What the fuck were you thinking going into a movie theater wearing your Google Glass in this time and age. I think you desperately hoped this would happen, probably tried a few other theaters that wouldn't bite first. And finally, you found one that did, giving you a nice story to cry about on all the digital forums. Congratulations, dude, you got your 15 minutes.
How about, before posting, you scan your headlines/summaries for words like 'could', 'might, 'possibly', 'maybe', 'probably', and ask yourself whether you're posting news about stuff that matters or just speculations with some trigger keywords.
A) Why would I want transparency in an animation?
B) Then 'some browsers' need to fix their gif handling.
C) Typical gif size is what, 1MB?
D) Burden of proof is on APNG.
Browsing through this page, I've seen what the current gif implementations allow. APNG has no business fragmenting the animated image playing field. And guess what, my music collection is still mp3.
This is a global market. Companies want to make money. Apparently 'completely unqualified' H1B workers are worth their money. Perhaps American IT workers are simply hugely overpaid.
True, with conventional design the gain is questonable. But at least this would open up a new branch in chip design, and it would be interesting to see what comes out of it.
UK's citizen becoming experts on web technology, encryption and obfuscation in 3... 2... 1... I mean, take a man's porn away and he'll build a rocket to Mars to get it.
Translation: you're not getting the point.
Lots of false negatives and false positives is still a lot better than random guessing. Also, this is just the beginning.
The reason Microsoft is still the favored desktop OS is probably linux taking forever to get its shit together and create a user-focused OS like Ubuntu, giving Microsoft all the time it needed to create Windows 7. I remember well the many attempts I made with earlier linuxes, only to be disappointed each and every time because shit just didn't work. Ubuntu is a breeze these days, sure, but that's too little, too late.
Linux has always, and still does to a large extent, lacked discoverability of features and solutions. I can still hardly imagine configuring a linux machine without access to internet forums answering very specific questions.
Yes, this type of comment always goes down well with the Slashdot crowd. Nevertheless, it is time you move away from your Win98 machine and enter the real world.
Current phones - yes, the term 'phone' is and will be used to refer to portable computers - are as big as they are because of the screen and required battery. If we could manufacture a display lens that connects to a graphics device through a hair-thin optic fiber, energy consumption goes way down, and the display devices can be mass-produced. I think calibration for individual eyes is possible, as well as backlighting these lenses for when it's dark. Just imagine the possibilities of even a low-resolution B/W overlay of the world as you now see it. Phone sized will not shrink because of this, mind you, since you don't want to lose or break yours too easily.
The other matter is the input device. However, as many of you are capable of outputting hundreds of characters per minute blindfold, I don't think that's going to be a problem in terms of bandwidth, although we would have to let go of the point-and-click interface by hand-gesturing. Perhaps a simple combination of gyroscope and focus sinks?
In terms of functionality, that really doesn't matter. We'll figure that out as we go along. Screen, mouse and keyboard have been around for ages now and we are able to do most things without a problem. When was the last time new revolutionary hardware was invented and caught on?
I see no immediate future for intrusive medical implants for display and input, as opposed to the lenses, which you can simply take out at any time. However, as more and more people are getting their eyes lasered to be done with lenses, I can imaging some people not objecting to getting the best and brightest displays this way. Then again, even today many people don't want to take the risk of something going wrong, when there is a perfectly safe alternative available.
The only reason it worked out well here is because of the OPTA (telecom watchdog), which is, not surprisingly, a government organization. Without them, we'd still be paying through the nose.
Other questions come to mind, of course:
What's the failure rate of the kind of device/system you envision?
What's the backup plan if the private key is leaked, stolen or guessed somewhere in the next decade?
Private key is not only stored on the ID cards, I think. Even so, it is not physically impossible to obtain this key, and it must be guaranteed to be secret for years. Given the ratio of perceived security to possible gain, it will be cracked. Or have you not been on the web, the past few years?
All it takes is theft of a single piece verification hardware, or a single breach of security to extract the private key. This will probably even go unnoticed. And we can't simply give everyone new ID each time an unauthorized person had access to a government computer, can we?
You may be right, but it like shopping for new car, the salesman suggesting this brand new model of unknown manufacturer like it's the best car available, and the rear view mirror falling off before you leave the parking lot for a test drive. The car may run for a couple of blocks, but it does not bode well. Would you buy this car?
If it's digital, exact copies are possible.
If it's digital, because of the convenience, analogue security measures will be taken less seriously.
If it's digital, uninformed politicians will think it cool, and believe in it like some do in 70 virgins.
If it's digital, the process is fast and can be automated, and the threat is increased a million-fold (out of arse, of course) by sheer statistics. We need slow electronics
If it's digital, tampering is undetectable.
Either way, this digitally secure ID thing can only lead to government saying: "Look! We've tried, and you also know that the only way to do this properly is to put you all in a database and track your every move."
Can we perhaps agree on forsaking digital security just because it's cheaper and faster in cases where we don't need it anyway (i.e. when people aren't up to no good)?
Maybe not, and people will simply realize: "Hey, 98% of the news doesn't concern me, might as well skip the extra 2% as well and go back to listening to the radio."
Having had access to loads of free movies... I mean mus... d'oh... news for years, people are not going to pay all of a sudden. I may cost only 2 cents to print a newspaper, but people will pay the extra dollar to have it, even though it has all the drawbacks of the old media.
Slashdot Mirror
What the fuck were you thinking going into a movie theater wearing your Google Glass in this time and age. I think you desperately hoped this would happen, probably tried a few other theaters that wouldn't bite first. And finally, you found one that did, giving you a nice story to cry about on all the digital forums. Congratulations, dude, you got your 15 minutes.
A qbit computer already matches conventional computers in speed? I'm impressed!
You absolutely have to follow that with "Is that going to be a problem here?"
non-constructive cynicism passes as insightful here?
How about, before posting, you scan your headlines/summaries for words like 'could', 'might, 'possibly', 'maybe', 'probably', and ask yourself whether you're posting news about stuff that matters or just speculations with some trigger keywords.
So, your life savings are under a mattress? Or do you trust the bank?
Right, the usual fundme bullshit wrapped as article. Come back when you have something beyond speculation.
Assembly is art in programming like chiseling in stone is in writing books.
Severely punishing criminals does the same too. We will not be held hostage by the unwilling.
A) Why would I want transparency in an animation?
B) Then 'some browsers' need to fix their gif handling.
C) Typical gif size is what, 1MB?
D) Burden of proof is on APNG.
Browsing through this page, I've seen what the current gif implementations allow. APNG has no business fragmenting the animated image playing field. And guess what, my music collection is still mp3.
This is a global market. Companies want to make money. Apparently 'completely unqualified' H1B workers are worth their money. Perhaps American IT workers are simply hugely overpaid.
True, with conventional design the gain is questonable. But at least this would open up a new branch in chip design, and it would be interesting to see what comes out of it.
Only thing missing from the title to completely disqualify the article is ', scientists say.' No, I didn't bother even reading the summary.
UK's citizen becoming experts on web technology, encryption and obfuscation in 3... 2... 1... I mean, take a man's porn away and he'll build a rocket to Mars to get it.
Translation: you're not getting the point. Lots of false negatives and false positives is still a lot better than random guessing. Also, this is just the beginning.
The reason Microsoft is still the favored desktop OS is probably linux taking forever to get its shit together and create a user-focused OS like Ubuntu, giving Microsoft all the time it needed to create Windows 7. I remember well the many attempts I made with earlier linuxes, only to be disappointed each and every time because shit just didn't work. Ubuntu is a breeze these days, sure, but that's too little, too late. Linux has always, and still does to a large extent, lacked discoverability of features and solutions. I can still hardly imagine configuring a linux machine without access to internet forums answering very specific questions.
Yes, this type of comment always goes down well with the Slashdot crowd. Nevertheless, it is time you move away from your Win98 machine and enter the real world.
Current phones - yes, the term 'phone' is and will be used to refer to portable computers - are as big as they are because of the screen and required battery. If we could manufacture a display lens that connects to a graphics device through a hair-thin optic fiber, energy consumption goes way down, and the display devices can be mass-produced. I think calibration for individual eyes is possible, as well as backlighting these lenses for when it's dark. Just imagine the possibilities of even a low-resolution B/W overlay of the world as you now see it. Phone sized will not shrink because of this, mind you, since you don't want to lose or break yours too easily.
The other matter is the input device. However, as many of you are capable of outputting hundreds of characters per minute blindfold, I don't think that's going to be a problem in terms of bandwidth, although we would have to let go of the point-and-click interface by hand-gesturing. Perhaps a simple combination of gyroscope and focus sinks?
In terms of functionality, that really doesn't matter. We'll figure that out as we go along. Screen, mouse and keyboard have been around for ages now and we are able to do most things without a problem. When was the last time new revolutionary hardware was invented and caught on?
I see no immediate future for intrusive medical implants for display and input, as opposed to the lenses, which you can simply take out at any time. However, as more and more people are getting their eyes lasered to be done with lenses, I can imaging some people not objecting to getting the best and brightest displays this way. Then again, even today many people don't want to take the risk of something going wrong, when there is a perfectly safe alternative available.
The only reason it worked out well here is because of the OPTA (telecom watchdog), which is, not surprisingly, a government organization. Without them, we'd still be paying through the nose.
So it's 'pretty' impossible, at the moment...
Other questions come to mind, of course:
What's the failure rate of the kind of device/system you envision?
What's the backup plan if the private key is leaked, stolen or guessed somewhere in the next decade?
Private key is not only stored on the ID cards, I think. Even so, it is not physically impossible to obtain this key, and it must be guaranteed to be secret for years. Given the ratio of perceived security to possible gain, it will be cracked. Or have you not been on the web, the past few years?
All it takes is theft of a single piece verification hardware, or a single breach of security to extract the private key. This will probably even go unnoticed. And we can't simply give everyone new ID each time an unauthorized person had access to a government computer, can we?
You may be right, but it like shopping for new car, the salesman suggesting this brand new model of unknown manufacturer like it's the best car available, and the rear view mirror falling off before you leave the parking lot for a test drive. The car may run for a couple of blocks, but it does not bode well. Would you buy this car?
If it's digital, exact copies are possible.
If it's digital, because of the convenience, analogue security measures will be taken less seriously.
If it's digital, uninformed politicians will think it cool, and believe in it like some do in 70 virgins.
If it's digital, the process is fast and can be automated, and the threat is increased a million-fold (out of arse, of course) by sheer statistics. We need slow electronics
If it's digital, tampering is undetectable.
Either way, this digitally secure ID thing can only lead to government saying: "Look! We've tried, and you also know that the only way to do this properly is to put you all in a database and track your every move."
Can we perhaps agree on forsaking digital security just because it's cheaper and faster in cases where we don't need it anyway (i.e. when people aren't up to no good)?
Maybe not, and people will simply realize: "Hey, 98% of the news doesn't concern me, might as well skip the extra 2% as well and go back to listening to the radio."
Having had access to loads of free movies... I mean mus... d'oh... news for years, people are not going to pay all of a sudden. I may cost only 2 cents to print a newspaper, but people will pay the extra dollar to have it, even though it has all the drawbacks of the old media.