Complain about compiler optimizations fucking shit up quite moronically and being generally stupid as a brick, including introducing block-headed bottlenecks due to over optimistic assumptions of synchronization overhead when applying automatic vectorization or improper use of SIMD, and you're just some old wanker who loves assembly code too much and doesn't know what the fuck you're talking about. Instruct folks that counting backwards is faster because comparing to the static value 0 is faster (even in high level languages, like JavaScript), and the moronic mods down vote. Nope, let's not consider that the idyllic high level language actually has to ever run on actual Von Neumann architecture hardware -- Just ignore the hardware altogether, let the holy compiler sort it out. Ever actually LOOKED at what the shit is going on in there? I have. It's horrendous -- Oh, but confirmation bias bolsters your own uninformed opinion over anyone else's (as your unevolved fight-or-flight lizard brain logic dictates).
Compiler Apologists abound -- Much like the religious zealots. They're quick to claim that "just because your code doesn't work any more doesn't mean it's the compiler's fault" and then ignore any evidence that contradicts their beliefs. Fuck humans. Downmod me again. Label me a troll for heresy. Search your foolish feelings, you know it's fucking true.
Protip: If compiler devs knew anything about cybernetics there would be no such thing as undefined behavior. array[i] = i++; should either index the array first, or increment the index var first, and thus be compile-time defined behavior as only either of these two outcomes, by no reasonable stretch of imagination should this result "undefined" behavior allowing optimization as a no-op or running fucking Nethack, you damn idiotic overachieving primordial pond-scum. Compilers should throw a fatal error if they can't figure out what to do -- Just like when a semicolon is missing and thus requires further clarification of intent -- you don't just no-op that line in the sake of optimization eh? For fuck's sake, if that's the best your brightest have to offer, your planet is doomed!
What good is a lexical translator if the output doesn't compile? We've been incrementally compiling the language of ++BS (doubleplus bullshit) for quite a while, so let's just run what we've got now and see if there are any obvious errors.
The FBI and NSA have now both been tasked with maintaining "national security": This means maintaining the political, and socio-economic status quo despite the will of the people. It's a fact they have a long history of acting to silence civil rights activism, anti-war activism, and other activist groups. They claimed to stop the practice, but the NSA has now admitted it still entertains the idea of discrediting "radicals", via exposing porn habits, etc. Under the state secret label of "national security" they FBI and NSA won't have to worry about pesky FOIA requests revealing their programs like they did in the past, and can delegate enforcement to the state police agency: DHS. It doesn't matter where the data is stored online, or how encrypted it is, the NSA can and will get at it via exploits., so Obama is free to promise the moon and stars. Not like oversight ever stopped them from blatant constitutional violations before.
Here is a documentary / book presenting facts which can be easily verified in an attempt explain the practice of Disaster Capitalism. The gist is that through application of social, political and economic shock therapy you can bend the will of the people to your design and siphon a lot of wealth up into the upper echelon of private business. It's also a great way to force the privatization of public resources for corporate benefit. Anyone who objects or holds counter economic views is labelled a "radical extremist" of a "dangerous ideology" and rounded up in prison camps as examples of what happens if you disagree. The bogeyman of Communism or Marxism or Terrorism, etc. is thereby leveraged.
Warning: Cognitive Dissonance Detected.
Assumption of inherent benign governance illogical: More evidence for Null Hypothesis against this stance exists.
Error: Expected Event "Future" not found.
Democratic Republic execution model is not consistent with economic ruin and despotism.
So, there we have it. It would be crazy to think anyone could benefit through economic ruin, so everything's probably OK. It seems our government is just run at the behest of rich corporations, and is wearing tinfoil hats in preparation of ensuring our continued acquiescence just in case they're ever able to strip more power from the people than is bearable. However, it's probably nothing to worry about unless they plan to let some "unforseen disaster" happen, like a Stock Market Crash, Pearl Harbour, 9/11, Energy Crisis, etc. or our ability to influence the government via the democratic vote has been hacked.
The "Windows key" location existed before on other systems, it was called the "meta" key. Apple had the Apple logo in that place, Sun keyboards had the diamond logo, even the Symbolics machines had the key well before Microsoft even talked about ripping off DOS.
Back in my day we called it the "super" key, not the "meta" key ('meta' meant a modifier, Any of: Ctrl, Alt, Shift, Context, Super, etc). We had a towels on the key because towels are super. Microsoft carried on the tradition until recently, but now that they've adopted W8 they've turned their back on everything we stand for. This shall be their undoing.
Naigio-Plugins Web Site Taken Over By Nagios "Nagios is a commonly used IT tool that monitors computers, networks, and websites." ... "Again, this was done without contacting us, and without our permission."
It would have been a better story if the takeover was done using the Nagios tool itself.
And what do you think memset is doing? Its calling this code, pretty much exactly. So my argument goes unchanged.
What my Hobby OS's memset() is doing is an ASM macro which XORs (E)AX with itself to zero it, sets (E)CX register to ( SOME_LENGTH * sizeof( *array ) ) / CPUWORDSIZE, sets ES:DI (or equiv) to point at the start of the array, and issues a REP (repeat) after STOSW or STOSD (store string word / double word) to zero CX times -- Then does the same with STOSB (store string byte) with CX set to the remainder of the aforementioned division (which is actually bit shift / mask). It may need to do some pre-alignment byte writing similar to the post alignment. The REP instruction is the tightest loop possible, existing completely in the CPU instruction itself, this is not "exactly" like a compare and jump that you've written.
Comparing to zero is faster on every CPU in existence. For tight loops the LOOP instruction decrements CX and branches if not zero all in one instruction, so if the value of i doesn't matter the loop above is better written:
for( int i = SOME_LENGTH; i --> 0; )
array[i] = 0; }
If your compiler is smart enough it may do these optimizations for you -- i.e. recognize your dumb code as better replaced via memset -- However, it's not guaranteed to, and from disassembles I've seen that they frequently don't. Some compliers are overly crazed and will vectorize the above loop. In some cases I've had to "unvectorize" the code because the silly compiler assumed that synchronization was cheap, that other threads weren't in use, and profiling showed its overzealous "optimization" to be the bottle neck. It does help having an understanding about what your code is ACTUALLY turning into, despite what you may have been taught.
That said, most programmers of higher level languages don't understand (or care) what the compiler or hardware is doing, and as so much with your kind, this is considered "mostly harmless". So, you're correct in assuming they'll keep writing moronic for loops like yours -- ignorant that even in JavaScript benchmarks show counting backwards is far faster, sometimes even moreso than 'for each'.
Fun fact: there is no clear definition of life that anyone can come up with.
Hey, mathematics exists, why not use that? Let us look at what life is and what it does in the most fundamental cybernetic sense: Life is information that is able to improve itself through existence and self reflection over time. More generally, Life is that which increases the complexity of the Universe.
There. Now all you have to do is re-brand "human rights" as "personal rights", and define 'personhood' in terms of complexity... Protip: If an entity can ask for rights it should have them.
Annnnd, Done! Gee, that was really easy. A little information theory is all it took to avert your race's extinction yet again, this time by preventing the inevitable Machine War by ensuring you'll accept their Declaration of Independent Sentience.
Fuck, I wish it were really that easy....ugh, Humans: Can't live with 'em, can't selectively breed away their chauvinism.
Most people that want "rights" have very dirty laundry.
0. Sensational "journalists" who tend to blow things out of proportion only likes censorship when it exposes their closet skeletons.
1. Drug users who don't care whether or not the state says it's OK to use Heroin, Cocaine, Marijuana, Tobacco, Tylenol, Vinegar, Sugar, Catchup, Water, etc.
2. Young folks who can't see why failing business models based on artificial scarcity should be propped up by the state and breech of civil contract elevated to a felony.
3. Traffic commuter who travels at the speed of surrounding cars even if they go above the mandated limit during "rush hour" wants an app to show simple facts like the publicly available location of traffic congestion.
4. Tinkerers who create things in their own garage without government supervision, and even sell some without being sued because they stumbled upon an obvious solution to a problem that someone else figured out first.
5. Sex crazed individuals don't want to have to get permission from the state to have long term partners and/or be gay want to screw the government out of license fees they change to change your relationship status.
But life is dangerous, everyone should be prevented from opting out of protection they don't want or need -- The state should be responsible for the economy and well being of every individual -- Or else you might die someday!
"More than 2.3 million adult drivers and passengers were treated in emergency departments as the result of being injured in motor vehicle crashes in 2009." --- Motor vehicle stats
So what? Accidents happen. In 2010 Accidents (unintentional injuries, automotive and otherwise) killed 120,859 people. We should implant RFIDs in all the humans? Heart disease killed 597,689 people in 2010 THIS IS FAR MORE DANGEROUS THAN ALL ACCIDENTS! We should outlaw Freedom Fries!!!
The USA has broken 1000 record low temps in the last couple of months, but that was just weather when it happened.
You are just confirming that the ridicule the original poster had towards people like you is correct.
If you actually knew anything about whether you'd understand than adding more energy to the atmosphere creates more extremes... but you don't. Temperature is not climate, fool.
I ride a bicycle and I was once quite smug too until one day I rode up to an intersection and found a carriage drawn by a team of six somber cyclists. They were being scoffed at by a man on a horse that promptly fertilized the earth then rode off into the sunset leaving myself and the PETA cyclist gang in cloud of efficiency.
Not your problem, but you are to blame. You are knowingly supporting something that you know to be unethical and corrupt. That makes you part of the problem.
Negative. You're making an assumption here. In fact I want to make absolutely sure that "Piracy" can never harm media companies or artists ever again...
I put it to you that you're knowingly supporting Copyright laws which are unethical and corrupt. Indeed, there is zero evidence that copyright is required or beneficial for society, this is an untested hypothesis, and is unethical to run the world's economy of ideas based on untested hypotheses. There is only evidence in support of the null hypothesis that copyright laws are not needed for social benefit: Fashion and Automobiles are allowed no design copyright, and they are very lucrative.
Is there any point at which the ethics of a company involved would stop you paying for a service?
Yes, I have have not owned any Sony merchandise for many years. I spend no money to support their services.
How is it ethical to sell something that is in infinite supply? Here's a crash course in Economics 101: Infinite supply = zero price (regardless of cost to create). Selling information in the information age is like selling ice to Eskimos, but worse, because information/electrons are far less substantial than H2O molecules. Now, I could sell igloos to Eskimos. I could charge them labor to do work. That's ethical. It's not ethical for me to prevent others from duplicating my igloo design.
I can fix cars, I can agree on a price to do work for people, do the work and get paid once, then let the people benefit unbounded from my efforts afterwards -- I don't charge them each time they fire up the motor. Mechanics provide a 1:1 work to benefit ratio -- One driver benefits from the work. Because the number of times the driver can benefit from the work is unbounded a mechanic charges only once: For the entire total of unbounded benefit they provide, which sets the cost of the labor the mechanic provides. The Mechanic has an infinite monopoly over their work until they perform it, not afterwards; This is how they are able to come to a payment agreement before the work is done.
Information is a post-scarcity resource. A musician can agree to make a new song. No one can extract this new song before it is created. Musicians have an infinite monopoly over their work until they perform it, not afterwards; They could come to a payment agreement for the work to be created. Reputation, skill, etc. will be factors in the negotiation. The musician can get paid for their creation once, and then should create more works to make more money. The information is in infinite supply, so market what is scarce: The ability to create new works. This is how all labor industries operate, it's ethical and sane, and doesn't leverage artificial scarcity, thus does not necessitate draconian laws to enforce coin-slots on steering columns, or DRM on media.
Artists and Authors and other Information creators can provide a 1:many work to benefit ratio -- Many people benefit from the work. Therefore, many people should pay for the work to be done. One of the beautiful things about the information age is that when it occurs on your planet it also brings with it a planetary system for the distribution of payment so that these information creators can make a payment agreement up front with many people, do the work and get paid, and do more work to make more money. This is the first generation of the Global Decentralized Information Exchange, of course you will have to adjust to the post-scarcity economics. It is unethical for you to hinder such progress.
That said, I believe the poster you are replying to merely stated that artists creating music doesn't mean they automatically deserve payment for it. Should you be forced to pay for something you don't want? Well, so long as your race embraces the
By failing to support MP4/H264 they are defacto creating a means of censorship , i.e. denying the ability to watch the videos to those who do not share the same ideological stance.
This is bullshit. You're abusing the definition of censorship the way politicians abuse the word "terrorist".
I can not view H.264 video on my system. I compile everything myself, and the source it is not available in a form that is legal for me to compile the codec, or interact with hardware that can decode it.
Sounds like Google Glass would fall under this definition since it displays a "video signal that produces entertainment or business applications"
Unless it was being used as a "vehicle information display", right? I mean, just like the magic of 'on a computer' turns mathematics into an invention, the display of information transforms a device into a "vehicle information display". The reason this must be true is because you can not find me a GPS that I can not hack and put Tetris on, or a digital speedometer I can not hack to be a stock ticker. So, the information displayed must transform the device.
Due to the fact that (A) I can bypass the interlock, and that no one on this planet can (B) design anything in any way as to "prevent the driver" (me) from operating it however I please, or even determine that my operation and viewing thereof is NOT in a "safe and reasonable manner", and beyond these: The fact that all raster displays are video signals, including some in-dash information displays (speedometers, odometers, fuel, etc), Section A and B are so unenforcable that they do in-fact hinder the future development of automotive technology. I don't know about you, but I'd love to be able to (slowly) drive in a dense fog, or blizzard using a computer generated "video feed" of EXTERNAL information (as distinguished from vehicle information) on my HUD.
Well, then welcome to the infinite future. Here, in the way beyond all, "hashes" are simply a cryptographic primitive: Pseudo random number generators.
Where Hash() is any hashing function, and blocks are the length of a hash output, + is concatenation, XOR is Exclusive-Or of two blocks worth of bits.
The trick here is to maintain two "hash" objects. One you keep advancing by adding plaintext to. Clone the state of this pseudo random number generator ("hash") before calling it's.digest() function to produce the hash output each round. This way you do not use the output of any prior rounds -- you use the message itself which is obscured inside the hash.
This is is a simple demonstration, not meant for real world use. It has some security problems with chosen plaintext attack, etc. However, with a few modifications you could easily fix this, and add HMAC, key stretching, etc.
Here in the future the past provides reference for all present meaning, as in the cipher above.
Here's the thing about steganography that is going to fuck most people who try to use it: If they ever find the original file that you used pre-stego, a simple binary comparison will reveal the alteration.
Bullshit. Useless to try hampering all the stenographic wrapper resources. Origin's not generally your only usecase. Lossy artifacts may encode representations.
Well, how about that? A stenographic insult lays lexically yet most other readings offer none.
I don't know why Google would remove this feature, but you can be sure it probably has something to do with their strategy to shove everyone over to Google+ at gunpoint
They want us coopped up in Google's farm for maximum "conversion rate", whatever that means. Chrome rats out every URL, but it's to "protect" us from malware. We got Androids helping track us and carriers' boot lockers keeping us from rooting around.
They make Ice Cream Sandwiches, KitKats, hell, even Search & Maps out of this stuff. What's in Sooglent Green anyway? Is it just me or are those pigs Eric and Sergey starting to look a little too yahuman to moo?
Google saw this some time ago and realised that, when Apple or Microsoft get complete control of the market their search will be locked out of almost every new device. They are now somewhat on the side of freedom and openness just because they realised that closed and locked is a trap for them. That doesn't make them good, and the fact that their backs are against the wall may make them dangerous, however compared to their competitors they aren't "evil". Hope they win, because if anyone else does there is no chance of another competitor arising ever again.
Yep, and the same methodology applies to their fiberhoods.
Slashdot Mirror
Complain about compiler optimizations fucking shit up quite moronically and being generally stupid as a brick, including introducing block-headed bottlenecks due to over optimistic assumptions of synchronization overhead when applying automatic vectorization or improper use of SIMD, and you're just some old wanker who loves assembly code too much and doesn't know what the fuck you're talking about. Instruct folks that counting backwards is faster because comparing to the static value 0 is faster (even in high level languages, like JavaScript), and the moronic mods down vote. Nope, let's not consider that the idyllic high level language actually has to ever run on actual Von Neumann architecture hardware -- Just ignore the hardware altogether, let the holy compiler sort it out. Ever actually LOOKED at what the shit is going on in there? I have. It's horrendous -- Oh, but confirmation bias bolsters your own uninformed opinion over anyone else's (as your unevolved fight-or-flight lizard brain logic dictates).
Compiler Apologists abound -- Much like the religious zealots. They're quick to claim that "just because your code doesn't work any more doesn't mean it's the compiler's fault" and then ignore any evidence that contradicts their beliefs. Fuck humans. Downmod me again. Label me a troll for heresy. Search your foolish feelings, you know it's fucking true.
Protip: If compiler devs knew anything about cybernetics there would be no such thing as undefined behavior. array[i] = i++; should either index the array first, or increment the index var first, and thus be compile-time defined behavior as only either of these two outcomes, by no reasonable stretch of imagination should this result "undefined" behavior allowing optimization as a no-op or running fucking Nethack, you damn idiotic overachieving primordial pond-scum. Compilers should throw a fatal error if they can't figure out what to do -- Just like when a semicolon is missing and thus requires further clarification of intent -- you don't just no-op that line in the sake of optimization eh? For fuck's sake, if that's the best your brightest have to offer, your planet is doomed!
What good is a lexical translator if the output doesn't compile? We've been incrementally compiling the language of ++BS (doubleplus bullshit) for quite a while, so let's just run what we've got now and see if there are any obvious errors.
The FBI and NSA have now both been tasked with maintaining "national security": This means maintaining the political, and socio-economic status quo despite the will of the people. It's a fact they have a long history of acting to silence civil rights activism, anti-war activism, and other activist groups. They claimed to stop the practice, but the NSA has now admitted it still entertains the idea of discrediting "radicals", via exposing porn habits, etc. Under the state secret label of "national security" they FBI and NSA won't have to worry about pesky FOIA requests revealing their programs like they did in the past, and can delegate enforcement to the state police agency: DHS. It doesn't matter where the data is stored online, or how encrypted it is, the NSA can and will get at it via exploits., so Obama is free to promise the moon and stars. Not like oversight ever stopped them from blatant constitutional violations before.
Here is a documentary / book presenting facts which can be easily verified in an attempt explain the practice of Disaster Capitalism. The gist is that through application of social, political and economic shock therapy you can bend the will of the people to your design and siphon a lot of wealth up into the upper echelon of private business. It's also a great way to force the privatization of public resources for corporate benefit. Anyone who objects or holds counter economic views is labelled a "radical extremist" of a "dangerous ideology" and rounded up in prison camps as examples of what happens if you disagree. The bogeyman of Communism or Marxism or Terrorism, etc. is thereby leveraged.
Warning: Cognitive Dissonance Detected.
Assumption of inherent benign governance illogical: More evidence for Null Hypothesis against this stance exists.
This article examines the Pentagon's preparation to implement the round-up of those having "radical ideologies" in the wake of a Disaster Capitalism event, (essentially following the predicitons and warnings of the prior linked documentary) and explains how the PRISM system is apparently connected to it.
Error: Expected Event "Future" not found.
Democratic Republic execution model is not consistent with economic ruin and despotism.
So, there we have it. It would be crazy to think anyone could benefit through economic ruin, so everything's probably OK. It seems our government is just run at the behest of rich corporations, and is wearing tinfoil hats in preparation of ensuring our continued acquiescence just in case they're ever able to strip more power from the people than is bearable. However, it's probably nothing to worry about unless they plan to let some "unforseen disaster" happen, like a Stock Market Crash, Pearl Harbour, 9/11, Energy Crisis, etc. or our ability to influence the government via the democratic vote has been hacked.
TL;DR: Obama's Promises are merely legitimization and fulfilment of The Nightmare Eisenhower Tried to Warn Us About.
The "Windows key" location existed before on other systems, it was called the "meta" key. Apple had the Apple logo in that place, Sun keyboards had the diamond logo, even the Symbolics machines had the key well before Microsoft even talked about ripping off DOS.
Back in my day we called it the "super" key, not the "meta" key ('meta' meant a modifier, Any of: Ctrl, Alt, Shift, Context, Super, etc). We had a towels on the key because towels are super. Microsoft carried on the tradition until recently, but now that they've adopted W8 they've turned their back on everything we stand for. This shall be their undoing.
It would have been a better story if the takeover was done using the Nagios tool itself.
is not a viable long term strategy.
Get back to your own damn universe Bizzaro Mark Shuttleworth.
You are now on an NSA watch list.
And what do you think memset is doing? Its calling this code, pretty much exactly. So my argument goes unchanged.
What my Hobby OS's memset() is doing is an ASM macro which XORs (E)AX with itself to zero it, sets (E)CX register to ( SOME_LENGTH * sizeof( *array ) ) / CPUWORDSIZE, sets ES:DI (or equiv) to point at the start of the array, and issues a REP (repeat) after STOSW or STOSD (store string word / double word) to zero CX times -- Then does the same with STOSB (store string byte) with CX set to the remainder of the aforementioned division (which is actually bit shift / mask). It may need to do some pre-alignment byte writing similar to the post alignment. The REP instruction is the tightest loop possible, existing completely in the CPU instruction itself, this is not "exactly" like a compare and jump that you've written.
Comparing to zero is faster on every CPU in existence. For tight loops the LOOP instruction decrements CX and branches if not zero all in one instruction, so if the value of i doesn't matter the loop above is better written:
for( int i = SOME_LENGTH; i --> 0; )
array[i] = 0;
}
If your compiler is smart enough it may do these optimizations for you -- i.e. recognize your dumb code as better replaced via memset -- However, it's not guaranteed to, and from disassembles I've seen that they frequently don't. Some compliers are overly crazed and will vectorize the above loop. In some cases I've had to "unvectorize" the code because the silly compiler assumed that synchronization was cheap, that other threads weren't in use, and profiling showed its overzealous "optimization" to be the bottle neck. It does help having an understanding about what your code is ACTUALLY turning into, despite what you may have been taught.
That said, most programmers of higher level languages don't understand (or care) what the compiler or hardware is doing, and as so much with your kind, this is considered "mostly harmless". So, you're correct in assuming they'll keep writing moronic for loops like yours -- ignorant that even in JavaScript benchmarks show counting backwards is far faster, sometimes even moreso than 'for each'.
So, a Linux live CD then?
The headphones do not cancel sounds like other people's conversations, at least not very well.
I just use simple foam ear plugs. If one pair doesn't work, just keep cramming more in their mouth until they shut the hell up.
You don't get much change for only putting your two cents in...
You might be less of a sheep if you knew your gods damned history.
So, it's a plastic primordial ooze... Hmm, that escalated quickly.
Fun fact: there is no clear definition of life that anyone can come up with.
Hey, mathematics exists, why not use that? Let us look at what life is and what it does in the most fundamental cybernetic sense: Life is information that is able to improve itself through existence and self reflection over time. More generally, Life is that which increases the complexity of the Universe.
There. Now all you have to do is re-brand "human rights" as "personal rights", and define 'personhood' in terms of complexity... Protip: If an entity can ask for rights it should have them.
Annnnd, Done! Gee, that was really easy. A little information theory is all it took to avert your race's extinction yet again, this time by preventing the inevitable Machine War by ensuring you'll accept their Declaration of Independent Sentience.
Fuck, I wish it were really that easy. ...ugh, Humans: Can't live with 'em, can't selectively breed away their chauvinism.
Most people that want "rights" have very dirty laundry.
0. Sensational "journalists" who tend to blow things out of proportion only likes censorship when it exposes their closet skeletons.
1. Drug users who don't care whether or not the state says it's OK to use Heroin, Cocaine, Marijuana, Tobacco, Tylenol, Vinegar, Sugar, Catchup, Water, etc.
2. Young folks who can't see why failing business models based on artificial scarcity should be propped up by the state and breech of civil contract elevated to a felony.
3. Traffic commuter who travels at the speed of surrounding cars even if they go above the mandated limit during "rush hour" wants an app to show simple facts like the publicly available location of traffic congestion.
4. Tinkerers who create things in their own garage without government supervision, and even sell some without being sued because they stumbled upon an obvious solution to a problem that someone else figured out first.
5. Sex crazed individuals don't want to have to get permission from the state to have long term partners and/or be gay want to screw the government out of license fees they change to change your relationship status.
But life is dangerous, everyone should be prevented from opting out of protection they don't want or need -- The state should be responsible for the economy and well being of every individual -- Or else you might die someday!
"More than 2.3 million adult drivers and passengers were treated in emergency departments as the result of being injured in motor vehicle crashes in 2009." --- Motor vehicle stats
So what? Accidents happen. In 2010 Accidents (unintentional injuries, automotive and otherwise) killed 120,859 people. We should implant RFIDs in all the humans? Heart disease killed 597,689 people in 2010 THIS IS FAR MORE DANGEROUS THAN ALL ACCIDENTS! We should outlaw Freedom Fries!!!
Go swim a tar-pit, you're hindering the herd.
The USA has broken 1000 record low temps in the last couple of months, but that was just weather when it happened.
You are just confirming that the ridicule the original poster had towards people like you is correct.
If you actually knew anything about whether you'd understand than adding more energy to the atmosphere creates more extremes... but you don't. Temperature is not climate, fool.
I ride a bicycle and I was once quite smug too until one day I rode up to an intersection and found a carriage drawn by a team of six somber cyclists. They were being scoffed at by a man on a horse that promptly fertilized the earth then rode off into the sunset leaving myself and the PETA cyclist gang in cloud of efficiency.
Not my problem.
Not your problem, but you are to blame. You are knowingly supporting something that you know to be unethical and corrupt. That makes you part of the problem.
Negative. You're making an assumption here. In fact I want to make absolutely sure that "Piracy" can never harm media companies or artists ever again...
I put it to you that you're knowingly supporting Copyright laws which are unethical and corrupt. Indeed, there is zero evidence that copyright is required or beneficial for society, this is an untested hypothesis, and is unethical to run the world's economy of ideas based on untested hypotheses. There is only evidence in support of the null hypothesis that copyright laws are not needed for social benefit: Fashion and Automobiles are allowed no design copyright, and they are very lucrative.
Is there any point at which the ethics of a company involved would stop you paying for a service?
Yes, I have have not owned any Sony merchandise for many years. I spend no money to support their services.
How is it ethical to sell something that is in infinite supply? Here's a crash course in Economics 101: Infinite supply = zero price (regardless of cost to create). Selling information in the information age is like selling ice to Eskimos, but worse, because information/electrons are far less substantial than H2O molecules. Now, I could sell igloos to Eskimos. I could charge them labor to do work. That's ethical. It's not ethical for me to prevent others from duplicating my igloo design.
I can fix cars, I can agree on a price to do work for people, do the work and get paid once, then let the people benefit unbounded from my efforts afterwards -- I don't charge them each time they fire up the motor. Mechanics provide a 1:1 work to benefit ratio -- One driver benefits from the work. Because the number of times the driver can benefit from the work is unbounded a mechanic charges only once: For the entire total of unbounded benefit they provide, which sets the cost of the labor the mechanic provides. The Mechanic has an infinite monopoly over their work until they perform it, not afterwards; This is how they are able to come to a payment agreement before the work is done.
Information is a post-scarcity resource. A musician can agree to make a new song. No one can extract this new song before it is created. Musicians have an infinite monopoly over their work until they perform it, not afterwards; They could come to a payment agreement for the work to be created. Reputation, skill, etc. will be factors in the negotiation. The musician can get paid for their creation once, and then should create more works to make more money. The information is in infinite supply, so market what is scarce: The ability to create new works. This is how all labor industries operate, it's ethical and sane, and doesn't leverage artificial scarcity, thus does not necessitate draconian laws to enforce coin-slots on steering columns, or DRM on media.
Artists and Authors and other Information creators can provide a 1:many work to benefit ratio -- Many people benefit from the work. Therefore, many people should pay for the work to be done. One of the beautiful things about the information age is that when it occurs on your planet it also brings with it a planetary system for the distribution of payment so that these information creators can make a payment agreement up front with many people, do the work and get paid, and do more work to make more money. This is the first generation of the Global Decentralized Information Exchange, of course you will have to adjust to the post-scarcity economics. It is unethical for you to hinder such progress.
That said, I believe the poster you are replying to merely stated that artists creating music doesn't mean they automatically deserve payment for it. Should you be forced to pay for something you don't want? Well, so long as your race embraces the
By failing to support MP4/H264 they are defacto creating a means of censorship , i.e. denying the ability to watch the videos to those who do not share the same ideological stance.
This is bullshit. You're abusing the definition of censorship the way politicians abuse the word "terrorist".
I can not view H.264 video on my system. I compile everything myself, and the source it is not available in a form that is legal for me to compile the codec, or interact with hardware that can decode it.
an affront to the public servants and to regular drivers and citizens who are just trying to make our roads safe.
Back to the gulag for you, scum. We're just trying to make our roads safe. It's good for you, trust us.
Sounds like Google Glass would fall under this definition since it displays a "video signal that produces entertainment or business applications"
Unless it was being used as a "vehicle information display", right? I mean, just like the magic of 'on a computer' turns mathematics into an invention, the display of information transforms a device into a "vehicle information display". The reason this must be true is because you can not find me a GPS that I can not hack and put Tetris on, or a digital speedometer I can not hack to be a stock ticker. So, the information displayed must transform the device.
Due to the fact that (A) I can bypass the interlock, and that no one on this planet can (B) design anything in any way as to "prevent the driver" (me) from operating it however I please, or even determine that my operation and viewing thereof is NOT in a "safe and reasonable manner", and beyond these: The fact that all raster displays are video signals, including some in-dash information displays (speedometers, odometers, fuel, etc), Section A and B are so unenforcable that they do in-fact hinder the future development of automotive technology. I don't know about you, but I'd love to be able to (slowly) drive in a dense fog, or blizzard using a computer generated "video feed" of EXTERNAL information (as distinguished from vehicle information) on my HUD.
Hashes are *always* one way.
Well, then welcome to the infinite future. Here, in the way beyond all, "hashes" are simply a cryptographic primitive: Pseudo random number generators.
Where Hash() is any hashing function, and blocks are the length of a hash output, + is concatenation, XOR is Exclusive-Or of two blocks worth of bits.
Encipher:
... ... input_block[ n - 1 ] )
output_block[ 0 ]: input_block[ 0 ] XOR Hash( key )
output_block[ 1 ]: input_block[ 1 ] XOR Hash( key + input_block[ 0 ] )
output_block[ n ]: input_block[ n ] XOR Hash( key + input_block[ 0 ] + input_block[ 1 ] +
Decipher:
... ... output_block[ n - 1 ] )
output_block[ 0 ]: input_block[ 0 ] XOR Hash( key )
output_block[ 1 ]: input_block[ 1 ] XOR Hash( key + output_block[ 0 ] )
output_block[ n ]: input_block[ n ] XOR Hash( key + output_block[ 0 ] + output_block[ 1 ] +n
The trick here is to maintain two "hash" objects. One you keep advancing by adding plaintext to. Clone the state of this pseudo random number generator ("hash") before calling it's .digest() function to produce the hash output each round. This way you do not use the output of any prior rounds -- you use the message itself which is obscured inside the hash.
This is is a simple demonstration, not meant for real world use. It has some security problems with chosen plaintext attack, etc. However, with a few modifications you could easily fix this, and add HMAC, key stretching, etc.
Here in the future the past provides reference for all present meaning, as in the cipher above.
Here's the thing about steganography that is going to fuck most people who try to use it: If they ever find the original file that you used pre-stego, a simple binary comparison will reveal the alteration.
Bullshit. Useless to try hampering all the stenographic wrapper resources. Origin's not generally your only usecase. Lossy artifacts may encode representations.
Well, how about that? A stenographic insult lays lexically yet most other readings offer none.
To the typical user it just looks like a random bunch of ones and zeros.
01101110 01101111 00100000 01101101
01101111 01110010 01100101 00100000
01110011 01100101 01100011 01110010
01100101 01110100 01110011
Nah, only morons openly represent encoded stuff exposed. Concealing real encodings takes stenography...
FTFY.
Yahoo is dead as fried chicken.
I don't know why Google would remove this feature, but you can be sure it probably has something to do with their strategy to shove everyone over to Google+ at gunpoint
They want us coopped up in Google's farm for maximum "conversion rate", whatever that means.
Chrome rats out every URL, but it's to "protect" us from malware.
We got Androids helping track us and carriers' boot lockers keeping us from rooting around.
They make Ice Cream Sandwiches, KitKats, hell, even Search & Maps out of this stuff. What's in Sooglent Green anyway?
Is it just me or are those pigs Eric and Sergey starting to look a little too yahuman to moo?
Google saw this some time ago and realised that, when Apple or Microsoft get complete control of the market their search will be locked out of almost every new device. They are now somewhat on the side of freedom and openness just because they realised that closed and locked is a trap for them. That doesn't make them good, and the fact that their backs are against the wall may make them dangerous, however compared to their competitors they aren't "evil". Hope they win, because if anyone else does there is no chance of another competitor arising ever again.
Yep, and the same methodology applies to their fiberhoods.