WebAssembly is not a compressed form of JavaScript. In fact, it has no relationship to JavaScript whatsoever. It allows site owners to run bytecode with the same memory semantics of C on their visitor's machine. As such, there is a lot of things that WebAssembly can do and were left out of the JavaScript design, such as smashing strings and overflowing buffers without the runtime noticing (because to it all the memory used by the script is just a giant array of bytes anyway).
All of an user's valuable and sensitive information are accessible by its user account. Putting files into system32 is no longer the goal of hackers. And it is also less important now that the browsers have such a huge attack surface and are used as frequently as they are today; who needs persistence for malware when they can freely download machine code into a computer every time its owner opens a web page.
The article says that even though they didn't write, didn't build houses, didn't settle, didn't have a common language, the builders of stonehenge were fine mathematicians and geographers and were able to set up giant right-angled triangles on a geographic scale. And this huge knowledge didn't reach us because it was destroyed... by Christians.
It is in the nature of words to have more than one meaning, and to acquire and lose ones depending on the cultural environment and the shifting sensibility. The very usage of the word "hack" to mean "to program" is the result of a fad in a certain scene. Don't play the dictionary police, it's infantile and counterproductive.
Advertising is the bane of society.
By itself it distorts the free market against the consumer's interest, and today the mechanism of catching the customer's attention in order to administer commercial propaganda has the effect of promoting the exchange of false or emotional information at a massive level, which can go as far as undermining the democratic process and the pacific coexistence of people.
Relax, I was just responding to a precise comment. What I wrote didn't scratch the company that you so vehemently defend: it's still there for you to admire and support.
Are DAB receivers inexpensive now?
Do they require much more power in comparison to an FM receiver? I reckon that many radio listeners do so on batteries.
Also, how nice is the experience when the signal quality is less than perfect? Again, radio is often listened to while on the move.
It's an umbrella term and as such it doesn't mean much by itself: it groups together a broad collection of different approaches to the problem of finding answers to a question without providing a programmatic solution. Being now a buzzword, it's used as a marketing label to make a product or a company look cool. In most current products, it refers to some glorified interpolation algorithm which requires quite a lot of natural intelligence to be set up and will only provide answers in a narrow domain. While it is of course a promising field of research, it should be no surprise when its current results don't live up to the hype.
Skype's new user interfaces are terrible (I use the plural number because since the MS acquisition the program has been changing its UI continuously). They are not intuitive, not self-describing, not discoverable, hide the most used features, and just drop features that wouldn't fit in the UI design of the moment. They are also slow and buggy. They make me feel like a old man because every time I have to use Skype, I find out that something has changed and now I don't know how to use it anymore. This usually happens in front of the people I am conferencing with, which makes it even more embarassing.
Even earlier than MS DOS, IBM PC ROM BIOS routines parsed the CR and LF characters that way. And that behaviour was probably inherited from CP/M, which in its turn inherited it from the PDP machines of the 60s.
To be honest, the CR + LF line ending is closer to be a standard for text interchange than any other combination of CR and/or LF. Many IETF RFCs mandate the use of CR + LF.
Pfft, the usual EU fearmongering coming from the anglosphere.
Here is a list off the top of my head of the EU legislation initiatives that should have caused death and destruction according to a vast number of commenters here:
- RoHS would have caused the formation of tin whiskers in all sorts of electronic devices, thereby bringing about the end of the world as we know it;
- the ban on incandescent light bulbs would have caused the economy to crash and the pollution to increase;
- the tracking cookie alert policy would have been impossible to implement and result in massive fines for the average blog owner.
None of those bleak predictions have become true, yet people keep to genuinely believe that the EU is ran by incompetent fools who are out to destroy the lives of their citizens with byzantine laws and obtuse obligations. This time they're trying with privacy laws. Hint: unless your business model involves trading user data, if you're already following the common best practices for storing sensitive information, you won't need to do much in order to be compliant (here's a hipster intro page about the new regulation).
A buffer overflow is one thing, they can cause bad things to happen, but you really don't want your ABS to throw an exception or start the garbage collector at the wrong time.
And what would you want it to do? Return a nonsensical result and keep the program going on without detecting the fault? In the past many safety-critical applications were coded in Ada because of the language's safety-oriented design, which included exceptions.
An internship is not employment. This is people paying for the training of a person that they believe wouldn't get that training otherwise. Many companies have similar programs to get customers that wouldn't otherwise buy their product, and many universities have similar programs to get students that wouldn't otherwise sign up to their courses.
Hypocrisy. Being outraged because somebody else (not him!) is willing to pay a symbolic amount of money for a woman to have an internship working on the project, is just like being against charity because it discriminates against non-poor people. The truth is that he's the one pushing a political agenda into an otherwise technical environment, using the weight of his programming skills to make as much noise as possible while he theatrically slams the door.
Internet was never perfect, but it definitely was better before it started turning people into ignorant a**holes, with no respect for any authority, and filled with hate for everything that differs from their person.
I don't know if the centralization of web service providers played a critical role in this: it's easy to argue that the mechanism of monetization of outrage has contributed a lot, but... on the other hand I don't know whether not having a Google or a Facebook would have made a difference.
Perhaps it's a matter of how people are wired, and having more chances of contact with other individuals automatically means having more chances for herd behaviour to surface.
Not an appropriate analogy. Cruise control does the one thing you command it to do, that is to keep the speed constant, and it will do it perfectly and with no exceptions, because that function is well-defined and is better done by a machine than a human. You needn't worry about maintaining the speed when cruise control is engaged. On the other hand, you command the "autopilot" to take full control of the car without causing accidents, which is an undefined problem (and Tesla is very careful about not defining explicit boundaries), and then it might fail to do that even in the most favourable conditions, such as a straight motorway with perfect visibility. When the "autopilot" is engaged, you need to be constantly wary about the possibility of it doing an abrupt and incomprehensible manouver that might result in your death and the passengers' (this is what Tesla themselves are stating in their public statement when they blame the driver). It's not even remotely in the same domain of dangerousness as cruise control.
UEFI secure boot and Microsoft-mandated secure boot are two different things.
Microsoft took the secure boot specification, which is neutral, and added their own requirements, which aren't. They mandated themselves to have literally as much power as possible, while at the same time leaving to the user as little power to take back ownership of their own machine as it was possible without the world accusing them of taking over the PC market.
It's not the fault of our autopilot, that apparently crashed the car into a wall under perfect driving conditions, it's the fault of the wall for being there without protections, and of the driver for trusting our autopilot(tm) system to auto-pilot his car. We are happy however to relieve the driver's memory from the guilt of having been burnt to death by our batteries that catch fire when punctured, because the rescue operators acted fast enough to remove his incapacitated body from the wreck before it was destroyed by flames, as is expected of a true Tesla owner. But we aren't insensitive, as people tell us when we blame the dead driver of a car of ours for an accident even before an investigation has taken place: we're really really sorry!
Sorry Tesla, I support you, I'd love to own one of your cars, and I completely understand that it's impossible to design a car that prevents a reckless driver from killing himself or others; however blaming the world a priori for what could be intrinsic problems of your undoubtedly excellent products is inelegant. Just market the autopilot as a safety feature and not as a driver replacement.
The World Bank lends money in exchange for letting your country's resources be exploited by capitalists. I don't know if "taking back control" is the most appropriate expression here. Also, the Uzbek seem pretty content with the water diversion operated by the Soviets. I don't know how free they are to express themselves, though. I smell there's some politics at play here.
People admire big egos and big money. Throwing away expensive stuff for everyone to admire eternally does check all the boxes. And boy, were the pictures cool.
They will be more remembered than the actual technological advancement marked by the launch, which is much bigger.
Unfortunately this doesn't happen often, because the politicians who are supposed to set up and fund the surveillance are the same who would end up on the receiving end of the bribe.
Also, politicians tacitly support kickbacks when it's a company from their nation who is paying an official in a foreign country in order to receive a contract from its government.
The private sector has been known for milking its nation's military budgets for decades. The interaction between the military and the large national conglomerates has a history of bribery, kickbacks, late deliveries, budget overruns, and underperforming results.
Slashdot Mirror
WebAssembly is not a compressed form of JavaScript. In fact, it has no relationship to JavaScript whatsoever. It allows site owners to run bytecode with the same memory semantics of C on their visitor's machine. As such, there is a lot of things that WebAssembly can do and were left out of the JavaScript design, such as smashing strings and overflowing buffers without the runtime noticing (because to it all the memory used by the script is just a giant array of bytes anyway).
All of an user's valuable and sensitive information are accessible by its user account. Putting files into system32 is no longer the goal of hackers. And it is also less important now that the browsers have such a huge attack surface and are used as frequently as they are today; who needs persistence for malware when they can freely download machine code into a computer every time its owner opens a web page.
The article says that even though they didn't write, didn't build houses, didn't settle, didn't have a common language, the builders of stonehenge were fine mathematicians and geographers and were able to set up giant right-angled triangles on a geographic scale. And this huge knowledge didn't reach us because it was destroyed... by Christians.
It is in the nature of words to have more than one meaning, and to acquire and lose ones depending on the cultural environment and the shifting sensibility. The very usage of the word "hack" to mean "to program" is the result of a fad in a certain scene. Don't play the dictionary police, it's infantile and counterproductive.
Of course an image classifier will classify an unknown image depending on what images it has been trained on.
Advertising is the bane of society.
By itself it distorts the free market against the consumer's interest, and today the mechanism of catching the customer's attention in order to administer commercial propaganda has the effect of promoting the exchange of false or emotional information at a massive level, which can go as far as undermining the democratic process and the pacific coexistence of people.
Java is one of the fastest, if not the fastest, non-native language.
Relax, I was just responding to a precise comment. What I wrote didn't scratch the company that you so vehemently defend: it's still there for you to admire and support.
Because of subsidies, they're paying Tesla without ever getting one.
Are DAB receivers inexpensive now?
Do they require much more power in comparison to an FM receiver? I reckon that many radio listeners do so on batteries.
Also, how nice is the experience when the signal quality is less than perfect? Again, radio is often listened to while on the move.
It's an umbrella term and as such it doesn't mean much by itself: it groups together a broad collection of different approaches to the problem of finding answers to a question without providing a programmatic solution. Being now a buzzword, it's used as a marketing label to make a product or a company look cool. In most current products, it refers to some glorified interpolation algorithm which requires quite a lot of natural intelligence to be set up and will only provide answers in a narrow domain. While it is of course a promising field of research, it should be no surprise when its current results don't live up to the hype.
Skype's new user interfaces are terrible (I use the plural number because since the MS acquisition the program has been changing its UI continuously). They are not intuitive, not self-describing, not discoverable, hide the most used features, and just drop features that wouldn't fit in the UI design of the moment. They are also slow and buggy. They make me feel like a old man because every time I have to use Skype, I find out that something has changed and now I don't know how to use it anymore. This usually happens in front of the people I am conferencing with, which makes it even more embarassing.
To be honest, the CR + LF line ending is closer to be a standard for text interchange than any other combination of CR and/or LF. Many IETF RFCs mandate the use of CR + LF.
Here is a list off the top of my head of the EU legislation initiatives that should have caused death and destruction according to a vast number of commenters here:
None of those bleak predictions have become true, yet people keep to genuinely believe that the EU is ran by incompetent fools who are out to destroy the lives of their citizens with byzantine laws and obtuse obligations. This time they're trying with privacy laws. Hint: unless your business model involves trading user data, if you're already following the common best practices for storing sensitive information, you won't need to do much in order to be compliant (here's a hipster intro page about the new regulation).
And what would you want it to do? Return a nonsensical result and keep the program going on without detecting the fault? In the past many safety-critical applications were coded in Ada because of the language's safety-oriented design, which included exceptions.
An internship is not employment. This is people paying for the training of a person that they believe wouldn't get that training otherwise. Many companies have similar programs to get customers that wouldn't otherwise buy their product, and many universities have similar programs to get students that wouldn't otherwise sign up to their courses.
Hypocrisy. Being outraged because somebody else (not him!) is willing to pay a symbolic amount of money for a woman to have an internship working on the project, is just like being against charity because it discriminates against non-poor people.
The truth is that he's the one pushing a political agenda into an otherwise technical environment, using the weight of his programming skills to make as much noise as possible while he theatrically slams the door.
Internet was never perfect, but it definitely was better before it started turning people into ignorant a**holes, with no respect for any authority, and filled with hate for everything that differs from their person.
I don't know if the centralization of web service providers played a critical role in this: it's easy to argue that the mechanism of monetization of outrage has contributed a lot, but... on the other hand I don't know whether not having a Google or a Facebook would have made a difference.
Perhaps it's a matter of how people are wired, and having more chances of contact with other individuals automatically means having more chances for herd behaviour to surface.
Not an appropriate analogy. Cruise control does the one thing you command it to do, that is to keep the speed constant, and it will do it perfectly and with no exceptions, because that function is well-defined and is better done by a machine than a human. You needn't worry about maintaining the speed when cruise control is engaged.
On the other hand, you command the "autopilot" to take full control of the car without causing accidents, which is an undefined problem (and Tesla is very careful about not defining explicit boundaries), and then it might fail to do that even in the most favourable conditions, such as a straight motorway with perfect visibility. When the "autopilot" is engaged, you need to be constantly wary about the possibility of it doing an abrupt and incomprehensible manouver that might result in your death and the passengers' (this is what Tesla themselves are stating in their public statement when they blame the driver). It's not even remotely in the same domain of dangerousness as cruise control.
UEFI secure boot and Microsoft-mandated secure boot are two different things.
Microsoft took the secure boot specification, which is neutral, and added their own requirements, which aren't. They mandated themselves to have literally as much power as possible, while at the same time leaving to the user as little power to take back ownership of their own machine as it was possible without the world accusing them of taking over the PC market.
Sorry Tesla, I support you, I'd love to own one of your cars, and I completely understand that it's impossible to design a car that prevents a reckless driver from killing himself or others; however blaming the world a priori for what could be intrinsic problems of your undoubtedly excellent products is inelegant. Just market the autopilot as a safety feature and not as a driver replacement.
The World Bank lends money in exchange for letting your country's resources be exploited by capitalists. I don't know if "taking back control" is the most appropriate expression here. Also, the Uzbek seem pretty content with the water diversion operated by the Soviets. I don't know how free they are to express themselves, though. I smell there's some politics at play here.
People admire big egos and big money. Throwing away expensive stuff for everyone to admire eternally does check all the boxes. And boy, were the pictures cool.
They will be more remembered than the actual technological advancement marked by the launch, which is much bigger.
Unfortunately this doesn't happen often, because the politicians who are supposed to set up and fund the surveillance are the same who would end up on the receiving end of the bribe. Also, politicians tacitly support kickbacks when it's a company from their nation who is paying an official in a foreign country in order to receive a contract from its government.
The private sector has been known for milking its nation's military budgets for decades. The interaction between the military and the large national conglomerates has a history of bribery, kickbacks, late deliveries, budget overruns, and underperforming results.