Nah, they're usually taking that video and posting it on Facebook, expecting a few friends to answer (probably without even watching the clip) and then forgetting about it completely. People rarely look at pictures and videos they've taken, especially when taken with a phone.
I disagree with the "quality" metric though. A single citation is all you need to be influential? Nice, then I guess just about every paper is influential. Seriously though, you need more than just one citation to be influential, and you also need to look at who cites them. Is it all Chinese authors citing themselves? Is it all authors at the same university? Are the cited papers actually relevant, or are they just ticking a box in the previous work section?
Call me biased all you wish, but I still don't trust Chinese researchers in Chinese universities or research centers. The government has too much of an interest in making sure China appears strong and ahead of the US, and they aren't known for caring about whether they do things properly or not.
They did no such thing, you just interpreted their comment as a personal attack for some reason. You feel like being rich and famous makes "so many people" lose grip on reality, but the truth is that most people who're rich and famous are normal and fine, it's just that you don't hear about them. Hence, selection bias.
I can tell you're stuck in the past, grandpa, cause millenials aren't generally interested in Blink 182, whose most successful years were in the late 90s. You don't see toddlers listening to punk rock, and when they're of the age to start getting interested, they'll usually go for something current.
But that still revolves around using the exact same piece of code, since in this case you can't really rewrite APIs. That can still be a problem, but its scope would be dramatically reduced compared to software patents.
Absolutely, and that's assuming we could even work and evolve in whatever host universe we'd have. For all we know, we're a simulation with completely different rules of physics and spatial characteristics and we'd be unable to even comprehend the outside world.
Seriously people. This is reality. Deal with it. Just freaking get over it. Just because the universe doesn't fit into your limited imagination is no reason to suspect that we are in a simulation or that an invisible man in the sky created the world, or that we are reincarnated from aliens chained to a volcano.
Eh, I'd say the actual point is that our universe is indistinguishable from a sufficiently advanced simulation, so "breaking out" of it is pointless. We may as well just appreciate the fact our universe, be it real or not, is relatively stable, systematic and logical. What does it matter if it's a simulation or not, when for us it's all there is?
You seem to be under the impression that memory-safe code inherently implies a virtual machine or some sort of runtime. That's quite far from the case: both Rust and Go compile directly to machine code, much like C. They may have additional elements that C doesn't have (Go is a bit heavier with a garbage collector and richer type information, while Rust is basically C++ with more compile-time safety and no C baggage to worry about), but that doesn't necessarily impact them in severe ways, and it exposes many things that C does poorly (reflection, multithreading, etc.) in a much more programmer-friendly fashion.
Memory safety doesn't mean jumping from C to Java.
I'm talking about places where you don't even have the memory space to load up the basic libraries for Python (or hell, even C). If you can fit Python in your microcontroller, then awesome, I'm not a C fan in the slightest but I understand why sometimes it's the only choice (or one out of a very limited selection).
No it doesn't, C#'s just classified under the second category because it's still largely Windows-centric. I'm guessing SQL often isn't reported because it's being used through an application written in another language.
I think you might want to wake up from 1990, Javascript is significantly more popular than Perl these days. Virtually all websites use Javascript in some form, and there's a lot of them. I'm guessing R is getting a boost for non-programmers using it, since that gives it a much larger pool to work from.
Frankly, I'd say even that's a stretch. If you're looking for a job, you're probably looking for something more specific than "programming". Frontend programmers, systems programmers, embedded programmers, game programmers, web programmers are all going to want to brush up on specific skillsets. Learning C is pointless for a web dev, just like you'd never learn Python in embedded development.
Seriously Miss Universe is only once a year. Yet I'm seeing "which is the most popular language" every month or so here. Who gives a shit? Certainly not your CPU. It all gets compiled down to assembly anyway. THAT is the most popular language, even if few humans code in it nowadays all computers read it.
Who gives a shit? All you have to notice is that every single time this is posted, there's usually around 200 comments or more before the story leaves the front page.
I used to do aerial photography and video with my RC plane. The flight intention changes once you slap on a camera. Take the go pro off the drones and see how many would still fly it for the pleasure of flight. None.
It's funny how you stereotype people who enjoy something extremely similar to what you do. There's plenty of people who enjoy drone flight for the sole purpose of flying, though the camera remains an integral part of the experience since it allows you to see your drone's movement from the first person. There's even drone agility competitions which are all about maneuvering drones on extremely difficult courses, not filming. Drones just have the ability to also take beautiful shots from high on up, but that's not necessarily their sole purpose.
It's not fair to just look at the act in isolation. Hacking to piss someone off? Meh. Hacking to steal money? Bad, but not critical. Hacking for the specific purpose of getting people killed? Yeah, no, throw that fucking idiot in jail and I don't ever want to see him near computers again.
Curing *the whole category* will require a truly fundamental progress in biology.
Why, though? At this point it seems just as likely that we'll find a miracle cure to cure all cancers as it is that we'll just figure out treatments for every kind one by one.
Fuck no. Teaching C would be teaching a whole bunch of bad habits, antiquated programming designs, very heavy focus on low-level management when most software these days is high level abstraction, and it'd make the overwhelming majority of students see programming in a similar way as math: boring, hard and something they want to avoid as much as humanly possible.
You're basically pulling the "We walked to school uphill both ways" stereotype here. No, your way of learning back in the day was not the best. Congratulations on doing it or whatever, but from a pedagogical perspective, it's fucking terrible. You want to ease students in, not drop them into a pit of snakes and tell them "have fun!" That might work for a limited subset of students, but it won't work for most.
On top of that, I think coding at a young age should take advantage of the fact it's structured and expose students to various language paradigms. Don't just teach traditional imperative programming, teach functional programming (which is what Mathematica is great for, or Haskell), teach logical programming (Prolog), teach OOP, teach Lisp-style languages, teach as many different ways of thinking as possible. I've seen people like you with years of C experience struggle extremely hard to grasp functional programming because it's a completely different way of thinking. If you expose people to all of these paradigms at the same time, you avoid them ending up thinking "programming is always like this."
1) Android's system partition is, indeed, write-protected. Users can never write to it. However, there has to be a partition with RW rights for data storage, and that's also where all userland apps reside. This is important because users do, in fact, install software regularly, and also updates are pushed out fairly consistently. Having to remount the drive every time would be way more hassle than it's worth if you wanted it to be actually secure in any fashion.
2) All of this is besides the point because the manufacturer is doing it. They could embed that behavior in the motherboard, in a hardware chip separate from the main CPU, they could put it in the firmware, they can do anything. Your "solution" is for a problem completely orthogonal to the issue at hand.
Eh. Old games had to work around poor performance and lack of hardware acceleration, but their graphical fidelity goal was also laughably low. As long as pixels were on the screen in what roughly looked like something, it was good to go. Today's games could never work without graphics acceleration, but that isn't to say they're easy or simple to do. It's fine if you don't grasp the algorithmic complexity of things such as texture atlasing or tiled rendering, but don't imply that they're easy stuff compared to the old 2D stuff.
The fact that they offer an adapter rather dispels this theory.
Yeah, so what happens when it breaks? That'll be $20. What if you want to charge at the same time? I'm gonna bet a Y-connector for $20-30. And when you buy a Lightning headset, you've effectively just locked yourself into Apple products through a fucking pair of headphones. It is and always has been about locking people into their ecosystem or making them pay a tax for avoiding some of it.
Frankly, that some people approve of this choice boggles my mind.
While it is arguable that yes, the NSA's job is to spy on other countries, it still invalidates the claim that "Unless you're clearly up to no good, you don't have to worry about spyware like this."
All you have to do to be the target of spyware like this is "be interesting", or an unfortunate collateral in the quest towards someone who is interesting. "Interesting" here is rather loosely defined and can basically encompass most of the world population.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, they're usually taking that video and posting it on Facebook, expecting a few friends to answer (probably without even watching the clip) and then forgetting about it completely. People rarely look at pictures and videos they've taken, especially when taken with a phone.
I disagree with the "quality" metric though. A single citation is all you need to be influential? Nice, then I guess just about every paper is influential. Seriously though, you need more than just one citation to be influential, and you also need to look at who cites them. Is it all Chinese authors citing themselves? Is it all authors at the same university? Are the cited papers actually relevant, or are they just ticking a box in the previous work section?
Call me biased all you wish, but I still don't trust Chinese researchers in Chinese universities or research centers. The government has too much of an interest in making sure China appears strong and ahead of the US, and they aren't known for caring about whether they do things properly or not.
They did no such thing, you just interpreted their comment as a personal attack for some reason. You feel like being rich and famous makes "so many people" lose grip on reality, but the truth is that most people who're rich and famous are normal and fine, it's just that you don't hear about them. Hence, selection bias.
I can tell you're stuck in the past, grandpa, cause millenials aren't generally interested in Blink 182, whose most successful years were in the late 90s. You don't see toddlers listening to punk rock, and when they're of the age to start getting interested, they'll usually go for something current.
But that still revolves around using the exact same piece of code, since in this case you can't really rewrite APIs. That can still be a problem, but its scope would be dramatically reduced compared to software patents.
Absolutely, and that's assuming we could even work and evolve in whatever host universe we'd have. For all we know, we're a simulation with completely different rules of physics and spatial characteristics and we'd be unable to even comprehend the outside world.
Seriously people. This is reality. Deal with it. Just freaking get over it. Just because the universe doesn't fit into your limited imagination is no reason to suspect that we are in a simulation or that an invisible man in the sky created the world, or that we are reincarnated from aliens chained to a volcano.
Eh, I'd say the actual point is that our universe is indistinguishable from a sufficiently advanced simulation, so "breaking out" of it is pointless. We may as well just appreciate the fact our universe, be it real or not, is relatively stable, systematic and logical. What does it matter if it's a simulation or not, when for us it's all there is?
I don't know about you, but I don't think I'd trust the results of a security app made by a company I've never heard of before.
Physical analog media are not covered by the DMCA and do not have any DRM. It's generally a good idea to actually read what you're replying to.
You seem to be under the impression that memory-safe code inherently implies a virtual machine or some sort of runtime. That's quite far from the case: both Rust and Go compile directly to machine code, much like C. They may have additional elements that C doesn't have (Go is a bit heavier with a garbage collector and richer type information, while Rust is basically C++ with more compile-time safety and no C baggage to worry about), but that doesn't necessarily impact them in severe ways, and it exposes many things that C does poorly (reflection, multithreading, etc.) in a much more programmer-friendly fashion.
Memory safety doesn't mean jumping from C to Java.
In this context, I mean people who are programmers first, as opposed to statisticians or whatever else (the job title, basically).
I'm talking about places where you don't even have the memory space to load up the basic libraries for Python (or hell, even C). If you can fit Python in your microcontroller, then awesome, I'm not a C fan in the slightest but I understand why sometimes it's the only choice (or one out of a very limited selection).
No it doesn't, C#'s just classified under the second category because it's still largely Windows-centric. I'm guessing SQL often isn't reported because it's being used through an application written in another language.
I think you might want to wake up from 1990, Javascript is significantly more popular than Perl these days. Virtually all websites use Javascript in some form, and there's a lot of them. I'm guessing R is getting a boost for non-programmers using it, since that gives it a much larger pool to work from.
PHP is almost exclusively used on Linux and is restricted to web development, whereas you can see Java everywhere. Same as C# is mostly Windows.
Frankly, I'd say even that's a stretch. If you're looking for a job, you're probably looking for something more specific than "programming". Frontend programmers, systems programmers, embedded programmers, game programmers, web programmers are all going to want to brush up on specific skillsets. Learning C is pointless for a web dev, just like you'd never learn Python in embedded development.
Seriously Miss Universe is only once a year. Yet I'm seeing "which is the most popular language" every month or so here. Who gives a shit? Certainly not your CPU. It all gets compiled down to assembly anyway. THAT is the most popular language, even if few humans code in it nowadays all computers read it.
Who gives a shit? All you have to notice is that every single time this is posted, there's usually around 200 comments or more before the story leaves the front page.
I used to do aerial photography and video with my RC plane. The flight intention changes once you slap on a camera. Take the go pro off the drones and see how many would still fly it for the pleasure of flight. None.
It's funny how you stereotype people who enjoy something extremely similar to what you do. There's plenty of people who enjoy drone flight for the sole purpose of flying, though the camera remains an integral part of the experience since it allows you to see your drone's movement from the first person. There's even drone agility competitions which are all about maneuvering drones on extremely difficult courses, not filming. Drones just have the ability to also take beautiful shots from high on up, but that's not necessarily their sole purpose.
It's not fair to just look at the act in isolation. Hacking to piss someone off? Meh. Hacking to steal money? Bad, but not critical. Hacking for the specific purpose of getting people killed? Yeah, no, throw that fucking idiot in jail and I don't ever want to see him near computers again.
Curing *the whole category* will require a truly fundamental progress in biology.
Why, though? At this point it seems just as likely that we'll find a miracle cure to cure all cancers as it is that we'll just figure out treatments for every kind one by one.
Fuck no. Teaching C would be teaching a whole bunch of bad habits, antiquated programming designs, very heavy focus on low-level management when most software these days is high level abstraction, and it'd make the overwhelming majority of students see programming in a similar way as math: boring, hard and something they want to avoid as much as humanly possible.
You're basically pulling the "We walked to school uphill both ways" stereotype here. No, your way of learning back in the day was not the best. Congratulations on doing it or whatever, but from a pedagogical perspective, it's fucking terrible. You want to ease students in, not drop them into a pit of snakes and tell them "have fun!" That might work for a limited subset of students, but it won't work for most.
On top of that, I think coding at a young age should take advantage of the fact it's structured and expose students to various language paradigms. Don't just teach traditional imperative programming, teach functional programming (which is what Mathematica is great for, or Haskell), teach logical programming (Prolog), teach OOP, teach Lisp-style languages, teach as many different ways of thinking as possible. I've seen people like you with years of C experience struggle extremely hard to grasp functional programming because it's a completely different way of thinking. If you expose people to all of these paradigms at the same time, you avoid them ending up thinking "programming is always like this."
1) Android's system partition is, indeed, write-protected. Users can never write to it. However, there has to be a partition with RW rights for data storage, and that's also where all userland apps reside. This is important because users do, in fact, install software regularly, and also updates are pushed out fairly consistently. Having to remount the drive every time would be way more hassle than it's worth if you wanted it to be actually secure in any fashion.
2) All of this is besides the point because the manufacturer is doing it. They could embed that behavior in the motherboard, in a hardware chip separate from the main CPU, they could put it in the firmware, they can do anything. Your "solution" is for a problem completely orthogonal to the issue at hand.
Eh. Old games had to work around poor performance and lack of hardware acceleration, but their graphical fidelity goal was also laughably low. As long as pixels were on the screen in what roughly looked like something, it was good to go. Today's games could never work without graphics acceleration, but that isn't to say they're easy or simple to do. It's fine if you don't grasp the algorithmic complexity of things such as texture atlasing or tiled rendering, but don't imply that they're easy stuff compared to the old 2D stuff.
The fact that they offer an adapter rather dispels this theory.
Yeah, so what happens when it breaks? That'll be $20. What if you want to charge at the same time? I'm gonna bet a Y-connector for $20-30. And when you buy a Lightning headset, you've effectively just locked yourself into Apple products through a fucking pair of headphones. It is and always has been about locking people into their ecosystem or making them pay a tax for avoiding some of it.
Frankly, that some people approve of this choice boggles my mind.
While it is arguable that yes, the NSA's job is to spy on other countries, it still invalidates the claim that "Unless you're clearly up to no good, you don't have to worry about spyware like this."
All you have to do to be the target of spyware like this is "be interesting", or an unfortunate collateral in the quest towards someone who is interesting. "Interesting" here is rather loosely defined and can basically encompass most of the world population.