I'd like to say "Boo Hoo" like the others. The truth is, it's just a boo hoo.
Here's the deal. What Google did was absolutely and completely compatible with the web. It wasn't a violation of standards. It wasn't much of anything other than a legitimate case where by using a transparent div, they could choose to provide overlays on the video. Now, if they had no intention of using it, it wasn't particularly relevant. But there's nothing particularly wrong with what they did.
If you read the HTML5 specs and you see the nasty crap associated with how the video tag works, modern browsers have to be coded to render to a 3D context (webgl is easiest). Video, for battery performance if often pipelined in a way that would offload rendering from the GPU. As such, it can be really problematic to render if there's overlays (meaning divs) while not hogging battery. So, the solution is to redirect video rendering directly to the frame buffer bypassing the fancy 3d rendering bits if there's nothing to render as an overlay on the video. In other words "If stuff on top of video is invisible, don't waste cycles rendering stuff on top of video". This is a simple optimization which they should do anyway.
I would love to call Boo Hoo, but in reality, we went through this for 20 years with Netscape and Microsoft and Google. We dumped our own rendering engine a million years ago because the web is just too damn big these days.
The best solution is that everyone just dumps their own rendering engines and all standardizes on Chromium at the core and then build something like the Linux foundation to support it independently. If Microsoft, Google, Apple and Firefox were to honestly try to stay compatible with each other through standards documents, it would just be a waste of time. We don't really need 50 different web browser engines anymore. Just make a single one and commit to it.
We had a lot of those problems over at Opera. In fact, we had an entire team dedicated to people who simply contacted website authors with recommendations to make their web sites work better with the standards. They did an amazing job... I mean REALLY amazing. You'd probably be surprised to learn just how much of an impact Opera had on the web... I mean beyond the fact that while Microsoft and Netscape were suing each other, we did more to evolve the web than pretty much any company out there. And to be fair, we did it in a company smaller than the legal teams from either Microsoft or Netscape working on that case.
We sometimes had to go to the press because we couldn't get companies to make their pages work with other browsers. Some of us would cry like babies that it was unfair and all that. Some of us were more pragmatic and figured... what's the point in wasting money on 4% of the users of the web.
You'd be shocked how many problems we went through more or less reinventing the web for telephone screens. These days, with things like reactive web development and things like Bootstrap, it's a no brainer... you make a site that fits different screens. Back then, we had to more or less massage the whole web to render properly using some magical style sheets.
The good news is, articles like the one you sited often would help us. At least while Microsoft and Netscape were in court. This is because MS had to fix their shit or it would look like they were taking over the web as opposed to Netscape just being useless because they spent their money on lawyers instead of developers.
Having been a contractor in this sector a few times, let me just say that it's a revolving door system.
The DoD, DoE, TSA, DHS, etc... are generally run by people completely lacking the ability to make decisions related to technology. This is not uncommon, hell, most of my company's customers are completely at the mercy of some slide shows and gartner reports.
Consider this... what percentage of Cisco customers actually need what Cisco pedals? I've been reviewing most of our customer's networks and realized that the average customer paid $20 million over 5 years for their network. I assessed their needs, their requirements (then and now) and concluded that they should throw their networks away completely and replace them with systems costing and average of $500K CapEx and about $200K OpEx annually. But they will continue to spend an average of $4 million a year each because they are completely at the mercy of the salespeople who sell them tons of shit they don't need.
The TLAs (three letter agencies) aren't even run by business leaders. They are run by bureaucrats. As such, they are even more poorly managed. I've worked with multiple organizations that hire people, stick them in secure environments after their clearance... well clears and then cycles them out based on the fact that contracts are rolled over and over and over for no apparent reason other than the company who was currently contracted failed to do the job they were given because in order to get the job, they were forced to make a large number of false promises and now someone else making other false promises because they couldn't get the job if they answered honestly has taken over.
No... the DOD has absolutely no idea what the hell is going on in the IT systems because they never hire anyone long enough to get a foothold. I was at an SAIC office not long ago which had over 200 desks and in most cases, those desks were filled by sub-sub-sub-contractors and most people had no idea what anyone did or even what company they worked for.
If you think the DOD is bad, you should look at the State Department. I'm entirely convinced they simply let everyone walk through there unchecked.
I think it really went all downhill with the introduction of the TSA which is basically nothing more than a way of keeping people off welfare and not calling it socialism. They have 1.2 million people in their Active Directory last I checked.... how many do you think are actually tracked and verified?
Was there a specific thought which you considered vacuous?
Ahh... I like the Vlad touch... I am a communistic republican actually.... or something close to what that would be if there was a label. I'm pretty close to the republic in my mind, though I'd like to remove some of the L Ron Hubbary bits.
I'm not sure. I think by the time the industry begins to adapt, personal vehicles will be phasing out. It will simply be more profitable to either use self-driving ride-shares or to order a vehicle that will deliver itself when needed. As such, I don't see a long term future for auto makers.
And oh.... Tesla seems to be the only company who understands that when you make a car almost entirely out of plastic with almost no corrosive parts that in theory could stay on the road 30 years with little maintenance, you have to find alternative streams of income than selling new cars... for example... selling upgrades to existing cars.
Agreed... of course, they're not looking for the bitstream itself, it can be "post transform" which when stored would cause generational copying issues.
The technical solution to this would be to :
a) split the video signal between an HDCP compliant screen and a capture card (such as black magic or preferably dektec)
b) Capture the frames and perform full frame FFTs to identify frequency distribution. A large area DCT would work extremely well. Another option is to use wavelets and identify activity in the high frequency planes.
The process is not difficult, it's just time consuming and expensive.
Of course, I'm going to make a wild guess that the original poster is not a DSP expert and therefore was looking for something a little more "user friendly"
Do you want Waymo to invest the time and effort into going from community to community (and there's a lot of them) to identify whether they should be able to drive there?
Or maybe... do you think if there's an issue where a community has issues with Waymo, they should assemble, vote and then raise the issue with their representative. This doesn't mean that Waymo will be stopped simply because the people who assembled are against them. What it means is that as the issue arises, the government should then be required to find out whether the people who assembled represent a large enough portion of the community for this to make sense.
Consider that most people don't vote relating to things they are indifferent to. Most people simply don't care about Waymo enough to be bothered by it. As such, you might find the occasional fan boy to actually inconvenience themselves with being involved in a vote. But for the most part, only the people who are negative will assemble. As such,the vote will be a negative. Now, someone will need to be chosen to communicate with their representatives to organize and follow through with such a process of identifying whether it's actually a legal issue or not.
For example... should Waymo be banned simply because someone who is a driver for a living is angered because these cars could threaten his livelihood? This would be an example of corporate espionage. The driver is attempting to form an uprising against another company due to their inability to compete.
Should Waymo be banned on safety grounds? If this is the case, can you document clearly cases where the Waymo cars were in fact driving dangerously? Can you prove they were in fact placing people at risk? If this is the case, should the cars be banned outright or will you clearly set a definition of safety requirements that must be met before they can resume service?
Should Waymo be banned for disturbing the peace? Are they driving a specific path with a high frequency and therefore increasing traffic to unacceptable levels? Would this be true about Waymo alone or is it simply logistics and evolution of traffic patterns? Is there a specific time when they are driving through that is disruptive? Should they be banned between certain hours due to noise or safety? Are they having a quantifiable negative impact to the roads themselves?
I think you're oversimplifying the issue and thinking on the scale of "I'm one person and I'm all that matters and I don't like something". People like myself are extremely welcoming of self-driving vehicles since, if the prices are compatible (less than $500 a month), I'll stop using my own car and simply use self-driving ride sharing once it becomes available to me.
First of all, how dare you communist bastards suggest we invest money in development of science a technology using Celsius as our scale of measurement. If you really want money, you'll switch to Farenheit ASAP.
Also, investments in free and clean energy are anti-American. We have goals of reducing emissions standard requirements to promote the free market and allow people to right to choose to drive cars that consume more fuel. If you were to interfere by decreasing the value of energy, this would interfere with the free market and before you know it Xi will be in charge!
Let's focus on important things
1) No more of this healthcare for everyone bullshit. If you're poor, either commit a crime so we can lock you up to produce prison jobs for hard working former coal workers. Or at least join the military so we can either kick your ass into shape, get you killed or make sure your PTSD is bad enough that you'll commit a crime and make prison jobs. If you're worthless as a prisoner, dead person or a "hero" (we love that one... nothing gets poor people to do stupid shit like selling that one), then your health is a problem... eat more boxed shit and die... we don't want your problems.
2) Coal! It makes no difference whether we decide to use more coal, the entire coal industry is automated now. It takes an absolute frigging moron that probably believes wearing some camouflage pajamas and carrying a weapon makes them a hero to believe there will ever be coal jobs again. That ship has sailed... but if we can sell a shitload of coal, we can either afford to build a supermax in their back yard to give them jobs or we can pay their welfare and foodstamps from it.
3) Fracking! Ooooooo baby... I love this thing.... and any liberal pussy that whines about water supplies and earthquakes is a commi bastard. There's simply no proof that causing massive amounts of underground vibrations and instability has anything to do with pollution from things like settled sediment being disrupted in water supplies and there sure as shit is no proof that causing massive underground explosions has anything to due with the stability of the land above it. That's just nature. Look... even the dumb ass Brits are doing it everywhere now too. And we all know they're commi bastards.
No... none of this fusion shit. Let the commi Europeans destroy their own economies with that crap. In the free market USA (where everything and everyone is clearly better) we will stick to shit we can blow up out of the ground.
Consider that automakers would have to make an entirely different set of vehicles for Paris accord countries (like Canada) and the U.S.
Then consider automakers would have to make different cars for states with strict standards and cars violating those standards would not be allowed in the state as they would not be grandfather claused.
Then consider that if automakers were to have 6 years to bring new fuel guzzling designs to market before (worst case scenario) Trump leaves office. And since almost universally, republican president = Democrat Congress and vise versa. So, within 6 years, either the executive or the legislative branches will be in opposition to the new regulations.
So, any car company who would take advantage of this opportunity would be run by idiots with no foresight. This would be corporate suicide. I mean I am sitting here laughing my ass off wondering who would invest years of R&D in a new drive train that would almost certainly be made illegal within weeks of it reaching market and could not be sold or operated in more than a small region.
Any leasing company willing to back these cars would be criminally incompetent and any banks willing to finance these vehicles would be suicidal.
I love you people... each morning, I wake up and read Slashdot and love learning nifty new works like "Murican" and "Libtard" and "Lean-jig". If it weren't for Slashdot, I don't think I'd be able to keep my relationship to the U.S. strong. There's nothing as beautiful as people calling themselves Americans displaying their true American spirit by showing us what "United we stand" and "United States" and "With liberty and justice for all" etc... really mean.
Tell me, what's the really cool... was it "Murican" way of defining a person who votes sometimes Democrat and sometimes Republican and sometimes independent. And when they vote, they vote based on the individual not on the party they belong to. And sometimes they vote simply to attempt to support the constitution and the spirit of the country by hoping to ensure that checks and balances remain in place? Is there a word for people who are neither liberal or conservative by instead are educated and actually care about the wellbeing and hopefully also the needs of as many American people as possible?
I suppose you would have a lovely word to describe people like us. It wouldn't be something simple like idiot or asshole... at least I hope it wouldn't. Maybe you have a suitable onomatopoeia or maybe a portmanteau?
Also... to let you know... while I voted for and supported Obama, I would voted for Bush if he opposed Clinton this time as I don't believe in Clinton and I believe Jeb would be little more than a puppet for the party like his brother and father before him. Though I would have voted for Sanders against pretty much any of the candidates this time around... even if I consider him a sellout for joining a party. And if I knew that "orange man" stood a chance of winning, I might have registered as republican just to help Romney get into place because I didn't think it was fair that republicans ended up being unrepresented in the last election. In fact, Romney has grown up a little since he ran for president and I think that if he would actually take a few classes on history and politics at a university and he did some night school and learned about the constitution and the actual scope of the office of the president, he would be a good president now.
I'm also at a loss over "sonoppose". I know a guy like you, he was trying to be a 20 year man in the army and he pissed so many people off that they waited until the absolute last minute possible to screw him out of his 20. He makes these words up too and when people disagree with him, he speaks in what sounds like a poor down syndrome impersonation saying things like "Murican" and such. To be honest, I'm not sure what this is meant to accomplish other than what a child might do by mimicking another person as annoyingly as possible. Of course, when a child does this to an adult, an adult simply ignores it an considers the child's behaviour something that will hopefully improve with maturity.
On a more serious note, let's address you're assertion I can only interpret as meaning that people don't like the recent policies of the FCC because they don't like Trump.
I believe there may be some truth to this. I believe there are... let me borrow your term... libtards who oppose everything the current administration does. This is the same as how people like yourself probably disliked most everything Obama's administration attempted to do. People like you and them tend to believe there must be a team sport involved in politics. It is almost as if you have define yourself as a supporter of a team and whether you agree with the actions of your own team or not, it's more important that the other team loses face. As such, when a member of one team or another proposes something which could in fact be good for everyone, instead of working together to represent the overall best interests of everyone, each team attempts to sabotage the other's efforts. This is in fact the current systematic approach to American politics because nearly everyone today votes for
I'm pretty sure that companies will instead just get smart. For example, there's absolutely no reason NetFlix has to be a tax paying U.S. company at all. They can pretty much just pack up and move to Canada or Europe. We have room for them.
Then there's Amazon which would be more difficult to sort out, but if you simply move the corporation to Canada or Europe and then push orders to U.S. warehouses via leased lines or dark fibre, there shouldn't be any problems. Then Amazon could probably avoid paying 50% of what little taxes they already pay.
Google could probably save billions by leaving the U.S.
Microsoft wouldn't have to move very far at all to save a bunch of money.
I'm almost entirely sure that there's no real problems associated with this. And if I were a shareholder of any significance, I would consider suing any company which insisted in staying in the U.S. if something like this get passed.
I work for a telecom provider almost as big as AT&T. We have a presence in over 100 countries and we make money off of real estate. In some cases, this is literal in the sense that we rent offices and land that we own. In other cases, we rent and sell fiber as if it were real estate. The worst thing that could happen to us is if the content providers decided to pack up and move away from our networks into places where we would have to carry the data instead of providing it locally.
If we were a company like AT&T and were servicing the U.S. and then had to consider the risk of Netflix moving to Canada and moving all their proxies to Canada... or worse Europe, the cost of this to us would be so high we probably would collapse.
Consider that a website like Pornhub published on their technical blog live statistics a few years back of how much content they were delivering. It was approximately 300Tb/sec 24/7 worldwide. That means that there are just a massive number of one handed web surfers at every moment of every day sucking up bandwidth. If Pornhub were to consider moving their CDN outside of the U.S. and incorporating in the Cayman's for example, I would assume that service providers would have to increase capacity by at least 40Tb/sec to compensate for this.
Now consider that XVideos is supposedly bigger than PornHub (in this case it's not just the size, but the size surely matters) but they don't publish statistics like PornHub does. Now consider that YouTube and Netflix are A LOT bigger than either of those two sites.
The cost of just these 4 websites relocating to outside of U.S. borders would place at least 500Tb/sec additional burden on American service providers. Now, to anyone living in a first world country that has visited the U.S. (technically a first world country but second world in most categories other than money) they have horrible Internet access even when paying insane prices and they have miserable mobile/LTE coverage. I drove more or less the entire east coast on business and visiting friends and family last year and even Malta and Gozo were technically more advanced than America.... and those ARE shitholes.
Consider that while the FCC recently had a debate that suggested lowering the definition of broadband to 10/1 connectivity but due to lashback decided that 25/3 is what broadband is... across the first world, we can't even order anything that slow on our mobile phones anymore. How about in the Baltics where at least Lithuania and Latvia has 100Mb/sec fiber for like $15 a month in every house.
No... don't worry... you won't have to worry about footing the bill for this. In fact, we're more than ready to welcome Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, etc... when they decide to just pack up and take their money and jobs with them.
I read more positive in the news each day about China than negative. There are some bad actors and we scream it from the tops of our mountains for all to hear. There are also a lot of damn good things going on in China.
Foreign national operatives? I'm choking on this... do you have any idea how many stories I read each year implicating the American government on mass scale spying operations within and without? Do you honestly think this is a one-sided relationship?
The main difference is that no one notices a Chinese person working somewhere in the west anymore... but a white guy in Beijing still stands out.
Like in my earlier statement.... you should see someone. I recommend maybe a proper brain scan as well. I think we have much to learn about serious brain disorders by studying you closely
Hmm... I think you have some serious issues. I mean really, you might want to consider visiting someone that can observably identify whether you're a danger to yourself and/or others.
The one child policy has been relaxed.
You are correct in one sense. The Chinese government is and has been Communist for a long time. Much of what the West sees as competition from the Chinese is completely misconstrued. The Chinese government really doesn't bother with competition... they really don't care who the best is. They focus instead on reaching the goal of a self-sustaining economy.
An example of this has been China's willingness so far to collect and take in much of the world's trash. Not only does it provide China massive amounts of natural resources, it also provides the money required to recycle it. They didn't accept the trash for free you know?
China has systematically focused on three key points
- Housing
- Food
- Energy
They have an incredible effort underway that will completely collapse the world housing market by making it basically free. If you want a house, the Chinese government will be able to provide one to you free of charge. They are simply recycling all our trash into the materials needed to provide them and using our money to recycle the materials.
They have many massive efforts underway to eliminate the need for classical farming. Whether this includes mass scale meat printing or massive underground automated farms able to yield 6-12 crops a year. The Chinese are moving incredibly fast to become 100% independent from the world market with regards to food. And thank goodness they're doing it. I believe this might be one of humanity's most desperate needs.
As for energy, they have the world's largest solar farms, they are taking wind power extremely seriously. They have managed to take control of massive oil interests and if they manage to arrange a "silk road" pipeline to Africa, then they have energy complete sorted out. Of course, I think they'll manage to go almost entirely renewable far faster than most western countries as their government has less bureaucracy involved in such decisions.
You are entirely wrong about China hating us. This is a major shortcoming in most people's understanding. They simply don't see us as anything other than tools to accomplish their goals. They want to achieve one China and are doing extremely well working towards it.
If they can use the world market long enough to become self sufficient, eventually they can simply withdraw from the world market and operate entirely internally. Once they pretty much collapse all the non-Chinese markets by withdrawing, countries like Taiwan will be forced to beg for entry to the One China and China won't make them beg, they'll simply embrace them with open arms and accept them in.
You are right, as designed by Plato so long ago, they will need to have a ruling class and a working class. Chinese Communism has a believe that they've improved on the Republic and hopefully have worked out the serious kinks. It does however require a simple belief.... the government will let you be so long as you don't rock the boat. This means that there will be none of this American style "everyone is the enemy except me and mine" instead, everyone will contribute the best they can and a balance will eventually be struck.
China is not what you think it is. It's actually a lot closer to the American dream than when America offers today. Chinese Communism rewards people looking for the American dream.
But I guess anger and hate is a much easier thing for you to understand?
Somehow, I am reminded of a scene from Catching Fire where Suzanne Collins introduces a modern misinterpretation of the word vomitorium. It was believed at some point that the Romans would overindulge in food and visit a room dedicated to vomiting to avoid the negative effects and be able to eat even more. (This is not what the word means, but I suppose it makes good TV).
Obesity is associated with many illnesses, ailments and diseases. But obesity is also a symptom. I would hazard a guess that people who do not move enough to burn the calories they consume will still be prone to most of these problems whether they store excess calories or not.
The associated issues with this are numerous. If we provide gene therapy that would discontinue storing excess calories, it would allow more people to overindulge. That would increase consumption and place an additional burden on the supply chain and the natural resources of the planet overall.
People would live longer while burdening society. Obesity is one of the few remaining tools nature has of balancing itself.
Consider stupid other things. If you consume more (and we will) and your body lacks the facilities to store it in quantity, it will be ejected more often. This means that we will use toilets more.
What will be the added cost of fresh water consumption and toilet paper usage? Using a bidet could alleviate portions of the paper related issues, but unless it were supplied by recycled water, the environmental impact of the additional water consumption would be outrageous and likely untenable.
Let me just say that you're a disturbed person in general. You like Notes which is clearly against the current and you are implementing something closer to a finite response filter than a neural net for AI... you really like to swim upstream:)
P.S. I've used a combination of your approach of "factor tables" and neural nets for decades. You're onto something. I have to admit though that convnets have proven extremely interesting to me in recent times. I don't like the neural network approach to them as I believe that it's often easier to reach similar conclusions with classic image filtering, though area of interest certainly requires... well something else.
What's interesting is that if you identify area of focus as opposed to area of interest, it's quite an interesting approach as well. For example, consider that people focus their camera on the object of interest in the photo. This means the area of highest frequency will occur where the camera was aimed. In fact, even for normal surveillance footage, generally auto-focus on lenses will adjust so that the most interesting item in an image will be the item with the highest frequency distribution as the lens will blur the image surrounding the object... because... well that's what lenses do. So, by running a simple FFT or possibly DCT to convert the image to the frequency domain, it's very easy to focus on the highest concentration of the area of the highest frequencies.
Once that happens, either applying convnets or factor tables should yield substantially lower noise interference. And even better results could come from additional removal of the local frequencies within the domain.
I'm sorry... let me scrape this gunk from my ears and eyes... Notes was a DOS 2.x and 3.x thing?
Quote from Wikipedia "Lotus Development Corporation originally developed "Lotus Notes" in 1989."
MS-DOS 4.01 was released November 1988. Lotus Notes 1.0 requires DOS 3.1 or higher.
Back in the dark ages of computing when we wrote software, we didn't really care what DOS version was running. Most of us replaced every major aspect of the operating system. We often left the file system in tact, but we all wrote our own video drivers and stuff like that.
No... Lotus Notes never ran on DOS 2.x (file control block wasn't useful) and while Note ran on 3.x, no one running Notes ran DOS 3.x... this is because DOS 3.x maxed out at 32MB partition sizes and since Seagate was selling the hell out of the ST-251 which was a low cost, half-height 40MB drive, we ALL were upgrading by then. And if you were running Notes, even back then... you needed all the space you could get.
Unlikely... I'd imagine that IBM almost certainly will move to the cloud for mail and groupware. They actually did more or less dump PCs for Macs over the last few years. It seems only logical that they could also move their groupware pretty quickly.
Consider that the product has value because it has a customer base which HCL believes is locked in enough that they can milk it for at least $3.5 billion.
That said, I can't see this being an intelligent decision.
In every single course I hold on security, when the topic of enterprise e-mail services comes up, I nearly choke and laugh at whoever says something this stupid.
We use cloud for e-mail. That's it. Security for e-mail requires worldwide mass economy. That means that in order to properly identify threats in email requires scanning for anomalies that can only be detected when scanning on a mass economy scale. This allows patterns to be established and allows the threats to be identified by following the patterns of the senders, the servers, etc... the content itself isn't that interesting really.
Then comes stupid products like Cisco's Email Security Appliance. Don't get me wrong, the product really does work... but in order to work, it requires sending all mails that don't match specific hashes to a central location to be identified and managed on a mass economy scale. This means that spam and marketing and all that crap will be detected within reason, but all the mails you had hoped to keep private will be uploaded to Cisco to be scanned and identified. This means that an American company... under American jurisdiction will upload your mails to servers in at least three countries... U.S., India and China. This means that your so called "private mail server" isn't private.
Yes of course you have the option to not upload unknown mail... but about 99% of all real e-mail threats today will go undetected if they don't participate in the mass economy. As such, running something like ESA/IronPort is an absolute waste of money and time.
So... you simply should never run your own e-mail server anymore. There's no benefit or profit. So far as I know, all online e-mail services have enterprise migration solutions from Lotus available.
Oh... then there's another major reason to NEVER consider hosting your own e-mail. Governance. If you're hellbent on keeping you mail private, you're an idiot. By keeping your mail on cloud services, then you can never be accused of destroying e-mail. If you're an honest tech person... you wouldn't get this. But if you're a wall street banker, there's a 99% chance that at some time during your career, you'll be probed for suspicious activity. Using a service that maintains years of e-mail backups that can even recover deleted mails is a really good idea. In fact, it should be legally required... especially in governments and banks.
Then we talk about groupware stuff.
Well this is 2018... who the hell uses enterprise groupware?
I mean really, even if you have sharepoint and notes, almost no one in your organization is using it. They're using the latest and greatest online service instead. Slack, Teams, etc... In fact, they probably are using 10 of them. I've received at least 10 e-mails this year about the new official cloud platform for collaboration in the company... yep... 10 mails... all different ones.
So that leads me to the final possibility. Offline networks.
This includes military, oil networks, etc... NATO for example has their very own offline internet alternative. And the oil and fish markets also have this.
So... I can't imagine HCL keeping that business. Let's be honest, the Chinese government might be actively invading the U.S. through spying and such... this we can deal with. But India is a country where almost all modern scams originate. This means that the government doesn't have enforced regulation in place to deal with dishonest dealers. While India has over a billion people and probably over a billion good and honest people... there's always a percentage of opportunistic assholes ruining it for everyone. This is why we need laws... and I simply don't trust India's government... "Hello this is Windows Support... you have a virus" anyone? They were an organized and
When someone leaves, it means that we didn't offer them something to convince them to stay. Loyalty is great if you're a dog. But when it comes to someone's ability to place food on their tables, if they believe they can do better somewhere else and I can't offer them the same benefits, that's just how it goes.
Of course... if the guy gets your daughter pregnant, spray paints your living room and then puts up billboards bashing your company.... I think then there's reason for enmity.
So far as I know there's no country in the western world that lacks "Right to work" laws. That means that if your specialty limits your career options and you're in a non-compete, then you should be able to employ "right to work" since no company has the right to lock you into your position by making it impossible to find employment elsewhere.
I think right to work sometimes even has requirements that if they don't offer you an exit clause... something like "You can't compete for 2 years, though if you wish to be released, the company will be responsible to cover your salary during that time" etc... then you have a really good case. Remember, the non-compete isn't to take ownership of you. It's to protect the company from IP theft. If they believe they can't protect their IP any other way, then it's their responsibility to cover the cost of distancing you from the IP during that time.
If they release you at some point, you probably could get a lawyer to make sure you're compensated for your loss of work associated to the non-compete as well.
X is also pretty much on the way out too... so we'd have to make allowances for Wayland instead right? And holy baby jesus.... Wayland is 5 years from being borderline usable each day.
As for the POSIX compliant version of WPF, WinUI and Windows.Forms. I'm pretty sure he doesn't really know what POSIX means. Though it's really cute when he uses it wrong over and over again.
Mono.NET supports Windows.Forms and has a WPF like system and WinUI is certainly on it's way to being cross platform..NET Core is certainly heading in the right direction as well. I'm pretty sure a "POSIX Compliant" or in this case "Linux compatible" version of Windows.Forms would be a pretty bad idea since it's still too hooked to HWND and the Windows API. Though, I suspect there's nothing particularly difficult in making that happen.
Maybe he would be more interested in GTK#.
It's kinda like how when you program iOS apps from Windows, you would use either Cocoa (from C#) or Unity3D. If you want an ugly as shit cross platform GUI framework that's only native to Linux which is... well let's say there's a reason Linux hasn't won the desktop yet.... that's what GTK# is.
Just like in Xamarin Studio for Mac, you can use VS for Mac to code for iOS and Android. As for writing an MS app, I think we're still a little bit off from having full UWP support on Mac for development.
I'm really hoping to see Mac support for UWP some day.
1) WPF is called UWP now... it's been since the rewrite. It's pretty nice and while the rewrite never really caught on because WPF was more "nerd friendly", UWP was clearly more user friendly. WPF didn't require a graphics artist, UWP did... etc... That said, if you invest some time in UWP and learning to make more appy type apps as opposed to applications, you'll like it.
2) Winforms had to go. It was a thin and almost useless replacement for Visual Basic 6. You would never consider writing a new application using standard Windows form controls from the Win32 API. You want something much more flexible... if you need a good reason, high-DPI should be enough. Pixels as a form of screen UI measurement had to go. WinUI is not an old thing... it's the most recent version of UWP and XAML.
3) Yeh... MS business products are going all cloud... where they belong. And... well replacing their products isn't quite what you may think. Azure is substantially more lock-in for companies than Windows and Office ever was. Same for AWS and Google Cloud. Pretty much every Fortune 1000 company will pay monthly bills (of enormous scale) to MS, Google AND Amazon for many many years.
4) Microsoft's headcount will almost certainly double or triple with their new business model. Though many of the legacy people are probably on the way out.
In a ".NET Core" world, you should have considerably less trouble with that. I know I've been managing my projects from the dotnet command line tool for a while now. The GUI was always kind of an inconvenience for that.
Of course you could use the GUI to stage some changes to the project file, but before checking it in, you should remove all the VS specific cruft and slim it down to pure.NET.
On the other hand, if you're still programming in C and C++ (I write Linux kernel modules in VS) you're screwed. I think this is because Microsoft realizes that C and C++ are purely for people who like pain and probably don't care about code quality anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to say "Boo Hoo" like the others. The truth is, it's just a boo hoo.
Here's the deal. What Google did was absolutely and completely compatible with the web. It wasn't a violation of standards. It wasn't much of anything other than a legitimate case where by using a transparent div, they could choose to provide overlays on the video. Now, if they had no intention of using it, it wasn't particularly relevant. But there's nothing particularly wrong with what they did.
If you read the HTML5 specs and you see the nasty crap associated with how the video tag works, modern browsers have to be coded to render to a 3D context (webgl is easiest). Video, for battery performance if often pipelined in a way that would offload rendering from the GPU. As such, it can be really problematic to render if there's overlays (meaning divs) while not hogging battery. So, the solution is to redirect video rendering directly to the frame buffer bypassing the fancy 3d rendering bits if there's nothing to render as an overlay on the video. In other words "If stuff on top of video is invisible, don't waste cycles rendering stuff on top of video". This is a simple optimization which they should do anyway.
I would love to call Boo Hoo, but in reality, we went through this for 20 years with Netscape and Microsoft and Google. We dumped our own rendering engine a million years ago because the web is just too damn big these days.
The best solution is that everyone just dumps their own rendering engines and all standardizes on Chromium at the core and then build something like the Linux foundation to support it independently. If Microsoft, Google, Apple and Firefox were to honestly try to stay compatible with each other through standards documents, it would just be a waste of time. We don't really need 50 different web browser engines anymore. Just make a single one and commit to it.
We had a lot of those problems over at Opera. In fact, we had an entire team dedicated to people who simply contacted website authors with recommendations to make their web sites work better with the standards. They did an amazing job... I mean REALLY amazing. You'd probably be surprised to learn just how much of an impact Opera had on the web... I mean beyond the fact that while Microsoft and Netscape were suing each other, we did more to evolve the web than pretty much any company out there. And to be fair, we did it in a company smaller than the legal teams from either Microsoft or Netscape working on that case.
We sometimes had to go to the press because we couldn't get companies to make their pages work with other browsers. Some of us would cry like babies that it was unfair and all that. Some of us were more pragmatic and figured... what's the point in wasting money on 4% of the users of the web.
You'd be shocked how many problems we went through more or less reinventing the web for telephone screens. These days, with things like reactive web development and things like Bootstrap, it's a no brainer... you make a site that fits different screens. Back then, we had to more or less massage the whole web to render properly using some magical style sheets.
The good news is, articles like the one you sited often would help us. At least while Microsoft and Netscape were in court. This is because MS had to fix their shit or it would look like they were taking over the web as opposed to Netscape just being useless because they spent their money on lawyers instead of developers.
Having been a contractor in this sector a few times, let me just say that it's a revolving door system.
... well clears and then cycles them out based on the fact that contracts are rolled over and over and over for no apparent reason other than the company who was currently contracted failed to do the job they were given because in order to get the job, they were forced to make a large number of false promises and now someone else making other false promises because they couldn't get the job if they answered honestly has taken over.
The DoD, DoE, TSA, DHS, etc... are generally run by people completely lacking the ability to make decisions related to technology. This is not uncommon, hell, most of my company's customers are completely at the mercy of some slide shows and gartner reports.
Consider this... what percentage of Cisco customers actually need what Cisco pedals? I've been reviewing most of our customer's networks and realized that the average customer paid $20 million over 5 years for their network. I assessed their needs, their requirements (then and now) and concluded that they should throw their networks away completely and replace them with systems costing and average of $500K CapEx and about $200K OpEx annually. But they will continue to spend an average of $4 million a year each because they are completely at the mercy of the salespeople who sell them tons of shit they don't need.
The TLAs (three letter agencies) aren't even run by business leaders. They are run by bureaucrats. As such, they are even more poorly managed. I've worked with multiple organizations that hire people, stick them in secure environments after their clearance
No... the DOD has absolutely no idea what the hell is going on in the IT systems because they never hire anyone long enough to get a foothold. I was at an SAIC office not long ago which had over 200 desks and in most cases, those desks were filled by sub-sub-sub-contractors and most people had no idea what anyone did or even what company they worked for.
If you think the DOD is bad, you should look at the State Department. I'm entirely convinced they simply let everyone walk through there unchecked.
I think it really went all downhill with the introduction of the TSA which is basically nothing more than a way of keeping people off welfare and not calling it socialism. They have 1.2 million people in their Active Directory last I checked.... how many do you think are actually tracked and verified?
I mean really? Someone paid to sponsor this quality of research? Who? A snacks company?
What about my spelling and grammar?
Was there a specific thought which you considered vacuous?
Ahh... I like the Vlad touch... I am a communistic republican actually.... or something close to what that would be if there was a label. I'm pretty close to the republic in my mind, though I'd like to remove some of the L Ron Hubbary bits.
I'm not sure. I think by the time the industry begins to adapt, personal vehicles will be phasing out. It will simply be more profitable to either use self-driving ride-shares or to order a vehicle that will deliver itself when needed. As such, I don't see a long term future for auto makers.
And oh.... Tesla seems to be the only company who understands that when you make a car almost entirely out of plastic with almost no corrosive parts that in theory could stay on the road 30 years with little maintenance, you have to find alternative streams of income than selling new cars... for example... selling upgrades to existing cars.
Agreed... of course, they're not looking for the bitstream itself, it can be "post transform" which when stored would cause generational copying issues.
The technical solution to this would be to :
a) split the video signal between an HDCP compliant screen and a capture card (such as black magic or preferably dektec)
b) Capture the frames and perform full frame FFTs to identify frequency distribution. A large area DCT would work extremely well. Another option is to use wavelets and identify activity in the high frequency planes.
The process is not difficult, it's just time consuming and expensive.
Of course, I'm going to make a wild guess that the original poster is not a DSP expert and therefore was looking for something a little more "user friendly"
What in the name of pizza are you going on about?
Do you want Waymo to invest the time and effort into going from community to community (and there's a lot of them) to identify whether they should be able to drive there?
Or maybe... do you think if there's an issue where a community has issues with Waymo, they should assemble, vote and then raise the issue with their representative. This doesn't mean that Waymo will be stopped simply because the people who assembled are against them. What it means is that as the issue arises, the government should then be required to find out whether the people who assembled represent a large enough portion of the community for this to make sense.
Consider that most people don't vote relating to things they are indifferent to. Most people simply don't care about Waymo enough to be bothered by it. As such, you might find the occasional fan boy to actually inconvenience themselves with being involved in a vote. But for the most part, only the people who are negative will assemble. As such,the vote will be a negative. Now, someone will need to be chosen to communicate with their representatives to organize and follow through with such a process of identifying whether it's actually a legal issue or not.
For example... should Waymo be banned simply because someone who is a driver for a living is angered because these cars could threaten his livelihood? This would be an example of corporate espionage. The driver is attempting to form an uprising against another company due to their inability to compete.
Should Waymo be banned on safety grounds? If this is the case, can you document clearly cases where the Waymo cars were in fact driving dangerously? Can you prove they were in fact placing people at risk? If this is the case, should the cars be banned outright or will you clearly set a definition of safety requirements that must be met before they can resume service?
Should Waymo be banned for disturbing the peace? Are they driving a specific path with a high frequency and therefore increasing traffic to unacceptable levels? Would this be true about Waymo alone or is it simply logistics and evolution of traffic patterns? Is there a specific time when they are driving through that is disruptive? Should they be banned between certain hours due to noise or safety? Are they having a quantifiable negative impact to the roads themselves?
I think you're oversimplifying the issue and thinking on the scale of "I'm one person and I'm all that matters and I don't like something". People like myself are extremely welcoming of self-driving vehicles since, if the prices are compatible (less than $500 a month), I'll stop using my own car and simply use self-driving ride sharing once it becomes available to me.
First of all, how dare you communist bastards suggest we invest money in development of science a technology using Celsius as our scale of measurement. If you really want money, you'll switch to Farenheit ASAP.
Also, investments in free and clean energy are anti-American. We have goals of reducing emissions standard requirements to promote the free market and allow people to right to choose to drive cars that consume more fuel. If you were to interfere by decreasing the value of energy, this would interfere with the free market and before you know it Xi will be in charge!
Let's focus on important things
1) No more of this healthcare for everyone bullshit. If you're poor, either commit a crime so we can lock you up to produce prison jobs for hard working former coal workers. Or at least join the military so we can either kick your ass into shape, get you killed or make sure your PTSD is bad enough that you'll commit a crime and make prison jobs. If you're worthless as a prisoner, dead person or a "hero" (we love that one... nothing gets poor people to do stupid shit like selling that one), then your health is a problem... eat more boxed shit and die... we don't want your problems.
2) Coal! It makes no difference whether we decide to use more coal, the entire coal industry is automated now. It takes an absolute frigging moron that probably believes wearing some camouflage pajamas and carrying a weapon makes them a hero to believe there will ever be coal jobs again. That ship has sailed... but if we can sell a shitload of coal, we can either afford to build a supermax in their back yard to give them jobs or we can pay their welfare and foodstamps from it.
3) Fracking! Ooooooo baby... I love this thing.... and any liberal pussy that whines about water supplies and earthquakes is a commi bastard. There's simply no proof that causing massive amounts of underground vibrations and instability has anything to do with pollution from things like settled sediment being disrupted in water supplies and there sure as shit is no proof that causing massive underground explosions has anything to due with the stability of the land above it. That's just nature. Look... even the dumb ass Brits are doing it everywhere now too. And we all know they're commi bastards.
No... none of this fusion shit. Let the commi Europeans destroy their own economies with that crap. In the free market USA (where everything and everyone is clearly better) we will stick to shit we can blow up out of the ground.
Consider that automakers would have to make an entirely different set of vehicles for Paris accord countries (like Canada) and the U.S.
Then consider automakers would have to make different cars for states with strict standards and cars violating those standards would not be allowed in the state as they would not be grandfather claused.
Then consider that if automakers were to have 6 years to bring new fuel guzzling designs to market before (worst case scenario) Trump leaves office. And since almost universally, republican president = Democrat Congress and vise versa. So, within 6 years, either the executive or the legislative branches will be in opposition to the new regulations.
So, any car company who would take advantage of this opportunity would be run by idiots with no foresight. This would be corporate suicide. I mean I am sitting here laughing my ass off wondering who would invest years of R&D in a new drive train that would almost certainly be made illegal within weeks of it reaching market and could not be sold or operated in more than a small region.
Any leasing company willing to back these cars would be criminally incompetent and any banks willing to finance these vehicles would be suicidal.
I mean, who thinks these things up?
I love you people... each morning, I wake up and read Slashdot and love learning nifty new works like "Murican" and "Libtard" and "Lean-jig". If it weren't for Slashdot, I don't think I'd be able to keep my relationship to the U.S. strong. There's nothing as beautiful as people calling themselves Americans displaying their true American spirit by showing us what "United we stand" and "United States" and "With liberty and justice for all" etc... really mean.
... was it "Murican" way of defining a person who votes sometimes Democrat and sometimes Republican and sometimes independent. And when they vote, they vote based on the individual not on the party they belong to. And sometimes they vote simply to attempt to support the constitution and the spirit of the country by hoping to ensure that checks and balances remain in place? Is there a word for people who are neither liberal or conservative by instead are educated and actually care about the wellbeing and hopefully also the needs of as many American people as possible?
... let me borrow your term... libtards who oppose everything the current administration does. This is the same as how people like yourself probably disliked most everything Obama's administration attempted to do. People like you and them tend to believe there must be a team sport involved in politics. It is almost as if you have define yourself as a supporter of a team and whether you agree with the actions of your own team or not, it's more important that the other team loses face. As such, when a member of one team or another proposes something which could in fact be good for everyone, instead of working together to represent the overall best interests of everyone, each team attempts to sabotage the other's efforts. This is in fact the current systematic approach to American politics because nearly everyone today votes for
Tell me, what's the really cool
I suppose you would have a lovely word to describe people like us. It wouldn't be something simple like idiot or asshole... at least I hope it wouldn't. Maybe you have a suitable onomatopoeia or maybe a portmanteau?
Also... to let you know... while I voted for and supported Obama, I would voted for Bush if he opposed Clinton this time as I don't believe in Clinton and I believe Jeb would be little more than a puppet for the party like his brother and father before him. Though I would have voted for Sanders against pretty much any of the candidates this time around... even if I consider him a sellout for joining a party. And if I knew that "orange man" stood a chance of winning, I might have registered as republican just to help Romney get into place because I didn't think it was fair that republicans ended up being unrepresented in the last election. In fact, Romney has grown up a little since he ran for president and I think that if he would actually take a few classes on history and politics at a university and he did some night school and learned about the constitution and the actual scope of the office of the president, he would be a good president now.
I'm also at a loss over "sonoppose". I know a guy like you, he was trying to be a 20 year man in the army and he pissed so many people off that they waited until the absolute last minute possible to screw him out of his 20. He makes these words up too and when people disagree with him, he speaks in what sounds like a poor down syndrome impersonation saying things like "Murican" and such. To be honest, I'm not sure what this is meant to accomplish other than what a child might do by mimicking another person as annoyingly as possible. Of course, when a child does this to an adult, an adult simply ignores it an considers the child's behaviour something that will hopefully improve with maturity.
On a more serious note, let's address you're assertion I can only interpret as meaning that people don't like the recent policies of the FCC because they don't like Trump.
I believe there may be some truth to this. I believe there are
I wouldn't worry about that just yet.
I'm pretty sure that companies will instead just get smart. For example, there's absolutely no reason NetFlix has to be a tax paying U.S. company at all. They can pretty much just pack up and move to Canada or Europe. We have room for them.
Then there's Amazon which would be more difficult to sort out, but if you simply move the corporation to Canada or Europe and then push orders to U.S. warehouses via leased lines or dark fibre, there shouldn't be any problems. Then Amazon could probably avoid paying 50% of what little taxes they already pay.
Google could probably save billions by leaving the U.S.
Microsoft wouldn't have to move very far at all to save a bunch of money.
I'm almost entirely sure that there's no real problems associated with this. And if I were a shareholder of any significance, I would consider suing any company which insisted in staying in the U.S. if something like this get passed.
I work for a telecom provider almost as big as AT&T. We have a presence in over 100 countries and we make money off of real estate. In some cases, this is literal in the sense that we rent offices and land that we own. In other cases, we rent and sell fiber as if it were real estate. The worst thing that could happen to us is if the content providers decided to pack up and move away from our networks into places where we would have to carry the data instead of providing it locally.
If we were a company like AT&T and were servicing the U.S. and then had to consider the risk of Netflix moving to Canada and moving all their proxies to Canada... or worse Europe, the cost of this to us would be so high we probably would collapse.
Consider that a website like Pornhub published on their technical blog live statistics a few years back of how much content they were delivering. It was approximately 300Tb/sec 24/7 worldwide. That means that there are just a massive number of one handed web surfers at every moment of every day sucking up bandwidth. If Pornhub were to consider moving their CDN outside of the U.S. and incorporating in the Cayman's for example, I would assume that service providers would have to increase capacity by at least 40Tb/sec to compensate for this.
Now consider that XVideos is supposedly bigger than PornHub (in this case it's not just the size, but the size surely matters) but they don't publish statistics like PornHub does. Now consider that YouTube and Netflix are A LOT bigger than either of those two sites.
The cost of just these 4 websites relocating to outside of U.S. borders would place at least 500Tb/sec additional burden on American service providers. Now, to anyone living in a first world country that has visited the U.S. (technically a first world country but second world in most categories other than money) they have horrible Internet access even when paying insane prices and they have miserable mobile/LTE coverage. I drove more or less the entire east coast on business and visiting friends and family last year and even Malta and Gozo were technically more advanced than America.... and those ARE shitholes.
Consider that while the FCC recently had a debate that suggested lowering the definition of broadband to 10/1 connectivity but due to lashback decided that 25/3 is what broadband is... across the first world, we can't even order anything that slow on our mobile phones anymore. How about in the Baltics where at least Lithuania and Latvia has 100Mb/sec fiber for like $15 a month in every house.
No... don't worry... you won't have to worry about footing the bill for this. In fact, we're more than ready to welcome Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, etc... when they decide to just pack up and take their money and jobs with them.
"Bugger off, I know better"?
I read more positive in the news each day about China than negative. There are some bad actors and we scream it from the tops of our mountains for all to hear. There are also a lot of damn good things going on in China.
Foreign national operatives? I'm choking on this... do you have any idea how many stories I read each year implicating the American government on mass scale spying operations within and without? Do you honestly think this is a one-sided relationship?
The main difference is that no one notices a Chinese person working somewhere in the west anymore... but a white guy in Beijing still stands out.
Like in my earlier statement.... you should see someone. I recommend maybe a proper brain scan as well. I think we have much to learn about serious brain disorders by studying you closely
Hmm... I think you have some serious issues. I mean really, you might want to consider visiting someone that can observably identify whether you're a danger to yourself and/or others.
The one child policy has been relaxed.
You are correct in one sense. The Chinese government is and has been Communist for a long time. Much of what the West sees as competition from the Chinese is completely misconstrued. The Chinese government really doesn't bother with competition... they really don't care who the best is. They focus instead on reaching the goal of a self-sustaining economy.
An example of this has been China's willingness so far to collect and take in much of the world's trash. Not only does it provide China massive amounts of natural resources, it also provides the money required to recycle it. They didn't accept the trash for free you know?
China has systematically focused on three key points
- Housing
- Food
- Energy
They have an incredible effort underway that will completely collapse the world housing market by making it basically free. If you want a house, the Chinese government will be able to provide one to you free of charge. They are simply recycling all our trash into the materials needed to provide them and using our money to recycle the materials.
They have many massive efforts underway to eliminate the need for classical farming. Whether this includes mass scale meat printing or massive underground automated farms able to yield 6-12 crops a year. The Chinese are moving incredibly fast to become 100% independent from the world market with regards to food. And thank goodness they're doing it. I believe this might be one of humanity's most desperate needs.
As for energy, they have the world's largest solar farms, they are taking wind power extremely seriously. They have managed to take control of massive oil interests and if they manage to arrange a "silk road" pipeline to Africa, then they have energy complete sorted out. Of course, I think they'll manage to go almost entirely renewable far faster than most western countries as their government has less bureaucracy involved in such decisions.
You are entirely wrong about China hating us. This is a major shortcoming in most people's understanding. They simply don't see us as anything other than tools to accomplish their goals. They want to achieve one China and are doing extremely well working towards it.
If they can use the world market long enough to become self sufficient, eventually they can simply withdraw from the world market and operate entirely internally. Once they pretty much collapse all the non-Chinese markets by withdrawing, countries like Taiwan will be forced to beg for entry to the One China and China won't make them beg, they'll simply embrace them with open arms and accept them in.
You are right, as designed by Plato so long ago, they will need to have a ruling class and a working class. Chinese Communism has a believe that they've improved on the Republic and hopefully have worked out the serious kinks. It does however require a simple belief.... the government will let you be so long as you don't rock the boat. This means that there will be none of this American style "everyone is the enemy except me and mine" instead, everyone will contribute the best they can and a balance will eventually be struck.
China is not what you think it is. It's actually a lot closer to the American dream than when America offers today. Chinese Communism rewards people looking for the American dream.
But I guess anger and hate is a much easier thing for you to understand?
Somehow, I am reminded of a scene from Catching Fire where Suzanne Collins introduces a modern misinterpretation of the word vomitorium. It was believed at some point that the Romans would overindulge in food and visit a room dedicated to vomiting to avoid the negative effects and be able to eat even more. (This is not what the word means, but I suppose it makes good TV).
Obesity is associated with many illnesses, ailments and diseases. But obesity is also a symptom. I would hazard a guess that people who do not move enough to burn the calories they consume will still be prone to most of these problems whether they store excess calories or not.
The associated issues with this are numerous. If we provide gene therapy that would discontinue storing excess calories, it would allow more people to overindulge. That would increase consumption and place an additional burden on the supply chain and the natural resources of the planet overall.
People would live longer while burdening society. Obesity is one of the few remaining tools nature has of balancing itself.
Consider stupid other things. If you consume more (and we will) and your body lacks the facilities to store it in quantity, it will be ejected more often. This means that we will use toilets more.
What will be the added cost of fresh water consumption and toilet paper usage? Using a bidet could alleviate portions of the paper related issues, but unless it were supplied by recycled water, the environmental impact of the additional water consumption would be outrageous and likely untenable.
I am quite sure this is a very very bad thing.
haha... I just read your paper on Factor Tables.
:)
... well something else.
Let me just say that you're a disturbed person in general. You like Notes which is clearly against the current and you are implementing something closer to a finite response filter than a neural net for AI... you really like to swim upstream
P.S.
I've used a combination of your approach of "factor tables" and neural nets for decades. You're onto something. I have to admit though that convnets have proven extremely interesting to me in recent times. I don't like the neural network approach to them as I believe that it's often easier to reach similar conclusions with classic image filtering, though area of interest certainly requires
What's interesting is that if you identify area of focus as opposed to area of interest, it's quite an interesting approach as well. For example, consider that people focus their camera on the object of interest in the photo. This means the area of highest frequency will occur where the camera was aimed. In fact, even for normal surveillance footage, generally auto-focus on lenses will adjust so that the most interesting item in an image will be the item with the highest frequency distribution as the lens will blur the image surrounding the object... because... well that's what lenses do. So, by running a simple FFT or possibly DCT to convert the image to the frequency domain, it's very easy to focus on the highest concentration of the area of the highest frequencies.
Once that happens, either applying convnets or factor tables should yield substantially lower noise interference. And even better results could come from additional removal of the local frequencies within the domain.
It was a what?
I'm sorry... let me scrape this gunk from my ears and eyes... Notes was a DOS 2.x and 3.x thing?
Quote from Wikipedia "Lotus Development Corporation originally developed "Lotus Notes" in 1989."
MS-DOS 4.01 was released November 1988. Lotus Notes 1.0 requires DOS 3.1 or higher.
Back in the dark ages of computing when we wrote software, we didn't really care what DOS version was running. Most of us replaced every major aspect of the operating system. We often left the file system in tact, but we all wrote our own video drivers and stuff like that.
No... Lotus Notes never ran on DOS 2.x (file control block wasn't useful) and while Note ran on 3.x, no one running Notes ran DOS 3.x... this is because DOS 3.x maxed out at 32MB partition sizes and since Seagate was selling the hell out of the ST-251 which was a low cost, half-height 40MB drive, we ALL were upgrading by then. And if you were running Notes, even back then... you needed all the space you could get.
Unlikely... I'd imagine that IBM almost certainly will move to the cloud for mail and groupware. They actually did more or less dump PCs for Macs over the last few years. It seems only logical that they could also move their groupware pretty quickly.
Consider that the product has value because it has a customer base which HCL believes is locked in enough that they can milk it for at least $3.5 billion.
... under American jurisdiction will upload your mails to servers in at least three countries... U.S., India and China. This means that your so called "private mail server" isn't private.
That said, I can't see this being an intelligent decision.
In every single course I hold on security, when the topic of enterprise e-mail services comes up, I nearly choke and laugh at whoever says something this stupid.
We use cloud for e-mail. That's it. Security for e-mail requires worldwide mass economy. That means that in order to properly identify threats in email requires scanning for anomalies that can only be detected when scanning on a mass economy scale. This allows patterns to be established and allows the threats to be identified by following the patterns of the senders, the servers, etc... the content itself isn't that interesting really.
Then comes stupid products like Cisco's Email Security Appliance. Don't get me wrong, the product really does work... but in order to work, it requires sending all mails that don't match specific hashes to a central location to be identified and managed on a mass economy scale. This means that spam and marketing and all that crap will be detected within reason, but all the mails you had hoped to keep private will be uploaded to Cisco to be scanned and identified. This means that an American company
Yes of course you have the option to not upload unknown mail... but about 99% of all real e-mail threats today will go undetected if they don't participate in the mass economy. As such, running something like ESA/IronPort is an absolute waste of money and time.
So... you simply should never run your own e-mail server anymore. There's no benefit or profit. So far as I know, all online e-mail services have enterprise migration solutions from Lotus available.
Oh... then there's another major reason to NEVER consider hosting your own e-mail. Governance. If you're hellbent on keeping you mail private, you're an idiot. By keeping your mail on cloud services, then you can never be accused of destroying e-mail. If you're an honest tech person... you wouldn't get this. But if you're a wall street banker, there's a 99% chance that at some time during your career, you'll be probed for suspicious activity. Using a service that maintains years of e-mail backups that can even recover deleted mails is a really good idea. In fact, it should be legally required... especially in governments and banks.
Then we talk about groupware stuff.
Well this is 2018... who the hell uses enterprise groupware?
I mean really, even if you have sharepoint and notes, almost no one in your organization is using it. They're using the latest and greatest online service instead. Slack, Teams, etc... In fact, they probably are using 10 of them. I've received at least 10 e-mails this year about the new official cloud platform for collaboration in the company... yep... 10 mails... all different ones.
So that leads me to the final possibility. Offline networks.
This includes military, oil networks, etc... NATO for example has their very own offline internet alternative. And the oil and fish markets also have this.
So... I can't imagine HCL keeping that business. Let's be honest, the Chinese government might be actively invading the U.S. through spying and such... this we can deal with. But India is a country where almost all modern scams originate. This means that the government doesn't have enforced regulation in place to deal with dishonest dealers. While India has over a billion people and probably over a billion good and honest people... there's always a percentage of opportunistic assholes ruining it for everyone. This is why we need laws... and I simply don't trust India's government... "Hello this is Windows Support... you have a virus" anyone? They were an organized and
When someone leaves, it means that we didn't offer them something to convince them to stay. Loyalty is great if you're a dog. But when it comes to someone's ability to place food on their tables, if they believe they can do better somewhere else and I can't offer them the same benefits, that's just how it goes.
Of course... if the guy gets your daughter pregnant, spray paints your living room and then puts up billboards bashing your company.... I think then there's reason for enmity.
Get another lawyer.
So far as I know there's no country in the western world that lacks "Right to work" laws. That means that if your specialty limits your career options and you're in a non-compete, then you should be able to employ "right to work" since no company has the right to lock you into your position by making it impossible to find employment elsewhere.
I think right to work sometimes even has requirements that if they don't offer you an exit clause... something like "You can't compete for 2 years, though if you wish to be released, the company will be responsible to cover your salary during that time" etc... then you have a really good case. Remember, the non-compete isn't to take ownership of you. It's to protect the company from IP theft. If they believe they can't protect their IP any other way, then it's their responsibility to cover the cost of distancing you from the IP during that time.
If they release you at some point, you probably could get a lawyer to make sure you're compensated for your loss of work associated to the non-compete as well.
haha... I was reading that baby rant too.
.NET Core is certainly heading in the right direction as well. I'm pretty sure a "POSIX Compliant" or in this case "Linux compatible" version of Windows.Forms would be a pretty bad idea since it's still too hooked to HWND and the Windows API. Though, I suspect there's nothing particularly difficult in making that happen.
X is also pretty much on the way out too... so we'd have to make allowances for Wayland instead right? And holy baby jesus.... Wayland is 5 years from being borderline usable each day.
As for the POSIX compliant version of WPF, WinUI and Windows.Forms. I'm pretty sure he doesn't really know what POSIX means. Though it's really cute when he uses it wrong over and over again.
Mono.NET supports Windows.Forms and has a WPF like system and WinUI is certainly on it's way to being cross platform.
Maybe he would be more interested in GTK#.
It's kinda like how when you program iOS apps from Windows, you would use either Cocoa (from C#) or Unity3D. If you want an ugly as shit cross platform GUI framework that's only native to Linux which is... well let's say there's a reason Linux hasn't won the desktop yet.... that's what GTK# is.
Just like in Xamarin Studio for Mac, you can use VS for Mac to code for iOS and Android. As for writing an MS app, I think we're still a little bit off from having full UWP support on Mac for development.
I'm really hoping to see Mac support for UWP some day.
1) WPF is called UWP now... it's been since the rewrite. It's pretty nice and while the rewrite never really caught on because WPF was more "nerd friendly", UWP was clearly more user friendly. WPF didn't require a graphics artist, UWP did... etc... That said, if you invest some time in UWP and learning to make more appy type apps as opposed to applications, you'll like it.
2) Winforms had to go. It was a thin and almost useless replacement for Visual Basic 6. You would never consider writing a new application using standard Windows form controls from the Win32 API. You want something much more flexible... if you need a good reason, high-DPI should be enough. Pixels as a form of screen UI measurement had to go. WinUI is not an old thing... it's the most recent version of UWP and XAML.
3) Yeh... MS business products are going all cloud... where they belong. And... well replacing their products isn't quite what you may think. Azure is substantially more lock-in for companies than Windows and Office ever was. Same for AWS and Google Cloud. Pretty much every Fortune 1000 company will pay monthly bills (of enormous scale) to MS, Google AND Amazon for many many years.
4) Microsoft's headcount will almost certainly double or triple with their new business model. Though many of the legacy people are probably on the way out.
In a ".NET Core" world, you should have considerably less trouble with that. I know I've been managing my projects from the dotnet command line tool for a while now. The GUI was always kind of an inconvenience for that.
.NET.
Of course you could use the GUI to stage some changes to the project file, but before checking it in, you should remove all the VS specific cruft and slim it down to pure
On the other hand, if you're still programming in C and C++ (I write Linux kernel modules in VS) you're screwed. I think this is because Microsoft realizes that C and C++ are purely for people who like pain and probably don't care about code quality anyway.