I would sincerely hope that the mechanical control electronics are connected to a main system and a fail safe system.
The purpose of fly in circles is that you wouldn't want a plane to enter a air traffic condition while unable to communicate with ground control. This is what I believe (from news reports, books, movies, etc... documentary stuff... over dramatized of course) pilots do as well.
As for deliberately engineered by terrorists... hmmm somehow I don't see how a computer vs. a human makes any difference here... well unless of course the human is someone like Steven Segall... or maybe some other mythical movie character who can dodge bullets, catch knives, hit some terrorist 92 times in the head in a dance like motion as if it were choreographed for film. Of course, I've never once thought to myself getting on a plane "gee, I hope there are no terrorists on this one". Let's say it this way... if a terrorist is going to sabotage a plane, which will happen eventually... planes seem to be really exciting for them... it will probably at the very least... well induce terror. Until then, we can let the DHS, TSA and many other 3 letter government agencies funded almost entirely by terrorist threat scare the shit out of people. Always wondered how being perpetually made aware and to feel threatened by people trying to induce terror could be called winning the war on terror.
Let's for the moment suspect that terrorism will continue to be a problem for a while to come. Let's also agree that there will be attempts (sometimes successful) on flights with human or computer pilots. Let's also agree that there's a high likelihood that any terrorist organized enough to be an effective threat against a passenger plane with a locked cockpit probably is a threat either way.
Are you seriously asking me to believe that a pilot assisting from the ground in an emergency situation to keep 100-450 people including women, children, elderly, etc... alive wouldn't be motivated to pay full attention or to do a poor job? Roger, when I read that, I wished I was the type of person that would cry for someone so broken. There is something truly broken in your heart. To start with terrorists and then to believe a person in that position... working with a team of others around them wouldn't do their very best save lives because if their own life wasn't at risk, then they wouldn't be motivated to do so. I'm going to actually lose sleep tonight thinking about that. Things like this stay with me for years and break my heart every time I think of it. I hope that this writing is not representative of all of who you are inside. I hope there is happiness and trust there too.
I'm going to tell you with absolute sincerity and honesty and belief (sorry... don't do faith) that when the time comes, the guys working ground control will go all Apollo 13 on any plane in danger and do whatever it takes to get those people on the ground alive. This is how people really act in real life. If you experience otherwise, I'm truly sorry.
As for ground crews, pre-flight inspection, etc... professionalism is professionalism and lazy is lazy.
I'm pretty sure the results will be better. Currently there are good and bad pilots. There are A LOT of both and all the grades in-between. We'll need 1/20th as many and their entire careers will be mostly about pre-flight inspections. They'll each gain experience of 20x-100x more flights and be far more agile in their positions and more practiced. I'm quite convinced that things will improve... not the other way around. Also consider that with so many fewer pilots, the airlines can afford to pay those people quite a bit more and treat them better otherwise as well. Motivation shouldn't be an issue.
Roger... I'm a pragmatist with a strong belief in people. I have no enemies and have absolutely no real concept of hate. I generally trust people and pretty much everyone I treat with respect treats me with respect as well. I live a wonderful life where I smile at peop
I am not an airplane mechanic and I have never seen the designs for a 737, but I'll speculate here.
1) The computers would be mostly on-board. We're not talking super-computing technology here. With plottable auto-pilot and automatic landing systems already well-established, things like collision avoidance and take-off should probably fit in something the size of a shoe box.
2) I'm almost 100% sure that things like mechanical control of the flaps, elevators and rudder doesn't exist. I'm nearly 100% sure that when you physically manipulate the controls, the steering mechanisms are controlled electronically... and have been proven over time. I'd almost guess that the throttle is not mechanically control.
3) I would imagine that airplanes have lost communications many times and pilots have had to deal without ground communication. I'd also imagine that systems would be in place to deal with loss of communication with ground control. I'd also imagine that there should be some sort of backup... for example, if the plane loses ground communication, sending up a drone to fly in front of the jet and direct it down would be an option.
Pilots have been there for a long time to be little more than just in-flight "uh-oh handlers". They are very valuable in flights, but the number of circumstances where a plane would need the pilot is low. The number of circumstances where communications is lost during an emergency is almost zero. If automatic systems can't land the plane and the plane can't be remote controlled and the plane can't be electronically guided in by a drone... I'm pretty sure there's a way that a flight attendant could have a button to click called "Circle and await further instruction" as well as emergency buttons like "fly mechanically in circles above clouds while we reboot all the computers".
If none of that is good enough... well.. I don't think I pilot would be much help either.
I tend to buy at least one AMD system from each generation to give it a go and see if we can't get somewhere without these problems.
amd486 - system/memory clock (same thing back then) was unstable and too high. This caused all kinds of issues with Maxwell's theorem and it was impossible to run a VESA local bus IDE or VGA adapter reliably. Also consider that the CPU was implemented almost entirely without x86 debug registers which made debugging GPFs a complete nightmare. Very often, Windows NT 3.1 and 3.5 would crash on there and people immediately pointed a finger at Microsoft for the GPFs and blue screens. In reality on AMD CPUs, nearly 50 percent of the GPFs were actually AMD's fault.
amd586 and 686... these CPUs were huge improvements, but there was some weird issue with the NMI that made debugging code almost impossible. They also had a really bad tendency of bursting capacitors on the system board
AMD with later generations
- built in MMU was implemented for users, not servers and developers. it was absolutely horrifying wondering whether my code was going to come out right. memory protection was more of a suggestion to them than a rule.
- AMD was killing every desktop benchmark, I actually loved AMD at this time as I was playing games and I had bought myself four Shuttle Cubes with the nVidia chipsets and AMD CPUs. I programmed on a dual-Celeron system at work with Linux because it was just faster and better.
- P4 vs Athlon days. Intel botched the P4 in so many ways it was terrible. It was almost not a challenge for AMD to out-perform Intel as the P4 architecture was an endless mess of cache miss hell. Now... let's be REALLY REALLY fair. P4 would have been the ultimate winner if CPUs were meant for DOS. What I mean is that on a system where there is only a single task (not including hardware interrupt handlers) the P4 pipeline is still a thing of true beauty. But the whole world had moved to Windows XP (got XP and my first P4 on the same shopping trip) and people left DOS, Windows 95/98/ME behind to run a real operating system for the first time... And the P4 was dead before it left the door. The Athlon which was basically equal to a higher clocked Pentium III with an internal MMU... which in itself was the best thing they ever did.... was amazingly fast. Instead of making a fancier CPU, AMD just kept making the same one and in each generation, focused on moving more bottlenecking systems on-die so the chip performance wouldn't be throttled by external buses. Unfortunately, during this era, both Intel and AMD sucked for development. GCC was a hot wreck as it was still running the crap based on Richard Stallman's code, 2.77 was useless for optimization and 2.89-2.95 was absolutely unreliable. RedHat was trying to make a living porting Linux to every damn device and make it run on ARM (SHITTY DEVELOPMENT PLATFORM at the time), etc... Visual C++ was great and Intel C++ was amazing but you weren't allowed to say that out loud. See, Microsoft was truly evil at the time. Following generations of AMD (not including Ryzen) - Branding hell... no one that didn't take an obsessive interest in AMD could tell what generation of chip they were buying or even what tier. Even now, having owned many of them, I couldn't tell you which ones were good or bad because I was lost. Intel's current numbering is bad... but not that bad. - Memory problems. Yeh... wasted 5 days trying to debug a buffer overflow... then I switched to my Intel based laptop and it showed up in the debugger on the first try. AMD still can't make a fucking MMU. How the hell are you supposed to write a memory manager for an operating system if you can't trap buffer overflows when you clearly defined in the GDT and/or LDT where it should set bounds. - Order of execution. On an Intel Core CPU, I can write multiprocessing code, set core affinity based on the position of the core relative to the ring buses. Then I can queue tasks that read/write L1/L2/L3 cache and based on the queui
And i was actually referring to a cheesy line from a cheesy movie where two idiots hunting in hats with antlers argue over the hats and then look up to realize their prey was gone. It actually would make Canadian Bacon or Teen Movie look high class.
BTW... I was tempted as I'm allergic to cat hair, but the kids wouldn't let me
hmmm.... I'm curious... if you're zero kelvin... then does that mean your completely stuck in just one place... if so.. how do you move your fingers to type... or is it something that affects only portions of your brain stem but still allows free motion of your finger and mouth without input from your brain.
Damn... that was rude and uncalled for, but I've always loved picking on handles/aliases/pseudonyms/nicknames, etc... You might feel bad for my friend Aslak that to me sounds like Ass-Lock which I then associate with butt-plug. Thank you for allowing me the privilege of being abusive to you in the opening of my response to what you wrote. It was meant with nothing but the nicest intent... truly.
I'm going to make the assumption that RedHat has lawyers who are proficient with the terms of the GPL and how it works. Also, I'll assume that RedHat which has classically tried to present themselves as the champions of the GPL.. know a lot more about this than you or I do. So... while I may be wrong about a few things... let's try this.
Look at the link to RedHat's evaluation faq : https://access.redhat.com/articles/1377933
Now... RedHat is absolutely 100% open source compliant. It would devastate their business if they ever tried to violate the GPL. But here, it is basically saying :
1) You can (if you provide a lot of information about yourself) download a trial version of RHEL. After 30-90 days... you are required to buy it.
2) If you don't buy it... we will stick lawyers on you
Now... RedHat complies with the GPL by making 100% of their code and patches and updates available as source. This means it's free for absolutely everyone to use however they will.
The compiled and ready for use version of RHEL however IS A PAID COMMERCIAL PRODUCT and is not to be used by anyone that hasn't paid!!!! Oh and if you pay, you get support to!
Of course, there is CentOS and Fedora. CentOS being a 100% copy of RHEL without the support package or callback to Redhat's servers. But really, let's be honest... RHEL is a commercial product and they ARE selling a PRODUCT WITH SERVICES... not strictly services for a product.
I'll guess you're a developer because you clearly suffered the same misunderstanding I had 10 years back.
For Internet video there's not a great benefit to it. Of course, when it comes to broadcast, most of the major players already are part of the patent pool so don't really have to bother with paying the fee. Consider that companies like Sony, Cisco, etc... all are part of the pools and they're out there rambling on about standards and inter-op etc... and surprisingly most of their non-mainline encoders and decoders are not compatible with each other.
As for internet and mobile phones, there's actually a huge benefit to the H.265 platform. It's generally super-easy to implement or accelerate in hardware compared with Google and other open source or patent free codecs.
It's truly amazing how well the HEVC codec is documented and how well the reference platform adapts to hardware. This is because almost all the vendors involved with the standardization process place a great importance on hardware implementability.
VP8 and VP9 were sheer terrors for hardware. This is because there was never a clean (unoptimized) baseline implementation to use as a reference and the documentation for the standard was kind of an afterthought. Where the HEVC committee generally has a policy that if you want to get something into baseline (the holy grail in patent pools) you have to show at least a few percent compression improvement at the same signal quality. So, most additions are added piecemeal to the standard because a company will make an enhancement, submit it for approval with documentation and reference implementation, if it doesn't show noticeable improvement, it's dumped without discussion. If it shows improvement, then the hardware guys say "we can't implement that because..." and then there's debates etc,,,
Google codecs are basically made by simply checking in code and if it works, it stays, if it doesn't it goes. As such, while Google codecs do have some pretty good things in them, they also have stuff which is particularly difficult to implement in hardware since software developers don't have to consider things like transistor depth.
Let's for the moment pretend I know what I'm talking about regarding video technology.
The author of this story seems to think that there's a correlation behind business and encoding complexity.
Let's start with this. While H.264 and H.265 and AV1, etc... are all really cool, large scale content delivery systems tend to profit far greater from better use of core components of a codec than from improvements to core components of the codec.
Let's consider things like improved motion search. Depending whether you're implementing the function in ASIC, FPGA (there's a difference regarding memory access), CPU instructions or GPU instructions, there are multiple approaches to handling this well. A circuit in a complex enough ASIC or FPGA could perform a single clock motion search within a given range, however the cost of this is generally very high and therefore inefficient financially. So, an iterative or progress approach is taken. One great method is to use the previous frame's motion vectors and predict a pattern which would continue motion in the same general directions within the same general regions of the field.
Of course, this sounds highly intelligent and simple and logical, consider making an elongated diamond search pattern with an affinity to the direction of the previous motion vector. Motion search is logical and intelligent only when thinking in terms of one frame after the next. However, H.264 introduced the ability to encode every single macroblock as I,P or B (and some subtypes) and there's no specific requirement for I-frames in video which is great since for bit distribution in broadcast, when combined with spatial scalability mechanisms, it's possible to achieve constant bit rate at far lower rates
I supposed I'm about to write a dissertation on video encoding here and there's a few friends of mine in the field who probably started reading this comment laughing at how I'm trying to solve all the encoding problems of the world in a single Slashdot posting.
Let's say it this way.... currently there are two main types of OTT distributors
1) The kind that encode a hundred films a year, a hundred different ways and the cost of CPU cycles to do it is absolutely irrelevant.
2) The kind that encodes 900,000 videos a second to spam to everywhere. To these guys CPUs are very important.
Most of these guys start off working on code in their moms basements and eventually turn it into something cloud based... very nice, very sweet. I remember before Google bought YouTube and YouTube was running their service by automatically linking to free file sharing websites. It was funny.
Here's the thing though... these guys optimize the ever living heck out of their encoders. Some might use vanilla x264 and if you're small enough... why not? It's absolutely amazing stuff. It has OpenCL optimized code and therefore can scale to an FPGA very easily today as Altera (and other companies) have adopted OpenCL as their future direction of encoding support. This is a nightmare because people will start using FPGAs with OpenCL and other people will laugh because simply recompiling OpenCL to run on FPGA is not cost or power efficient. It's far better to use the OpenCL compiler extensions to manage copying memory to the FPGA and to prototype the function and then have a real VHDL/Verilog guy sit down and write the functions which are needed.
One place where FPGA can save millions on encoding costs is in entropy coding. Hmm... well not the entropy coding itself (though it would make sense logically to just move the whole thing) but bit packing. x264 and others spend amazingly large amounts of their time simply calling the function 'PushBits()' because there's no efficient method of bit streaming in an x86 CPU.
If Apple makes use of H.265, and people start streaming video to YouTube as H.265... here's what happens.... YouTube converts the video to either H.264 or VP9. No... YouTube won't rush to use H.265 just because it's there.
I believe if you recall correctly, they weren't completely incompatible.
1) Mac OS 8.x and later began forcing developer to the Carbon API... which was certainly better than doing things like waiting or hardware timers and injecting values into kernel space to change window titles. 2) Mac OS X shipped with the Carbon API which means that if a developer put most of his/her effort into porting their apps to Carbon, it should have just been a recompile. 3) Mac OS X shipped with Classic mode compatibility which had about a 98% success rate in running earlier Mac software... from OS 9 and Apple even maintained and updated OS 9 for a few versions to support newer Carbon APIs for the hold outs. 4) Every time Apple sneezed all software had to be recompiled for Mac. I'm not sure if you remember, but Adobe made their fortune selling upgrades with every version of Mac OS because going from Mac OS 5.0.1 to Mac OS 5.1 would move memory locations and all software would need to be updated and Adobe charged for that.
BTW I was coding on Mac OS X back when it was called Yellow Box and shipped with the Mac Classic desktop. For nearly a year, I worked on an operating system which in every possible way was in fact Mac OS 10. The only thing that made Mac OS X less of a Mac OS was that it actually did work with earlier software most of the time.
Now, be warned... Googling this topic puts out more fantastic and exaggerated headlines than searching for Trump on the NY Times. Well in both cases, let's be honest, headlines in general are generally the best way to misinform a population who don't read the articles with part-truths. Trump hasn't figured out that it isn't fake news that's a problem for him, the problem is, he refuses to read anything longer than a Tweet so he stops after the headline and name of the author. Watching Trump and the New York Times fight is like watching two knuckle-draggers in a boxing ring.
So... here's the way we make America great again... it's easy.
1) Decrease unemployment... wait.. why am I numbering... it's the only point I have.
How do you decrease unemployment the fastest?
- Increase the number of people who can't work.
- Increase the number of people required to care for them
So, if you increase the prison population from about 1% to 2% of adult Americans... you can remove at least a few million people from the job market. You can also increase the number of prison jobs by quite a bit. Not only that, but consider all the additional post-prison jobs like folding laundry that can be made.
Prisons are profitable as all hell to politicians. Keep in mind that American prisons are not correctional facilities. A correctional facility tries to take a person who made a wrong turn (like running over a few lawyers with a bus... this should't actually be illegal) and then help raise them up to be something more after some time. American prisons are penal facilities. They exist to extract revenge.
America LOVES REVENGE!!!!
Nothing has ever gained more votes than revenge... especially when you can combine revenge with righteousness. Nothing has ever made Americans more excited than finding retribution by doing at least 10 times more wrong to someone else than has been done to them! Some asshole bombs you, a friend or even talks about bombing you... that's ok... if every single person involved with a bombing you is dead, we'll bomb your entire country or even your entire religion... and we don't even need to know what your religion is... we'll judge by skin color and guess.
So... we can work towards making America great again through honesty.
"You have been sentenced to three years in super-max for paying a parking ticket late. We are placing you in prison, not because you should be there. In fact, you shouldn't even be in this court room. But the US has 4-5 times more people passing the bar exams each year than it can employ. Those people (myself included) didn't actually study anything other than law and most of our jobs have been replaced with software already. In fact, we couldn't even work as paralegals.If we weren't representing the people, the plaintiff or the defendant, we'd be out of work and praying for a managerial position at a local McDonald's. So therefore, we need to keep the court full as much as possible and avoid due process wherever possible as to increase double and triple billable hours.
In addition, we have recently struck agreements (me, the prosecution and.. the defense) with the privately owned prison system to send more prisoners their way. They aren't concerned about the crimes themselves, they will gladly treat everyone as poorly as possible. They agreed to pick up the majority of the cost of upkeep and maintenance of the court house which leaves more money in the budgets for my raises. They cut a deal with the mayor too and I actually get bonuses now when I reach certain quotas for sending people to specific prisons. I've been asked recently to increase female inmate populations. Apparently this is great for the prisons who have to supply "special needs" but awesome for the Las Vegas community afterwards.
We also got a great deal from a prison telephone company that my buddy down the hall actually sued. They had to pr
You don't need algebra to code, but consider https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/68026042/ which is a (not so shitty) Q-Bert clone I wrote while sitting in my daughter's 'Summer of Code' with Scratch class. It could have been done without much Algebra, and for the most part, I don't use much Algebra in the code. I do however make use of discrete mathematics... quite heavily. And to use discrete mathematics, you can be the person who says "I ain't got no pizza", then try to solve your problem because the person you told is confused and is waiting for pizza. Or you can be a person who learns things like boolean algebra and things like Demorgan's theorum and be a programmer.
As for learning online... I am a semi-proficient programmer and when it came time to learn web technologies, I watched 40 hours of Microsoft Virtual Academy over Christmas vacation one year and then read a few hundred blogs and stack exchange articles. I would never ever ever call myself a web developer though. I am perfectly capable of writing web applications now, but I'm more of a codec, operating system, compiler developer. Web developer, I think that I'll leave that to other people. It's too messy and I wonder if the word caustic would be suitable.
Yes, nearly everyone can benefit from coding.... but people need to learn where they fit. I am working on an analogy in terms of Legos for this stuff
Are you:
a) The guy who designs the next Lego technics sports car with sleek sides, differential gears, front and rear shocks, v8 engine, etc?
b) Are you the guy he calls when a) is looking for a premade design for a steering gear box?
c) Are you the guy which a) or b) calls when they need a custom piece designed to make all their stuff come together?
d) Are you the guy c) calls when he needs a compression mold designed to stamp the new pieces
e) Are you the guy d) calls when he needs hydraulics added to the mold for supplying an additional axis to the mold.
Programmers are the same.
Where you might use a regex to pluck a value from a file, and it will work 95% of the time and you can handle it by hand when it doesn't. I instead will write a domain specific language parser like https://github.com/darrenstarr/cDayZeroDeploy/blob/master/HelperScripts/parseMOF.ps1 because it will work right 99.999% of the time and is the right tool for the job. You would use my code for reading MOF files and there's a chance you wouldn't know what to do with the abstract syntax tree, so you would send an issue or discussion asking "How would I read this value" and I'd answer.
Consider that what is in the file is a hand coded recursive descent parser for reading MOF files in PowerShell. I started by writing a parser library which would allow matching text and storing state information on a stack (chose a stack because it's the right tool... to know it's the right tool, you need algebra). Then I wrote the parser as a pseudo-PEG grammar (100% algebra), then I coded the types for the abstract syntax tree, then I manually implemented each PEG rule as code.
To be fair, the code took about 45 minutes to 2 hours to write... depending on how you measure it. The comments took about 4 days to get where I wanted them.
So... yes, you absolutely need algebra to be anything other than the most primitive of coders. There's absolutely no negotiating this. And you can learn coding any time you want to. But algebra is best to learn (the first time) when you're young. Then you're free to forget it, but the synapses have aligned by that point to make it possible to learn it again later.
Now the real issue is... how many people actually learn Algebra?
I know that hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people are forced to study quadratic equations at some point in school. It is by far one of the most useful types of math the students can learn. Would 1% of 1% of 1% of the people who learn it be able to use it for anything?
Dude, I feel you... I'm not criticizing... I end up on weird ass thought processes myself several times a day... like when you see someone actually slip on a banana peel (actually seen it... it was AWESOME) and you realize... hmm... I should have had lunch. I get there a lot myself.
But you're comment made my list of "Shit I have to remember to tell my grand kids one day". It was absolutely AMAZING!!!
Ok... sorry... I just finished reading your response... I was just choking laughing so hard at the.22 thing. I didn't see you also added the "try the book against the tree" thing. I guess I should have read the whole thing first.
That said... YOU DID start with "They should have tried a smaller caliber" before you got there.
I just can't stop asking myself "How the hell does someone start with they should have used a smaller caliber?"... maybe a bigger book? maybe a bible and let the lord protect him? Maybe he should have held it scewed a bit? Nope... we went straight to... I think a smaller caliber would be a good idea:)
You're suggesting the issue was the caliber of the gun? That the correct procedure would have been to hold the book in front of his chest while she shot him with a smaller caliber round?
So... two people who thought it was a bright idea to shoot a person holding a book in front of himself from close range should take the advice that it would have been a better solution to shoot that same person through the same book with a smaller caliber weapon first?
This is what you would recommend to people like this?
At which point in your thought process did you come to this conclusion?
I know I was like :
a) Why in the world would anyone ever be this stupid
b) Why didn't they duct tape the book to a tree and try it there first
c) Well, it appears natural selection still operates sometimes... but not before they reproduced... twice.
I never ever ever got to the "You know.... this would have been a good idea with a.22, they should have started with a.22 instead."
There's that really funny guy who is the host on Family Feud these days. I think you and he need to have a recorded interview.:)
As I'm not fond of swearing and therefore would never say :
"Holy fuck, I think I just choked on my scrotum as is was jammed up to my through when I landed flat ass on the ground laughing and Newton's third law sent my balls north"
I'll instead say :
"It took me a while to regain my breath following my perusal of your response."
I think you got the right author but the wrong book in this case.
Fyodor Dostoyevsky wrote 'The Idiot' whose title would have been perfect for the guy holding it. It was only about 600-700 pages, though it may be possible to find a leather bound edition.
Leo Tolstoy wrote War and Peace which was certainly quite a fatter book. I've read both said books and while I found them both absolutely amazing, I have never found any other authors EVER that take that long to read.
Library clutter and corporate dependence generally decides the fate of a programming language.
C exists for the "I'll write everything myself crowd" and after nearly 50 years, C is still very popular because it's a very primitive language that allows programmers to be primatives. Consider the Linux kernel and Gnome which are probably the two biggest C projects ever. They don't have common collection types and while glib implements some mediocre standards collection types, very often in C, you spend 3/4 of your time just writing endless code to add items to lists or not. In the Linux kernel, the collection types are truly terrible... but really fast. C is a purest language in the sense of "I'd write it all in assembler, but I haven't figured out how to handle cross architecture there yet". C is probably the most indispensable language ever as it's the underlying foundation of computing. Though, we're making smart shifts slowly away from it. It's the new assembler in the sense that languages like Rust and Go are offering all the love of C with some run down features common in modern languages.
C++ would have suffered a death by now if it weren't for Qt coming along and setting a standard for how to program in C++. Even now, it's getting more and more difficult to use C++ as the language lacks direction. Half the people want it to compete with C and the other half wants it to compete with C# or Java. Also consider that multiple mega-billion dollar companies have banked their entire existence on C++. Rust looks like it will edge away a little on C++. Of course, much of that will be dependent on the quality of the standard libraries.
Java has a committee of elders (really, they're getting old now) that rule the library infrastructure of Java with an iron fist. As such, writing large scale projects with it makes sense. Java is the new COBOL. Billions or trillions of lines of business critical code are written in it. It's not the best language for anything in particular but it wears many hats. But Java doesn't gain its strength from being a language, it gains it from being a library and runtime.
Javascript is actually probably going to be one of the first languages to die... and quickly. For example, already people are leaving it for TypeScript... because JavaScript is not dependable and never has been. Now that there is an accepted paradigm for bridging other languages into the DOM, it is clear that it's no longer necessary to write in Javascript directly. There's always been so many issues with compatibility from version to version and implementation of Javascript that it always made sense to have a language that compiles into Javascript rather than using it directly. Now with WebAssembly, there's a lot more about to happen as languages begin to target WebAssembly as their back end... and Javascript as a fallback. WebAssembly is still missing a great way to manage memory, but it still looks REALLY promising.
C# is a controlled language and is easy. And it gets a lot of great new features without overwhelming the programmers with them. You can be a newb scripter or a seasoned veteran programmer and C# probably can work for just about anything you want to write. It also is the only universal programming language at this time (Javascript might count too but doesn't compile native... though this might not matter anymore) as it supports pretty much every major platform today. It also looks like there's some really good legitimate projects to make a real end-to-end cross platform solution for C# as well, especially with Xamarin,forms and XAML to HTML5, There are some real struggles at this point in time with C# because Microsoft is spreading in every direction trying to make a solution that will work for everyone while still remaining polished..NET Core 2 and ASP.NET Core 2 look REALLY REALLY promising but there will still be work to do. But with C# addresses everything from Web to OS to Docker all in a single solution format which makes it really nice. Oh... and there's the who
I regularly eat vegetarians. Though recently learned many of those naturally vegetarian yummies are breed with meat in their diets. So now I have to resort to eating strictly endangered species as I don't believe they are force to eat meat. So, since I am what I eat, I'm an exotic, rare (sometimes endangered) vegetarian.
I have Facebook, it makes it far more efficient to ignore people. Now instead of calling me and me ignoring them. They message me and I ignore them.
My 13 year old daughter apparently doesn't like Star Wars. So I beat her often.
I was going to say that... but I was going to say "You're missing out on staying in contact with your family". But if his family is a normal family (mine is a bit extreme.. they claim it's medical related, but I blame reality TV and soap operas) then you and I said the same thing.
Let me get this straight. You'd prefer to live in denial and believe that you'll actually have a smaller digital footprint if you don't sign up for Facebook? Because Facebook is worse than the other 50 services tracking every single thing you do? Have you hidden yourself from Akamai as well? What about Google? What about the netflow monitors being run at the ISP?
I am atheist, but all I can say is "God bless you man." I think you need a god to give you some help.
Step 1 to a healthier life. Find a way to come to grips with your absolute loss of personal privacy. It is absolutely not achievable anymore. I will soon leave my house for a morning coffee (early riser) and I'll sit in the park. As I've been involved with it, I know there are at a minimum of 4 government owned and 3 company owned surveillance cameras covering every possible point of the park I'll drink my coffee in. This park is a bit extreme, most parks only have 1-2 cameras for every possible position. And this is in one of the more trusting countries of the world... Norway.
Step 2 make some accounts so that the 3 people who still love you can feel a false sense that you might actually care whether they are going to the doctor for a very personal medical procedure that they've shared with everyone in far too much detail. You don't have to do anything other than create the account, add a photo (doesn't even have to be you) and you're done. Then mom and granny can introduce you to girls with "nice personalities" and you can ignore them there.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. But the people publishing the article isn't measuring based on those measurement. They are measuring the market not based on how much product is bought and sold. They are measuring two possible things.
1) The market cap value... meaning that how much are the idiots who actually need help from a guy in a blue shirt to logon to his iTune account willing to gamble on the stock market. Consider that the companies making apps and the stocks are totally unrelated, we've moved past gambling on company performance and things like sales and now gamble on whether the stock will go up or down. Yes that's right. Stocks have nothing meaningful to do with a company. Instead, it's about someone making enough noise to generation trading volume which will naturally make the stock go up or down. Those e-mails that go out with stock tips (spam) actually are far more effective at making shares go up or down than CEOs today. Write a script which will buy and sell $10 worth of a share once a minute based only on those e-mails and you can actually be a REALLY successful trader these days. It's because it works more often than it doesn't. Because those idiots are using market manipulation to drive the share value up. And it works... but sadly, it also increases the cost of a loaf of bread and liter of milk far faster than salaries increase.
2) Trickle effect. So, Company A sells 10 million copies of a game for $10 million and that company pays employees, rent, etc... and the local businesses strengthen and receive $5 million (after all the taxes) of that $10 million etc... Then those businesses spend that money and it's $4 million after taxes (lower tax brackets) etc... So the same $10 million was spent 15 times as a direct result of the original $10 million. Also add that during bank transfers of the money, no real money exchanges and there's math to create more money as it goes along... creating more wealth... and making $7/hour worth even less.
The systems are very likely DoD (or at least) connected for remote maintenance. There will be a minimum of 3 encryption black boxes before satellite uplink.
Switching OS is nice. But the US government pays for Windows XP support and updates.
I'm far more concerned about software which actually requires XP. The entire ship should be running NSA Secure Host Baseline (https://github.com/iadgov/secure-host-baseline).
Security researchers are generally quite useless. When the report came out that OpenVPN was blessed as being secure by some high profile security researchers, I immediately went to the code base and within about 20 minutes just left as I found from a very brief review of the code an endless pile of likely attack vectors for the code. The only reason by the code was considered secure is because a security researcher ran nmap or Kali against it and it held up.
I turned up far more holes in that code through visual analysis for 20 minutes than this guy did fuzzing with far more resources. The OpenVPN code is among some of the worst code I've come across in a while. It's almost bad enough to be a VMware linux guest kernel driver.
I would have started making bug reports but honestly, that code is roughly what you'd expect from a research project for testing new ciphers. The amount of time it would take to list just the problems in their certificate code alone and provide meaningful test data would be far beyond what I'd be willing to invest in a piece of code that takes security so lightly.
I would say that OpenVPN is still many steps away from being ready for fuzzing. It would profit far more from a decent code review by people who understand programming theory, then by people who understand code security. It would help a lot if people who understood certificates AND programming looked as well.
So... while darthsilun is a bit of an ass with his wording, I'll say this, the poster begging for bitcoins for writing a 10 line script to try and crash OpenVPN really isn't being too helpful by saying "they should do this" where in reality, he should download the source code, add his test to the code, then check it in. This is how open source works.
If he believes the project should do this, then he should join the project. But simply writing a fuzzing script and tossing it at the code isn't productive. It's like standing and saying
"Someone should help this little old lady cross the street"
"Why don't you help her"
"I believe it would be better if I simply stand here and watch for other little old ladies so I can say someone should help them"
OpenVPN is crap code. it's an endless pile of :
- Linux kernel style shit C code with no input validation,
- Absolute dependence on meaningless and generally ignored return codes
- Spaghetti crap of "look mom, I wrote my own string compare function"
- Function before anything else
- Wow, we do certificates!!! Do you actually validate the certificate while parsing? Nope... we'll just assume that no one but nice people will send us certificates
Minimum wage jobs, once meant for teenagers and young adults are now strictly reserved for :
1) Retirees looking to earn enough to live to 105
2) People who watch reality TV
3) Ghetto people who the shareholders want to keep in the ghetto
4) People who choose their jobs by going someplace to eat a burger they thoroughly know is bad for them, but do it anyway and see the "Help wanted" sign as they walk in.
The modern economy prefers that you get tuition by
a) Applying for a new credit card each month and paying one card off with the next
b) Taking loans for as much as possible because even junior colleges are reserved for the rich or stupid now
c) Making mom and dad mortgage the house. If they can't mortgage, dad can sell mom on a street corner to lonely strangers
Believe it or not, with the exception of mom turning tricks, every one of these things I mentioned can be clearly justified in means of improving the economy. Often in your favor.
Galileo gave a 400mhz x86 with Arduino compatible I/O. It also had a solid FPU and true potential to be the ultimate core of 3d printers. If only they did Mega version, it would have been fantastic. And honestly, the FPU performance was something quite beautiful. Combined with an FPGA board, this device was a thing of absolutely beauty.
I know it's not allowed on Slashdot to say nice things about Intel or Microsoft, but to be honest, I like the x86/Visual Studio platform when it comes to development. I suppose that I should try an ARM based Arduino out, I don't expect there's any real difference between the ARM and the x86 platform for anything that matters when developing these projects and Visual Studio is the same.
Slashdot Mirror
I would sincerely hope that the mechanical control electronics are connected to a main system and a fail safe system.
... working with a team of others around them wouldn't do their very best save lives because if their own life wasn't at risk, then they wouldn't be motivated to do so. I'm going to actually lose sleep tonight thinking about that. Things like this stay with me for years and break my heart every time I think of it. I hope that this writing is not representative of all of who you are inside. I hope there is happiness and trust there too.
The purpose of fly in circles is that you wouldn't want a plane to enter a air traffic condition while unable to communicate with ground control. This is what I believe (from news reports, books, movies, etc... documentary stuff... over dramatized of course) pilots do as well.
As for deliberately engineered by terrorists... hmmm somehow I don't see how a computer vs. a human makes any difference here... well unless of course the human is someone like Steven Segall... or maybe some other mythical movie character who can dodge bullets, catch knives, hit some terrorist 92 times in the head in a dance like motion as if it were choreographed for film. Of course, I've never once thought to myself getting on a plane "gee, I hope there are no terrorists on this one". Let's say it this way... if a terrorist is going to sabotage a plane, which will happen eventually... planes seem to be really exciting for them... it will probably at the very least... well induce terror. Until then, we can let the DHS, TSA and many other 3 letter government agencies funded almost entirely by terrorist threat scare the shit out of people. Always wondered how being perpetually made aware and to feel threatened by people trying to induce terror could be called winning the war on terror.
Let's for the moment suspect that terrorism will continue to be a problem for a while to come. Let's also agree that there will be attempts (sometimes successful) on flights with human or computer pilots. Let's also agree that there's a high likelihood that any terrorist organized enough to be an effective threat against a passenger plane with a locked cockpit probably is a threat either way.
Are you seriously asking me to believe that a pilot assisting from the ground in an emergency situation to keep 100-450 people including women, children, elderly, etc... alive wouldn't be motivated to pay full attention or to do a poor job? Roger, when I read that, I wished I was the type of person that would cry for someone so broken. There is something truly broken in your heart. To start with terrorists and then to believe a person in that position
I'm going to tell you with absolute sincerity and honesty and belief (sorry... don't do faith) that when the time comes, the guys working ground control will go all Apollo 13 on any plane in danger and do whatever it takes to get those people on the ground alive. This is how people really act in real life. If you experience otherwise, I'm truly sorry.
As for ground crews, pre-flight inspection, etc... professionalism is professionalism and lazy is lazy.
I'm pretty sure the results will be better. Currently there are good and bad pilots. There are A LOT of both and all the grades in-between. We'll need 1/20th as many and their entire careers will be mostly about pre-flight inspections. They'll each gain experience of 20x-100x more flights and be far more agile in their positions and more practiced. I'm quite convinced that things will improve... not the other way around. Also consider that with so many fewer pilots, the airlines can afford to pay those people quite a bit more and treat them better otherwise as well. Motivation shouldn't be an issue.
Roger... I'm a pragmatist with a strong belief in people. I have no enemies and have absolutely no real concept of hate. I generally trust people and pretty much everyone I treat with respect treats me with respect as well. I live a wonderful life where I smile at peop
I am not an airplane mechanic and I have never seen the designs for a 737, but I'll speculate here.
1) The computers would be mostly on-board. We're not talking super-computing technology here. With plottable auto-pilot and automatic landing systems already well-established, things like collision avoidance and take-off should probably fit in something the size of a shoe box.
2) I'm almost 100% sure that things like mechanical control of the flaps, elevators and rudder doesn't exist. I'm nearly 100% sure that when you physically manipulate the controls, the steering mechanisms are controlled electronically... and have been proven over time. I'd almost guess that the throttle is not mechanically control.
3) I would imagine that airplanes have lost communications many times and pilots have had to deal without ground communication. I'd also imagine that systems would be in place to deal with loss of communication with ground control. I'd also imagine that there should be some sort of backup... for example, if the plane loses ground communication, sending up a drone to fly in front of the jet and direct it down would be an option.
Pilots have been there for a long time to be little more than just in-flight "uh-oh handlers". They are very valuable in flights, but the number of circumstances where a plane would need the pilot is low. The number of circumstances where communications is lost during an emergency is almost zero. If automatic systems can't land the plane and the plane can't be remote controlled and the plane can't be electronically guided in by a drone... I'm pretty sure there's a way that a flight attendant could have a button to click called "Circle and await further instruction" as well as emergency buttons like "fly mechanically in circles above clouds while we reboot all the computers".
If none of that is good enough... well.. I don't think I pilot would be much help either.
I tend to buy at least one AMD system from each generation to give it a go and see if we can't get somewhere without these problems.
... which in itself was the best thing they ever did.... was amazingly fast. Instead of making a fancier CPU, AMD just kept making the same one and in each generation, focused on moving more bottlenecking systems on-die so the chip performance wouldn't be throttled by external buses. Unfortunately, during this era, both Intel and AMD sucked for development. GCC was a hot wreck as it was still running the crap based on Richard Stallman's code, 2.77 was useless for optimization and 2.89-2.95 was absolutely unreliable. RedHat was trying to make a living porting Linux to every damn device and make it run on ARM (SHITTY DEVELOPMENT PLATFORM at the time), etc... Visual C++ was great and Intel C++ was amazing but you weren't allowed to say that out loud. See, Microsoft was truly evil at the time.
amd486 - system/memory clock (same thing back then) was unstable and too high. This caused all kinds of issues with Maxwell's theorem and it was impossible to run a VESA local bus IDE or VGA adapter reliably. Also consider that the CPU was implemented almost entirely without x86 debug registers which made debugging GPFs a complete nightmare. Very often, Windows NT 3.1 and 3.5 would crash on there and people immediately pointed a finger at Microsoft for the GPFs and blue screens. In reality on AMD CPUs, nearly 50 percent of the GPFs were actually AMD's fault.
amd586 and 686... these CPUs were huge improvements, but there was some weird issue with the NMI that made debugging code almost impossible. They also had a really bad tendency of bursting capacitors on the system board
AMD with later generations
- built in MMU was implemented for users, not servers and developers. it was absolutely horrifying wondering whether my code was going to come out right. memory protection was more of a suggestion to them than a rule.
- AMD was killing every desktop benchmark, I actually loved AMD at this time as I was playing games and I had bought myself four Shuttle Cubes with the nVidia chipsets and AMD CPUs. I programmed on a dual-Celeron system at work with Linux because it was just faster and better.
- P4 vs Athlon days. Intel botched the P4 in so many ways it was terrible. It was almost not a challenge for AMD to out-perform Intel as the P4 architecture was an endless mess of cache miss hell. Now... let's be REALLY REALLY fair. P4 would have been the ultimate winner if CPUs were meant for DOS. What I mean is that on a system where there is only a single task (not including hardware interrupt handlers) the P4 pipeline is still a thing of true beauty. But the whole world had moved to Windows XP (got XP and my first P4 on the same shopping trip) and people left DOS, Windows 95/98/ME behind to run a real operating system for the first time... And the P4 was dead before it left the door. The Athlon which was basically equal to a higher clocked Pentium III with an internal MMU
Following generations of AMD (not including Ryzen)
- Branding hell... no one that didn't take an obsessive interest in AMD could tell what generation of chip they were buying or even what tier. Even now, having owned many of them, I couldn't tell you which ones were good or bad because I was lost. Intel's current numbering is bad... but not that bad.
- Memory problems. Yeh... wasted 5 days trying to debug a buffer overflow... then I switched to my Intel based laptop and it showed up in the debugger on the first try. AMD still can't make a fucking MMU. How the hell are you supposed to write a memory manager for an operating system if you can't trap buffer overflows when you clearly defined in the GDT and/or LDT where it should set bounds.
- Order of execution. On an Intel Core CPU, I can write multiprocessing code, set core affinity based on the position of the core relative to the ring buses. Then I can queue tasks that read/write L1/L2/L3 cache and based on the queui
Didn't say I was better at choosing names
And i was actually referring to a cheesy line from a cheesy movie where two idiots hunting in hats with antlers argue over the hats and then look up to realize their prey was gone. It actually would make Canadian Bacon or Teen Movie look high class.
BTW... I was tempted as I'm allergic to cat hair, but the kids wouldn't let me
hmmm.... I'm curious... if you're zero kelvin... then does that mean your completely stuck in just one place... if so.. how do you move your fingers to type... or is it something that affects only portions of your brain stem but still allows free motion of your finger and mouth without input from your brain.
Damn... that was rude and uncalled for, but I've always loved picking on handles/aliases/pseudonyms/nicknames, etc... You might feel bad for my friend Aslak that to me sounds like Ass-Lock which I then associate with butt-plug. Thank you for allowing me the privilege of being abusive to you in the opening of my response to what you wrote. It was meant with nothing but the nicest intent... truly.
I'm going to make the assumption that RedHat has lawyers who are proficient with the terms of the GPL and how it works. Also, I'll assume that RedHat which has classically tried to present themselves as the champions of the GPL.. know a lot more about this than you or I do. So... while I may be wrong about a few things... let's try this.
Look at the link to RedHat's evaluation faq : https://access.redhat.com/articles/1377933
Now... RedHat is absolutely 100% open source compliant. It would devastate their business if they ever tried to violate the GPL. But here, it is basically saying :
1) You can (if you provide a lot of information about yourself) download a trial version of RHEL. After 30-90 days... you are required to buy it.
2) If you don't buy it... we will stick lawyers on you
Now... RedHat complies with the GPL by making 100% of their code and patches and updates available as source. This means it's free for absolutely everyone to use however they will.
The compiled and ready for use version of RHEL however IS A PAID COMMERCIAL PRODUCT and is not to be used by anyone that hasn't paid!!!! Oh and if you pay, you get support to!
Of course, there is CentOS and Fedora. CentOS being a 100% copy of RHEL without the support package or callback to Redhat's servers. But really, let's be honest... RHEL is a commercial product and they ARE selling a PRODUCT WITH SERVICES... not strictly services for a product.
I'll guess you're a developer because you clearly suffered the same misunderstanding I had 10 years back.
For Internet video there's not a great benefit to it. Of course, when it comes to broadcast, most of the major players already are part of the patent pool so don't really have to bother with paying the fee. Consider that companies like Sony, Cisco, etc... all are part of the pools and they're out there rambling on about standards and inter-op etc... and surprisingly most of their non-mainline encoders and decoders are not compatible with each other.
As for internet and mobile phones, there's actually a huge benefit to the H.265 platform. It's generally super-easy to implement or accelerate in hardware compared with Google and other open source or patent free codecs.
It's truly amazing how well the HEVC codec is documented and how well the reference platform adapts to hardware. This is because almost all the vendors involved with the standardization process place a great importance on hardware implementability.
VP8 and VP9 were sheer terrors for hardware. This is because there was never a clean (unoptimized) baseline implementation to use as a reference and the documentation for the standard was kind of an afterthought. Where the HEVC committee generally has a policy that if you want to get something into baseline (the holy grail in patent pools) you have to show at least a few percent compression improvement at the same signal quality. So, most additions are added piecemeal to the standard because a company will make an enhancement, submit it for approval with documentation and reference implementation, if it doesn't show noticeable improvement, it's dumped without discussion. If it shows improvement, then the hardware guys say "we can't implement that because..." and then there's debates etc,,,
Google codecs are basically made by simply checking in code and if it works, it stays, if it doesn't it goes. As such, while Google codecs do have some pretty good things in them, they also have stuff which is particularly difficult to implement in hardware since software developers don't have to consider things like transistor depth.
Let's for the moment pretend I know what I'm talking about regarding video technology.
The author of this story seems to think that there's a correlation behind business and encoding complexity.
Let's start with this. While H.264 and H.265 and AV1, etc... are all really cool, large scale content delivery systems tend to profit far greater from better use of core components of a codec than from improvements to core components of the codec.
Let's consider things like improved motion search. Depending whether you're implementing the function in ASIC, FPGA (there's a difference regarding memory access), CPU instructions or GPU instructions, there are multiple approaches to handling this well. A circuit in a complex enough ASIC or FPGA could perform a single clock motion search within a given range, however the cost of this is generally very high and therefore inefficient financially. So, an iterative or progress approach is taken. One great method is to use the previous frame's motion vectors and predict a pattern which would continue motion in the same general directions within the same general regions of the field.
Of course, this sounds highly intelligent and simple and logical, consider making an elongated diamond search pattern with an affinity to the direction of the previous motion vector. Motion search is logical and intelligent only when thinking in terms of one frame after the next. However, H.264 introduced the ability to encode every single macroblock as I,P or B (and some subtypes) and there's no specific requirement for I-frames in video which is great since for bit distribution in broadcast, when combined with spatial scalability mechanisms, it's possible to achieve constant bit rate at far lower rates
I supposed I'm about to write a dissertation on video encoding here and there's a few friends of mine in the field who probably started reading this comment laughing at how I'm trying to solve all the encoding problems of the world in a single Slashdot posting.
Let's say it this way.... currently there are two main types of OTT distributors
1) The kind that encode a hundred films a year, a hundred different ways and the cost of CPU cycles to do it is absolutely irrelevant.
2) The kind that encodes 900,000 videos a second to spam to everywhere. To these guys CPUs are very important.
Most of these guys start off working on code in their moms basements and eventually turn it into something cloud based... very nice, very sweet. I remember before Google bought YouTube and YouTube was running their service by automatically linking to free file sharing websites. It was funny.
Here's the thing though... these guys optimize the ever living heck out of their encoders. Some might use vanilla x264 and if you're small enough... why not? It's absolutely amazing stuff. It has OpenCL optimized code and therefore can scale to an FPGA very easily today as Altera (and other companies) have adopted OpenCL as their future direction of encoding support. This is a nightmare because people will start using FPGAs with OpenCL and other people will laugh because simply recompiling OpenCL to run on FPGA is not cost or power efficient. It's far better to use the OpenCL compiler extensions to manage copying memory to the FPGA and to prototype the function and then have a real VHDL/Verilog guy sit down and write the functions which are needed.
One place where FPGA can save millions on encoding costs is in entropy coding. Hmm... well not the entropy coding itself (though it would make sense logically to just move the whole thing) but bit packing. x264 and others spend amazingly large amounts of their time simply calling the function 'PushBits()' because there's no efficient method of bit streaming in an x86 CPU.
If Apple makes use of H.265, and people start streaming video to YouTube as H.265... here's what happens.... YouTube converts the video to either H.264 or VP9. No... YouTube won't rush to use H.265 just because it's there.
Consider an Intel proce
I believe if you recall correctly, they weren't completely incompatible.
1) Mac OS 8.x and later began forcing developer to the Carbon API... which was certainly better than doing things like waiting or hardware timers and injecting values into kernel space to change window titles.
2) Mac OS X shipped with the Carbon API which means that if a developer put most of his/her effort into porting their apps to Carbon, it should have just been a recompile.
3) Mac OS X shipped with Classic mode compatibility which had about a 98% success rate in running earlier Mac software... from OS 9 and Apple even maintained and updated OS 9 for a few versions to support newer Carbon APIs for the hold outs.
4) Every time Apple sneezed all software had to be recompiled for Mac. I'm not sure if you remember, but Adobe made their fortune selling upgrades with every version of Mac OS because going from Mac OS 5.0.1 to Mac OS 5.1 would move memory locations and all software would need to be updated and Adobe charged for that.
BTW I was coding on Mac OS X back when it was called Yellow Box and shipped with the Mac Classic desktop. For nearly a year, I worked on an operating system which in every possible way was in fact Mac OS 10. The only thing that made Mac OS X less of a Mac OS was that it actually did work with earlier software most of the time.
Look up U.S. statistics on prisons.
.. the defense) with the privately owned prison system to send more prisoners their way. They aren't concerned about the crimes themselves, they will gladly treat everyone as poorly as possible. They agreed to pick up the majority of the cost of upkeep and maintenance of the court house which leaves more money in the budgets for my raises. They cut a deal with the mayor too and I actually get bonuses now when I reach certain quotas for sending people to specific prisons. I've been asked recently to increase female inmate populations. Apparently this is great for the prisons who have to supply "special needs" but awesome for the Las Vegas community afterwards.
Now, be warned... Googling this topic puts out more fantastic and exaggerated headlines than searching for Trump on the NY Times. Well in both cases, let's be honest, headlines in general are generally the best way to misinform a population who don't read the articles with part-truths. Trump hasn't figured out that it isn't fake news that's a problem for him, the problem is, he refuses to read anything longer than a Tweet so he stops after the headline and name of the author. Watching Trump and the New York Times fight is like watching two knuckle-draggers in a boxing ring.
So... here's the way we make America great again... it's easy.
1) Decrease unemployment... wait.. why am I numbering... it's the only point I have.
How do you decrease unemployment the fastest?
- Increase the number of people who can't work.
- Increase the number of people required to care for them
So, if you increase the prison population from about 1% to 2% of adult Americans... you can remove at least a few million people from the job market. You can also increase the number of prison jobs by quite a bit. Not only that, but consider all the additional post-prison jobs like folding laundry that can be made.
Prisons are profitable as all hell to politicians. Keep in mind that American prisons are not correctional facilities. A correctional facility tries to take a person who made a wrong turn (like running over a few lawyers with a bus... this should't actually be illegal) and then help raise them up to be something more after some time. American prisons are penal facilities. They exist to extract revenge.
America LOVES REVENGE!!!!
Nothing has ever gained more votes than revenge... especially when you can combine revenge with righteousness. Nothing has ever made Americans more excited than finding retribution by doing at least 10 times more wrong to someone else than has been done to them! Some asshole bombs you, a friend or even talks about bombing you... that's ok... if every single person involved with a bombing you is dead, we'll bomb your entire country or even your entire religion... and we don't even need to know what your religion is... we'll judge by skin color and guess.
So... we can work towards making America great again through honesty.
"You have been sentenced to three years in super-max for paying a parking ticket late. We are placing you in prison, not because you should be there. In fact, you shouldn't even be in this court room. But the US has 4-5 times more people passing the bar exams each year than it can employ. Those people (myself included) didn't actually study anything other than law and most of our jobs have been replaced with software already. In fact, we couldn't even work as paralegals.If we weren't representing the people, the plaintiff or the defendant, we'd be out of work and praying for a managerial position at a local McDonald's. So therefore, we need to keep the court full as much as possible and avoid due process wherever possible as to increase double and triple billable hours.
In addition, we have recently struck agreements (me, the prosecution and
We also got a great deal from a prison telephone company that my buddy down the hall actually sued. They had to pr
You don't need algebra to code, but consider https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/68026042/ which is a (not so shitty) Q-Bert clone I wrote while sitting in my daughter's 'Summer of Code' with Scratch class. It could have been done without much Algebra, and for the most part, I don't use much Algebra in the code. I do however make use of discrete mathematics... quite heavily. And to use discrete mathematics, you can be the person who says "I ain't got no pizza", then try to solve your problem because the person you told is confused and is waiting for pizza. Or you can be a person who learns things like boolean algebra and things like Demorgan's theorum and be a programmer.
:
As for learning online... I am a semi-proficient programmer and when it came time to learn web technologies, I watched 40 hours of Microsoft Virtual Academy over Christmas vacation one year and then read a few hundred blogs and stack exchange articles. I would never ever ever call myself a web developer though. I am perfectly capable of writing web applications now, but I'm more of a codec, operating system, compiler developer. Web developer, I think that I'll leave that to other people. It's too messy and I wonder if the word caustic would be suitable.
Yes, nearly everyone can benefit from coding.... but people need to learn where they fit. I am working on an analogy in terms of Legos for this stuff
Are you
a) The guy who designs the next Lego technics sports car with sleek sides, differential gears, front and rear shocks, v8 engine, etc?
b) Are you the guy he calls when a) is looking for a premade design for a steering gear box?
c) Are you the guy which a) or b) calls when they need a custom piece designed to make all their stuff come together?
d) Are you the guy c) calls when he needs a compression mold designed to stamp the new pieces
e) Are you the guy d) calls when he needs hydraulics added to the mold for supplying an additional axis to the mold.
Programmers are the same.
Where you might use a regex to pluck a value from a file, and it will work 95% of the time and you can handle it by hand when it doesn't. I instead will write a domain specific language parser like https://github.com/darrenstarr/cDayZeroDeploy/blob/master/HelperScripts/parseMOF.ps1 because it will work right 99.999% of the time and is the right tool for the job. You would use my code for reading MOF files and there's a chance you wouldn't know what to do with the abstract syntax tree, so you would send an issue or discussion asking "How would I read this value" and I'd answer.
Consider that what is in the file is a hand coded recursive descent parser for reading MOF files in PowerShell. I started by writing a parser library which would allow matching text and storing state information on a stack (chose a stack because it's the right tool... to know it's the right tool, you need algebra). Then I wrote the parser as a pseudo-PEG grammar (100% algebra), then I coded the types for the abstract syntax tree, then I manually implemented each PEG rule as code.
To be fair, the code took about 45 minutes to 2 hours to write... depending on how you measure it. The comments took about 4 days to get where I wanted them.
So... yes, you absolutely need algebra to be anything other than the most primitive of coders. There's absolutely no negotiating this. And you can learn coding any time you want to. But algebra is best to learn (the first time) when you're young. Then you're free to forget it, but the synapses have aligned by that point to make it possible to learn it again later.
Now the real issue is... how many people actually learn Algebra?
I know that hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people are forced to study quadratic equations at some point in school. It is by far one of the most useful types of math the students can learn. Would 1% of 1% of 1% of the people who learn it be able to use it for anything?
I needed to buy click-together floor boards f
Dude, I feel you... I'm not criticizing... I end up on weird ass thought processes myself several times a day... like when you see someone actually slip on a banana peel (actually seen it... it was AWESOME) and you realize... hmm... I should have had lunch. I get there a lot myself.
But you're comment made my list of "Shit I have to remember to tell my grand kids one day". It was absolutely AMAZING!!!
Ok... sorry... I just finished reading your response... I was just choking laughing so hard at the .22 thing. I didn't see you also added the "try the book against the tree" thing. I guess I should have read the whole thing first.
:)
That said... YOU DID start with "They should have tried a smaller caliber" before you got there.
I just can't stop asking myself "How the hell does someone start with they should have used a smaller caliber?"... maybe a bigger book? maybe a bible and let the lord protect him? Maybe he should have held it scewed a bit? Nope... we went straight to... I think a smaller caliber would be a good idea
You are my hero!!! I love you!
Wait... let me get this straight.
.22, they should have started with a .22 instead."
:)
You're suggesting the issue was the caliber of the gun? That the correct procedure would have been to hold the book in front of his chest while she shot him with a smaller caliber round?
So... two people who thought it was a bright idea to shoot a person holding a book in front of himself from close range should take the advice that it would have been a better solution to shoot that same person through the same book with a smaller caliber weapon first?
This is what you would recommend to people like this?
At which point in your thought process did you come to this conclusion?
I know I was like :
a) Why in the world would anyone ever be this stupid
b) Why didn't they duct tape the book to a tree and try it there first
c) Well, it appears natural selection still operates sometimes... but not before they reproduced... twice.
I never ever ever got to the "You know.... this would have been a good idea with a
There's that really funny guy who is the host on Family Feud these days. I think you and he need to have a recorded interview.
As I'm not fond of swearing and therefore would never say :
:)
"Holy fuck, I think I just choked on my scrotum as is was jammed up to my through when I landed flat ass on the ground laughing and Newton's third law sent my balls north"
I'll instead say :
"It took me a while to regain my breath following my perusal of your response."
Thank you for your well placed comment
I think that this is more of a classic defenestration of Darwin's theory.. thank you
I can't let this go.
I think you got the right author but the wrong book in this case.
Fyodor Dostoyevsky wrote 'The Idiot' whose title would have been perfect for the guy holding it. It was only about 600-700 pages, though it may be possible to find a leather bound edition.
Leo Tolstoy wrote War and Peace which was certainly quite a fatter book. I've read both said books and while I found them both absolutely amazing, I have never found any other authors EVER that take that long to read.
Library clutter and corporate dependence generally decides the fate of a programming language.
.NET Core 2 and ASP.NET Core 2 look REALLY REALLY promising but there will still be work to do. But with C# addresses everything from Web to OS to Docker all in a single solution format which makes it really nice. Oh... and there's the who
C exists for the "I'll write everything myself crowd" and after nearly 50 years, C is still very popular because it's a very primitive language that allows programmers to be primatives. Consider the Linux kernel and Gnome which are probably the two biggest C projects ever. They don't have common collection types and while glib implements some mediocre standards collection types, very often in C, you spend 3/4 of your time just writing endless code to add items to lists or not. In the Linux kernel, the collection types are truly terrible... but really fast. C is a purest language in the sense of "I'd write it all in assembler, but I haven't figured out how to handle cross architecture there yet". C is probably the most indispensable language ever as it's the underlying foundation of computing. Though, we're making smart shifts slowly away from it. It's the new assembler in the sense that languages like Rust and Go are offering all the love of C with some run down features common in modern languages.
C++ would have suffered a death by now if it weren't for Qt coming along and setting a standard for how to program in C++. Even now, it's getting more and more difficult to use C++ as the language lacks direction. Half the people want it to compete with C and the other half wants it to compete with C# or Java. Also consider that multiple mega-billion dollar companies have banked their entire existence on C++. Rust looks like it will edge away a little on C++. Of course, much of that will be dependent on the quality of the standard libraries.
Java has a committee of elders (really, they're getting old now) that rule the library infrastructure of Java with an iron fist. As such, writing large scale projects with it makes sense. Java is the new COBOL. Billions or trillions of lines of business critical code are written in it. It's not the best language for anything in particular but it wears many hats. But Java doesn't gain its strength from being a language, it gains it from being a library and runtime.
Javascript is actually probably going to be one of the first languages to die... and quickly. For example, already people are leaving it for TypeScript... because JavaScript is not dependable and never has been. Now that there is an accepted paradigm for bridging other languages into the DOM, it is clear that it's no longer necessary to write in Javascript directly. There's always been so many issues with compatibility from version to version and implementation of Javascript that it always made sense to have a language that compiles into Javascript rather than using it directly. Now with WebAssembly, there's a lot more about to happen as languages begin to target WebAssembly as their back end... and Javascript as a fallback. WebAssembly is still missing a great way to manage memory, but it still looks REALLY promising.
C# is a controlled language and is easy. And it gets a lot of great new features without overwhelming the programmers with them. You can be a newb scripter or a seasoned veteran programmer and C# probably can work for just about anything you want to write. It also is the only universal programming language at this time (Javascript might count too but doesn't compile native... though this might not matter anymore) as it supports pretty much every major platform today. It also looks like there's some really good legitimate projects to make a real end-to-end cross platform solution for C# as well, especially with Xamarin,forms and XAML to HTML5, There are some real struggles at this point in time with C# because Microsoft is spreading in every direction trying to make a solution that will work for everyone while still remaining polished.
I don't have a TV. I have a telephone.
I regularly eat vegetarians. Though recently learned many of those naturally vegetarian yummies are breed with meat in their diets. So now I have to resort to eating strictly endangered species as I don't believe they are force to eat meat. So, since I am what I eat, I'm an exotic, rare (sometimes endangered) vegetarian.
I have Facebook, it makes it far more efficient to ignore people. Now instead of calling me and me ignoring them. They message me and I ignore them.
My 13 year old daughter apparently doesn't like Star Wars. So I beat her often.
I was going to say that... but I was going to say "You're missing out on staying in contact with your family". But if his family is a normal family (mine is a bit extreme.. they claim it's medical related, but I blame reality TV and soap operas) then you and I said the same thing.
Let me get this straight. You'd prefer to live in denial and believe that you'll actually have a smaller digital footprint if you don't sign up for Facebook? Because Facebook is worse than the other 50 services tracking every single thing you do? Have you hidden yourself from Akamai as well? What about Google? What about the netflow monitors being run at the ISP?
I am atheist, but all I can say is "God bless you man." I think you need a god to give you some help.
Step 1 to a healthier life. Find a way to come to grips with your absolute loss of personal privacy. It is absolutely not achievable anymore. I will soon leave my house for a morning coffee (early riser) and I'll sit in the park. As I've been involved with it, I know there are at a minimum of 4 government owned and 3 company owned surveillance cameras covering every possible point of the park I'll drink my coffee in. This park is a bit extreme, most parks only have 1-2 cameras for every possible position. And this is in one of the more trusting countries of the world... Norway.
Step 2 make some accounts so that the 3 people who still love you can feel a false sense that you might actually care whether they are going to the doctor for a very personal medical procedure that they've shared with everyone in far too much detail. You don't have to do anything other than create the account, add a photo (doesn't even have to be you) and you're done. Then mom and granny can introduce you to girls with "nice personalities" and you can ignore them there.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. But the people publishing the article isn't measuring based on those measurement. They are measuring the market not based on how much product is bought and sold. They are measuring two possible things.
1) The market cap value... meaning that how much are the idiots who actually need help from a guy in a blue shirt to logon to his iTune account willing to gamble on the stock market. Consider that the companies making apps and the stocks are totally unrelated, we've moved past gambling on company performance and things like sales and now gamble on whether the stock will go up or down. Yes that's right. Stocks have nothing meaningful to do with a company. Instead, it's about someone making enough noise to generation trading volume which will naturally make the stock go up or down. Those e-mails that go out with stock tips (spam) actually are far more effective at making shares go up or down than CEOs today. Write a script which will buy and sell $10 worth of a share once a minute based only on those e-mails and you can actually be a REALLY successful trader these days. It's because it works more often than it doesn't. Because those idiots are using market manipulation to drive the share value up. And it works... but sadly, it also increases the cost of a loaf of bread and liter of milk far faster than salaries increase.
2) Trickle effect. So, Company A sells 10 million copies of a game for $10 million and that company pays employees, rent, etc... and the local businesses strengthen and receive $5 million (after all the taxes) of that $10 million etc... Then those businesses spend that money and it's $4 million after taxes (lower tax brackets) etc... So the same $10 million was spent 15 times as a direct result of the original $10 million. Also add that during bank transfers of the money, no real money exchanges and there's math to create more money as it goes along... creating more wealth... and making $7/hour worth even less.
The systems are very likely DoD (or at least) connected for remote maintenance. There will be a minimum of 3 encryption black boxes before satellite uplink.
Switching OS is nice. But the US government pays for Windows XP support and updates.
I'm far more concerned about software which actually requires XP. The entire ship should be running NSA Secure Host Baseline (https://github.com/iadgov/secure-host-baseline).
Security researchers are generally quite useless. When the report came out that OpenVPN was blessed as being secure by some high profile security researchers, I immediately went to the code base and within about 20 minutes just left as I found from a very brief review of the code an endless pile of likely attack vectors for the code. The only reason by the code was considered secure is because a security researcher ran nmap or Kali against it and it held up.
I turned up far more holes in that code through visual analysis for 20 minutes than this guy did fuzzing with far more resources. The OpenVPN code is among some of the worst code I've come across in a while. It's almost bad enough to be a VMware linux guest kernel driver.
I would have started making bug reports but honestly, that code is roughly what you'd expect from a research project for testing new ciphers. The amount of time it would take to list just the problems in their certificate code alone and provide meaningful test data would be far beyond what I'd be willing to invest in a piece of code that takes security so lightly.
I would say that OpenVPN is still many steps away from being ready for fuzzing. It would profit far more from a decent code review by people who understand programming theory, then by people who understand code security. It would help a lot if people who understood certificates AND programming looked as well.
So... while darthsilun is a bit of an ass with his wording, I'll say this, the poster begging for bitcoins for writing a 10 line script to try and crash OpenVPN really isn't being too helpful by saying "they should do this" where in reality, he should download the source code, add his test to the code, then check it in. This is how open source works.
If he believes the project should do this, then he should join the project. But simply writing a fuzzing script and tossing it at the code isn't productive. It's like standing and saying
"Someone should help this little old lady cross the street"
"Why don't you help her"
"I believe it would be better if I simply stand here and watch for other little old ladies so I can say someone should help them"
OpenVPN is crap code. it's an endless pile of :
- Linux kernel style shit C code with no input validation,
- Absolute dependence on meaningless and generally ignored return codes
- Spaghetti crap of "look mom, I wrote my own string compare function"
- Function before anything else
- Wow, we do certificates!!! Do you actually validate the certificate while parsing? Nope... we'll just assume that no one but nice people will send us certificates
Sorry man. That ship has sailed.
Minimum wage jobs, once meant for teenagers and young adults are now strictly reserved for :
1) Retirees looking to earn enough to live to 105
2) People who watch reality TV
3) Ghetto people who the shareholders want to keep in the ghetto
4) People who choose their jobs by going someplace to eat a burger they thoroughly know is bad for them, but do it anyway and see the "Help wanted" sign as they walk in.
The modern economy prefers that you get tuition by
a) Applying for a new credit card each month and paying one card off with the next
b) Taking loans for as much as possible because even junior colleges are reserved for the rich or stupid now
c) Making mom and dad mortgage the house. If they can't mortgage, dad can sell mom on a street corner to lonely strangers
Believe it or not, with the exception of mom turning tricks, every one of these things I mentioned can be clearly justified in means of improving the economy. Often in your favor.
Galileo gave a 400mhz x86 with Arduino compatible I/O. It also had a solid FPU and true potential to be the ultimate core of 3d printers. If only they did Mega version, it would have been fantastic. And honestly, the FPU performance was something quite beautiful. Combined with an FPGA board, this device was a thing of absolutely beauty.
I know it's not allowed on Slashdot to say nice things about Intel or Microsoft, but to be honest, I like the x86/Visual Studio platform when it comes to development. I suppose that I should try an ARM based Arduino out, I don't expect there's any real difference between the ARM and the x86 platform for anything that matters when developing these projects and Visual Studio is the same.