or whatever, represents a very significant hurdle to new players in the marketplace. Where once the internet looked like it might be an accessible platform for new sellers of media content to be able to compete on a level playing field with the big boys, we are now obviously falling far short of that standard.
So, be very, very suspicious of any baked-in applications, or 'netflix' button on your remote control, or similar attempts by a company to solidify their position without necessarily being the best at what they do. There's probably a fancy word for it that I have yet to learn.
It's pretty great - you can even get GLSL code into the graphics card. I've no affiliation with it, and it's not free, but it was really worth the money.
Oh now come on. It sometimes works. I used it just yesterday. I nearly fell off my chair when I was actually able to transfer a file. And then the second transfer I attempted failed with some obscure and patently untrue error, and I thought - oh well, back to normal.
Now they can use a simple scanner to locate items to steal
I'm not sure that your average thief is going to using a "scanner" to locate things to steal, to the extent that such things even exist. Seems extremely fanciful.
Stop it with that meaningless statement. Do you want Apple to invent the transistor every quarter, or something? What would constitute an innovation from your perspective?? The Wheel? After that, it's just a collection of slightly differently useful round things!!
Come on. Name on thing, in the last fifty years, that you would consider an "innovation", and I'll show you why it's actually just an iteration.
I know, and I totally understand all that. But on the other hand, my handy home router isn't likely to be patched anytime soon, and the web interface on the product I happen to be working on is likely to be used for ten years or more, without necessarily being updated. The system may not be internet connected, but it will need to be configured by a laptop, running a browser.
If Google take this HTTPS-only approach all the way, as some people suggest that they will, what shall I do? I can't put a 10-year cert on the device, I don't think you can even get ten-year certs, can you? I can't generate my own, and have people install my CA, because that's too much of a hoop to jump through, and Android (for instance) gets upset at you when you do.
HTTPS everywhere has the side effect of locking us all into an upgrade cycle that I thought slashdotters in general, were against.
But it's a real pain for anything that you ship with a web interface, and expect to work unmodified for a long period of time.
Sure, that's a niche use-case, I get that, but not everything that's accessed by a web browser is something easily updated, and why should it be? If I build some device that's intended to be put on my local network, and give it a web interface, - like, say, a home router - will I be required to implement HTTPS on the device, and have it ship with a cert? A cert that expires after a relatively short period of time?
I happen to have an old computer lying around the house, and it can't run anything more modern than Chrome from about eight years ago. This browser is able to access anything on the web, other than newer HTTPS sites, because it doesn't understand their certificate. By building these mechanisms of trust, and then constantly changing them (for instance, change from Common Name to Subject Alternate Name - and whatever it is that old Chrome hates about modern certs), we are locking ourselves out of notions of backwards compatibility, and increasing the rate at which we have to throw away our devices, because we can't afford to release OS updates for old hardware, and can't afford to release browser updates for old OSs.
I get that we're talking about security here, and trust, but I personally see a high cost. Plain HTTP is great. HTTPS is a moving target, and seems like it will remain so.
I get what you're saying, but if I have a colleague who insists on sending me compressed archives of word documents, I'm going to tell them to stop, and use google docs, or something similar, instead. If there's a worse way of collaborating than email, I'm yet to find it.
Jumping in here, because I don't understand what there isn't to like about the iOS backups. They back up everything other than your passwords, and the apps themselves. All app data is backed up, all your photos and documents etc. I've restored from them multiple times, and it's always worked perfectly.
I personally use Apple products more or less exclusively. I've used PCs, and Android devices, and Build-your-own PCs, for decades.
The fact is that Apple hardware beats the crap out of everything else on the market, every time. You pay a little bit more, and you get fantastic hardware, and the best desktop OS experience that exists, plus excellent and simple cloud offerings too. iCloud keychain, and photo library, are fantastic. For both security, and versatility, neither of them are matched by any other product. Prove me wrong.
All that said, I wouldn't touch a 'beats by dre' headphone if you paid me.
It's like trying to get to your destination by getting out of the car every fifteen meters, setting fire to it, and then looking for another car to continue your journey.
"Surely the energy is not "wasted", it has been used to create the output."
If you could, in theory, use orders of magnitude less energy to achieve the same output, then a good proportion of the energy consumed is indeed wasted.
completely different constraints than desktop computing
Yes, they're even more sensitive to the cost of power than mobile computing is. The chief cost of running a datacentre is not the hardware, but the power, and the cooling.
Of course. But the fact is that Facebook, Instagram, What's App, etcetera etcetera is what most people use their smartphones for.
And the web of ten years ago doesn't bear much resemblance to the web of today, for better or for worse, it's a "platform" now, not just a bunch of HTML pages.
Naturally, you know all of that, and are about to protest that the above mentioned items are of no value. Nevertheless, the fact remains, that those things are the things that people want their phones for.
But eventually they do. These devices are sold because they connect to the internet, and internet services move on, and end up requiring newer versions of applications, which are not normally back-ported to older versions of the OS.
So after a period of time, you end up with a very expensive telephone.
Slashdot Mirror
No, Baryonic means pastry, and dark matter is what happens if you leave it in the oven for too long.
A little knowledge still appears to be a dangerous thing.
I've been saying for years that "dark matter" and "dark energy" aren't really things.
Which would make you right, and in accordance with every scientist that's looking at this, anywhere. And when we find those types of matter, or interaction, or weird gravitational effect, or whatever, we'll likely still call it "dark matter". Does that mean it becomes a thing then, but wasn't before?
Anyway, this isn't dark matter, or energy, it's the missing baryonic matter. Baryonic just basically means "regular stuff". Dark matter means "something else, not regular stuff".
Baked-in applications on an unmodifiable, non general-purpose computing device, like a TV or Xbox, or whatever, represents a very significant hurdle to new players in the marketplace. Where once the internet looked like it might be an accessible platform for new sellers of media content to be able to compete on a level playing field with the big boys, we are now obviously falling far short of that standard.
So, be very, very suspicious of any baked-in applications, or 'netflix' button on your remote control, or similar attempts by a company to solidify their position without necessarily being the best at what they do. There's probably a fancy word for it that I have yet to learn.
That used to be true, but at some point the rules were significantly relaxed, and now you can get fantastic apps like this one:
Pythonista on the App Store
It's pretty great - you can even get GLSL code into the graphics card. I've no affiliation with it, and it's not free, but it was really worth the money.
Except they were the ones to remove audio DRM in the first place, and they've shown no interest in putting it back at all.
Oh now come on. It sometimes works. I used it just yesterday. I nearly fell off my chair when I was actually able to transfer a file. And then the second transfer I attempted failed with some obscure and patently untrue error, and I thought - oh well, back to normal.
Now they can use a simple scanner to locate items to steal
I'm not sure that your average thief is going to using a "scanner" to locate things to steal, to the extent that such things even exist. Seems extremely fanciful.
Stop it with that meaningless statement. Do you want Apple to invent the transistor every quarter, or something? What would constitute an innovation from your perspective?? The Wheel? After that, it's just a collection of slightly differently useful round things!!
Come on. Name on thing, in the last fifty years, that you would consider an "innovation", and I'll show you why it's actually just an iteration.
I know, and I totally understand all that. But on the other hand, my handy home router isn't likely to be patched anytime soon, and the web interface on the product I happen to be working on is likely to be used for ten years or more, without necessarily being updated. The system may not be internet connected, but it will need to be configured by a laptop, running a browser.
If Google take this HTTPS-only approach all the way, as some people suggest that they will, what shall I do? I can't put a 10-year cert on the device, I don't think you can even get ten-year certs, can you? I can't generate my own, and have people install my CA, because that's too much of a hoop to jump through, and Android (for instance) gets upset at you when you do.
HTTPS everywhere has the side effect of locking us all into an upgrade cycle that I thought slashdotters in general, were against.
But it's a real pain for anything that you ship with a web interface, and expect to work unmodified for a long period of time.
Sure, that's a niche use-case, I get that, but not everything that's accessed by a web browser is something easily updated, and why should it be? If I build some device that's intended to be put on my local network, and give it a web interface, - like, say, a home router - will I be required to implement HTTPS on the device, and have it ship with a cert? A cert that expires after a relatively short period of time?
I happen to have an old computer lying around the house, and it can't run anything more modern than Chrome from about eight years ago. This browser is able to access anything on the web, other than newer HTTPS sites, because it doesn't understand their certificate. By building these mechanisms of trust, and then constantly changing them (for instance, change from Common Name to Subject Alternate Name - and whatever it is that old Chrome hates about modern certs), we are locking ourselves out of notions of backwards compatibility, and increasing the rate at which we have to throw away our devices, because we can't afford to release OS updates for old hardware, and can't afford to release browser updates for old OSs.
I get that we're talking about security here, and trust, but I personally see a high cost. Plain HTTP is great. HTTPS is a moving target, and seems like it will remain so.
I get what you're saying, but if I have a colleague who insists on sending me compressed archives of word documents, I'm going to tell them to stop, and use google docs, or something similar, instead. If there's a worse way of collaborating than email, I'm yet to find it.
iOS is a little bit better
Jumping in here, because I don't understand what there isn't to like about the iOS backups. They back up everything other than your passwords, and the apps themselves. All app data is backed up, all your photos and documents etc. I've restored from them multiple times, and it's always worked perfectly.
I personally use Apple products more or less exclusively. I've used PCs, and Android devices, and Build-your-own PCs, for decades.
The fact is that Apple hardware beats the crap out of everything else on the market, every time. You pay a little bit more, and you get fantastic hardware, and the best desktop OS experience that exists, plus excellent and simple cloud offerings too. iCloud keychain, and photo library, are fantastic. For both security, and versatility, neither of them are matched by any other product. Prove me wrong.
All that said, I wouldn't touch a 'beats by dre' headphone if you paid me.
Same here. An iPhone 4S with failed wifi was replaced for free, no questions asked, due to design flaws.
It's like trying to get to your destination by getting out of the car every fifteen meters, setting fire to it, and then looking for another car to continue your journey.
"Surely the energy is not "wasted", it has been used to create the output."
If you could, in theory, use orders of magnitude less energy to achieve the same output, then a good proportion of the energy consumed is indeed wasted.
completely different constraints than desktop computing
Yes, they're even more sensitive to the cost of power than mobile computing is. The chief cost of running a datacentre is not the hardware, but the power, and the cooling.
People are not spending money on shit entertainment because of the government, surely?
Smart man. Good call. I think you're very likely to enjoy that about six million times more than the TV.
Your sarcasm fails to make the post wrong, though.
That's a relief. It's always so annoying when slashdotters fail to acknowledge the extent to which their particular use-cases tend to be outliers.
Of course. But the fact is that Facebook, Instagram, What's App, etcetera etcetera is what most people use their smartphones for.
And the web of ten years ago doesn't bear much resemblance to the web of today, for better or for worse, it's a "platform" now, not just a bunch of HTML pages.
Naturally, you know all of that, and are about to protest that the above mentioned items are of no value. Nevertheless, the fact remains, that those things are the things that people want their phones for.
But eventually they do. These devices are sold because they connect to the internet, and internet services move on, and end up requiring newer versions of applications, which are not normally back-ported to older versions of the OS.
So after a period of time, you end up with a very expensive telephone.
Folks were already starting to to get disillusioned and looking for the next magic-bullet development method by then.
Thank god for that. It astonishes me the extent to which we play around with process here, rather than just getting on with the job.