The only reason that practical effects have aged a little better in certain areas is because many times it's easier to make it look truly realistic with practical effects
I don't think that's quite it, they fail in completely different ways - this is a rubber mask vs this looks grafted on with a computer - and once you've seen good CGI it's so much easier to spot the flaws in bad CGI. You just don't have that contrast with practical effects because they've mostly stood still. Modern CGI, well these days you mostly don't notice unless they want you to notice.
Officially? Probably. Unofficially? Already happening. Go look at YouTube for people taping shit to the wheel and whatnot to turn it into an autonomous vehicle. Google said that as well, on the very first test where they let non-project Google employee "drive" the cars you had a guy rummaging through a bag in the back seat to find a cell phone charger while speeding down the highway. Those systems are going to get better, people are going to get sloppier. Your navigation "assistant" that picks the right lanes and makes the right exits. Your speed limit "assistant" when the adaptive cruise control don't have anyone to follow. Your traffic sign "assistant" to make sure you don't run any yield or stop signs. Your pedestrian detection "assistant" to make sure crossings are clear. The list will go on.
Of course I'm pretty much waiting for the first vehicular suicide or manslaughter charge because the autopilot totally misread the situation and the driver wasn't paying attention, but I don't think it's going to really stop anything. Maybe for a day or a week everybody pays attention but then it's back to not really paying attention. I mean my commute is already boring as hell, if the car actually drove it too my brain would wander off to preserve my sanity. Because apart from the difficulty of computer vision most days my commute is pretty much steps like this:
1. exit garage 2. turn right, speed 30 km/h 3. while (pedestrian in crossing) {
wait(); } 4. turn left 5. while (red light) {
wait(); } 6. turn right, new speed 50 km/h 7. while (car from right) {
wait(); } (...more of same) 50. turn left onto parking lot, find parking spot, stop
Really if they can just get a proper model of the real world in the computer, you could almost replace me with a small shell script. And I totally wouldn't mind.
By compelling, I mean, demonstrating some objective benefit that we mostly agree on.
What's the objective benefit of Spirit and Opportunity? Sure, a bit of knowledge that's mostly useless outside Mars but has it produced any tangible benefits for mankind? Robots do it cheaper, but you don't get a return on investment, at least not measured in dollars. Not that space exploration is alone, what's the ROI on CERN? National parks? Protecting endangered species? Preserving historic artifacts and buildings? Supporting art and culture? Sure, some people only care about what directly impacts their lifestyle and wallet. But I'm glad that some look longer than the tip of their nose.
Pushing our science and knowledge is the way we create capabilities and very often the tangible benefit is the culmination of a long series of not so obviously beneficial advances. We know that doing a manned Mars mission requires solving many technological challenges, that I would argue by themselves have value. For example, maybe we have to find a way to fix radiation damage to the cells, that could have far-reaching applications. Sure we could just not go and not have the problem, but often it's our desire to go faster and higher for less time and resources that trickle down to commodities.
As for preservation our culture is in constant change, I can't be my parents. My children - if I get around to having any - can't be me. Mars couldn't be a museum of human culture, nor should it. But it's the carrying on of human culture, that we as a people don't disappear. From the chanting it sounds like a lot of Americans feel the same about their country. If you can feel that strongly about 300 million people, why not about 7 billion people? In any case, Mars will be nothing like that for ages. For the foreseeable future it'll be a research outpost like Antarctica, just more inhospitable.
Would you care to name some of these talented users whose move to FreeBSD is causing Linux to collapse from within?
If people grossly insulted by a relatively small change say they will make a much bigger change they're usually bluffing or a very vocal minority. Like Windows 8 sucks, I'm moving to Mac/Linux. The new ribbon sucks, I'm moving to Open/LibreOffice. So systemd sucks, allegedly. And because of that you're not switching to/making a non-systemd Linux distro but a non-Linux distro? And it doesn't solve the compatibility issues, if Linux-oriented software starts depending on systemd you either have to implement systemd, port all the software or do without. Which is a rather phyrric victory.
Not paying up for blackmail is not being a cheapskate. It makes zero sense to pay blackmail money. So you pay the $2k today, what did that actually gain you? What's to stop them from coming back tomorrow and demanding another $2k or the week after and demanding $40k? What's to stop someone else from demanding $2k? Paying to keep information secret is a game you can't win.
As a one-time payoff I agree and you're a fool to pay if many people know, if you're under blackmail you should expect it to be ongoing. However, they don't want to lose you as a blackmail victim either so in a one-on-one situation you might try to reach some sort of understanding of how much it's worth to you and if they demand more you'll just own up to it and they get nothing. Better bring your poker face though.
Watching someone else code is the most maddening thing. They always seem to take the long way of doing something; use the mouse and doing eight clicks where a keyboard shortcut would do, etc. I do my best to not watch people code when I'm trying to help them. I would have killed someone years ago if I did that full time.
Same here, it's one thing to discuss structure, interfaces and workflow but pair programming is two people painting a house with one brush. Even a training session with me typically starts with show and tell then handing off simple assignments to work on your own pace. You have the documentation, compiler, you can run it on some test data and I'm often going to outline a solution in the beginning. Even if we're two experienced developers working on it I'd rather play tag team or good developer/bad developer trying to improve or make the code break.
Personally I find my mental span - that is to say, roughly how much of the solution I can have planned out in my head at once is much bigger if I don't have to chit-chat and explain every little thing. And very often that's how the solutions really come together and work, instead of having bits and pieces that looked okay on their own but just mismatch when put together. Because very often that leads to kludges, that lead to messes, that lead to "there be dragons", that lead to dirty fixes, that turns into an unmaintainable mess. Without falling into the architectual perfection trap, it's amazing how some good design choices keeps the system consistent and much easier to understand.
Demand is primarily need-driven, if you buy an electric car today because it works for your commute now it'll still work for people "like you" in five years. It's not like the car 5 years from now will drive the same commute significantly better or faster, maybe it can drive longer but that's for a different market. And the quasi-autonomous driving still requires an alert licensed driver in the seat 100% of the time, until that changes it's just bling. Oh and imagine the regulatory hurdles of getting a car model approved for autonomous driving, it'll be that specific sensor package on this particular model and the chances of anything being "backported" is slim to none.
The full version has to my knownledge never been published, only the edited versions so I assume that is what is being made available. Now if it was an adaptation that would be copyrighted, like Disney turning old folk tales into movies. But it's not really an adaptation, it's an excerpt at least that is what is claimed. You can't find an old book with a hundred pages, pick ten and say this "adaptation" is copyrighted anew. Once the copyright expires the whole text is passed into the public domain and you can quote any parts you want. So...
If the published versions are a strict subset of Anne Frank's writings, the copyright is expired. That they published selected diary entries can't prevent others from quoting them too. If they've done more than to retract certain entries and actually edit the diary then yes it's still copyrighted but its authenticity as the literal diary of Anne Frank is compromised. They can't have it both ways, either it is her diary and the copyright is expired or it's a post-war original work of authorship based on her diary, but not both.
The TL;DR version - "The end is near!". It's 15 years after the Patriot Act that was supposedly the end times and we're having this debate because cell phone vendors locked up their phones with the best privacy-protecting encryption technology ever in consumer devices. Even a safe is less private than a locked iPhone at the moment, because they will drill that if they have to. I'm not saying it's all flowers and sunshine, but it's not exactly a few rebel freedom fighters against the evil empire either.
This will mean they don't have so much cost per launch, so they can either pass those savings on to their customer (customer wins), don't pass those savings on to their customer (SpaceX profits), or pass SOME savings on to the customer (so both parties benefit).
And possibly exploit a long tail of not-so-reliable re-re-re-furbished rockets for cheap non-essential payloads. Right now they're "too expensive to fail", but as long as they can offer at least 80% reliability to orbit for half the cost (30% second stage, 3% fuel, 17% refurb instead of 70% new) it'll still be cheaper in the long run. Unless you're doing something really exotic I can't imagine machining two satellites to the same specifications could be that much more expensive than one.
That means for instance if Netflix produces a show that mostly appeals to 4 year olds, that is fine. Mom and Dad think $9 a month is a cheap way to keep the kids occupied while they make dinner. Advertisers would hate that though because kids that age don't spend money.
A four year old is more than old enough to know what toy they want at the toy store, the money is in convincing the parents to buy merchandise. And unlike an 8yo or 12yo were you might have a reasonable discussion about money and allowance a 4yo just wants. And yes, even kindergardeners will spot a bad knock-off or homemade look-a-like so by far most parents go with official trademark products because it's simpler, even though they can be quite expensive. You don't need ads between shows when the shows are ads.
From TFP: In the 4 months since first detection, ASASSN-15lh radiated (1.1 +/- 0.2) * 10^52 ergs. If my math is right, that's 10^38 Joules/sec. or 10^35 kWh.
If you think that's bad, you should see the power bill...
So basically what it says is that jumping from Fedora 21 to 23 is unsupported, but 21 -> 22 and 22 -> 23 is supported. Well that's nice, so why can't I daisy chain updates? It's not unique to Linux, I'm sure everybody who had to reinstall Windows knows what I'm talking about.... first there's a bunch of updates, then you can install some more updates, then update the updater, then install the service pack, then install some more updates, then some more security patches to the last updates. If you don't want to do the conflict management, at least let it simulate success and let you schedule up several rounds of patching. That way it could say install 22, okay after installing this then 23 will be available, okay install that too in round 2, after that install all updates in round 3 and then you hit "go" and it all happens at once without further interaction. Obviously if one round fails don't proceed to the next, that way you should have an updated machin in one go.
Some perspective: There's 1.6 billion muslims in the world. Looking at the PEW research there's on the order of 10% or 160 million of those I consider to have a world view fundamentally opposed to modern society. The number of IS jihadists is on the order of 160,000 or 0.1% of that, it's damn fucking few and damn fucking many. And the kind of people that blow themselves up in 9/11, the Paris attacks and such are maybe 0.01% of that again, five and ten and twenty here and there don't really add up to much. Fighting for something is quite different than killing yourself for it.
What it means is the problem is escalation. If you start hitting on muslims indiscriminately, there'll be more radicals and more terror and more revenge attacks and... you really don't want to see what a WWIII with 2 billion Christians vs 1.6 billion Muslims looks like. It's not like IS is "der Führer" of Islam, they're just as much about pushing their fundamentalist views on other muslims that are too western and liberal and casually religious. Not to mention on one side of a sectarian war within Islam, like Catholic vs Protestant some 500 years ago.
They have been trying with their acts of provcation against the US, against Russia to turn this into a "us against them" war and it's dangerous. Far from all Germans were Nazis, but when you're dragged along and it's "you" = the muslims against "them" = the ones attacking the muslims you are likely to end up with a lot of people on the wrong side of this conflict. It's exactly what IS wants and to be the spearhead of this kind of total conflict. Basically it just has to run its course until either:
a) The muslim world realizes they have to march on Raqqa and topple this regime on their own, because they're a threat to everyone that doesn't follow their funamentalist views. or b) The muslim world will accept the western world using the heavy weapons to take them out, collateral damage be damned. Think WWII conquest of Nazi Germany and Japan, gloves off.
Send or receive a known kiddie porn image through GMail and they will tip the authorities. That hash check can be used for anything the government wants to find people in possession of, just hand them a hash and a NSL.
FYI, that assumes the only place it'd land it earth;) but seriously though, I think they've revealed as many crazy character traits as one is likely to have like Leela being a sewer mutant, Fry his own grandpa, Nibbler being a cuddly protector of the universe and so on. And the circular time-loop duplicates, any more and it'll start being like the end of Heroes or Doctor Who instead of a parody of time travel and the "grandfather paradox". Honestly I'd rather see something new.
We're currently at the point where Linux is pretty much at the point where it is no longer necessary to run Windows on a machine. The only real reason to run Windows outside of a VM today is, essentially, games and all the other applications that require certain hardware features. Which are few and far between by now.
Well, first of all a Linux + Windows in VM setup is a pretty complicated one to make and you still need a Windows license. And as far as I know, accelerated video is just as big an issue as accelerated 3D. Anything involving DRM and "protected media" or "software activation" will often intentionally fail to work in a VM hosted on an untrusted OS. And having some applications and files on one desktop and the rest on a different one is going to be annoying. Not to mention sharing of CDs/DVDs/BluRays, USB sticks, printers, wireless networks and so on is tedious. Now I've done it, but mostly as a last resort when there's no Linux alternative and it won't work in WINE.
As for Linux native, Linux gaming is not gaining steam despite a bunch of indie games (0.96%, down 0.02% on last Steam hardware survey). The truth is, most people could not run their software on Linux. You can always say there's replacements like LibreOffice instead of MS Office, GIMP instead of Photoshop and so on but I've heard that before, like 5 or 10 years ago. Didn't happen then, won't happen in the next 5 years either. The way Microsoft wants to push Windows 10 I'm guessing the OEMs get licenses almost free, you're even less likely than before to beat them on the sticker price.
And ultimately there no compelling Linux-only software, so in the end you get to pay the same (or more for a low-volume niche product) and spend lots of time because Linux + Windows in VM doesn't come by itself and to fiddle with clone software and to fiddle with WINE (sometimes works great, sometimes not) to get a desktop that's roughly equivalent. Unless you end up wanting to use one of the above services that will fail miserably, at which point you can either buy a new machine or wipe it and go back to pure Windows where your game will work. Or you can play Spotify with a free account, not available in Linux version AFAIK.
Don't get me wrong, I think open source works great for some things and when it does it's brilliant. But the pace at which it evolves is sometimes manic (let's redo the desktop, gotta break some eggs to make an omelet) and sometimes glacial (can we finally get smooth video with no tearing, OpenGL support not years behind standard). And usually the goal jumps to a new one, let's compete on touch-based tablets before you've hit the old ones like competing with traditional laptops. I wish it was less shifting with the trends and more focused on following through even if the traditional desktop now is "old news".
Going forward, as new silicon generations are introduced, they will require the latest Windows platform at that time for support.
If Windows 10 is required for support, it means Windows <10 is unsupported. Whether that means it will simply be unsupported and any problems you run into will be your own or if it simply won't run, ask Microsoft. But it won't be supported and it certainly won't use all the bells and whistles - though I don't think anyone asked for that.
Yes, real banks get robbed, but that takes some real time and effort and most of the time the robbers get caught. In contrast, the risk-to-reward ratio for virtual currency is so unbalanced that it's a natural target with minimal risks. No bullets flying around, no get-away cars, no bank guards, no logistics about hauling the cash away, no dye-packets to worry about. It's like a crime made in heaven.
At least here in Norway real world bank robberies are extremely rare, mainly because the traditional banks barely have money anymore. Most of them simply have an indoor ATM and that's all the cash they have. Apart from all that goes electronic, most the cash come from ATMs/withdrawals in stores, the stores collect it and it goes via armored cars to a few teller centrals before it's distributed to ATMs again. We had one such robbery 12 years ago where they got away with the equivalent of ~10 million USD, though all 13 involved were caught and convicted but in the grand scheme of things it's negligible. The banks themselves have become more investment/financing advisers, barely involved in the actual cash flow.
So their scams are much like our scams, trying to get virtually money in an account or sent to a different bank so they can withdraw it "legally". For the most part though they've stuck to hacking the client side and taking control over individual accounts, not the server side. Or at least that they care to tell us about, since it's not our money getting stolen I suppose they don't have much reason to tell us about it happening.
I wouldn't say it failed. As the article explains it does not mean the sensors failed to detect something, it means the sensors detected a glitch/malfunction/blockage and alerted the driver to take over. Presumably that means the test models lack redundancy and the ability to "vote out" malfunctioning gear, those are things that are relatively trivial to fix since it's purely a technical issue and not about the car's understanding of the surroundings. In fact over the test period they show about a 7x improvement on that to once >5000 miles. It's the other 20% that are interesting, after simulations:
the company calculated that 13 of these 69 manual disengagements would have resulted in contact of some sort with another road-user or (in two of the 13 cases) with a traffic cone. In 10 of these 13 events Google says its own technology was at fault, and in the remaining three, other drivers were to blame.
So that's in 424,331 miles of driving, if we don't blame it for the bad driving of others that's one potential accident per 42k miles. Now Google's cars have been hit 12 times in 1,8 millon miles = ~3 times in the same distance. So assuming it didn't have a human driver the score would be roughly:
Hit by other drivers (non-avoidable): 3 Hit by other drivers (avoided now by takeover): 3 Google hit accidents: 8 Google solo accidents (presumably other drivers have these too): 2
Is it great? No. It's also not terrible for a product in development, the important part is that these flaws are being found and fixed. There's only so much we can do about the human flaws...
The short version is that the company doesn't care who wrote the code, they care who owns the code. All work for hire is copyrighted by the company, having who wrote it in source control is just to aid the development process or place blame. That means everybody can grab any piece of source and do whatever, very rarely do you see inside sources mentioned. Once you have code that is not yours and not distinctly separated in a third party library as being someone else's you have to keep track of it. What if another coworker needs part of the same thing and copies half of it - not including the comment? What if you want to sell or sublicense the code, what part of it is yours and not? If the person writing the code is from Cuba, is there any import/export regulation issues? I seem to remember some crypto projects not accepting US contributions for that very reason. If your code is somehow going to end up at SpaceX, is it okay if part of the source code driving the rocket comes from China?
If somebody compares your source code to StackExchange, will there be unattributed code? And does that mean it was copy-pasted from that source from them, legally taken it from some other source or perhaps even yours is the original that somehow made it's way there. Companies are fairly indifferent to professional courtesy, but they're strongly opposed to license administration and legal liability costs, at least for a small snippet of code. If your employees wrote it then it's yours and that's the end of it. This also mandates that there's a system and guidelines in place so people know what they can and can't do and the overhead of maintaining the policy and training developers so they don't grab anything in source form with no regards to the license. Which some will do anyway, which is why you try to set up controls and gatekeepers so they don't. In short if you have any kind of process involved the overhead is going to eat up any savings you had going to StackExchange in the first place. And 95% of it is like finding the right place in the manual...
No, it is extremely simple. All the parties you mention are forgetting one thing. The customer is the one who pays. The customer is the boss. I vote with my wallet and my wallet says that if I can't get access to US content then I don't want access. Period.
So if I've written a library using GPL code and a company wants to buy it to use in their proprietary application I'm just supposed to "forget" that I don't have the rights to do that? Sorry, you chase down every person in the credits and get permission. Voting with your wallet just means from the choices offered or to walk away, not dictate reality.
That reads suspiciously like the justification why COBOL is still around.
And? Languages linger because the code has value. If your job is in development, a new and better tool makes you more effective. But it's not certain throwing out 30 years of COBOL code makes the business more effective. No matter what happens to Java, C# and Swift you can be sure that in 30 years we'll still be optimizing Javascript to run a billion browser scripts. That makes it a far safer bet than going with Ruby on Rails or whatever the fad of the day is.
So, your program allocates some memory. Should it initialize the memory to make sure it's all a bunch of zeros? Apparently, Nvidia doesn't think so. So, a program running on your OS requests some memory. Should the OS initialize the memory before handing it to the application? Apparently, Apple doesn't think so. Either answer is right.
Not really. An application will typically allocate and release memory all the time, being forced to clear it every time is massive overkill and a performance problem. The driver exposes the GPU memory, the OS allocates it to applications just like with RAM. It's the only one that knows when memory switches application context and must be cleared. So there's really only one sane solution.
Slashdot Mirror
The only reason that practical effects have aged a little better in certain areas is because many times it's easier to make it look truly realistic with practical effects
I don't think that's quite it, they fail in completely different ways - this is a rubber mask vs this looks grafted on with a computer - and once you've seen good CGI it's so much easier to spot the flaws in bad CGI. You just don't have that contrast with practical effects because they've mostly stood still. Modern CGI, well these days you mostly don't notice unless they want you to notice.
Officially? Probably. Unofficially? Already happening. Go look at YouTube for people taping shit to the wheel and whatnot to turn it into an autonomous vehicle. Google said that as well, on the very first test where they let non-project Google employee "drive" the cars you had a guy rummaging through a bag in the back seat to find a cell phone charger while speeding down the highway. Those systems are going to get better, people are going to get sloppier. Your navigation "assistant" that picks the right lanes and makes the right exits. Your speed limit "assistant" when the adaptive cruise control don't have anyone to follow. Your traffic sign "assistant" to make sure you don't run any yield or stop signs. Your pedestrian detection "assistant" to make sure crossings are clear. The list will go on.
Of course I'm pretty much waiting for the first vehicular suicide or manslaughter charge because the autopilot totally misread the situation and the driver wasn't paying attention, but I don't think it's going to really stop anything. Maybe for a day or a week everybody pays attention but then it's back to not really paying attention. I mean my commute is already boring as hell, if the car actually drove it too my brain would wander off to preserve my sanity. Because apart from the difficulty of computer vision most days my commute is pretty much steps like this:
1. exit garage
2. turn right, speed 30 km/h
3. while (pedestrian in crossing) {
wait();
}
4. turn left
5. while (red light) {
wait();
}
6. turn right, new speed 50 km/h
7. while (car from right) {
wait();
}
(...more of same)
50. turn left onto parking lot, find parking spot, stop
Really if they can just get a proper model of the real world in the computer, you could almost replace me with a small shell script. And I totally wouldn't mind.
By compelling, I mean, demonstrating some objective benefit that we mostly agree on.
What's the objective benefit of Spirit and Opportunity? Sure, a bit of knowledge that's mostly useless outside Mars but has it produced any tangible benefits for mankind? Robots do it cheaper, but you don't get a return on investment, at least not measured in dollars. Not that space exploration is alone, what's the ROI on CERN? National parks? Protecting endangered species? Preserving historic artifacts and buildings? Supporting art and culture? Sure, some people only care about what directly impacts their lifestyle and wallet. But I'm glad that some look longer than the tip of their nose.
Pushing our science and knowledge is the way we create capabilities and very often the tangible benefit is the culmination of a long series of not so obviously beneficial advances. We know that doing a manned Mars mission requires solving many technological challenges, that I would argue by themselves have value. For example, maybe we have to find a way to fix radiation damage to the cells, that could have far-reaching applications. Sure we could just not go and not have the problem, but often it's our desire to go faster and higher for less time and resources that trickle down to commodities.
As for preservation our culture is in constant change, I can't be my parents. My children - if I get around to having any - can't be me. Mars couldn't be a museum of human culture, nor should it. But it's the carrying on of human culture, that we as a people don't disappear. From the chanting it sounds like a lot of Americans feel the same about their country. If you can feel that strongly about 300 million people, why not about 7 billion people? In any case, Mars will be nothing like that for ages. For the foreseeable future it'll be a research outpost like Antarctica, just more inhospitable.
Would you care to name some of these talented users whose move to FreeBSD is causing Linux to collapse from within?
If people grossly insulted by a relatively small change say they will make a much bigger change they're usually bluffing or a very vocal minority. Like Windows 8 sucks, I'm moving to Mac/Linux. The new ribbon sucks, I'm moving to Open/LibreOffice. So systemd sucks, allegedly. And because of that you're not switching to/making a non-systemd Linux distro but a non-Linux distro? And it doesn't solve the compatibility issues, if Linux-oriented software starts depending on systemd you either have to implement systemd, port all the software or do without. Which is a rather phyrric victory.
Not paying up for blackmail is not being a cheapskate. It makes zero sense to pay blackmail money. So you pay the $2k today, what did that actually gain you? What's to stop them from coming back tomorrow and demanding another $2k or the week after and demanding $40k? What's to stop someone else from demanding $2k? Paying to keep information secret is a game you can't win.
As a one-time payoff I agree and you're a fool to pay if many people know, if you're under blackmail you should expect it to be ongoing. However, they don't want to lose you as a blackmail victim either so in a one-on-one situation you might try to reach some sort of understanding of how much it's worth to you and if they demand more you'll just own up to it and they get nothing. Better bring your poker face though.
Watching someone else code is the most maddening thing. They always seem to take the long way of doing something; use the mouse and doing eight clicks where a keyboard shortcut would do, etc. I do my best to not watch people code when I'm trying to help them. I would have killed someone years ago if I did that full time.
Same here, it's one thing to discuss structure, interfaces and workflow but pair programming is two people painting a house with one brush. Even a training session with me typically starts with show and tell then handing off simple assignments to work on your own pace. You have the documentation, compiler, you can run it on some test data and I'm often going to outline a solution in the beginning. Even if we're two experienced developers working on it I'd rather play tag team or good developer/bad developer trying to improve or make the code break.
Personally I find my mental span - that is to say, roughly how much of the solution I can have planned out in my head at once is much bigger if I don't have to chit-chat and explain every little thing. And very often that's how the solutions really come together and work, instead of having bits and pieces that looked okay on their own but just mismatch when put together. Because very often that leads to kludges, that lead to messes, that lead to "there be dragons", that lead to dirty fixes, that turns into an unmaintainable mess. Without falling into the architectual perfection trap, it's amazing how some good design choices keeps the system consistent and much easier to understand.
Demand is primarily need-driven, if you buy an electric car today because it works for your commute now it'll still work for people "like you" in five years. It's not like the car 5 years from now will drive the same commute significantly better or faster, maybe it can drive longer but that's for a different market. And the quasi-autonomous driving still requires an alert licensed driver in the seat 100% of the time, until that changes it's just bling. Oh and imagine the regulatory hurdles of getting a car model approved for autonomous driving, it'll be that specific sensor package on this particular model and the chances of anything being "backported" is slim to none.
The full version has to my knownledge never been published, only the edited versions so I assume that is what is being made available. Now if it was an adaptation that would be copyrighted, like Disney turning old folk tales into movies. But it's not really an adaptation, it's an excerpt at least that is what is claimed. You can't find an old book with a hundred pages, pick ten and say this "adaptation" is copyrighted anew. Once the copyright expires the whole text is passed into the public domain and you can quote any parts you want. So...
If the published versions are a strict subset of Anne Frank's writings, the copyright is expired. That they published selected diary entries can't prevent others from quoting them too. If they've done more than to retract certain entries and actually edit the diary then yes it's still copyrighted but its authenticity as the literal diary of Anne Frank is compromised. They can't have it both ways, either it is her diary and the copyright is expired or it's a post-war original work of authorship based on her diary, but not both.
The TL;DR version - "The end is near!". It's 15 years after the Patriot Act that was supposedly the end times and we're having this debate because cell phone vendors locked up their phones with the best privacy-protecting encryption technology ever in consumer devices. Even a safe is less private than a locked iPhone at the moment, because they will drill that if they have to. I'm not saying it's all flowers and sunshine, but it's not exactly a few rebel freedom fighters against the evil empire either.
This will mean they don't have so much cost per launch, so they can either pass those savings on to their customer (customer wins), don't pass those savings on to their customer (SpaceX profits), or pass SOME savings on to the customer (so both parties benefit).
And possibly exploit a long tail of not-so-reliable re-re-re-furbished rockets for cheap non-essential payloads. Right now they're "too expensive to fail", but as long as they can offer at least 80% reliability to orbit for half the cost (30% second stage, 3% fuel, 17% refurb instead of 70% new) it'll still be cheaper in the long run. Unless you're doing something really exotic I can't imagine machining two satellites to the same specifications could be that much more expensive than one.
That means for instance if Netflix produces a show that mostly appeals to 4 year olds, that is fine. Mom and Dad think $9 a month is a cheap way to keep the kids occupied while they make dinner. Advertisers would hate that though because kids that age don't spend money.
A four year old is more than old enough to know what toy they want at the toy store, the money is in convincing the parents to buy merchandise. And unlike an 8yo or 12yo were you might have a reasonable discussion about money and allowance a 4yo just wants. And yes, even kindergardeners will spot a bad knock-off or homemade look-a-like so by far most parents go with official trademark products because it's simpler, even though they can be quite expensive. You don't need ads between shows when the shows are ads.
From TFP: In the 4 months since first detection, ASASSN-15lh radiated (1.1 +/- 0.2) * 10^52 ergs. If my math is right, that's 10^38 Joules/sec. or 10^35 kWh.
If you think that's bad, you should see the power bill...
"If you enjoy what you do, you'll never work a day in your life"
Said nobody who had a shitty day and wished they weren't obliged to show up. If you don't have days like that, you take too many happy pills.
So basically what it says is that jumping from Fedora 21 to 23 is unsupported, but 21 -> 22 and 22 -> 23 is supported. Well that's nice, so why can't I daisy chain updates? It's not unique to Linux, I'm sure everybody who had to reinstall Windows knows what I'm talking about.... first there's a bunch of updates, then you can install some more updates, then update the updater, then install the service pack, then install some more updates, then some more security patches to the last updates. If you don't want to do the conflict management, at least let it simulate success and let you schedule up several rounds of patching. That way it could say install 22, okay after installing this then 23 will be available, okay install that too in round 2, after that install all updates in round 3 and then you hit "go" and it all happens at once without further interaction. Obviously if one round fails don't proceed to the next, that way you should have an updated machin in one go.
Some perspective: There's 1.6 billion muslims in the world. Looking at the PEW research there's on the order of 10% or 160 million of those I consider to have a world view fundamentally opposed to modern society. The number of IS jihadists is on the order of 160,000 or 0.1% of that, it's damn fucking few and damn fucking many. And the kind of people that blow themselves up in 9/11, the Paris attacks and such are maybe 0.01% of that again, five and ten and twenty here and there don't really add up to much. Fighting for something is quite different than killing yourself for it.
What it means is the problem is escalation. If you start hitting on muslims indiscriminately, there'll be more radicals and more terror and more revenge attacks and... you really don't want to see what a WWIII with 2 billion Christians vs 1.6 billion Muslims looks like. It's not like IS is "der Führer" of Islam, they're just as much about pushing their fundamentalist views on other muslims that are too western and liberal and casually religious. Not to mention on one side of a sectarian war within Islam, like Catholic vs Protestant some 500 years ago.
They have been trying with their acts of provcation against the US, against Russia to turn this into a "us against them" war and it's dangerous. Far from all Germans were Nazis, but when you're dragged along and it's "you" = the muslims against "them" = the ones attacking the muslims you are likely to end up with a lot of people on the wrong side of this conflict. It's exactly what IS wants and to be the spearhead of this kind of total conflict. Basically it just has to run its course until either:
a) The muslim world realizes they have to march on Raqqa and topple this regime on their own, because they're a threat to everyone that doesn't follow their funamentalist views.
or
b) The muslim world will accept the western world using the heavy weapons to take them out, collateral damage be damned. Think WWII conquest of Nazi Germany and Japan, gloves off.
Send or receive a known kiddie porn image through GMail and they will tip the authorities. That hash check can be used for anything the government wants to find people in possession of, just hand them a hash and a NSL.
FYI, that assumes the only place it'd land it earth ;) but seriously though, I think they've revealed as many crazy character traits as one is likely to have like Leela being a sewer mutant, Fry his own grandpa, Nibbler being a cuddly protector of the universe and so on. And the circular time-loop duplicates, any more and it'll start being like the end of Heroes or Doctor Who instead of a parody of time travel and the "grandfather paradox". Honestly I'd rather see something new.
We're currently at the point where Linux is pretty much at the point where it is no longer necessary to run Windows on a machine. The only real reason to run Windows outside of a VM today is, essentially, games and all the other applications that require certain hardware features. Which are few and far between by now.
Well, first of all a Linux + Windows in VM setup is a pretty complicated one to make and you still need a Windows license. And as far as I know, accelerated video is just as big an issue as accelerated 3D. Anything involving DRM and "protected media" or "software activation" will often intentionally fail to work in a VM hosted on an untrusted OS. And having some applications and files on one desktop and the rest on a different one is going to be annoying. Not to mention sharing of CDs/DVDs/BluRays, USB sticks, printers, wireless networks and so on is tedious. Now I've done it, but mostly as a last resort when there's no Linux alternative and it won't work in WINE.
As for Linux native, Linux gaming is not gaining steam despite a bunch of indie games (0.96%, down 0.02% on last Steam hardware survey). The truth is, most people could not run their software on Linux. You can always say there's replacements like LibreOffice instead of MS Office, GIMP instead of Photoshop and so on but I've heard that before, like 5 or 10 years ago. Didn't happen then, won't happen in the next 5 years either. The way Microsoft wants to push Windows 10 I'm guessing the OEMs get licenses almost free, you're even less likely than before to beat them on the sticker price.
And ultimately there no compelling Linux-only software, so in the end you get to pay the same (or more for a low-volume niche product) and spend lots of time because Linux + Windows in VM doesn't come by itself and to fiddle with clone software and to fiddle with WINE (sometimes works great, sometimes not) to get a desktop that's roughly equivalent. Unless you end up wanting to use one of the above services that will fail miserably, at which point you can either buy a new machine or wipe it and go back to pure Windows where your game will work. Or you can play Spotify with a free account, not available in Linux version AFAIK.
Don't get me wrong, I think open source works great for some things and when it does it's brilliant. But the pace at which it evolves is sometimes manic (let's redo the desktop, gotta break some eggs to make an omelet) and sometimes glacial (can we finally get smooth video with no tearing, OpenGL support not years behind standard). And usually the goal jumps to a new one, let's compete on touch-based tablets before you've hit the old ones like competing with traditional laptops. I wish it was less shifting with the trends and more focused on following through even if the traditional desktop now is "old news".
Going forward, as new silicon generations are introduced, they will require the latest Windows platform at that time for support.
If Windows 10 is required for support, it means Windows <10 is unsupported. Whether that means it will simply be unsupported and any problems you run into will be your own or if it simply won't run, ask Microsoft. But it won't be supported and it certainly won't use all the bells and whistles - though I don't think anyone asked for that.
Yes, real banks get robbed, but that takes some real time and effort and most of the time the robbers get caught. In contrast, the risk-to-reward ratio for virtual currency is so unbalanced that it's a natural target with minimal risks. No bullets flying around, no get-away cars, no bank guards, no logistics about hauling the cash away, no dye-packets to worry about. It's like a crime made in heaven.
At least here in Norway real world bank robberies are extremely rare, mainly because the traditional banks barely have money anymore. Most of them simply have an indoor ATM and that's all the cash they have. Apart from all that goes electronic, most the cash come from ATMs/withdrawals in stores, the stores collect it and it goes via armored cars to a few teller centrals before it's distributed to ATMs again. We had one such robbery 12 years ago where they got away with the equivalent of ~10 million USD, though all 13 involved were caught and convicted but in the grand scheme of things it's negligible. The banks themselves have become more investment/financing advisers, barely involved in the actual cash flow.
So their scams are much like our scams, trying to get virtually money in an account or sent to a different bank so they can withdraw it "legally". For the most part though they've stuck to hacking the client side and taking control over individual accounts, not the server side. Or at least that they care to tell us about, since it's not our money getting stolen I suppose they don't have much reason to tell us about it happening.
I wouldn't say it failed. As the article explains it does not mean the sensors failed to detect something, it means the sensors detected a glitch/malfunction/blockage and alerted the driver to take over. Presumably that means the test models lack redundancy and the ability to "vote out" malfunctioning gear, those are things that are relatively trivial to fix since it's purely a technical issue and not about the car's understanding of the surroundings. In fact over the test period they show about a 7x improvement on that to once >5000 miles. It's the other 20% that are interesting, after simulations:
the company calculated that 13 of these 69 manual disengagements would have resulted in contact of some sort with another road-user or (in two of the 13 cases) with a traffic cone. In 10 of these 13 events Google says its own technology was at fault, and in the remaining three, other drivers were to blame.
So that's in 424,331 miles of driving, if we don't blame it for the bad driving of others that's one potential accident per 42k miles. Now Google's cars have been hit 12 times in 1,8 millon miles = ~3 times in the same distance. So assuming it didn't have a human driver the score would be roughly:
Hit by other drivers (non-avoidable): 3
Hit by other drivers (avoided now by takeover): 3
Google hit accidents: 8
Google solo accidents (presumably other drivers have these too): 2
Is it great? No. It's also not terrible for a product in development, the important part is that these flaws are being found and fixed. There's only so much we can do about the human flaws...
The short version is that the company doesn't care who wrote the code, they care who owns the code. All work for hire is copyrighted by the company, having who wrote it in source control is just to aid the development process or place blame. That means everybody can grab any piece of source and do whatever, very rarely do you see inside sources mentioned. Once you have code that is not yours and not distinctly separated in a third party library as being someone else's you have to keep track of it. What if another coworker needs part of the same thing and copies half of it - not including the comment? What if you want to sell or sublicense the code, what part of it is yours and not? If the person writing the code is from Cuba, is there any import/export regulation issues? I seem to remember some crypto projects not accepting US contributions for that very reason. If your code is somehow going to end up at SpaceX, is it okay if part of the source code driving the rocket comes from China?
If somebody compares your source code to StackExchange, will there be unattributed code? And does that mean it was copy-pasted from that source from them, legally taken it from some other source or perhaps even yours is the original that somehow made it's way there. Companies are fairly indifferent to professional courtesy, but they're strongly opposed to license administration and legal liability costs, at least for a small snippet of code. If your employees wrote it then it's yours and that's the end of it. This also mandates that there's a system and guidelines in place so people know what they can and can't do and the overhead of maintaining the policy and training developers so they don't grab anything in source form with no regards to the license. Which some will do anyway, which is why you try to set up controls and gatekeepers so they don't. In short if you have any kind of process involved the overhead is going to eat up any savings you had going to StackExchange in the first place. And 95% of it is like finding the right place in the manual...
No, it is extremely simple. All the parties you mention are forgetting one thing. The customer is the one who pays. The customer is the boss. I vote with my wallet and my wallet says that if I can't get access to US content then I don't want access. Period.
So if I've written a library using GPL code and a company wants to buy it to use in their proprietary application I'm just supposed to "forget" that I don't have the rights to do that? Sorry, you chase down every person in the credits and get permission. Voting with your wallet just means from the choices offered or to walk away, not dictate reality.
That reads suspiciously like the justification why COBOL is still around.
And? Languages linger because the code has value. If your job is in development, a new and better tool makes you more effective. But it's not certain throwing out 30 years of COBOL code makes the business more effective. No matter what happens to Java, C# and Swift you can be sure that in 30 years we'll still be optimizing Javascript to run a billion browser scripts. That makes it a far safer bet than going with Ruby on Rails or whatever the fad of the day is.
So, your program allocates some memory. Should it initialize the memory to make sure it's all a bunch of zeros? Apparently, Nvidia doesn't think so. So, a program running on your OS requests some memory. Should the OS initialize the memory before handing it to the application? Apparently, Apple doesn't think so. Either answer is right.
Not really. An application will typically allocate and release memory all the time, being forced to clear it every time is massive overkill and a performance problem. The driver exposes the GPU memory, the OS allocates it to applications just like with RAM. It's the only one that knows when memory switches application context and must be cleared. So there's really only one sane solution.