Only if you are easily amazed. Plasma 5 does pretty much the same thing that desktop environments over ten years ago were already doing, only using fewer resources. Plasma 5 just has more bells and whistles, but it is very, very far from amazing.
While this is obviously a trolling attempt, the fact is that there is an element of truth in it. An example: we have been told for years now that RSA-1024 is insecure, and that it should have been ditched long ago. In truth, no RSA-1024 certificates have been compromised because an RSA-1024 has been broken. The largest RSA keys that have been brute-forced were RSA-768 a few years. After many months of work on many different systems in the network. I.e. after a huge effort, that nobody has so far attempted to replicate for RSA-1024. The projection was that RSA-1024 would have been publicly broken by about now. It hasn't happened. Why? Because it is way too onerous a process, both financially and time-wise. If you have a certificate meant to be valid for 10 years and meant to protect really critical, world-importance data then, sure, use a bigger RSA key or ECC. Otherwise, nobody is going to bother attempting to break your RSA-1024 key - if the bad guys/government agencies really wanted your data (which they probably don't anyway) they have far more efficient, faster, cheaper and better methods at their disposal to obtain it than trying to brute-force your key.
In a nutshell, security people engaging in hype, probably for job-security reasons.
To native speakers, I mean. I have noticed that (educated) foreigners who learnt English as a second language all too often seem to be able to write better English than native speakers. Learning English natively will give you an edge if you aspire to become a horse racing commentator for the BBC. For writing up research papers (or books) on physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, etc. not so much.
Thus opening the door to time-honored account-settling-by-reporting approach to things, nurtured and encouraged by all sorts of authoritarian, dictatorial systems worldover and throughout history.
I was under the impression that the forces of the free market would solve the problem, just as they solve all the problems. You mean to say that that's not true?
I don't believe it. Maybe some really have that work capacity, but most do not. I do believe that they were spending 100 hours a week in the office, or in front of the computer. But that does not necessarily imply 100 hours a week of work. This is BS.
I guess that all these years holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy are starting to take their toll. Soon the guy will be eager to take his chances vis-a-vis US extradition, rather than carrying on wasting his life.
They are saying that, as alternative theories become less likely, there is more reason to believe the Standard Model could be correct.
The Standard Model IS correct.
Scientific theories can never be proved to be correct. They will agree with experiments, and they will make predictions that are later verified, but that doesn't imply that they are correct. They are useful, that's all. Newton's theory of gravity is (extremely) useful, even if it is known NOT to be correct. The Standard Model is probably similar - it is an extraordinary computational tool, but (maybe) nothing more.
The Segway was released with a lot of fanfare and after a lot of a secrecy and teasing. Some luminaries (like the late Steve Jobs) who had privileged previous access to it, claimed that it was going to revolutionized transportation. We all know what happened. Motorized scooters, albeit less expensive, are trying to occupy the much-needed gap that the Segway tried to occupy. My prediction: motorized scooters are a fad. In a year's time, most of us will have forgotten about them. It will still be possible to see some in the wild, but they will be nothing much beyond a niche product. They might even come and go, over the years, like the yo-yo; but they are not going to revolutionize anything.
No actors. I mean, no flesh and blood actors. Actors will be all-CGI entities. Studios are obviously interested in this - imagine how much money they will save per movie by not having to pay the salary of the prima donna of the moment. Having said this, I imagine that whoever comes up with the hit CGI actor of the day will allow other entities the use of the actor - for a hefty fee. Nevertheless, since CGI actors will not be constrained like their human counterparts (e.g. they can be in several movies simultaneously) the fees will probably not reach the ridiculous heights that they do now.
So the article claims. Where is it improving rapidly? I interact with the Google Assistant and Alexa on a regular basis, and they seem to be just as limited and non-discerning as they have always been. I still have to speak slowly to them, while articulating carefully. And it still is the case that it does not take much in the way of background sound to throw them out of kilter. Thus, where is voice recognition improving rapidly?
They would have been able to that many years ago, when Google was not utterly despicable, or at least no quite as despicable. What can you realistically do with $20B that you can't do with $10B?
And it is because of people like you that such things happen in the first place. This reminds me of a certain English professor, who shall remain nameless. He was the archetypical example of the lefty professor - long hair, beard, hippy appearance, sandals, anti-nuclear... You name, he was it. However, his research was supported, to large extent, by the military. His justification? The military were going to throw away their money anyhow, they might just as well throw it away at him. This was tongue in cheek - but he kept getting money from the military.
Slashdot Mirror
You reveal such numbers when they are great. When they are not, you just keep quiet. Par for the course.
Plasma 5 is pretty amazing
Only if you are easily amazed. Plasma 5 does pretty much the same thing that desktop environments over ten years ago were already doing, only using fewer resources. Plasma 5 just has more bells and whistles, but it is very, very far from amazing.
replace Gnome with CDE
Do you really believe they'd improve the RHEL desktop like that?
Sure they would: just about anything would be an improvement over Gnome.
The last time worms came close to "ravaging the Internet" was 15 years ago.
For very elastic definitions of "close".
Everything has been fine since then.
And just about everything was mostly fine then. It was, once again, 95% hype and 5% reality.
While this is obviously a trolling attempt, the fact is that there is an element of truth in it. An example: we have been told for years now that RSA-1024 is insecure, and that it should have been ditched long ago. In truth, no RSA-1024 certificates have been compromised because an RSA-1024 has been broken. The largest RSA keys that have been brute-forced were RSA-768 a few years. After many months of work on many different systems in the network. I.e. after a huge effort, that nobody has so far attempted to replicate for RSA-1024. The projection was that RSA-1024 would have been publicly broken by about now. It hasn't happened. Why? Because it is way too onerous a process, both financially and time-wise. If you have a certificate meant to be valid for 10 years and meant to protect really critical, world-importance data then, sure, use a bigger RSA key or ECC. Otherwise, nobody is going to bother attempting to break your RSA-1024 key - if the bad guys/government agencies really wanted your data (which they probably don't anyway) they have far more efficient, faster, cheaper and better methods at their disposal to obtain it than trying to brute-force your key.
In a nutshell, security people engaging in hype, probably for job-security reasons.
To native speakers, I mean. I have noticed that (educated) foreigners who learnt English as a second language all too often seem to be able to write better English than native speakers. Learning English natively will give you an edge if you aspire to become a horse racing commentator for the BBC. For writing up research papers (or books) on physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, etc. not so much.
Thus opening the door to time-honored account-settling-by-reporting approach to things, nurtured and encouraged by all sorts of authoritarian, dictatorial systems worldover and throughout history.
A small, but important, triumph.
AI and VR have become synonymous of hype.
I was under the impression that the forces of the free market would solve the problem, just as they solve all the problems. You mean to say that that's not true?
Microsoft has never been in any way constrained by ethical behavior. Why would this be any different?
They have wanted this for decades. But, reality and hype are two different things.
I don't believe it. Maybe some really have that work capacity, but most do not. I do believe that they were spending 100 hours a week in the office, or in front of the computer. But that does not necessarily imply 100 hours a week of work. This is BS.
It will cost as much as Google can get away with. The $40 per device figure is just an estimate that may, or may not, pan out in the real world.
I guess that all these years holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy are starting to take their toll. Soon the guy will be eager to take his chances vis-a-vis US extradition, rather than carrying on wasting his life.
They are saying that, as alternative theories become less likely, there is more reason to believe the Standard Model could be correct.
The Standard Model IS correct.
Scientific theories can never be proved to be correct. They will agree with experiments, and they will make predictions that are later verified, but that doesn't imply that they are correct. They are useful, that's all. Newton's theory of gravity is (extremely) useful, even if it is known NOT to be correct. The Standard Model is probably similar - it is an extraordinary computational tool, but (maybe) nothing more.
The Segway was released with a lot of fanfare and after a lot of a secrecy and teasing. Some luminaries (like the late Steve Jobs) who had privileged previous access to it, claimed that it was going to revolutionized transportation. We all know what happened. Motorized scooters, albeit less expensive, are trying to occupy the much-needed gap that the Segway tried to occupy. My prediction: motorized scooters are a fad. In a year's time, most of us will have forgotten about them. It will still be possible to see some in the wild, but they will be nothing much beyond a niche product. They might even come and go, over the years, like the yo-yo; but they are not going to revolutionize anything.
No actors. I mean, no flesh and blood actors. Actors will be all-CGI entities. Studios are obviously interested in this - imagine how much money they will save per movie by not having to pay the salary of the prima donna of the moment. Having said this, I imagine that whoever comes up with the hit CGI actor of the day will allow other entities the use of the actor - for a hefty fee. Nevertheless, since CGI actors will not be constrained like their human counterparts (e.g. they can be in several movies simultaneously) the fees will probably not reach the ridiculous heights that they do now.
"Through out"? Really? Well, at least you can spell "through".
So the article claims. Where is it improving rapidly? I interact with the Google Assistant and Alexa on a regular basis, and they seem to be just as limited and non-discerning as they have always been. I still have to speak slowly to them, while articulating carefully. And it still is the case that it does not take much in the way of background sound to throw them out of kilter. Thus, where is voice recognition improving rapidly?
And a huge middle finger to you, Facebook.
We thought that no company could as despicable as Microsoft, but you guys seem to be getting there pretty quickly.
Trust Microsoft at your own peril.
They would have been able to that many years ago, when Google was not utterly despicable, or at least no quite as despicable. What can you realistically do with $20B that you can't do with $10B?
And it is because of people like you that such things happen in the first place. This reminds me of a certain English professor, who shall remain nameless. He was the archetypical example of the lefty professor - long hair, beard, hippy appearance, sandals, anti-nuclear ... You name, he was it. However, his research was supported, to large extent, by the military. His justification? The military were going to throw away their money anyhow, they might just as well throw it away at him. This was tongue in cheek - but he kept getting money from the military.