Just how far does this guy have to go before he lacks the support to continue?
I've heard Trump voters saying things along the lines of "If Jesus Christ gets down off the cross and told me Trump is with Russia, I would tell him, hold on a second, I need to check with the president if it is true. That is how confident I feel in the president."
We have a pretty long way to go if ostensibly Christian voters will choose to believe Trump rather than their God.
so your phone call should be sorted just the same as my newest linux iso?
I'm fine with that. If you're using the internet for a service that is better served by a dedicated channel, then there are two options:
* Accept the internet's properties, and design around it (increasing latency by buffering, for example) * Get your network providers to increase capacity so they aren't woefully oversubscribed. Because ISP's are woefully oversubscribed.
In the end, it comes down to peering. ISP's connect to various network tiers, and depending on the peering agreement, the packets are either transferred for "free", or are metered per Megabit packet transit. Even "free" peering is expensive: ISP's still have to pay for the fiber to connect, network hardware, power, etc. Packet transit is always a cost to the ISP.
Why? Because of CDN's: CDN's are not "the internet", but are instead large, high-speed, private networks. CDN's are company-owned WANs using leased-lines between sites, and not the internet. CDN's are "customers" of the ISP as well, and pay huge amounts of money to "deliver" content to the ISP's last mile.
ISP's want to turn their internet peering agreements on their head: ISP's want to be paid for packet transit from an upstream peer network, instead of peering being a cost. (ie. they want to turn the entire internet into a CDN that pays them)
Ever heard of radio jamming? It doesn't take much to get a radio transmission to cover the entire globe, so some coordination is very helpful.
The FCC is about coordination to increase the ability of Americans to use the 1st Amendment... by playing nice with other nations who can just as easily jam our communications.
The original purpose of the FCC was for two reasons, and both still apply:
1. To enforce radio treaties between the US and other nations. That way everybody can hear radio clearly. 2. To separate the radio spectrum into chunks so information could be transferred most efficiently.
Step #1 falls down immediately. The constitution clearly states that "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." There is no requirement that they exercise that right.
Step #2 falls down because of the 5th amendment; property can only be seized when it remains property of the US government. For Intellectual property, the well-trodden path is that the government simply infringes on the patent, and decides what it considers a "just" compensation to the patent holder -- the patent doesn't change hands.
A change of this magnitude literally requires a constitutional amendment, which are pretty hard to pass in the best of circumstances.
And, of course, thereâ(TM)s Steamâ(TM)s remote play capability, and NVIDIAâ(TM)s cloud gaming.
I can see remote rendering becoming serious business - no console to buy, no expensive gaming rig. Just stream to an tablet or phone with a Bluetooth controller.
It may not do for latency-sensitive games like multiplayer FPSâ(TM)s, but 40-80 ms of latency isnâ(TM)t an experience killer for an awful lot of games.
Having used remote rendering for games, I can say first-hand: itâ(TM)s not perfect, but not having to buy multiple $1000 GPUâ(TM)s to render at full detail has its charm.
... It's good to know that Microsoft has yet to be accused of tasteful UI design.
What is wrong with the search on the start menu.
The only thing I can think of is that the center of the screen is also the center of attention.
LaunchBar (and QuickSilver, Launcy, whatever clone you pick for whatever OS) are useful for a lot more than just launching programs, which is why they're so popular.
Has Linux improved any in the 'having games worth playing' front?
Depends on your tastes, of course. The following is a selection that covers simulations, racing games, FPS games, strategy games, survival horror...
It's an old UI paradigm. It's been implemented since 1996 (and probably earlier), and has multiple implementations including two in KDE alone (to say nothing of the dozens of others that exist in Windows, Mac and Linux).
The only interesting thing here is that Microsoft is baked one into Windows, just like Apple did; and in both cases, they did it years after third-parties did it...
It seems the TFA's author doesn't have an axe to grind...
There's no mention of it being a "stolen" interface anywhere.
So... seriously... this appears to be BeauHD getting the Anti-Apple crowd into a frothy mess because Microsoft has decided to do the same thing Apple did -- add a bit of good UI into their OS.
It makes me wonder what axe TFA's author has to grind. It's a UI model people liked, and (shocker) Apple added a similar interface to Spotlight. It's far from the first on the Mac, and exactly nobody at Apple would claim otherwise.
The first (that I know of) is LaunchBar, which started on NeXTSTEP; and even that is probably not the first interface (I'll bet Xerox PARC had something similar too...)
There were probably a dozen (at least) LaunchBar and similar launchers in OS X before Apple made their clone.
Bottom line: It's a good interface, and Micorosoft would be crazy not to use it.
How about a 'load canonical page' setting in the google search options?
Yeah, but then other surveillance companies will monitor you, instead of just Google.
AMP was created as a response to Facebook's "Instant Articles," which is pretty much the same idea, but with Facebook as the surveillance company instead of Google.
Apparently, it's not acceptable to serve ads without a few megabytes of javascript spyware, which is why the "mobile web" hard performance issues to begin with.
Notifications: There is no way to clear all recent notifications at once
There has always been a dismiss icon in the notifications window to dismiss all notifications in the day (and after several days, they are grouped by week). That hasn't changed in many releases of iOS, including iOS11. If you "like to keep your notifications clean," I have a hard time believing you have several days worth of notifications piling up.
Even if you do let notifications pile up for several days, you definitely don't have to remove them individually.
The swipe-up panel is terrible. Definitely a case of changing for the sake of change.
I disagree; the customizable control center is better than the previous multi-panel monstrosity users couldn't modify change. Tastes are subjective, of course.
Auto-brightness.
Auto brightness has been in every iOS device, and every iOS version. It's also a standard feature on Android devices. It's amazingly useful, and I can't be the only one that appreciates not having to fiddle with the brightness every time I move between areas with different light levels.
Why isn't it under "Display & Brightness" from the main settings page?
Because brightness is built-in to the control center, and has been there for many years. (You know, the "swipe-up panel" you claim is terrible).
And if you manually change brightness from the swipe-up panel, auto-brightness is disabled. Then begins the lengthy PITA that is finding the Auto-Brightness option and enabling it again
Hmm. If I change the brightness and go to the settings app and navigate to auto brightness, it's not disabled, and no amount of fiddling in the control center will change that.
There is, of course, a timeout. If you manually set the brightness, it's reasonably safe to assume you'd like the brightness setting to persist until you've hit the 'lock button' and had the screen off for a while - so (shocker) iOS will maintain the manual brightness setting until the screen has been locked for a few minutes.
I think it all comes down to what you base your measurement system from.
Most of the world's measurements are centered around "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom." All of the other basic units require that duration as part of their derivation.
America has realized that it's a poor basis, as the duration can vary significantly depending on one's relative velocity vs a frame of reference. Time dilation is well known in America, thanks to Hollywood's exceedingly accurate treatment of space travel.
In contrast, the a pint of beer remains the same whether stationary or at superluminal speeds (as seen in Hollywood's many documentaries).
Therefore, basing American measurements on a pint of beer is clearly superior.
Actual ROM is very rare and OTP (one time programmable) tends to be very small and for specialized functions.
Or they've used the a chip where the programmer burns out a diode in the microcontroller, rendering it read-only.
However, in such a case the firmware may have no functions to erase and re-write (including being laid out in such a way that it always has at least a stub that can complete an interrupted update rather than bricking).
My bet is it can only be programmed by cracking it open, and hooking up a manufacturer-proprietary programmer (it might be standard JTAG, though). Either way, it's not something consumers can do.
I'm sure there was a conversation along the lines of:
Engineer: "We'll have to spend an extra $0.20 per unit if we want firmware upgrades"
Manager: "That's too expensive, Engineer. Just do your job properly for a change."
VP: "Manager, your leadership saved the company $100k. Have a $50 gift card!"
There's no small amount of controversy as to whether D-Wave is even "quantum". It's definitely not general purpose.
D-Wave's current offering is "15x" faster than a single-core silicon microprocessor -- and the tasks it's useful for are embarrassingly parallel. Modern laptops are starting to be offered with 18 or more cores - meaning that even laptop CPU can outperform D-Wave's "1000+ Qubits"
Scientific publications have, by and large, found that a traditional multicore silicon chip can easily outperform whatever D-Wave is making, and there has been no measurable "quantum speedup" in D-Wave's products.
D-Wave makes quantum annealing processors - and is only useful for a sliver of useful computing (adiabatic quantum computing).
There's no small amount of controversy as to whether D-Wave systems are truly quantum machines. A number of groups found "no quantum speedup" and have shown better performance using traditional silicon, and studies have been published to that effect.
IBM's effort is a true general purpose quantum computer - the kind that can run Shor's algorithm and render RSA, Diffie-Hellman, and ECC cryptography useless.
However the real problem is local people need to value their local news enough to pay for it in one way or another.
And to do that, they need to value their local community enough to take part in it.
Sadly, a lot of us have fallen into the trap of ignoring the things we can change on our own street, and paying attention to things we cannot change thousands of miles away.
Hell, it's not uncommon to have no idea who your neighbors are anymore.
Until we have REAL AI, self-aware, capable of actual thought and real interaction with humans
We don't even know what "self-aware" is, to say nothing of "actual thought". How exactly is it defined? A sea cucumber is aware enough of itself to try to preserve its existence, and yet they have no brain. Is that "self aware?" They're not bumping around in the dark, speeding off in random directions, randomly eating, or mating with whatever they touch. They can process input from their sensory organs to find food, and are able to communicate for the sake or reproduction. Is that thought?
How is a sea cucumber's intelligence any less real than our own basic "can it kill me, can I eat it, can I hump it" model?
Moreover, the standard isn't that an autonomous vehicle is fully self aware and of a human level of intelligence, and in fact, that kind of awareness may be detrimental to autonomous driving - an AI of even dog levels of intelligence may be easily distracted by squirrels.
Autonomous cars merely have to be better than human drivers, which is much simpler, because humans are honestly bad drivers - we make profoundly unsafe decisions based on any of a number of things that have nothing to do with driving the car - such as thinking about anything except driving the car. We convince ourselves we're paying attention, yet we've refined the ability to prove the audience isn't paying attention into an artform we pay to see (just ask Penn & Teller...)
So no, autonomous cars don't have to be a superintelligent AI in order to be a better choice than our current insane, hormonal ape model.
Even with the semi-autonomous systems in my car (adaptive cruise control and lane guidance), hand-off is a big problem. Either the car decides to slam on the brakes when a car starts to pull off the road (slows down and switches lanes), or it accelerates with reckless abandon because it can't sense the stopped cars 300+ feet ahead. (And it won't slow down when it does detect the cars ahead because the speed delta is now greater than 30 MPH)
Or it starts tugging at the wheel to guide my car back into the center of my lane, even though the reason I'm departing the lane is because I'm being crowded out of my lane.
It feels somewhat like teaching somebody to drive... the system almost always does the right thing, but sometimes makes decisions you don't agree with, and the transition between who is in control is jarring.
Slashdot Mirror
Just how far does this guy have to go before he lacks the support to continue?
I've heard Trump voters saying things along the lines of "If Jesus Christ gets down off the cross and told me Trump is with Russia, I would tell him, hold on a second, I need to check with the president if it is true. That is how confident I feel in the president."
We have a pretty long way to go if ostensibly Christian voters will choose to believe Trump rather than their God.
so your phone call should be sorted just the same as my newest linux iso?
I'm fine with that. If you're using the internet for a service that is better served by a dedicated channel, then there are two options:
* Accept the internet's properties, and design around it (increasing latency by buffering, for example)
* Get your network providers to increase capacity so they aren't woefully oversubscribed. Because ISP's are woefully oversubscribed.
In the end, it comes down to peering. ISP's connect to various network tiers, and depending on the peering agreement, the packets are either transferred for "free", or are metered per Megabit packet transit. Even "free" peering is expensive: ISP's still have to pay for the fiber to connect, network hardware, power, etc. Packet transit is always a cost to the ISP.
Why? Because of CDN's: CDN's are not "the internet", but are instead large, high-speed, private networks. CDN's are company-owned WANs using leased-lines between sites, and not the internet. CDN's are "customers" of the ISP as well, and pay huge amounts of money to "deliver" content to the ISP's last mile.
ISP's want to turn their internet peering agreements on their head: ISP's want to be paid for packet transit from an upstream peer network, instead of peering being a cost. (ie. they want to turn the entire internet into a CDN that pays them)
FCC is just a giant First Amendment violation.
Ever heard of radio jamming? It doesn't take much to get a radio transmission to cover the entire globe, so some coordination is very helpful.
The FCC is about coordination to increase the ability of Americans to use the 1st Amendment... by playing nice with other nations who can just as easily jam our communications.
The original purpose of the FCC was for two reasons, and both still apply:
1. To enforce radio treaties between the US and other nations. That way everybody can hear radio clearly.
2. To separate the radio spectrum into chunks so information could be transferred most efficiently.
Honestly, the same principle applies locally for low-power transmissions: A bit of neighborhood coordination can make your WiFi better.
Step #1 falls down immediately. The constitution clearly states that "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." There is no requirement that they exercise that right.
Step #2 falls down because of the 5th amendment; property can only be seized when it remains property of the US government. For Intellectual property, the well-trodden path is that the government simply infringes on the patent, and decides what it considers a "just" compensation to the patent holder -- the patent doesn't change hands.
A change of this magnitude literally requires a constitutional amendment, which are pretty hard to pass in the best of circumstances.
And, of course, thereâ(TM)s Steamâ(TM)s remote play capability, and NVIDIAâ(TM)s cloud gaming.
I can see remote rendering becoming serious business - no console to buy, no expensive gaming rig. Just stream to an tablet or phone with a Bluetooth controller.
It may not do for latency-sensitive games like multiplayer FPSâ(TM)s, but 40-80 ms of latency isnâ(TM)t an experience killer for an awful lot of games.
Having used remote rendering for games, I can say first-hand: itâ(TM)s not perfect, but not having to buy multiple $1000 GPUâ(TM)s to render at full detail has its charm.
Can we all just accept that Uber is less safe for consumers than asking a drunk who just got thrown out of a bar for a ride?
It looks like shit.
... It's good to know that Microsoft has yet to be accused of tasteful UI design.
What is wrong with the search on the start menu.
The only thing I can think of is that the center of the screen is also the center of attention.
LaunchBar (and QuickSilver, Launcy, whatever clone you pick for whatever OS) are useful for a lot more than just launching programs, which is why they're so popular.
Has Linux improved any in the 'having games worth playing' front?
Depends on your tastes, of course. The following is a selection that covers simulations, racing games, FPS games, strategy games, survival horror...
* Anything from Valve
Strategy:
* Civilization 5 & 6
* Civilization Beyond Earth
* XCOM 1 & 2
FPS:
* Borderlands 2 & DLC
* Outlast
* Alien Isolation
* The Metro Series
* Dying Light
* Rust
* ARK: Survival Evolved
Racing/Driving
* GRID Autosport
* DiRT Rally
* F1 2017
* Rocket league
If you get used to the interface style (key combo + the first character of the program)... it's actually hard to go back.
QuickSilver started off in 2003, and is a knockoff of LaunchBar, which has been around for NeXSTEP since 1996.
Launchy started ~2007 or so.
To say nothing of the dozens of others for Linux, Windows, and Mac.
It's a useful (and popular) enough interface that both Apple and Microsoft baked it into their OS.
'Except they aren't copying Apple...
It's an old UI paradigm. It's been implemented since 1996 (and probably earlier), and has multiple implementations including two in KDE alone (to say nothing of the dozens of others that exist in Windows, Mac and Linux).
The only interesting thing here is that Microsoft is baked one into Windows, just like Apple did; and in both cases, they did it years after third-parties did it...
It seems the TFA's author doesn't have an axe to grind...
There's no mention of it being a "stolen" interface anywhere.
So... seriously... this appears to be BeauHD getting the Anti-Apple crowd into a frothy mess because Microsoft has decided to do the same thing Apple did -- add a bit of good UI into their OS.
It makes me wonder what axe TFA's author has to grind. It's a UI model people liked, and (shocker) Apple added a similar interface to Spotlight. It's far from the first on the Mac, and exactly nobody at Apple would claim otherwise.
The first (that I know of) is LaunchBar, which started on NeXTSTEP; and even that is probably not the first interface (I'll bet Xerox PARC had something similar too...)
There were probably a dozen (at least) LaunchBar and similar launchers in OS X before Apple made their clone.
Bottom line: It's a good interface, and Micorosoft would be crazy not to use it.
How about a 'load canonical page' setting in the google search options?
Yeah, but then other surveillance companies will monitor you, instead of just Google.
AMP was created as a response to Facebook's "Instant Articles," which is pretty much the same idea, but with Facebook as the surveillance company instead of Google.
Apparently, it's not acceptable to serve ads without a few megabytes of javascript spyware, which is why the "mobile web" hard performance issues to begin with.
It's the typical "dot oh" is buggy for pretty much any commercial software...
I wish Google would slap down the ugliness of the ad-driven experience in Android.
Iâ(TM)m far less concerned about having ads pushed to me than I am about big brother google watching everything I do. And I hate ads.
Then thereâ(TM)s Googleâ(TM)s practice of âoeopen source, but we wonâ(TM)t accept your changes, so go fork yourself.â
Notifications: There is no way to clear all recent notifications at once
There has always been a dismiss icon in the notifications window to dismiss all notifications in the day (and after several days, they are grouped by week). That hasn't changed in many releases of iOS, including iOS11. If you "like to keep your notifications clean," I have a hard time believing you have several days worth of notifications piling up.
Even if you do let notifications pile up for several days, you definitely don't have to remove them individually.
The swipe-up panel is terrible. Definitely a case of changing for the sake of change.
I disagree; the customizable control center is better than the previous multi-panel monstrosity users couldn't modify change. Tastes are subjective, of course.
Auto-brightness.
Auto brightness has been in every iOS device, and every iOS version. It's also a standard feature on Android devices. It's amazingly useful, and I can't be the only one that appreciates not having to fiddle with the brightness every time I move between areas with different light levels.
Why isn't it under "Display & Brightness" from the main settings page?
Because brightness is built-in to the control center, and has been there for many years. (You know, the "swipe-up panel" you claim is terrible).
And if you manually change brightness from the swipe-up panel, auto-brightness is disabled. Then begins the lengthy PITA that is finding the Auto-Brightness option and enabling it again
Hmm. If I change the brightness and go to the settings app and navigate to auto brightness, it's not disabled, and no amount of fiddling in the control center will change that.
There is, of course, a timeout. If you manually set the brightness, it's reasonably safe to assume you'd like the brightness setting to persist until you've hit the 'lock button' and had the screen off for a while - so (shocker) iOS will maintain the manual brightness setting until the screen has been locked for a few minutes.
I think it all comes down to what you base your measurement system from.
Most of the world's measurements are centered around "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom." All of the other basic units require that duration as part of their derivation.
America has realized that it's a poor basis, as the duration can vary significantly depending on one's relative velocity vs a frame of reference. Time dilation is well known in America, thanks to Hollywood's exceedingly accurate treatment of space travel.
In contrast, the a pint of beer remains the same whether stationary or at superluminal speeds (as seen in Hollywood's many documentaries).
Therefore, basing American measurements on a pint of beer is clearly superior.
Actual ROM is very rare and OTP (one time programmable) tends to be very small and for specialized functions.
Or they've used the a chip where the programmer burns out a diode in the microcontroller, rendering it read-only.
However, in such a case the firmware may have no functions to erase and re-write (including being laid out in such a way that it always has at least a stub that can complete an interrupted update rather than bricking).
My bet is it can only be programmed by cracking it open, and hooking up a manufacturer-proprietary programmer (it might be standard JTAG, though). Either way, it's not something consumers can do.
I'm sure there was a conversation along the lines of:
Engineer: "We'll have to spend an extra $0.20 per unit if we want firmware upgrades"
Manager: "That's too expensive, Engineer. Just do your job properly for a change."
VP: "Manager, your leadership saved the company $100k. Have a $50 gift card!"
There's no small amount of controversy as to whether D-Wave is even "quantum". It's definitely not general purpose.
D-Wave's current offering is "15x" faster than a single-core silicon microprocessor -- and the tasks it's useful for are embarrassingly parallel. Modern laptops are starting to be offered with 18 or more cores - meaning that even laptop CPU can outperform D-Wave's "1000+ Qubits"
Scientific publications have, by and large, found that a traditional multicore silicon chip can easily outperform whatever D-Wave is making, and there has been no measurable "quantum speedup" in D-Wave's products.
D-Wave makes quantum annealing processors - and is only useful for a sliver of useful computing (adiabatic quantum computing).
There's no small amount of controversy as to whether D-Wave systems are truly quantum machines. A number of groups found "no quantum speedup" and have shown better performance using traditional silicon, and studies have been published to that effect.
Having worked in supercomputing for a decade, I've looked hard are D-Wave's "quantum" computing, and give it slightly more credibility than the E-Cat cold fusion reactor, or Quantum vacuum thrusters.
IBM's effort is a true general purpose quantum computer - the kind that can run Shor's algorithm and render RSA, Diffie-Hellman, and ECC cryptography useless.
Minix 3.x is ~4 kLOC
SeL4 is ~10 kLOC
Hurd weighs in at ~344 kLOC
I can see that mattering on a low-power embedded core.
However the real problem is local people need to value their local news enough to pay for it in one way or another.
And to do that, they need to value their local community enough to take part in it.
Sadly, a lot of us have fallen into the trap of ignoring the things we can change on our own street, and paying attention to things we cannot change thousands of miles away.
Hell, it's not uncommon to have no idea who your neighbors are anymore.
Until we have REAL AI, self-aware, capable of actual thought and real interaction with humans
We don't even know what "self-aware" is, to say nothing of "actual thought". How exactly is it defined? A sea cucumber is aware enough of itself to try to preserve its existence, and yet they have no brain. Is that "self aware?" They're not bumping around in the dark, speeding off in random directions, randomly eating, or mating with whatever they touch. They can process input from their sensory organs to find food, and are able to communicate for the sake or reproduction. Is that thought?
How is a sea cucumber's intelligence any less real than our own basic "can it kill me, can I eat it, can I hump it" model?
Moreover, the standard isn't that an autonomous vehicle is fully self aware and of a human level of intelligence, and in fact, that kind of awareness may be detrimental to autonomous driving - an AI of even dog levels of intelligence may be easily distracted by squirrels.
Autonomous cars merely have to be better than human drivers, which is much simpler, because humans are honestly bad drivers - we make profoundly unsafe decisions based on any of a number of things that have nothing to do with driving the car - such as thinking about anything except driving the car. We convince ourselves we're paying attention, yet we've refined the ability to prove the audience isn't paying attention into an artform we pay to see (just ask Penn & Teller...)
So no, autonomous cars don't have to be a superintelligent AI in order to be a better choice than our current insane, hormonal ape model.
Even with the semi-autonomous systems in my car (adaptive cruise control and lane guidance), hand-off is a big problem. Either the car decides to slam on the brakes when a car starts to pull off the road (slows down and switches lanes), or it accelerates with reckless abandon because it can't sense the stopped cars 300+ feet ahead. (And it won't slow down when it does detect the cars ahead because the speed delta is now greater than 30 MPH)
Or it starts tugging at the wheel to guide my car back into the center of my lane, even though the reason I'm departing the lane is because I'm being crowded out of my lane.
It feels somewhat like teaching somebody to drive... the system almost always does the right thing, but sometimes makes decisions you don't agree with, and the transition between who is in control is jarring.
3. why does slashdot still require me to type br / to make a new line?
There's a setting for that