Ejecting the very small number of rooted android users won't stop people ripping Netflix content when you can still watch the movies on a computer...
There's a lot to be said that they probably don't care about the very small number of users who have rooted their phones; it will negatively affect a small number of users, but the impact to their bottom line is almost certainly lower than if they had to license (or develop) a different DRM system that would accommodate rooted phones.
I'm still struggling to understand the use case for this. Everyone who really needed Windows and Linux on one box has already setup dual-boot or virtualization. You can even pick which OS to use on bare metal and which to virtualize these days. It's great.
IIRC (and it's kind of vague) one of the more interesting ideas in the architecture of Windows is that binary execution in general is done within a "subsystem for " - the primary subsystem being for Windows (of course), but there was also a subsystem for DOS at one point, with the 'capability' to have a subsystem for other OSes (Like VMS, Unix, OS/2, what have you...). I seem to recall the idea was so Windows could be a "Universal" OS, provided somebody wrote an appropriate subsystem. That way Windows is able to be universally efficient in its use of system resources, task scheduling, etc.
I kind of like that part of the design, but it was (obviously) never really used until now because Microsoft's policy became "only Windows everywhere" -- so the feature was never really used.
This appears to be the first time in a while I've heard of Microsoft actually using this OS feature for a 'foreign' environment. It's academically interesting to me, and I can see some advantages - for example, you don't have to pay a virtualization penalty; execution is more like running a container instead of a virtualized OS.
Will I ever use it... probably not. But I suspect it's really just a case of "leaking" into Windows 10 from work done to make Azure more competitive by running an environment customers want, while running the OS that Microsoft demands.
I do not know of an inexpensive way of fighting against the collective derp other than fundamentally changing democracy,
"This, then, is the new illiteracy, the illiteracy of those who can read but don't. [...]...] This new illiteracy is more pernicious than the old, because unlike the old illiteracy it does not debar its victims from power and influence, although like the old illiteracy it disqualifies them for it. Those long-dead men and women who learned to read so that they might read the Bible and John Bunyan would tell us that pride is the greatest of all sins, the father of sin. And the victims of the new illiteracy are proud of it. If you don't believe me, talk to them and see with what pride they trumpet their utter ignorance of any book you care to name." — Gene Wolfe
I find it hard to take seriously any discussion about MS Windows on a site flat out refuses to use the actual Windows logo. ... Because Slashdot doesn't want to get sued into oblivion for using a trademarked, and heavily enforced symbol? They don't use the Apple Logo either...
Pretty much everything new starts as a fork, to some degree; it doesn't mean the plan is to maintain a fork - simply that the fork hasn't been merged into the kernel yet.
Getting the code merged into the Kernel is a process, and will take time (several months at a minimum -- and probably longer, unless the code is magically perfect out of the gate). Are developers and designers supposed sit on their thumbs until then?
As far as getting a low cost SBC computer - that's not even an apples-to-apples comparision.
There are dozens of high performance multicore ARM designs, and millions of set-top boxes, TV's, DVD, Blu-Ray Disc, and streaming servers which use those chips. The Raspberry Pi is cheap because they selected a chip that is cheap due to economies of scale.
AFAIK, there are only two stand-alone implementations in silicon, and they are both single-core microcontrollers. Everything else is still in the design phase, or as a 'housekeeping' co-processor in a different design (such as NVIDIA's use-case for RISCV). There is nothing approaching an economy of scale for RISCV.
For now, a RISCV small board computer means you have the design running in an FPGA -- which is nowhere close to as cheap as a Raspberry Pi.
It's not anticipated to be that long before computers capable of using Shor's Algorithm will be available to governments and large-enough corporations.
Post-quantum cryptography techniques have not had thousands of years of failure to back up the soundness of their method - as such, they're being researched, but nobody claims they're remotely secure.
Honestly, I'm pretty sure there'll be a rather large graveyard of "post-quantum" ciphers that we thought were secure in the near future.
I must not have been clear: I wasn't advocating for any platform, or walled gardens. I was saying that maybe we should consider Android to be something nobody should use until its security problems are addressed - just like its competition.
"First plasma" is a term referring to an event in the life of a fusion reactor.
It's not all that different from a telescope's "first light".
For the obligatory auto comparison: the equivalent of saying an electric starter was able to turn an engine over -- it doesn't even mean the engine runs, produces power, etc.
"First Plasma" by a private organization is a yawner, though: EMC2, for example, produced plasma in its reactors back in the '90's, and high school kids have built working Fusion reactors for science projects. It just isn't hard to create a reactor capable of Fusion
Systemd alone has caused me more headaches than anything MS or SCO ever did. In fact it was software from that camp which made me evaluate OpenBSD.
There are a lot of good ideas in Systemd; overall, I don't disagree with a lot of the overall design goals.
The implementation, on the other hand, is lacking. My own experience is that systemd has finally reached an "early beta" level of stability. (My desktop system boots correctly about half the time with Systemd. The other half of the time Systemd doesn't start up D-Bus... I can't even shut the system down cleanly, because <drum roll> you need d-bus to shut down with Systemd! Yay!)
It's a shame systemd was pushed into production for most distributions years ago.
It's vendor lock-in when secure boot is forced upon the hardware's owner.
It's important to recognize that the owner is not necessarily the person posessing the hardware.
Consider, for a second, the point of view of an IT department: There's a perfectly reason to prevent users of hardware from reinstalling an OS on top of hardware owned by the university/company/organization.
Qualcomm's patents are for CDMA, its competitor to the GSM standard. The two operate so differently it's hard to imagine Qualcomm owns any patent in the GSM pool.
LTE is built upon the GSM standard, which appears to be free of Qualcomm's CMDA grip.
Devices on the Verizon and Sprint networks fail back to CDMA when LTE isn't available... and that means Qualcomm can demand its licensing fees.
GSM-only phones (like AT&T, T-Mobile, and most of the rest of planet Earth) don't need to worry about Qualcomm licenses.
There is a reason why Samsung phones use Samsung chips in most countries, but Qualcomm chips in North America, and that's Qualcomm's patent abuse.
The reason is that the United States is one of the very few countries that allows CDMA cell networks. Virtually every other country on the planet uses GSM exclusively. (Russia allegedly does use CDMA, but I doubt they care about Qualcomm and its American patent).
Verizon, Sprint, and a couple others using CDMA (most of which is heavily patented by Qualcomm), while AT&T & T-Mobile use GSM (which is a global FRAND standard).
So if you make a device that uses CDMA, you have to pay Qualcomm license fees; since America is one of the only places that uses CDMA for cell phones, it makes it a uniquely American problem.
There is a significant difference between labeling a behavior versus labeling a person.
I have no problems with describing a behavior as contemptible; there's nothing hypocritical in that. How any reader decides to apply it to themselves is their own problem, not mine.
Moreover your initial response is that people were beyond help, which is quite different than and your most recent response — that consider it a waste of effort. The first implies impossibility, the other that you're not willing to spend the effort. They are very different attitudes.
I clearly diffe in opinionr: I believe in a democracy, its vitally important to help everyone understand that science is a process to understand the world, and that understanding the world helps us make better decisions.
Alienating people en masse is never wise in a democracy, and a little extra effort can make all the difference for all of humanity
some people are beyond the reach of argument and reason. They will NEVER change their belief.
That's a contemptible attitude. Considering human being a lost cause because you're not interested in accommodating their humanity is abhorrent.
It's entirely possible to promote science while respecting other people's religions, even for subjects like evolution. I've seen it done superbly by professors who took the time to understand their students, and were able to show they actually cared about the student and their humanity.
The bottom line is we're all part of the human family, and denying the humanity of another - including their religious beliefs - is the essence of evil.
It's very practical to promote science to everyone. As with most things,getting half of the work done is easy. The other half is not as easy, but no less important.
The fact is that many people have dearly held religious beliefs. These beliefs are held with a bond that is far more than any combination of logic or emotion; such conviction in any human is not to be trifled with.
You can't attack people on such a personal, intimate, foundational level and expect people to follow you, or your ideas.
Unfortunately, for decades, many claiming to represent science have been loudly proclaiming (without evidence, as it's unprovable either way) that "science" says that religion, and by extension the listener's very being, is false. It's a normal human reaction that, provided a choice between dismissing dearly held, foundational beliefs, and unprovable claims made by a "scientist", that the unprovable claims will be rejected wholesale - and religion is retained.
Consequently, whenever there is a real, insight with multiple independent lines of evidence all pointing to a very similar conclusion (ie. good science), it is immediately discarded with prejudice -- all because of the asshat making unprovable claims about religion, often in an entirely different subject.
There are a few assclowns that need to realize that human beings are not logical, rational creatures, never have been, and it's important to work within that constraint.
It's harmful to both science and the world to evangelize science against religion (and by extension, saying that somebody who has a religion cannot be scientific), the result is exactly what we see in Louisiana: "What is science? Science is an educated guess" -- ie. contempt for science.
Slashdot Mirror
Ejecting the very small number of rooted android users won't stop people ripping Netflix content when you can still watch the movies on a computer...
There's a lot to be said that they probably don't care about the very small number of users who have rooted their phones; it will negatively affect a small number of users, but the impact to their bottom line is almost certainly lower than if they had to license (or develop) a different DRM system that would accommodate rooted phones.
I'm still struggling to understand the use case for this. Everyone who really needed Windows and Linux on one box has already setup dual-boot or virtualization. You can even pick which OS to use on bare metal and which to virtualize these days. It's great.
IIRC (and it's kind of vague) one of the more interesting ideas in the architecture of Windows is that binary execution in general is done within a "subsystem for " - the primary subsystem being for Windows (of course), but there was also a subsystem for DOS at one point, with the 'capability' to have a subsystem for other OSes (Like VMS, Unix, OS/2, what have you...). I seem to recall the idea was so Windows could be a "Universal" OS, provided somebody wrote an appropriate subsystem. That way Windows is able to be universally efficient in its use of system resources, task scheduling, etc.
I kind of like that part of the design, but it was (obviously) never really used until now because Microsoft's policy became "only Windows everywhere" -- so the feature was never really used.
This appears to be the first time in a while I've heard of Microsoft actually using this OS feature for a 'foreign' environment. It's academically interesting to me, and I can see some advantages - for example, you don't have to pay a virtualization penalty; execution is more like running a container instead of a virtualized OS.
Will I ever use it... probably not. But I suspect it's really just a case of "leaking" into Windows 10 from work done to make Azure more competitive by running an environment customers want, while running the OS that Microsoft demands.
I can believe some script kiddy thinking this would somehow appear damaging to ISPs.
My bet is it's just a hacktivist trying to make his/her views seem more mainstream and popular than they really are.
Let's face it; history is full of examples where adherents to a fringe belief lie to themselves (and others) and promote it as being mainstream.
I do not know of an inexpensive way of fighting against the collective derp other than fundamentally changing democracy,
"This, then, is the new illiteracy, the illiteracy of those who can read but don't. [...] ...] This new illiteracy is more pernicious than the old, because unlike the old illiteracy it does not debar its victims from power and influence, although like the old illiteracy it disqualifies them for it. Those long-dead men and women who learned to read so that they might read the Bible and John Bunyan would tell us that pride is the greatest of all sins, the father of sin. And the victims of the new illiteracy are proud of it. If you don't believe me, talk to them and see with what pride they trumpet their utter ignorance of any book you care to name." — Gene Wolfe
In other words... to spot fake news, users have to expend actual effort and thought.
Sounds like a non-starter for most of Facebook.
I find it hard to take seriously any discussion about MS Windows on a site flat out refuses to use the actual Windows logo. ... Because Slashdot doesn't want to get sued into oblivion for using a trademarked, and heavily enforced symbol? They don't use the Apple Logo either...
Pretty much everything new starts as a fork, to some degree; it doesn't mean the plan is to maintain a fork - simply that the fork hasn't been merged into the kernel yet.
Getting the code merged into the Kernel is a process, and will take time (several months at a minimum -- and probably longer, unless the code is magically perfect out of the gate). Are developers and designers supposed sit on their thumbs until then?
As far as getting a low cost SBC computer - that's not even an apples-to-apples comparision.
There are dozens of high performance multicore ARM designs, and millions of set-top boxes, TV's, DVD, Blu-Ray Disc, and streaming servers which use those chips. The Raspberry Pi is cheap because they selected a chip that is cheap due to economies of scale.
AFAIK, there are only two stand-alone implementations in silicon, and they are both single-core microcontrollers. Everything else is still in the design phase, or as a 'housekeeping' co-processor in a different design (such as NVIDIA's use-case for RISCV). There is nothing approaching an economy of scale for RISCV.
For now, a RISCV small board computer means you have the design running in an FPGA -- which is nowhere close to as cheap as a Raspberry Pi.
you won't be breaking RSA-4096 anytime soon
How are you defining "anytime soon"?
It's not anticipated to be that long before computers capable of using Shor's Algorithm will be available to governments and large-enough corporations.
Post-quantum cryptography techniques have not had thousands of years of failure to back up the soundness of their method - as such, they're being researched, but nobody claims they're remotely secure.
Honestly, I'm pretty sure there'll be a rather large graveyard of "post-quantum" ciphers that we thought were secure in the near future.
The fact that Android phones for the most part are not updated regularly is a significant issue.
Not only are they not updated, but they cannot be updated by the user makes many Android devices little better than the legion of IoT devices.
Stop thinking Walled Garden and start thinking Gated Community.
Could you please expand on what you mean by "gated community" in this context, and how it differs from a "walled garden"?
I must not have been clear: I wasn't advocating for any platform, or walled gardens. I was saying that maybe we should consider Android to be something nobody should use until its security problems are addressed - just like its competition.
That we can accept as a community that Android has a serious problem that needs solving, and needs to join its competition in the leper colony?
Elon Musk buys a taco from a street vendor - street vendors are the future of the Calorie!
"First plasma" is a term referring to an event in the life of a fusion reactor.
It's not all that different from a telescope's "first light".
For the obligatory auto comparison: the equivalent of saying an electric starter was able to turn an engine over -- it doesn't even mean the engine runs, produces power, etc.
"First Plasma" by a private organization is a yawner, though: EMC2, for example, produced plasma in its reactors back in the '90's, and high school kids have built working Fusion reactors for science projects. It just isn't hard to create a reactor capable of Fusion
The difficult part is creating energy from it.
THIS is what hardware has become these days; a fucking fashion shitshow for hypes sake. Thanks Apple, for starting this trend.
I'm sorry, but I have to beg to differ. SGI and Sun (remember them?) did fashion computers long before Apple did.
Just do a Google image search for "SGI Indigo", "SGI Crimson", "SGI Terzo", "SGI Onyx", "SGI Prism", "SGI Fuel".
Or the Linux Networx LS-X...
Or take a talk down memory lane and check out the Cray-2, which had a waterfall...
I'm still bitter that they re-branded WinCE.
Systemd alone has caused me more headaches than anything MS or SCO ever did. In fact it was software from that camp which made me evaluate OpenBSD.
There are a lot of good ideas in Systemd; overall, I don't disagree with a lot of the overall design goals.
The implementation, on the other hand, is lacking. My own experience is that systemd has finally reached an "early beta" level of stability. (My desktop system boots correctly about half the time with Systemd. The other half of the time Systemd doesn't start up D-Bus... I can't even shut the system down cleanly, because <drum roll> you need d-bus to shut down with Systemd! Yay!)
It's a shame systemd was pushed into production for most distributions years ago.
Considered. I'll pass.
It's vendor lock-in when secure boot is forced upon the hardware's owner.
It's important to recognize that the owner is not necessarily the person posessing the hardware.
Consider, for a second, the point of view of an IT department: There's a perfectly reason to prevent users of hardware from reinstalling an OS on top of hardware owned by the university/company/organization.
Qualcomm's patents are for CDMA, its competitor to the GSM standard. The two operate so differently it's hard to imagine Qualcomm owns any patent in the GSM pool.
LTE is built upon the GSM standard, which appears to be free of Qualcomm's CMDA grip.
Devices on the Verizon and Sprint networks fail back to CDMA when LTE isn't available... and that means Qualcomm can demand its licensing fees.
GSM-only phones (like AT&T, T-Mobile, and most of the rest of planet Earth) don't need to worry about Qualcomm licenses.
There is a reason why Samsung phones use Samsung chips in most countries, but Qualcomm chips in North America, and that's Qualcomm's patent abuse.
The reason is that the United States is one of the very few countries that allows CDMA cell networks. Virtually every other country on the planet uses GSM exclusively. (Russia allegedly does use CDMA, but I doubt they care about Qualcomm and its American patent).
Verizon, Sprint, and a couple others using CDMA (most of which is heavily patented by Qualcomm), while AT&T & T-Mobile use GSM (which is a global FRAND standard).
So if you make a device that uses CDMA, you have to pay Qualcomm license fees; since America is one of the only places that uses CDMA for cell phones, it makes it a uniquely American problem.
There is a significant difference between labeling a behavior versus labeling a person.
I have no problems with describing a behavior as contemptible; there's nothing hypocritical in that. How any reader decides to apply it to themselves is their own problem, not mine.
Moreover your initial response is that people were beyond help, which is quite different than and your most recent response — that consider it a waste of effort. The first implies impossibility, the other that you're not willing to spend the effort. They are very different attitudes.
I clearly diffe in opinionr: I believe in a democracy, its vitally important to help everyone understand that science is a process to understand the world, and that understanding the world helps us make better decisions.
Alienating people en masse is never wise in a democracy, and a little extra effort can make all the difference for all of humanity
some people are beyond the reach of argument and reason. They will NEVER change their belief.
That's a contemptible attitude. Considering human being a lost cause because you're not interested in accommodating their humanity is abhorrent.
It's entirely possible to promote science while respecting other people's religions, even for subjects like evolution. I've seen it done superbly by professors who took the time to understand their students, and were able to show they actually cared about the student and their humanity.
The bottom line is we're all part of the human family, and denying the humanity of another - including their religious beliefs - is the essence of evil.
It's very practical to promote science to everyone. As with most things,getting half of the work done is easy. The other half is not as easy, but no less important.
The fact is that many people have dearly held religious beliefs. These beliefs are held with a bond that is far more than any combination of logic or emotion; such conviction in any human is not to be trifled with.
You can't attack people on such a personal, intimate, foundational level and expect people to follow you, or your ideas.
Unfortunately, for decades, many claiming to represent science have been loudly proclaiming (without evidence, as it's unprovable either way) that "science" says that religion, and by extension the listener's very being, is false. It's a normal human reaction that, provided a choice between dismissing dearly held, foundational beliefs, and unprovable claims made by a "scientist", that the unprovable claims will be rejected wholesale - and religion is retained.
Consequently, whenever there is a real, insight with multiple independent lines of evidence all pointing to a very similar conclusion (ie. good science), it is immediately discarded with prejudice -- all because of the asshat making unprovable claims about religion, often in an entirely different subject.
There are a few assclowns that need to realize that human beings are not logical, rational creatures, never have been, and it's important to work within that constraint.
It's harmful to both science and the world to evangelize science against religion (and by extension, saying that somebody who has a religion cannot be scientific), the result is exactly what we see in Louisiana: "What is science? Science is an educated guess" -- ie. contempt for science.
Because there was already a protocol whose assigned protocol number is 5?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...