It's possible for a game to stream data from both the optical drive and the hard-drive in parallel, improving reading throughput. GTA V did this. But most games do indeed seem to treat the disc as essentially a hard-to-copy auth token.
I wonder why they don't just press CDs. Much cheaper than shipping Blu-Rays, no?
I agree that 'optics' sounds rather silly and unnaturally technical, but none of those words can really replace it in context. They did it to avoid bad optics is far more compact than They did it to avoid a negative public perception. The closest I can think of is 'PR', but that's narrower: it applies to companies and NGOs, but not to governments, government institutions, or people.
we do not know if the human programmer intuition is behaving non-deterministically or not
There's little sense holding out hope that we're spared from determinism, hoping to carve out space for conventional free will, but it makes little difference for our purposes here. Even if the brain is somehow non-deterministic, you can do a reasonable job of simulating it using a deterministic machine: just pick seed values using some pseudorandom scheme, to pick from the set of candidate outputs of the non-deterministic machine. You'll get a valid output.
even if the universe is deterministic, it can be shown through a paraphrasing of the halting problem that non-deterministic systems could theoretically exist within it without violating any underlying deterministic nature
With respect, it absolutely cannot, but I'd be curious to hear your line of reasoning here.
I share your scepticism, for the simple reason that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but it's not the case that theoretical computer science demonstrates the impossibility of a useful-but-imperfect bug-detector powered by learning techniques.
Indeed, we know for a fact that such systems exist: human programmers' intuitions.
Perhaps what's really new here isn't so much the Internet network itself, as the rise of 'platforms' like Yelp. Similar issues arise with Uber, AirBnB, and all the rest.
This You're not really buying hardware meme is getting rather out of hand. The old Google/Facebook treat you as a product, not as a customer line makes some real sense, but you're taking things a bit far.
Unlike many other major tech companies, Apple doesn't derive revenue from advertising and data-mining, but from selling products. Yes, the product is locked-down and it runs proprietary software.
Where does it end? You're not really buying a bicycle, you're buying the ability to cycle to places, which just happens to include the requisite hardware as part of your purchase?
No, they're quite different. On reddit, there's no upvote ceiling, and the highest scoring comments rise to the top. On Slashdot, the earliest comment is always shown at the top.
Slashdot's approach has the advantage that downvotes don't bury dissenting posts as much, but it can mean that a low-quality post steers the whole conversation.
Incidentally, on boths sites there are idiots who downvote stuff they disagree with, but I'd say it happens more on reddit. I suspect Slashdot's 'mod points' feature deserves some credit here. On reddit, any account can vote, and there's no protection against people using sockpuppet accounts to vote multiple times.
Err, no. As Theaetetus already implied, the whole point of Asimov's Three Laws was that they wouldn't work.
Anyway, you appear not to have read the summary beneath the deliberately misleading headline - the robot only 'fights back' in that it physically rights itself in response to the human pulling it backward. It does not use violence.
Not really. There's nothing of any technical interest here, just a rather silly lawsuit by people who seem not to understand what it means to publish an image on the web.
They blame Google for people finding and stealing their images. They seem not to realise that if people can find their images online - which is presumably the point of publishing online - that means they'll be able to steal them.
Obfuscation/DRM of still-frame images will always be a losing battle. You can use technical measures to stop hotlinking (inspect HTTP referer header, or split image into several pieces and reassemble in HTML, or constantly shift URLs, etc), but there's no technical way to prevent stealing. Perhaps they could go as far as to use DRM technologies like EME to make it tougher, but it still wouldn't stop a determined thief. Insisting Google get rid of their View Image button is especially laughable.
Oh, but you can turn that off (if you're paying enough attention to realise they're doing it in the first place, and have the technical competence to disable it)
Other companies are doing it too (and therefore it's ok?)
It's understandable why they want to do that to their customers (and therefore it's ok?)
Mixing weak sauces doesn't give you a stronger sauce.
Your defence of UWP is particularly pitiful. Microsoft deliberately want to prevent distribution outside their app-store. They don't want you to be able to put the.exe on a Flash drive. They don't want Steam to be able to compete with them. They're walling off some of their technologies as UWP-only to try to force people's hands. And yet you're trying to spin it as benefiting the user.
Slashdot Mirror
It's possible for a game to stream data from both the optical drive and the hard-drive in parallel, improving reading throughput. GTA V did this. But most games do indeed seem to treat the disc as essentially a hard-to-copy auth token.
I wonder why they don't just press CDs. Much cheaper than shipping Blu-Rays, no?
Stallman abandoned his morals and allowed and it to be used to create all manner of freedom-disrespecting software.
Do your homework. They did think it through. It's essentially an application of Freedom Zero.
I agree that 'optics' sounds rather silly and unnaturally technical, but none of those words can really replace it in context. They did it to avoid bad optics is far more compact than They did it to avoid a negative public perception. The closest I can think of is 'PR', but that's narrower: it applies to companies and NGOs, but not to governments, government institutions, or people.
we do not know if the human programmer intuition is behaving non-deterministically or not
There's little sense holding out hope that we're spared from determinism, hoping to carve out space for conventional free will, but it makes little difference for our purposes here. Even if the brain is somehow non-deterministic, you can do a reasonable job of simulating it using a deterministic machine: just pick seed values using some pseudorandom scheme, to pick from the set of candidate outputs of the non-deterministic machine. You'll get a valid output.
even if the universe is deterministic, it can be shown through a paraphrasing of the halting problem that non-deterministic systems could theoretically exist within it without violating any underlying deterministic nature
With respect, it absolutely cannot, but I'd be curious to hear your line of reasoning here.
I share your scepticism, for the simple reason that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but it's not the case that theoretical computer science demonstrates the impossibility of a useful-but-imperfect bug-detector powered by learning techniques.
Indeed, we know for a fact that such systems exist: human programmers' intuitions.
Other than jurisdiction, scale, and anonymity?
Perhaps what's really new here isn't so much the Internet network itself, as the rise of 'platforms' like Yelp. Similar issues arise with Uber, AirBnB, and all the rest.
Yeah, you said. My points remain.
This You're not really buying hardware meme is getting rather out of hand. The old Google/Facebook treat you as a product, not as a customer line makes some real sense, but you're taking things a bit far.
Unlike many other major tech companies, Apple doesn't derive revenue from advertising and data-mining, but from selling products. Yes, the product is locked-down and it runs proprietary software.
Where does it end? You're not really buying a bicycle, you're buying the ability to cycle to places, which just happens to include the requisite hardware as part of your purchase?
Yeah yeah. AC comments on Slashdot are consistently of far worse quality than those posted by 'named' (generally pseudonymous) users.
You two ACs (if you really are two different people) have been 'conversing' at the level of unruly children.
The Internet-tough-guy nonsense? Heaven spare us.
A noble effort, but trying to reason with ACs is like trying to play chess with pigeons.
I really shouldn't reply to ACs - they're almost always about this dumb. Anyway:
I knoq, never said they did?
So why were you talking about them? You just felt like some irrelevant rambling?
Born into a wealth family
You keep saying that. Are you under the impression that people with wealthy families cannot be pioneers?
stop downloads APPS APPS APPS all the goddamned time
I agree. Use the web instead.
Incidentally, London implements a licensing scheme for its public transport. I presume plenty of other cities do the same.
If it becomes politicised, it will discredit itself.
Anyone can make a list. No-one is being forced to consult the list. Unless it appears credible, it will have no adoption or impact.
No, they're quite different. On reddit, there's no upvote ceiling, and the highest scoring comments rise to the top. On Slashdot, the earliest comment is always shown at the top.
Slashdot's approach has the advantage that downvotes don't bury dissenting posts as much, but it can mean that a low-quality post steers the whole conversation.
Incidentally, on boths sites there are idiots who downvote stuff they disagree with, but I'd say it happens more on reddit. I suspect Slashdot's 'mod points' feature deserves some credit here. On reddit, any account can vote, and there's no protection against people using sockpuppet accounts to vote multiple times.
That makes you a treasonous piece of shit.
You ACs love throwing that word around, but in reality it has quite a precise meaning. Holding an opinion never counts as treason.
You may now continue with your unthinking flamewar.
Very unlikely to involve Silverlight. Netflix in IE/Edge doesn't use Silverlight, it uses HTML5/EME. Same goes for their Windows app.
Netflix could start streaming in AV1 before the end of this year, with Chrome browsers likely being first in line to receive AV1 streams.
But Chrome is a famously poor choice for Netflix - it only supports 720P, despite that it's apparently possible to force 1080P playback with tweaks.
(To be clear, the 720P limitation appears to be Netflix's doing, not Chrome's.)
There's no such thing as intrinsic value. Value is contextual by nature.
Whatever's going.
We appear to have encountered an anomalous value of 2.
You're in luck! Google and Facebook are in the business of sucking up everything they can.
This applies to most 'software as a service', and much of what falls under the 'cloud computing' brand.
Err, no. As Theaetetus already implied, the whole point of Asimov's Three Laws was that they wouldn't work.
Anyway, you appear not to have read the summary beneath the deliberately misleading headline - the robot only 'fights back' in that it physically rights itself in response to the human pulling it backward. It does not use violence.
Not really. There's nothing of any technical interest here, just a rather silly lawsuit by people who seem not to understand what it means to publish an image on the web.
They blame Google for people finding and stealing their images. They seem not to realise that if people can find their images online - which is presumably the point of publishing online - that means they'll be able to steal them.
Obfuscation/DRM of still-frame images will always be a losing battle. You can use technical measures to stop hotlinking (inspect HTTP referer header, or split image into several pieces and reassemble in HTML, or constantly shift URLs, etc), but there's no technical way to prevent stealing. Perhaps they could go as far as to use DRM technologies like EME to make it tougher, but it still wouldn't stop a determined thief. Insisting Google get rid of their View Image button is especially laughable.
Oh, but you can turn that off (if you're paying enough attention to realise they're doing it in the first place, and have the technical competence to disable it)
Other companies are doing it too (and therefore it's ok?)
It's understandable why they want to do that to their customers (and therefore it's ok?)
Mixing weak sauces doesn't give you a stronger sauce.
Your defence of UWP is particularly pitiful. Microsoft deliberately want to prevent distribution outside their app-store. They don't want you to be able to put the .exe on a Flash drive. They don't want Steam to be able to compete with them. They're walling off some of their technologies as UWP-only to try to force people's hands. And yet you're trying to spin it as benefiting the user.