Tomorrow's embedded developers are where today's embedded developers are- in China, Taiwan, Korea and Japan.
Why? Because that's where "all" the hardware is being built. Doh.
I do see a fair number of "demo" programmers from European countries, so I'm sure there'll be more than few people who can do embedded stuff. That said a lot of the current demoscene stuff starts out really small but ends up taking hundreds of megabytes in RAM.
Lastly, 256KB of RAM is quite a lot. A lot more than what the early Apple II computers had.
I had an Apple II clone, and a clone of the very good Apple manuals. Even 64KB was a lot back then:).
why should we send humans to Mars in the near future?
Wouldn't it be better to spend a smaller amount of money to figure out how to build better space stations?
Without faster than light travel if humans are heading anywhere beyond the moon, they are going to be spending a LOT of time in space.
So we should work on making better space stations than the current _crap_ we have. Dig out some of those "old" designs which spin to create artificial gravity or make much better ones.
I personally don't think Mars will be that attractive once you've worked out how to build good space stations. The asteroids belt will be useful, and I suppose other cheap places for extracting resources to supply a space colony with. Mars is not cheap - once you land, getting back out is hard.
The Romans had gladiators and circuses to distract them from real problems.
Perhaps people are happy to pay for _extremely_ expensive suicide missions, that'll be a candidate for reality TV I guess.
"Abortion, on the other hand, invariably and without doubt kills innocent human beings"
It is a popular Christian doctrine that all have sinned.
Thus along with other popular doctrines _if_ fetuses/unborn babies are human beings, then they're not innocent, and if they don't become followers of Jesus somehow, they are likely to end up in hell.
Therefore if you are a Christian it's probably best not to perform or have an abortion - since 1) I don't think you can be sure what will happen to the fetus/unborn baby after that. 2) It's not as likely to glorify God (last but not least).
"At which point, both democracy and economics are going to make everyone from my generation and those that follow my generation into slaves to the needs of the elderly,"
How about just stop fighting stuff like obesity and smoking so much? Then there won't be so many elderly:).
Definitely educate everyone of the dangers etc, but don't ban smoking, and don't ban fattening foods.
Have education campaigns and _tax_ the stuff more. You want to ban smoking in bars? Don't. Just tax bars that allow smoking more.
Then if people still want to do that sort of stuff and die earlier, let them! Maybe give the exceptional "contributors" a medal or cert for their sacrifice for the country:).
People say lung cancer treatment is expensive. But so is the other sort of cancer treatment.
People die eventually - most antismoking studies ignore that, and/or do bullshit stuff like factor in lost _future_ earnings as a cost. I've looked at so many, they all "spin" it.
If more people stop dying from heart disease (obesity) and lung cancer (smoking), more of them will start dying of other cancers or stroke (see Japan for examples). And those are expensive too - plus you have to support them for many more years.
If people actually smarten up and take actions to live longer without having to be _forced_ to, that's a good thing, and I'm sure they'll also be smart enough to figure something out.
I must say that in Japan there's a high smoker ratio, but they still don't seem to drop dead as early as one would expect.
"If Ron Paul could have stopped the Iraq war he damn well should have."
What do you expect politicians to do, if the voters just keep voting for either Twiddledee or Twiddle-dumber?
It's like the sheep keep electing one of two wolves to chomp on them, even if an alleged sheep stands for election, they still keep electing proven wolves:).
OK they could all be wolves in sheeps clothing... Too bad then.
AFAIK freebsd 4 (and earlier) allows you to add delays and set levels of packet loss.
So all you need are three machines: client, "pipe", server.
Do a netcat or something to see how fast things are without scp.
The trouble is if your Gbps NICs don't actually do Gbps speeds, there are a fair number of those out there that can't sustain 1Gbps. Fortunately nowadays most onboard NICs aren't too crappy.
Yeah, I don't really see how this solves the problem it's allegedly for. And it potentially creates a whole bunch of other problems.
I'm sure you won't have a special camera reserved for taking pictures of someone powerful doing something wrong. You might go "hey that guy can't do that!", *click-clack*. "Then oh crap, this is the same camera I used for all those 1000 watermarked pictures I put online, what now?".
It's trying to solve the wrong problem. The real problems as you mentioned are detection and being able to do something about it.
If the photo is yours, it's usually not hard to prove it's yours - you'd have the _full_ collection of shots, and they'd have just one shot. You might even have established a recognizable style.
So what if you actually take amazing photos? Lots of people can do that too[1]. If it's just luck that differentiates you from the others then you're like an amateur in a casino trying to put food on the table...
I personally think such people should get a different day job, and do photography as a hobby/part time till they figure out what sort of stuff actually makes money.
That'll be better for the market in the long run.
[1] I hear there's this Indian guy who does pretty good wedding photos for really cheap, 3 days after the shots you get a leather briefcase (personalized with names etc) with the photos arranged in theme, the works. OK the minus is there might be one or two shots where the bride and bridegroom look like they're in a Bollywood set/pose, but I'm sure that can be fixed;).
Photographers should be thankful that their jobs aren't as easily outsourced - one actually has to be there to take the shot.
The point is is it a good idea in the first place- given the potential overall long term pluses and minuses?
Say it makes stealing very slightly more expensive, but at the same time it makes it easier for ignorant whistleblowers/journalists/bloggers to get harmed when doing stuff that's beneficial to society as a whole.
Is it then still worth it?
Are you going to carry two cameras around - one for taking professional pictures of sunsets etc, and one for taking pictures of cops shooting some guy without due process?
Look how "careful" the Gov was when they emailed the whistleblower email addresses to everyone and Dick Cheney...
IMO the tech is crap for its official alleged purpose.
If the watermark is obstrusive enough to survive a cropping, then pro-photographers are going to complain about fidelity loss etc.
If people copy my work and claim its theirs, let's see them create more new works, then we'll see who is the "real thing".
That's a flawed car analogy. I know how these sort of things work.
Revocation is putting the key/cert on a "List of keys/certs that are no longer valid". The use of public revocation lists is usually optional in sane products (even in IE it's a configurable option), in a nonfascist country.
Say someone somehow revokes your pgp keys. Maybe OTHER people might no longer trust your keys when they see the revocation, but you can still decrypt your data. Even if the keys are corrupted or deleted, as long as you have a backup of your keyring (and remember the passphrases of the keys at the point of backup), you can restore your keys and decrypt the data (or backed up encrypted data). Then you reissue new keys, let everyone know etc.
If you use some silly crap which _MUST_ "phone home" to verisign/microsoft/etc in order to check for revoked keys, then you have to figure out how to convince verisign/microsoft/etc to unrevoke your keys. Such a product would be defective by design - as it relies on you being able to contact a 3rd party - an extra unnecessary dependency on a 3rd party beyond your influence/control.
If you don't use such crap, your data doesn't magically become inaccessible.
If you like car analogies - just because someone tells the whole world that your car key is no longer valid, doesn't mean your spare car key stops working with an identical backed up copy of your car. This so long as your car can be configured to not check with the rest of the world. If you buy a defective car you won't be able to use your car when there's no network connectivity, so don't do that:).
Revocation affects you if you need a valid cert to access stuff outside your control.
Someone revokes your passport, you can't travel anymore. Someone revokes the client cert you use to access your online bank, you can't login anymore. That's not a bug, that's a feature. If some crook managed to do that to your cert, you'd probably want it revoked anyway so that nobody including the crook can keep using the cert.
Of course if the NSA etc revokes your certs against your will, then you'll be thinking bug, and they'll be thinking feature. But let's not talk about the hypothetical future in case it happens earlier than we like;).
Not all the facebook apps force you to invite 20 friends in order to use them, if you find those rude/evil (like chain letters or ponzie schemes) you should remove them.
"There are just gargantuan wads of cash to be made by whoring the database or appps infrastructure to advertisers and marketeers."
I'm curious - where does all that money come from though? If those people aren't actually buying the stuff you sell...
If it's the NSA sure, might be useful info to have around even if it doesn't make them money:).
That's still a bad excuse for banning, given that it's not a "sure death" experience.
Have higher taxes on bars that allow smoking. Then there is a choice for BOTH smokers AND nonsmokers - they can go to whichever bars they want. Tweak the taxes gradually till you have an acceptable ratio.
The Gov makes more money my way. And hopefully taxes less in other areas:).
Banning will reduce bar revenue, and thus alcohol tax revenue. Unless you are trying to make money from fines- which is a bad idea.
I'm a nonsmoker, and I do enter bars where there are smokers (and drinkers). To me that's part of the deal. Just by entering a typical bar you increase your odds of dying - some drunk might kill you (even by accident;) ).
What next? Ban smokers from smoking when their nonsmoking friends are around?
1) The tech was stolen in the past 2) China can most certainly hit stuff beyond the Rockies - since they can currently send stuff into orbit and even to the moon. Whether this is because of the tech they stole or from other sources (Russians, in-house) who knows?
But seriously why would China attack the USA? China might attack Taiwan (e.g. due to a cascade of "mustn't lose face" events), and maybe a few other small countries around it, but attack their biggest customer? Why?
The USA is more likely to attack China than the other way round.
So being able to strike back (even if not that effectively) will help discourage the USA from attacking China.
But that's why I don't understand why so many of those socialist european countries are so against smoking, when they are so worried about "aging population" and creaking health services.
Sure discourage people from smoking, and educate them on the dangers. But don't make it impossible.
Tax tobacco enough and the smokers pay for their own "funeral" and everyone else's:).
If smokers survive past retirement age, they'll still be paying tobacco taxes. Give the best "donors" a cert of appreciation or something;).
A lot of the antismoking stats seem to assume that nonsmokers never die. Worse - some even use the potential lost future earnings of a smoker who dies early as a "cost", which is _bullshit_. Smokers dying early means you don't need to support them later. Unless they are dying so early ( <25 ) when they haven't yet fully paid for the cost of bringing them up etc.
Maybe a smoker dying at 40 or 50, from lung cancer might be expensive. But dying from some other cancer is quite expensive too, and if the "nanny state" country has to take care of them from 60 till 80 when they finally die it gets more expensive.
As for obesity. IMO dying from a heart attack isn't that bad a way to go. But diabetes is.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure they can accumulate.
I'd like to see some studies on what happens in a packed subway compartment or train full of commuters with cellphones.
Lots of rude people on Slashdot too but sure looks like a lot of us aren't going to get a chance to breed.
:)
Oh well...
Idiots? That's not idiocy you're seeing.
It's something worse. Just confirms to me that the ICANN are a corrupt lot.
How do they detect encryption?
If it's the entropy, jpg and bzipped files have similar entropy too.
Are they interfering with those downloads as well?
How about https?
The less constrained the better, I'm lazy :). It's probably getting harder and harder to find smaller stuff...
Tomorrow's embedded developers are where today's embedded developers are- in China, Taiwan, Korea and Japan.
:).
Why? Because that's where "all" the hardware is being built. Doh.
I do see a fair number of "demo" programmers from European countries, so I'm sure there'll be more than few people who can do embedded stuff. That said a lot of the current demoscene stuff starts out really small but ends up taking hundreds of megabytes in RAM.
Lastly, 256KB of RAM is quite a lot. A lot more than what the early Apple II computers had.
I had an Apple II clone, and a clone of the very good Apple manuals. Even 64KB was a lot back then
Why build your own? Start with prebuilt.
How about a gameboy?
http://www.loirak.com/gameboy/gbprog.php
"an Australia-sized freighter full of hydrocarbons could explode"
While in theory the hydrocarbons could "explode" and turn to gas, it wouldn't be as spectacular (or easy) without an oxidizer.
why should we send humans to Mars in the near future?
Wouldn't it be better to spend a smaller amount of money to figure out how to build better space stations?
Without faster than light travel if humans are heading anywhere beyond the moon, they are going to be spending a LOT of time in space.
So we should work on making better space stations than the current _crap_ we have. Dig out some of those "old" designs which spin to create artificial gravity or make much better ones.
I personally don't think Mars will be that attractive once you've worked out how to build good space stations. The asteroids belt will be useful, and I suppose other cheap places for extracting resources to supply a space colony with. Mars is not cheap - once you land, getting back out is hard.
The Romans had gladiators and circuses to distract them from real problems.
Perhaps people are happy to pay for _extremely_ expensive suicide missions, that'll be a candidate for reality TV I guess.
"Abortion, on the other hand, invariably and without doubt kills innocent human beings"
It is a popular Christian doctrine that all have sinned.
Thus along with other popular doctrines _if_ fetuses/unborn babies are human beings, then they're not innocent, and if they don't become followers of Jesus somehow, they are likely to end up in hell.
Therefore if you are a Christian it's probably best not to perform or have an abortion - since
1) I don't think you can be sure what will happen to the fetus/unborn baby after that.
2) It's not as likely to glorify God (last but not least).
'because only God Himself is wise enough to evaluate whether anything is "beneficial to society as a whole."'
;) ).
Sure, but I think he gave some of us brains (unfortunately?
Whether we use them or not, the Corporations (e.g. Monsanto, Big Media) and others (rulers) will make their choices and moves.
The more intelligence and power you have the more responsible you are for what happens.
Blessed must be the extremely stupid, for how can God hold them responsible for much? They can bumble along merrily, oblivious to things.
"At which point, both democracy and economics are going to make everyone from my generation and those that follow my generation into slaves to the needs of the elderly,"
:).
:).
How about just stop fighting stuff like obesity and smoking so much? Then there won't be so many elderly
Definitely educate everyone of the dangers etc, but don't ban smoking, and don't ban fattening foods.
Have education campaigns and _tax_ the stuff more. You want to ban smoking in bars? Don't. Just tax bars that allow smoking more.
Then if people still want to do that sort of stuff and die earlier, let them! Maybe give the exceptional "contributors" a medal or cert for their sacrifice for the country
People say lung cancer treatment is expensive. But so is the other sort of cancer treatment.
People die eventually - most antismoking studies ignore that, and/or do bullshit stuff like factor in lost _future_ earnings as a cost. I've looked at so many, they all "spin" it.
If more people stop dying from heart disease (obesity) and lung cancer (smoking), more of them will start dying of other cancers or stroke (see Japan for examples). And those are expensive too - plus you have to support them for many more years.
If people actually smarten up and take actions to live longer without having to be _forced_ to, that's a good thing, and I'm sure they'll also be smart enough to figure something out.
I must say that in Japan there's a high smoker ratio, but they still don't seem to drop dead as early as one would expect.
"If Ron Paul could have stopped the Iraq war he damn well should have."
:).
What do you expect politicians to do, if the voters just keep voting for either Twiddledee or Twiddle-dumber?
It's like the sheep keep electing one of two wolves to chomp on them, even if an alleged sheep stands for election, they still keep electing proven wolves
OK they could all be wolves in sheeps clothing... Too bad then.
AFAIK freebsd 4 (and earlier) allows you to add delays and set levels of packet loss.
So all you need are three machines: client, "pipe", server.
Do a netcat or something to see how fast things are without scp.
The trouble is if your Gbps NICs don't actually do Gbps speeds, there are a fair number of those out there that can't sustain 1Gbps. Fortunately nowadays most onboard NICs aren't too crappy.
I wonder how many people are doing the following approach:
:).
Get the girl pregnant, get married, get to know the girl.
The "conventional" approach is the other way around of course
Of course for us slashdotters there's step 0) - find a girl...
Yeah, I don't really see how this solves the problem it's allegedly for. And it potentially creates a whole bunch of other problems.
I'm sure you won't have a special camera reserved for taking pictures of someone powerful doing something wrong. You might go "hey that guy can't do that!", *click-clack*. "Then oh crap, this is the same camera I used for all those 1000 watermarked pictures I put online, what now?".
It's trying to solve the wrong problem. The real problems as you mentioned are detection and being able to do something about it.
If the photo is yours, it's usually not hard to prove it's yours - you'd have the _full_ collection of shots, and they'd have just one shot. You might even have established a recognizable style.
Lots of dry spells = fluke or one hit wonder?
;).
So what if you actually take amazing photos? Lots of people can do that too[1]. If it's just luck that differentiates you from the others then you're like an amateur in a casino trying to put food on the table...
I personally think such people should get a different day job, and do photography as a hobby/part time till they figure out what sort of stuff actually makes money.
That'll be better for the market in the long run.
[1] I hear there's this Indian guy who does pretty good wedding photos for really cheap, 3 days after the shots you get a leather briefcase (personalized with names etc) with the photos arranged in theme, the works. OK the minus is there might be one or two shots where the bride and bridegroom look like they're in a Bollywood set/pose, but I'm sure that can be fixed
Photographers should be thankful that their jobs aren't as easily outsourced - one actually has to be there to take the shot.
The point is is it a good idea in the first place- given the potential overall long term pluses and minuses?
Say it makes stealing very slightly more expensive, but at the same time it makes it easier for ignorant whistleblowers/journalists/bloggers to get harmed when doing stuff that's beneficial to society as a whole.
Is it then still worth it?
Are you going to carry two cameras around - one for taking professional pictures of sunsets etc, and one for taking pictures of cops shooting some guy without due process?
Look how "careful" the Gov was when they emailed the whistleblower email addresses to everyone and Dick Cheney...
IMO the tech is crap for its official alleged purpose.
If the watermark is obstrusive enough to survive a cropping, then pro-photographers are going to complain about fidelity loss etc.
If people copy my work and claim its theirs, let's see them create more new works, then we'll see who is the "real thing".
You call remakes creative?
Same plot, maybe a few new "accounting effects", but that's it.
That's a flawed car analogy. I know how these sort of things work.
:).
;).
Revocation is putting the key/cert on a "List of keys/certs that are no longer valid". The use of public revocation lists is usually optional in sane products (even in IE it's a configurable option), in a nonfascist country.
Say someone somehow revokes your pgp keys. Maybe OTHER people might no longer trust your keys when they see the revocation, but you can still decrypt your data. Even if the keys are corrupted or deleted, as long as you have a backup of your keyring (and remember the passphrases of the keys at the point of backup), you can restore your keys and decrypt the data (or backed up encrypted data). Then you reissue new keys, let everyone know etc.
If you use some silly crap which _MUST_ "phone home" to verisign/microsoft/etc in order to check for revoked keys, then you have to figure out how to convince verisign/microsoft/etc to unrevoke your keys. Such a product would be defective by design - as it relies on you being able to contact a 3rd party - an extra unnecessary dependency on a 3rd party beyond your influence/control.
If you don't use such crap, your data doesn't magically become inaccessible.
If you like car analogies - just because someone tells the whole world that your car key is no longer valid, doesn't mean your spare car key stops working with an identical backed up copy of your car. This so long as your car can be configured to not check with the rest of the world. If you buy a defective car you won't be able to use your car when there's no network connectivity, so don't do that
Revocation affects you if you need a valid cert to access stuff outside your control.
Someone revokes your passport, you can't travel anymore. Someone revokes the client cert you use to access your online bank, you can't login anymore. That's not a bug, that's a feature. If some crook managed to do that to your cert, you'd probably want it revoked anyway so that nobody including the crook can keep using the cert.
Of course if the NSA etc revokes your certs against your will, then you'll be thinking bug, and they'll be thinking feature. But let's not talk about the hypothetical future in case it happens earlier than we like
"I think the point is that the backup is encrypted too. Are you implying that a bank would keep an unencrypted off site backup!?"
The point is the keys should be backed up too. Naturally you should have proper procedures to control the use of keys that are revoked.
If the keys and data are backed up, I don't see a rogue revoke/delete causing a huge unrecoverable problem.
There are bigger problems to worry about.
Not all the facebook apps force you to invite 20 friends in order to use them, if you find those rude/evil (like chain letters or ponzie schemes) you should remove them.
:).
"There are just gargantuan wads of cash to be made by whoring the database or appps infrastructure to advertisers and marketeers."
I'm curious - where does all that money come from though? If those people aren't actually buying the stuff you sell...
If it's the NSA sure, might be useful info to have around even if it doesn't make them money
That's still a bad excuse for banning, given that it's not a "sure death" experience.
:).
;) ).
Have higher taxes on bars that allow smoking. Then there is a choice for BOTH smokers AND nonsmokers - they can go to whichever bars they want. Tweak the taxes gradually till you have an acceptable ratio.
The Gov makes more money my way. And hopefully taxes less in other areas
Banning will reduce bar revenue, and thus alcohol tax revenue. Unless you are trying to make money from fines- which is a bad idea.
I'm a nonsmoker, and I do enter bars where there are smokers (and drinkers). To me that's part of the deal. Just by entering a typical bar you increase your odds of dying - some drunk might kill you (even by accident
What next? Ban smokers from smoking when their nonsmoking friends are around?
1) The tech was stolen in the past
2) China can most certainly hit stuff beyond the Rockies - since they can currently send stuff into orbit and even to the moon. Whether this is because of the tech they stole or from other sources (Russians, in-house) who knows?
But seriously why would China attack the USA? China might attack Taiwan (e.g. due to a cascade of "mustn't lose face" events), and maybe a few other small countries around it, but attack their biggest customer? Why?
The USA is more likely to attack China than the other way round.
So being able to strike back (even if not that effectively) will help discourage the USA from attacking China.
I'm not a smoker.
:).
;).
But that's why I don't understand why so many of those socialist european countries are so against smoking, when they are so worried about "aging population" and creaking health services.
Sure discourage people from smoking, and educate them on the dangers. But don't make it impossible.
Tax tobacco enough and the smokers pay for their own "funeral" and everyone else's
If smokers survive past retirement age, they'll still be paying tobacco taxes. Give the best "donors" a cert of appreciation or something
A lot of the antismoking stats seem to assume that nonsmokers never die. Worse - some even use the potential lost future earnings of a smoker who dies early as a "cost", which is _bullshit_. Smokers dying early means you don't need to support them later. Unless they are dying so early ( <25 ) when they haven't yet fully paid for the cost of bringing them up etc.
Maybe a smoker dying at 40 or 50, from lung cancer might be expensive. But dying from some other cancer is quite expensive too, and if the "nanny state" country has to take care of them from 60 till 80 when they finally die it gets more expensive.
As for obesity. IMO dying from a heart attack isn't that bad a way to go. But diabetes is.