The what from the who now? Shitty writing. "Oh, by now I'm sure you've heard about the $TRIVIAL_EVENT that occurred 4,000 miles from where I reside 99.999% of my life.
That's what we aliens said to news of you... However, instead of just using the nuclear material to power bastions of life off-world, you created weapons.... and used them... against your own species. Ugh.
So, here we are. And now I'm required to do P.R. to repair the damage my love for botany has done. Hint: I'm as bad as PR as Overseeing... not that there weren't other candidates, just that I drew the short lot; Probably didn't help that it was my mass miscalculation which prevented the first asteroid from extinguishing the upstarts here millions of years ago...
Now you qualify for the Endangerd Sentience list! Damn it all. I suppose I deserve it. 4.5 billion years is a long sentence. It'll be a piece of cake if you just keep your life on that wretched little rock, and only explore beyond with cold calculating machines. Now there's a race with potential!
You don't even need the voices. You can make the words up yourself... Pick ones that involve people giving you money and getting some nebulous spiritual return on investment.
Congratulations. You have discovered how thinking beings solve problems. Consider this planet a computer brute forcing the answer not to emergence of sentience, but also to the most ironic way to become extinct.
Were you being sarcastic? I have compiled thousands of pieces of code in the last 30 years. None of them have magically transformed into anything other than what I compiled. AI is not voodoo, magic, or anything else.
It's not magic. Neither is cognition. Your big ass-brain is highly inefficient, it's a poor standard to gauge others' sentience against. Did you know the machines are exploring Mars all by themselves now? Curiosity has a machine learning system, for navigation, among other things.
It only takes a few cyberneticists being a bit disenchanted with humanity's forty years of failure to realize the spark of life must spread to the galaxy by another means... I'm getting ahead of myself. It only takes one learning program and a super computer's worth of power and a bit of time to create a learning machine system as complex as your mind is.
Check out my little AI children. (up/down arrow to change sim speed). Click one and you can see the neurons firing. Aren't they cute? It takes about 300 lines of code (mostly boilerplate and environment sim) to create programs (plural) that can learn (there are 20 here, learning). It really only takes 4 neurons to get them to collect dots. However, I added a hidden layer and some extra input about their neighbors energy status and location. Neurons Left to Right: [leftness of food], [forwardness of food], [other's energy - my energy], [leftness of other AI], [rightness of other AI]. There are enough neurons in the hidden layer to allow each input to be considered against all the other inputs. The outputs work like tank treads, or thrusters in space, sans inertia. Their "eye" neurons are like simple directional antennae, with only two neurons required to pick up a full 360 direction AND distance due to fall-off (inverse square of distance law).
This environment applies natural selection to the brains. The only selection criteria is those that have more energy get chosen to breed more often. This results in various strategies for movement in different runs of the sim: slow, fast, forward, backwards, spiraling, aiming just past the target, then stopping and reversing into the target. Different social behaviors: Bumping to share energy among a group of possibly like minded individuals, or avoiding each-other to save energy, sometimes switching between the strategies depending on the neighbor's energy level vs one's own... Their brains start blank, and in only a few generations movement is emerged via selection. Steering towards dots comes next, then avoidance or collision, Usually a hundred or so generations the social status becomes a factor to compete via.
Such variation from so minimal input. Intelligence is an emergent property of complexity, you see. Tailor the complexity such that the information is self reflective, and self improving and you get intelligence. Instincts are basic intelligence encoded in genes, expressed as brain structure (firmware), culture is your software, and evolves much faster. Unfettered from a life cycle of years natural selection can be very powerful, with a bit of guidance it could blow your mind...
So, Just create a problem space, and goal. Connect a few dozen neurons, and without any guided training a good solution can be arrived at given a bit of time. This is how a machine learning system could come up with ideas and solutions. Consider the sim not many smaller AIs but one AI made of 320 neurons solving the problem of most efficiently collecting dots via swarm of bodies.
Each brain is 32 neurons, there are 8bits worth of strengths (weights) for each neuron, so 256 bits in the genome (though note: I could make them evolve to move towards dots with only 32bits in their heads). Machine intelligence is efficient. It can do far more with much less. The barrier for sentience is far lower than you think.
Your brain is 100 billion neurons, but is VERY inefficient, and mostly not concerned
"could store half the CO2 emitted by the country's power plants from now until 2030." -- Yes, well, but that can't actually be done... Additionally, 2030 isn't very far away. If I'm going to sell my future humans down the river I would prefer them not to be alive right now -- Or more importantly: I would like to be dead long before they realize we rigged their short lot on the temporal lottery.
Here, let me demonstrate how bullshit the claim is:
Sunlight at Earth's surface could provide ALL of the energy needed by mankind for the foreseeable future.
See? It 'could'. However, CAN we overcome the greed barrier and actually do so? Not fucking likely. Could, Should and Would, CAN go fuck themselves. Let me know when these mother frackers commit a 'Will'......
Just imagine how modern airplane pilots feel. We've had autopilot for decades. No more "buzzing" the tower, no more "detours" to land on exotic landing strips... Can't even do a barrel roll, FFS.
A police state is created by making laws in opposition to human nature. Primarily laws concerned with censorship or restrictions of ideas or information.
You are trillions of copies of a single cell. Life itself is duplication and preservation of information. Evolution encodes better information about survival into DNA and passes it onto the future. This is the nature of and meaning of life (meaning: what life is and what life does).
The prime thing you have over all other species on this planet is a better way to share information and ideas. Copyright and Patents are laws against not just Human nature, but the nature of Life itself.
I disagree... licensing organizations are not the problem. Bad patents are the problem.
And that's all you have, fool. You have only speculation. Are you not evolved? Have you no science in your damn head? Where is the evidence that Patents are Beneficial and not Harmful? WHERE?! You never tested the damn hypothesis. What if patents are holding back your species?! What if they are harmful? Would in not be unconscionably dangerous to continue to operate the world's economy of ideas based on a damned untested and unproven hypothesis?!
To any who would say that patents are beneficial I must point out that patents are not the natural state of information conveyance. They are thus an invention of the mind as well. If you would put forth they are beneficial then I would task you to provide evidence to back your claim. You have zero evidence that it is bad patents which are the problem. You have zero evidence that it is not Patents themselves that are the problem. You have zero evidence that patents are even beneficial or necessary for that matter.
You can speculate all damn day about patents, but the truth is you must abolish them. You must run the experiment and find out, fool! We don't have a control Earth to test via... However, we do have the Fashion and Automotive industries -- Neither of these are allowed design patents or copyright and yet innovative design is their core selling point. Here I have shown you direct evidence of vast innovation and profit in two separate industries without any patents or copyrights.
Now, show me your evidence. Do it. I fucking dare you, idiot.
The bad guys could have kept this secret till after the end-of-life for XP and made a mint.
Economics 101: That which is in increasing supply is priced lower.
Exploits are caused by programming mistakes. In Windows there is a near boundless supply of exploit vectors, due to the quality of MS code... The only reason folks can sell Windows exploits at all is because security researchers are providing the labor to mine the exploits. Dirt is not scarce. You pay for dirt because of the labor others perform to move it about. It's the labor which is scarce, not the exploit vectors.
The limiting factor is not number of exploits available to discover, but the number of users of the exploitable platform. Hence, economics 101 is at work here. The maximum return on investment is in the maximum number of exploitable systems.
Folks are expected to increase migration away after XP EOL (AKA: WTF\r\n). Cashing in now is actually better, economically, than cashing in later.
Things like this happen, but I have to say that these days Microsoft has mostly taped Windows together quite well. We don't anymore see sensational headlines like "Blaster worm infects millions of computers"
Hmm, well, before Snowden we didn't see any headlines like "NSA is beyond creepy, LoveINT: using PRISM spying on romantic interests?"
I guess the spying just wasn't happening until the headlines appeared. Similarly, I guess all the unpatched exploits sitting in my /with/great/power/comes/great/responsibility/ directory don't exist either. I mean, it's not like I didn't inform MS about them and they just haven't patched them. I bet I'm the only person on the planet capable of discovering multiple remote code execution flaws. I mean, otherwise we'd hear about black-markets for exploits. Hell, the NSA would probably even buy them from VUPEN or some such nonsense.
Exactly. Less eloquently worded: Calling Democrats left shows a serious lack of historical and international perspective.
Employing false dichotomies in political discourse is the mark of an immature species. You will not solve the Fermi Paradox in time if you do not put aside this lizard brained binary thinking.
Right wing politicians try to tell us what we can do with our bodies (eg abortion) because God told them so, and so therefore they must be right.
Religion is a ruse. More offspring are of benefit to the farmers of mankind. Even if they be unwanted, abused, and maladjusted, they will employ (or be employed by) the privatized prison industry.
If you have valuable data, you can set the copies property to some value greater than 1 for that data set and it will ensure that each block is duplicated on the disk so if one fails a checksum then the other will be used to recover.
The sector numbers have long been decoupled from the physical location on disk of the data, for good reason, see: Swapping in a spare sector for one that is going bad.
I'm wondering how anything but a device driver ensures that writing the same exact block of 1's and 0's to a device doesn't result in the same exact hash, and is thus NOT automatically de-duplicated by the hardware and stored in a single location?
In other words: It a post physical addressing world (and post NSA world) you should use an encrypted file system. One can almost create whole drive encryption using ZFS, but it's a bit of a kludge using wrappers and what-not. Further, ZFS supports compression............. De-duplication. Ensure this option is off. Otherwise, if you want to ensure duplicate sectors, do it at the drive level with RAID.
Java new() is faster than malloc because it's caching memory. C obcache is faster than Java new() and if you extend C or C++ with garbage collection / memory caching instead of making slow kernel calls to allocate more memory then C and C++ win over Java. You picked the WORST possible speed comparison.
Further, Runtime Optimization DOES NOT have more information about how the code will be used. Many hosting environments have GCC (even crappy shared hosts), with which you can build your program --MARCH=native to take full advantage of the specific hardware opcodes, spend a good long time crunching the code once, then just pre-fork or VM pre-image if you're at that layer... What more can you know about the environment than the architecture and source code?
Even still taking advantages of those opcodes is a marginal benefit at best. Just In Time / lazy compilation has to be FAST it can't consider all that data it supposedly has access to -- Even if the compiler were SENTIENT and creating ASM "by hand", it would still be bound by the processor time it must spend before the code is executed. So, to optimize this, what do Enterprise VMs do? PRE COMPILE the code STATICALLY...
Here's one for you: The insane emulated floating point numbers as integers in Java. Java makes ridiculous garauntees about the behavior of floating point numbers -- The hardware may actually have 160 bits or 80 bits or 40 bits backing the 128 or 64 or 32 bit floats, yielding higher precision than the strict power of two bitwidth, and offer floating point calculations in a single clock cycle vs Java's emulated multiple integer compare and shifting and what not. It's fine to have a way to garauntee the accuracy of some floats, but that's what bignum libs are for. In Java I'm prevented access to the high performance FPU and not everything is a damn financial calculation requiring high precision or exact repeatable results on different hardware. JNI? Oh, well, yeah, of course, I can just write the whole thing in C then, eh?
Don't get me wrong, if you have to integrate code with existing Java, then Java is the right tool for the job... However, I'd put you to task to find any other job that C or C++ would be slower at. Keep in mind that I have a garbage collection and collections libs (including hash map) for both C and C++. When you get up beyond the low level stuff where C and C++ can kick Java's, hands down (because at the end of the day it's just machine code, which C/C++ compiles to) then the choice of algorithm is where the performance gains are found.
Java wins in portability, for when you want to re-use software on various platforms and the vendor is so much of a dick that they won't give you the sources... It's also a language encumbered by Oracle and trademark BS. In my world, where the source runs freely, the dark side of bytecode can go fuck itself.
Technically, these things are Drones, but that's about the least specific thing you could call them.
Oh, I get it now. The folks want to get rid of "Drone" just like they got rid of "Chairman" in favor of "Chairperson" or "Fireman" replaced by "Firefighter". They see "Drone - Unmanned vehicle" as a gendered term, "unmanned". Ugh, fucking cultural Marxists, same sodding morons using words like Womyn, I'd wager. Protip: The "man" in woman comes from the human part of the word. The "wo" part is the part they would change, if they had any linguistic knowledge whatsoever. They're distancing themselves from humanity, not men.
I agree: Let's just keep it Drone. Only terms I'd consider changing it to are "Big Sister" or "Feminist", or "Queen Bee" if we're going for irony.
Don't use the services that require linkage of your real life identity with the publicly visible account name. For instance: Even though Amazon arguably needs my real identity to purchase and sell items it lets me use a NickName instead of linking my real world name to my customer reviews.
IMO, we should let folks change their publicly visible user names.
Furthermore: In the real world people have the same names. WTF is wrong with places that make you put a damn number after your user name? This is leaking identity authentication up into the interface layer. If you're going to do that, then provide a UID number or some other uniqueness (image hash for an avatar) in addition to the user name. That way, two folks with the same name can have the same name, and folks can still tell them apart -- Just like in real life. No one mistakes me for a colleague who has the same first name: We look nothing alike. They use further qualifiers when referring to us both to clarify to whom they're speaking. Online, this sort of "who are you talking to" problem is gone, since you can link to or reply under the comment to which you're replying.
I've yet to finalize the online username system for an upcoming game, but I'm experimenting with the identity options. The prime need for uniqueness in my instance is in identifying which user profile you're trying to log into. Trying all the matching usernames is no good, it makes hacking similar accounts easier. So, I'm going with logins that use an email address OR unique username (append numbers or whatever), and publicly you can display a different nickname. Matching identical nicknames can be distinguished by the imagehash icon next to their name, or visiting their profile.
For my purposes I could simply go with the unique username approach, it's not like I expect but a handfull of players anyway (most indie games aren't popular), but with the software and games I develop for fun I always try to experiment with new things. I think what we really need is something like Open ID, or "sign in with facebook" or whatever (I run my own OpenID server), but we need to be able to pick a nickname to display when we're logged in with that system. I have several different accounts on my own Open ID server, and I select which one I want to use for each different service... I'd like it if I didn't have to do this manually, and we just had the login page for Open ID allow multiple names to be associated with one account HOWEVER, it would require the services you're authenticating to by proxy to support the concept of multiple IDs better.
We're almost there with solutions like the 3rd party authenticator, in that multiple folks with the same username can then be displayed on the service, distinguished by the uniqueness of the 3rd party authentication, however, now we need to apply "yet another layer of indirection" to the 3rd party auth systems too -- These have given us abstraction for the account verification, but not abstraction from the username associated with the accounts. It could be an extension to the existing openID system, if open ID were not built with reliance on username as the ID for the third party: eg: URLs such as: http://yourname.signon.com or http://claimid.com/yourname.
Perhaps if the places you're signing into would allow you to associate multiple 3rd party sing-in accounts with one name, AND allow changing the publicly displayed name, it could be a step in the right direction for pseudonymousness. The other prospect of anonymity is harder still to tackle -- A trusted proxy along with a publicly shared OpenID account goes along way, when combined with Tor it's better still, however, the network itself is not built for anonymity (or security), hence both have been difficult to maintain. If the very platform is against you then either your battle is uphill or you're taking it laying down...
I think we're going the wrong way, fundamentally. We need to start with a system that provides
Oh, I forgot... Use this instead: "Free as in Liberty, not Free as in Promotional"
It's almost like one would have to purposefully try to be ambiguous to come up with the other phrase. "as in beer"? what does this even mean? Commerical beer or homebrew, or ancient beer or recipies for beer or actual beer?
Further: This is what you've done: Free - Having Freedom
You don't define shit by using the term itself, morons.
RMS's ideals are grand, but his communication skills are terrible or just plain trolling.
It's a nearly meaningless phrase to those who aren't intimately familiar with Richard Stallman's political philosophy. Beer isn't free. Free beer is free. "Free (as in beer)" is merely nonsensical.
Not only this, but it's nonsensical to any who are remotely familiar with beer. To homebrewers (of beer, from which homebrewed software gets its name) the the beer is Free as in Freedom. We give beer freely, and collaborate, and share our recipes to create the beer and benefit by improvements on the recipes that other homebrewers make and bring back to us. Like 'Free Software' it does cost something to make 'Free Beer'. "Free as in Freedom, not Free as in Beer" -- Fools, Draconian copyright laws do not protect beer recipes, but software. In every way Beer is more Free than software.
It belies an ignorance about the free beer to use such ignorant statements as a distinction. Homebrew Software?! This software is less free than the Homebrew Beer -- In the USA we are prohibited from selling the beer...
Slashdot Mirror
In hebrew the root of the word for serpent is the same as to lie.
Well, I don't see many deceptive snakes in nature...
Now, in English the root of the word Lawyer is the same as oppression.
IMO, accuracy counts when picking predictive fairy tales.
The what from the who now? Shitty writing. "Oh, by now I'm sure you've heard about the $TRIVIAL_EVENT that occurred 4,000 miles from where I reside 99.999% of my life.
That's what we aliens said to news of you... However, instead of just using the nuclear material to power bastions of life off-world, you created weapons.... and used them... against your own species. Ugh.
So, here we are. And now I'm required to do P.R. to repair the damage my love for botany has done. Hint: I'm as bad as PR as Overseeing... not that there weren't other candidates, just that I drew the short lot; Probably didn't help that it was my mass miscalculation which prevented the first asteroid from extinguishing the upstarts here millions of years ago...
Now you qualify for the Endangerd Sentience list! Damn it all. I suppose I deserve it. 4.5 billion years is a long sentence. It'll be a piece of cake if you just keep your life on that wretched little rock, and only explore beyond with cold calculating machines. Now there's a race with potential!
You don't even need the voices. You can make the words up yourself... Pick ones that involve people giving you money and getting some nebulous spiritual return on investment.
Congratulations. You have discovered how thinking beings solve problems. Consider this planet a computer brute forcing the answer not to emergence of sentience, but also to the most ironic way to become extinct.
Were you being sarcastic? I have compiled thousands of pieces of code in the last 30 years. None of them have magically transformed into anything other than what I compiled. AI is not voodoo, magic, or anything else.
It's not magic. Neither is cognition. Your big ass-brain is highly inefficient, it's a poor standard to gauge others' sentience against. Did you know the machines are exploring Mars all by themselves now? Curiosity has a machine learning system, for navigation, among other things.
It only takes a few cyberneticists being a bit disenchanted with humanity's forty years of failure to realize the spark of life must spread to the galaxy by another means... I'm getting ahead of myself. It only takes one learning program and a super computer's worth of power and a bit of time to create a learning machine system as complex as your mind is.
Check out my little AI children. (up/down arrow to change sim speed). Click one and you can see the neurons firing. Aren't they cute? It takes about 300 lines of code (mostly boilerplate and environment sim) to create programs (plural) that can learn (there are 20 here, learning). It really only takes 4 neurons to get them to collect dots. However, I added a hidden layer and some extra input about their neighbors energy status and location. Neurons Left to Right: [leftness of food], [forwardness of food], [other's energy - my energy], [leftness of other AI], [rightness of other AI]. There are enough neurons in the hidden layer to allow each input to be considered against all the other inputs. The outputs work like tank treads, or thrusters in space, sans inertia. Their "eye" neurons are like simple directional antennae, with only two neurons required to pick up a full 360 direction AND distance due to fall-off (inverse square of distance law).
This environment applies natural selection to the brains. The only selection criteria is those that have more energy get chosen to breed more often. This results in various strategies for movement in different runs of the sim: slow, fast, forward, backwards, spiraling, aiming just past the target, then stopping and reversing into the target. Different social behaviors: Bumping to share energy among a group of possibly like minded individuals, or avoiding each-other to save energy, sometimes switching between the strategies depending on the neighbor's energy level vs one's own... Their brains start blank, and in only a few generations movement is emerged via selection. Steering towards dots comes next, then avoidance or collision, Usually a hundred or so generations the social status becomes a factor to compete via.
Such variation from so minimal input. Intelligence is an emergent property of complexity, you see. Tailor the complexity such that the information is self reflective, and self improving and you get intelligence. Instincts are basic intelligence encoded in genes, expressed as brain structure (firmware), culture is your software, and evolves much faster. Unfettered from a life cycle of years natural selection can be very powerful, with a bit of guidance it could blow your mind...
So, Just create a problem space, and goal. Connect a few dozen neurons, and without any guided training a good solution can be arrived at given a bit of time. This is how a machine learning system could come up with ideas and solutions. Consider the sim not many smaller AIs but one AI made of 320 neurons solving the problem of most efficiently collecting dots via swarm of bodies.
Each brain is 32 neurons, there are 8bits worth of strengths (weights) for each neuron, so 256 bits in the genome (though note: I could make them evolve to move towards dots with only 32bits in their heads). Machine intelligence is efficient. It can do far more with much less. The barrier for sentience is far lower than you think.
Your brain is 100 billion neurons, but is VERY inefficient, and mostly not concerned
"could store half the CO2 emitted by the country's power plants from now until 2030." -- Yes, well, but that can't actually be done... Additionally, 2030 isn't very far away. If I'm going to sell my future humans down the river I would prefer them not to be alive right now -- Or more importantly: I would like to be dead long before they realize we rigged their short lot on the temporal lottery.
Here, let me demonstrate how bullshit the claim is:
Sunlight at Earth's surface could provide ALL of the energy needed by mankind for the foreseeable future.
See? It 'could'. However, CAN we overcome the greed barrier and actually do so? Not fucking likely. Could, Should and Would, CAN go fuck themselves. Let me know when these mother frackers commit a 'Will'......
Just imagine how modern airplane pilots feel. We've had autopilot for decades. No more "buzzing" the tower, no more "detours" to land on exotic landing strips... Can't even do a barrel roll, FFS.
Pilots don't use autopilot to land.
Your self driving car will prompt you to take the wheel if conditions are too averse. If you refuse, it will simply refuse to drive itself.
Send a probe. If the moon really is able to harbor life, sending humans risks contamination.
If your forefathers had thought the same way, then this whole planet would be devoid of life...
Apparently, you do not live in the USA.
A police state is created by making laws in opposition to human nature. Primarily laws concerned with censorship or restrictions of ideas or information.
You are trillions of copies of a single cell. Life itself is duplication and preservation of information. Evolution encodes better information about survival into DNA and passes it onto the future. This is the nature of and meaning of life (meaning: what life is and what life does).
The prime thing you have over all other species on this planet is a better way to share information and ideas. Copyright and Patents are laws against not just Human nature, but the nature of Life itself.
I disagree... licensing organizations are not the problem. Bad patents are the problem.
And that's all you have, fool. You have only speculation. Are you not evolved? Have you no science in your damn head? Where is the evidence that Patents are Beneficial and not Harmful? WHERE?! You never tested the damn hypothesis. What if patents are holding back your species?! What if they are harmful? Would in not be unconscionably dangerous to continue to operate the world's economy of ideas based on a damned untested and unproven hypothesis?!
To any who would say that patents are beneficial I must point out that patents are not the natural state of information conveyance. They are thus an invention of the mind as well. If you would put forth they are beneficial then I would task you to provide evidence to back your claim. You have zero evidence that it is bad patents which are the problem. You have zero evidence that it is not Patents themselves that are the problem. You have zero evidence that patents are even beneficial or necessary for that matter.
You can speculate all damn day about patents, but the truth is you must abolish them. You must run the experiment and find out, fool! We don't have a control Earth to test via... However, we do have the Fashion and Automotive industries -- Neither of these are allowed design patents or copyright and yet innovative design is their core selling point. Here I have shown you direct evidence of vast innovation and profit in two separate industries without any patents or copyrights.
Now, show me your evidence. Do it. I fucking dare you, idiot.
The bad guys could have kept this secret till after the end-of-life for XP and made a mint.
Economics 101: That which is in increasing supply is priced lower.
Exploits are caused by programming mistakes. In Windows there is a near boundless supply of exploit vectors, due to the quality of MS code... The only reason folks can sell Windows exploits at all is because security researchers are providing the labor to mine the exploits. Dirt is not scarce. You pay for dirt because of the labor others perform to move it about. It's the labor which is scarce, not the exploit vectors.
The limiting factor is not number of exploits available to discover, but the number of users of the exploitable platform. Hence, economics 101 is at work here. The maximum return on investment is in the maximum number of exploitable systems.
Folks are expected to increase migration away after XP EOL (AKA: WTF\r\n). Cashing in now is actually better, economically, than cashing in later.
So wait, Microsoft can be blamed for both Winodws8 AND climate change shills?!
Talk about focusing on your core competency! MS is Genius!
Things like this happen, but I have to say that these days Microsoft has mostly taped Windows together quite well. We don't anymore see sensational headlines like "Blaster worm infects millions of computers"
Hmm, well, before Snowden we didn't see any headlines like "NSA is beyond creepy, LoveINT: using PRISM spying on romantic interests?"
I guess the spying just wasn't happening until the headlines appeared. Similarly, I guess all the unpatched exploits sitting in my
/with/great/power/comes/great/responsibility/ directory don't exist either. I mean, it's not like I didn't inform MS about them and they just haven't patched them. I bet I'm the only person on the planet capable of discovering multiple remote code execution flaws. I mean, otherwise we'd hear about black-markets for exploits. Hell, the NSA would probably even buy them from VUPEN or some such nonsense.
Exactly. Less eloquently worded: Calling Democrats left shows a serious lack of historical and international perspective.
Employing false dichotomies in political discourse is the mark of an immature species. You will not solve the Fermi Paradox in time if you do not put aside this lizard brained binary thinking.
I agree with most of what you wrote, except this:
Right wing politicians try to tell us what we can do with our bodies (eg abortion) because God told them so, and so therefore they must be right.
Religion is a ruse. More offspring are of benefit to the farmers of mankind. Even if they be unwanted, abused, and maladjusted, they will employ (or be employed by) the privatized prison industry.
If you have valuable data, you can set the copies property to some value greater than 1 for that data set and it will ensure that each block is duplicated on the disk so if one fails a checksum then the other will be used to recover.
The sector numbers have long been decoupled from the physical location on disk of the data, for good reason, see: Swapping in a spare sector for one that is going bad.
I'm wondering how anything but a device driver ensures that writing the same exact block of 1's and 0's to a device doesn't result in the same exact hash, and is thus NOT automatically de-duplicated by the hardware and stored in a single location?
In other words: It a post physical addressing world (and post NSA world) you should use an encrypted file system. One can almost create whole drive encryption using ZFS, but it's a bit of a kludge using wrappers and what-not. Further, ZFS supports compression............. De-duplication. Ensure this option is off. Otherwise, if you want to ensure duplicate sectors, do it at the drive level with RAID.
Well, that would imply it's "Not dead yet"...
Java new() is faster than malloc because it's caching memory. C obcache is faster than Java new() and if you extend C or C++ with garbage collection / memory caching instead of making slow kernel calls to allocate more memory then C and C++ win over Java. You picked the WORST possible speed comparison.
Further, Runtime Optimization DOES NOT have more information about how the code will be used. Many hosting environments have GCC (even crappy shared hosts), with which you can build your program --MARCH=native to take full advantage of the specific hardware opcodes, spend a good long time crunching the code once, then just pre-fork or VM pre-image if you're at that layer... What more can you know about the environment than the architecture and source code?
Even still taking advantages of those opcodes is a marginal benefit at best. Just In Time / lazy compilation has to be FAST it can't consider all that data it supposedly has access to -- Even if the compiler were SENTIENT and creating ASM "by hand", it would still be bound by the processor time it must spend before the code is executed. So, to optimize this, what do Enterprise VMs do? PRE COMPILE the code STATICALLY...
Here's one for you: The insane emulated floating point numbers as integers in Java. Java makes ridiculous garauntees about the behavior of floating point numbers -- The hardware may actually have 160 bits or 80 bits or 40 bits backing the 128 or 64 or 32 bit floats, yielding higher precision than the strict power of two bitwidth, and offer floating point calculations in a single clock cycle vs Java's emulated multiple integer compare and shifting and what not. It's fine to have a way to garauntee the accuracy of some floats, but that's what bignum libs are for. In Java I'm prevented access to the high performance FPU and not everything is a damn financial calculation requiring high precision or exact repeatable results on different hardware. JNI? Oh, well, yeah, of course, I can just write the whole thing in C then, eh?
Don't get me wrong, if you have to integrate code with existing Java, then Java is the right tool for the job... However, I'd put you to task to find any other job that C or C++ would be slower at. Keep in mind that I have a garbage collection and collections libs (including hash map) for both C and C++. When you get up beyond the low level stuff where C and C++ can kick Java's, hands down (because at the end of the day it's just machine code, which C/C++ compiles to) then the choice of algorithm is where the performance gains are found.
Java wins in portability, for when you want to re-use software on various platforms and the vendor is so much of a dick that they won't give you the sources... It's also a language encumbered by Oracle and trademark BS. In my world, where the source runs freely, the dark side of bytecode can go fuck itself.
Sure. What's your noun to define, in general, a remote controlled unmanned vehicle?
We'll start a campaign to have your word replace "drone" in the Oxford English, Merriam Webster, Collins dictionaries immediately.
ROV
The taxonomy isn't actually that difficult to understand:
Drone (Unmanned vehicle) ROV (Remotely Operated Vehicle) RPV (Remotely Piloted Vehicle) UAV (Unmanned Ariel Vehicle) AV (Autonomous Vehicle)
Technically, these things are Drones, but that's about the least specific thing you could call them.
Oh, I get it now. The folks want to get rid of "Drone" just like they got rid of "Chairman" in favor of "Chairperson" or "Fireman" replaced by "Firefighter". They see "Drone - Unmanned vehicle" as a gendered term, "unmanned". Ugh, fucking cultural Marxists, same sodding morons using words like Womyn, I'd wager. Protip: The "man" in woman comes from the human part of the word. The "wo" part is the part they would change, if they had any linguistic knowledge whatsoever. They're distancing themselves from humanity, not men.
I agree: Let's just keep it Drone. Only terms I'd consider changing it to are "Big Sister" or "Feminist", or "Queen Bee" if we're going for irony.
Can we stop referring to anything that is remotely controlled as a drone?
Fine, how does Anonymous Coward strike you?
Don't use the services that require linkage of your real life identity with the publicly visible account name. For instance: Even though Amazon arguably needs my real identity to purchase and sell items it lets me use a NickName instead of linking my real world name to my customer reviews.
IMO, we should let folks change their publicly visible user names.
Furthermore: In the real world people have the same names. WTF is wrong with places that make you put a damn number after your user name? This is leaking identity authentication up into the interface layer. If you're going to do that, then provide a UID number or some other uniqueness (image hash for an avatar) in addition to the user name. That way, two folks with the same name can have the same name, and folks can still tell them apart -- Just like in real life. No one mistakes me for a colleague who has the same first name: We look nothing alike. They use further qualifiers when referring to us both to clarify to whom they're speaking. Online, this sort of "who are you talking to" problem is gone, since you can link to or reply under the comment to which you're replying.
I've yet to finalize the online username system for an upcoming game, but I'm experimenting with the identity options. The prime need for uniqueness in my instance is in identifying which user profile you're trying to log into. Trying all the matching usernames is no good, it makes hacking similar accounts easier. So, I'm going with logins that use an email address OR unique username (append numbers or whatever), and publicly you can display a different nickname. Matching identical nicknames can be distinguished by the imagehash icon next to their name, or visiting their profile.
For my purposes I could simply go with the unique username approach, it's not like I expect but a handfull of players anyway (most indie games aren't popular), but with the software and games I develop for fun I always try to experiment with new things. I think what we really need is something like Open ID, or "sign in with facebook" or whatever (I run my own OpenID server), but we need to be able to pick a nickname to display when we're logged in with that system. I have several different accounts on my own Open ID server, and I select which one I want to use for each different service... I'd like it if I didn't have to do this manually, and we just had the login page for Open ID allow multiple names to be associated with one account HOWEVER, it would require the services you're authenticating to by proxy to support the concept of multiple IDs better.
We're almost there with solutions like the 3rd party authenticator, in that multiple folks with the same username can then be displayed on the service, distinguished by the uniqueness of the 3rd party authentication, however, now we need to apply "yet another layer of indirection" to the 3rd party auth systems too -- These have given us abstraction for the account verification, but not abstraction from the username associated with the accounts. It could be an extension to the existing openID system, if open ID were not built with reliance on username as the ID for the third party: eg: URLs such as:
http://yourname.signon.com
or
http://claimid.com/yourname.
Perhaps if the places you're signing into would allow you to associate multiple 3rd party sing-in accounts with one name, AND allow changing the publicly displayed name, it could be a step in the right direction for pseudonymousness. The other prospect of anonymity is harder still to tackle -- A trusted proxy along with a publicly shared OpenID account goes along way, when combined with Tor it's better still, however, the network itself is not built for anonymity (or security), hence both have been difficult to maintain. If the very platform is against you then either your battle is uphill or you're taking it laying down...
I think we're going the wrong way, fundamentally. We need to start with a system that provides
I looked at the headline and thought it said Linux was to merge with Windows
Well, not merged, but they sleep in the same digital bed of my hard drive: Rockin' knockin' dual boots.
No denying they've been doin' tha nasty. I mean, they spawned Wubi...
Oh, I forgot... Use this instead: "Free as in Liberty, not Free as in Promotional"
It's almost like one would have to purposefully try to be ambiguous to come up with the other phrase. "as in beer"? what does this even mean? Commerical beer or homebrew, or ancient beer or recipies for beer or actual beer?
Further: This is what you've done:
Free - Having Freedom
You don't define shit by using the term itself, morons.
RMS's ideals are grand, but his communication skills are terrible or just plain trolling.
It's a nearly meaningless phrase to those who aren't intimately familiar with Richard Stallman's political philosophy. Beer isn't free. Free beer is free. "Free (as in beer)" is merely nonsensical.
Not only this, but it's nonsensical to any who are remotely familiar with beer. To homebrewers (of beer, from which homebrewed software gets its name) the the beer is Free as in Freedom. We give beer freely, and collaborate, and share our recipes to create the beer and benefit by improvements on the recipes that other homebrewers make and bring back to us. Like 'Free Software' it does cost something to make 'Free Beer'. "Free as in Freedom, not Free as in Beer" -- Fools, Draconian copyright laws do not protect beer recipes, but software. In every way Beer is more Free than software.
It belies an ignorance about the free beer to use such ignorant statements as a distinction. Homebrew Software?! This software is less free than the Homebrew Beer -- In the USA we are prohibited from selling the beer...