Because Wayland is being written primarily by former X developers who have pushed X to its limits but have no choice but to start from the ground up to get modern features such as tear-free drawing.
Strictly speaking that's not true, from the Wayland FAQ (emphasis mine):
Why not extend the X server?
Because for the first time we have a realistic chance of not having to do that. It's entirely possible to incorporate the buffer exchange and update models that Wayland is built on into X. However, we have an option here of pushing X out of the hotpath between clients and the hardware and making it a compatibility option.
I guess the main reason Wayland doesn't take so much flak is that it's obvious the mission scope has vastly changed from the 1980s display server to the 2015 display server. And it's main deficiencies are most visible in the markets where it's barely present (desktop) or has been replaced wholesale (Android), while the init system seems like you're changing a winning team, honestly when was the last time init scripts was a deal breaker for anything? It has a much more "nice-to-have" feel to it or at least fixing corner cases most people never noticed.
That only works as long as you have a clear separation of responsibilities and you know what it will and won't do. Driving around with an AI that occasionally spectacularly fails would be like co-sitting a driver with a learner's permit, you're not less tense you're more tense because instead of the ordinary reaction time you only have the time from when you realize the AI won't handle it to react yourself. Not to mention the AI might surprisingly do something wrong creating a situation out of nothing with no warning. I'm with Google on this one, past a certain point either the car is driving or I am, you can't have two masters giving opposite directions. For example say that I intend to make a somewhat optimistic left turn, the car decides uh-oh the road's not clear so it slams the brakes just as I turn the wheel to cut ahead of the opposing traffic, we limp into the opposing lane and bang. Not to mention humans aren't very good at long intermissions, we'll start thinking about or doing other things instead of watching the road. They said they saw this the very first time they let non-project Googlers drive this extremely experimental vehicle, asking ordinary people to do it is pointless. The car will crash roughly as often as the car's AI screws up.
There's a massive bulk of economic theory that explains the applied math of running a business. Can you figure out if $1000 now is more or less than $1100 five years from now given an inflation rate of 2%? The relations between price, quantity, marginal costs and profit are also quite sound. The thing is though, all this information is allegedly available and equal for all, so if everyone agreed to the same model there'd be no profit to be made. Sure, the future would be unknown but it would be like a lottery ticket being scratched, everybody knows at all times the exact value of all the possible outcomes so everybody prices in the same expected value of the future. If you can find a way to make arbitrage, you've found a flaw in the way the market works. For example if you discovered you could make money selling products in one currency and buying them in another, or transporting goods from one market to sell in another for more than the transport and insurance costs.
Speculation is all about betting on these flaws, but sometimes the market has priced in risks you haven't imagined. Or there are forces that only become dominant at a certain size. In this particular case it was more like you create a theory of chemistry and when the market goes to an extreme you have nuclear fusion instead. That doesn't make chemistry wrong, but at certain times it's irrelevant and you can't rely on it to always produce correct answers. Oh and just to put a nail in that coffin, no scientific theory is proven to be universally valid since there's still the future and it hasn't happened yet. There's no absolute guarantee gravity will work the same five minutes from now, if it suddenly starts behaving different it just will. In that case reality will be right and the formula wrong, no matter how correct and comprehensive it might have looked.
ITYM "10 minutes out of your week." vs. 10 minutes out of each day finding a spot with charging near where "you're stopped for another reason anyway," getting the cable out, plugging, unplugging and stowing the cable. If that's an advantage, it's one for gasoline powered vehicles.
Most people - though I can't make any guarantees about the people in the article - will choose a car with at least twice the range of their commute distance, so plugging it in at home will do. If you need to get a charge at work or some other charger every day, you're pushing the limits of good sense. My guess is that there's two kinds of people charging, those who just use it as free electricity instead of plugging in at home and those who could really use it because they have been/will be driving far and needs the charge. And they're a bit pissed when all the spaces are occupied by people just saving a few bucks or just top up every day because they come early. Just because it's "green" you still have well-pissers who don't care how their use of a common resource negatively affects others.
There is an exponential amount of scientific research, but there's a diminishing gain. Over the last 40 years we've expanded average life span here in Norway with less than a decade and the trend is slowing. Healthcare is exploding with new and advanced treatments that is extracting the last bits of life at an exponential complexity and cost. The Concorde is still the world's fastest passenger jet and it's not because people don't value time anymore. Every 10 mph you want to increase road speeds with puts increasing demands on roads, cars, drivers and resource efficiency. Building a ten story building is not twice as hard as a five story building, it's harder.
Computers have so far dodged most of the physical limitations, but we know the sky is not the limit. Process technology can't get arbitrarily small, it can't run arbitrarily fast, batteries can't get arbitrarily powerful and the faster you want to go the more power, frequency spectrum and other resources you'll need. In 30 years I've seen a ~6 order of magnitude improvement in RAM, from 64 kB to 64 GB. I really doubt that in 30 years we'll have 64 PB and even if we did, the number of things you can't do in 64 kB is much larger than the things you can't do in 64 GB. Most of the electronic revolution is behind us, not ahead of us. But of course, we can always come up with more new things. That we'll always find major advances and not just hit a wall of marginal improvements is optimistic though.
And you think either will survive the hoarding and looting during the early collapse? Anywhere that lots of people know about is going to be hit with well armed and/or desperate masses. The only way a modern city survives is through massive imports of food from the countryside, cut the supplies and the electricity so there's no refridgerators or freezers and mass starvation starts in less than a week as food is eaten and spoiled and not being replaced by anything. Even if you can survive the worst of it by stashing away some supplies, it's still not a sustainable place to be. I'd probably go with a rural farm at the end of the road, prep for 19th century-style living off the land. Nothing big or fancy, just far enough off the radar that you won't get hordes from the city - who'll soon run out of gas and be stuck where they are and not worth the trouble for the few stragglers that come by. With maybe a bugout bunker up in the hills with supplies if you meet heavier resistance than you can handle, a roving band needs to keep roving to sustain itself so they'll be on their way soon.
2. Binary, you speak it We repeat this in binary, which should be fairly easy to recognize as the previous information aligned to 8 bit = byte values. 00000010 00000011 00000101 00000111 00001011 00001101 00010001 00010011
3. Length of payload in bytes + payload 00000000 00000000 00000001 10110000 = 432 432 x ????????
4. Goto 1, rotate payload.
As for the actual payload.... You could for example send atom configuration from the periodic table. 1 - 1 2 - 2 3 - 2,1 ... 10 - 2,8 11 - 2,8,1 ... 18 - 2,8,8 19 - 2,8,8,1 20 - 2,8,8,2 21 - 2,8,9,2 22 - 2,8,10,2 23 - 2,8,11,2 24 - 2,8,13,1 etc.
It will be pretty obvious to any physicist this is the list of elements. Using that and a bit more you can explain the units of mass, time, distance and so on.
For math you can send a list of (input A, operator code, input B, result) and it will be obvious that this operator means addition, subtraction, multiplication, division and so on. Once you have subtraction, explain 0-1 and two's complement and you'll have negative numbers.
Then you can start making advanced concepts like C+O+O = CO2 and describe properties of that gas. I really don't think it's going to become a problem bootstrapping communication, if we could just find someone to communicate with.
Anyhow, if we were to reinstate some sort of poll test, it may not be used to disenfranchise according to racial lines, but you can be sure that whoever is in power will find a way to stop others from voting or to make their vote count less. It's probably impossible to design a system that couldn't be manipulated once you start disenfranchising people. Who gets to define the relevant "knowledge"? How do we measure " intelligence"?
And you must realize that political parties immediately get incentive to do this if the voters most likely to be excluded lean a particular way politically. Say party A is strong with the low income families and party B is more of a middle class party and that statistically if you make the test harder more low income families will drop out because they're already working their ass off making ends meet. Now one party has obvious incentive to set the bar higher, the other to set the bar lower. Here in Norway there's a campaign to lower the voting age from 18 to 16, you can compare the youth vote scores with the parties supporting it and it's obvious why. Voters who've mostly never had a real job, never paid taxes and never had to balance a budget because they live at home with mom and dad with an allowance tend to vote quite differently than people who've had to support themselves.
You have to remember that Christianity is at its core a guilt trip. We are all pitiful sinners that can be redeemed by the mercy of our Lord, who selflessly sent his only son so he could die for our sins. That's how it starts in the garden of Eden with the original sin, the seven deadly sins of lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride and so on. Who has never had a touch of any of them? Not to mention all the implied ones by breaking the commandments and so on, unless you're a walking saint everybody needs forgiveness for something. Sexuality is of course a big one, take a basic instinct humans have and turn it into something shameful and you'll have a never-ending supply of people needing forgiveness for their sinful thoughts. Fortunately this institutionalized manipulation is in massive retreat though there's still some slut shaming at the fringes but for the most part people seem to feel good about their sexuality. As it should be.
Yeah, DDR3 prices hit rock bottom right before Christmas 2013. I was considering upgrading to 32GB just because it was so cheap, but really I had nothing maxing out 16GB. Still don't really, even now running a ton of crap I'm only using 8-9GB and the rest is cache. For prosumer money ($1000) you can even get 8x16GB DDR4 for an X99 motherboard, prices have bottomed out but so has demand for most people too. Faster CPU, GPU, SSD and so on great.... more memory? Meh. I suppose it could be cheaper, but at least on the PC it's not much of the total anyway. It's usually the tablet and laptop producers charging an arm and a leg for RAM upgrades.
The question is also how much has he tired from politics in general or the LKML in particular. Because whenever you are building something together with other people, you'll have disagreements on how it's supposed to be built and how it's supposed to work. One of the freedoms of open source is copying the code and going home, saying I'm build my own kernel. By myself. Exactly how I want it to be. And I don't have to discuss or argue or respect any majority opinion or prove why it's a good idea or anything. And when I'm done people can use it or not use it, I don't have to market it or make a business case for it.
So he wants to ditch the politics and just write the code, good for him and it could even result in some nice features if somebody else goes up to bat for it on the LKML or one of the other places opinions clash. But there's always going to be a place like the LKML, there's always going to be disagreements there and in any sufficiently large group of people there will be jerks and drama queens. The question is if the LKML is a particularly bad case or if you could actually create something better. Maybe it's just my experience, but often when you try you end up attracting all the malcontents of the current incarnation and the new place is actually worse since they all expect this to be the place they get their way.
Branching happens all the time, either to develop a feature or because it's doing something that upstream won't accept. One man maintaining his own patches isn't a fork. A fork would imply that that you're planning to diverge from or replace the project you branched from, nothing in his post indicates he wants to compete with Linux or the LKML. He's just saying I'll make my own patches and provide them for those who want them, but I'm not going to bother trying to upstream them. Kinda like Debian and Ubuntu, Canonical made a lot of patches for Debian but they weren't trying to fork it. They just rebased off it every six months, being a downstream variation. He's making a downstream variation with some interface from BSD. Big whoop.
Passenger car emission standards are g/mi and are the same for all fuel types. Epa is exploring ways to combat this type of fraud. But any test they make needs to be objective and reproducible for all vehicles, so it may be hard to eliminate this cheat vector.
No. What they need to do is to create an objective and reproducible test, then a "sanity check" where the car is driven an ordinary, mixed road trip with a sensor attached to the exhaust pipe that can't in any reasonable way be distinguished from ordinary driving. The latter will obviously be somewhat variable due to the particular route, road conditions, environmental temperature, traffic and so on but I imagine it would be a fairly narrow band that could be considered normal. If it exceeds that, start investigating.
The Nobel prize is 8.000.000 SEK this year or ~960.000 USD. Divided by three that's $320k each. That you are very likely to only get once for a career in research stretching over decades. I suppose you could say it's a whole lot more than nothing, but if you wanted to make money you should have become a NFL quarterback or something.
Yeah, I have to agree. Autobahn has very strict rules about not passing someone to their right, and people actually follow them.
Because it's the slower car's job to get out of the left lane so if there's space and they're impatient they'll be sure to blink or honk to get you out of their way. I guess it's a cultural thing, if it's the faster car's job has to find a free lane to pass that system works too. Mixing the systems don't though, if both switch lanes at the same time the result could easily be a crash. And then there's the systems where lanes are fluid or non-existing including but not limited to opposing lanes, if it fits do it and if it doesn't then honk and do it anyway. There are countries the Google car won't touch with a ten foot pole.
Highways are very simple, continuous lanes, very little complication, city roads are a whole different story. Non-story.
On the other hand... if you have a bunch of depots in conjunction with the Autobahn, you just pick up/drop off goods at the one closest to you and automated trucks bring it to the depot closest to the destination that could be a much quicker road to implementation than dealing with inner city traffic. Also much easier to map out, assuming you need that. The point is to start somewhere.
Back in the real world, The Martian was mastered in 2K and hardly anybody noticed. I have a UHD monitor and using RAW still photos I can tell the difference between a photo natively cropped to 3840x2160 and one that's between downscaled to 1920x1080 and back at my typically sitting distance but you need to watch some fine detail. There's no way I'd see anything past 4K. In theory a person with 20/10 vision (yes, they do exist) sitting in the middle of a large screen cinema should be able to see 7K, but that's only when trying to read one of those eye charts at maximum contrast.
Most of the comparisons you see are not apples-to-apples comparison, they show you one 4K screen and one not-4K screen and surprise surprise the one they want to sell looks much better. I look forward to 4K BluRay though, in addition to resolution with HDR, Rec. 2020 and 10 bit color it will improve contrast, colors and banding All three of those are probably just as noticeable as the change in resolution, though I suspect it'll take a while before we have TVs that can take full advantage of it.
The answer you end up with depends on who you think started it, yes some websites took advertising too far and users hated it. But instead of using the sites that had "acceptable" ads and stop using the sites that had "annoying" ads, the solution was to start blocking ads. Now I don't subscribe to the whole "blocking ads is stealing" tripe but obviously the whole point of ads is that people see them. If everybody blocks them, there no point in paying for them and so the sites don't get any funding and the model breaks down. And it was the low-hanging fruit that mostly got hurt, the scummy sites with annoying ads were also the ones who'd most quickly resort to circumvention techniques to shove the ads in your face anyway.
The assumption here is that at least some users will be nice and accept to see som ads, if you're going to do that why not go for a real opt-in system? Tag all the advertising elements on your page with an <div class="ad">(ad goes here)</div>. Publish an advertising policy, like robots.txt Kindly ask ad blockers to replace ads tagged as such with "This website relies on advertising revenue to operate. You are currently blocking ads. Please click here to unblock and support our site."
If you click it, you get a dialog saying: "This site has requested you to unblock ads. Their advertising policy is as follows:
Banner ads: Yes Animated ads: No Ads with sound: No Interstitial ads: No Pop-ups: No Pop-unders: No
[Unblock ads] [Cancel]
You may at any time block ads again by.... (explanation)"
Of course you could have dick ad blockers that just remove the ads, but I think the popular ones could be convinced to play nice. Sites wouldn't have to get on any approval list tied to any particular blocker and everyone would decide for themselves what sites they want to support. No money for just being click bait, users have to actually like you enough to unblock. Not sure it'd work, but if that won't work then "acceptable ads" won't either.
Their PR arguments also hold no water. Let's assume that all their arguments about safety, quality, crime, and so on are all true. Why should we not have the choice anyway to pick who drives us? I am happy driving a friend to a location, they are happy to drive me, people drive themselves, yet somehow cabbies have twisted this into licensed uber drivers as being the best way to get yourself killed. So the regulations that largely exist for all drivers such as not being drunk, having insurance, having a safe car, having a licence, all make sense for normal drivers; so why don't they make sense for Uber drivers. Does the uber app somehow make them worse drivers?
You might say pretty much exactly the same about cooking, but I still think it's fair to hold professional food serving businesses to a different standard than me inviting a friend over for dinner. As for insurance, the rates reflect the risk and letting commercially operated cars pool with your average commuter unfairly shoves their risk over on us. I don't see a problem with Uber being required to check if you are properly licensed to transport strangers for money before you're allowed to participate. This isn't a phone book, Uber is taking a cut for every ride. Imagine a P2P program with a central server that charged you to pair up, if you want to download game of thrones season one that'll be $0.50 of which we'll take $0.10 and the uploader $0.40. Oh and the peers are legally responsible for whether the files are legal, we're only a matchmaker. How long do you think they'd be in business?
As is the idea that he was 950 years old when he died. Also totally believable.
Well, we have reason to believe some trees are over 5000 years old so if you believe in the creation myth and that Adam and Eve were created by divine touch that diminished over generations that is actually one of the less incredible parts. That we don't live longer is probably a compromise between reproductive age and retaining experience and knowledge between generations as giving birth to a new healthy generation might be more evolutionary "fit" than growing longer life spans, not any true kind of hard limit. Having seen how long we have and haven't gotten in medicine I don't think we'll see it in my lifetime but within the next few hundred years of science I think a thousand year life span is possible. Which doesn't mean that I think ancient people of the past lived that long, but still far more in the realm of the possible than some of the other stuff.
Well, they can't prevent you from return home since you're a citizen but there's no requirement they let you import anything, so who knows.... your belongings might be stuck in customs for years while your lawyer and theirs fight it out in court.
Note, by the by, that helping Assad against ISIS allows Assad to use more of his own troops against, say, the Kurds, who are our nominal allies in the region.
I might be wrong, but my impression was that Assad's strongholds were in the west/southwest and the Kurds in the north with ISIS in between so they don't really have any common border to fight on. It's the other rebel groups in Syria that are taking the piss with Assad's forces on one side and ISIS on the other. And now possibly Russian death from above, they must start to feel somebody up there hates them...
That would be a more appropriate headline. The $2 admission their company charges is basically the cover charge to get into a party with sale of alcoholic beverages. Does this sound like your typical fan gathering?:
Defendants boast that the "5th Annual Unofficial Pokemon PAX Kickoff Party" will feature among other things, "Pokemon themed shots and drinks - Smash Bros. Tournament with cash prize - Dancing - Giveaways - Cosplay Contest and more," and an "AMAZIN POKEMON MASHUP."
This sounds like a typical commercial "theme night" that bars and clubs might have, only instead of using a generic unprotected theme like Halloween they made a Pokemon party. Not surprised their lawyers got angry, They managed to put a very good media spin on it though, clearly they as event organizers know how to get media attention and manipulate it. I hope they get to pay every dollar.
Color me skeptical; I don't think this is going to happen via private industry for another 20 to 50 years at the very least.
A moon shot is only marginally more difficult if at all than a GEO satellite. Or for that matter a Mars shot, it's just a slightly longer rocket burn. The difficult part is what the fsck do you do when you're in orbit, it's the descent/landing that is challenging. That SpaceX can land rockets is obviously to save costs here on Earth but it's also to fill a major gap in our capability to go to Mars. I don't think a dedicated lander will ever get sufficient private funding, a spin-off technology of landing rockets here on Earth just might. It's not like the private industry is 50 years behind Apollo in technology, it's that they lack a business plan for going.
The GPL does not prevent you from learning from the source code to implement a compatible version under a different license.
No, but "derived from" extends further than implementing the exact same thing with different variable names that you typed up yourself. It's the same for all copyrighted material, you don't need direct quotes to infringe on a book, the exact samples to infringe on a song's melody or using cutouts to infringe on a photograph. It's not a patent, it doesn't get a monopoly on every implementation. But you have to show it's not the same implementation, because that will infringe copyright.
Slashdot Mirror
Because Wayland is being written primarily by former X developers who have pushed X to its limits but have no choice but to start from the ground up to get modern features such as tear-free drawing.
Strictly speaking that's not true, from the Wayland FAQ (emphasis mine):
Why not extend the X server?
Because for the first time we have a realistic chance of not having to do that. It's entirely possible to incorporate the buffer exchange and update models that Wayland is built on into X. However, we have an option here of pushing X out of the hotpath between clients and the hardware and making it a compatibility option.
I guess the main reason Wayland doesn't take so much flak is that it's obvious the mission scope has vastly changed from the 1980s display server to the 2015 display server. And it's main deficiencies are most visible in the markets where it's barely present (desktop) or has been replaced wholesale (Android), while the init system seems like you're changing a winning team, honestly when was the last time init scripts was a deal breaker for anything? It has a much more "nice-to-have" feel to it or at least fixing corner cases most people never noticed.
That only works as long as you have a clear separation of responsibilities and you know what it will and won't do. Driving around with an AI that occasionally spectacularly fails would be like co-sitting a driver with a learner's permit, you're not less tense you're more tense because instead of the ordinary reaction time you only have the time from when you realize the AI won't handle it to react yourself. Not to mention the AI might surprisingly do something wrong creating a situation out of nothing with no warning. I'm with Google on this one, past a certain point either the car is driving or I am, you can't have two masters giving opposite directions. For example say that I intend to make a somewhat optimistic left turn, the car decides uh-oh the road's not clear so it slams the brakes just as I turn the wheel to cut ahead of the opposing traffic, we limp into the opposing lane and bang. Not to mention humans aren't very good at long intermissions, we'll start thinking about or doing other things instead of watching the road. They said they saw this the very first time they let non-project Googlers drive this extremely experimental vehicle, asking ordinary people to do it is pointless. The car will crash roughly as often as the car's AI screws up.
There's a massive bulk of economic theory that explains the applied math of running a business. Can you figure out if $1000 now is more or less than $1100 five years from now given an inflation rate of 2%? The relations between price, quantity, marginal costs and profit are also quite sound. The thing is though, all this information is allegedly available and equal for all, so if everyone agreed to the same model there'd be no profit to be made. Sure, the future would be unknown but it would be like a lottery ticket being scratched, everybody knows at all times the exact value of all the possible outcomes so everybody prices in the same expected value of the future. If you can find a way to make arbitrage, you've found a flaw in the way the market works. For example if you discovered you could make money selling products in one currency and buying them in another, or transporting goods from one market to sell in another for more than the transport and insurance costs.
Speculation is all about betting on these flaws, but sometimes the market has priced in risks you haven't imagined. Or there are forces that only become dominant at a certain size. In this particular case it was more like you create a theory of chemistry and when the market goes to an extreme you have nuclear fusion instead. That doesn't make chemistry wrong, but at certain times it's irrelevant and you can't rely on it to always produce correct answers. Oh and just to put a nail in that coffin, no scientific theory is proven to be universally valid since there's still the future and it hasn't happened yet. There's no absolute guarantee gravity will work the same five minutes from now, if it suddenly starts behaving different it just will. In that case reality will be right and the formula wrong, no matter how correct and comprehensive it might have looked.
ITYM "10 minutes out of your week." vs. 10 minutes out of each day finding a spot with charging near where "you're stopped for another reason anyway," getting the cable out, plugging, unplugging and stowing the cable. If that's an advantage, it's one for gasoline powered vehicles.
Most people - though I can't make any guarantees about the people in the article - will choose a car with at least twice the range of their commute distance, so plugging it in at home will do. If you need to get a charge at work or some other charger every day, you're pushing the limits of good sense. My guess is that there's two kinds of people charging, those who just use it as free electricity instead of plugging in at home and those who could really use it because they have been/will be driving far and needs the charge. And they're a bit pissed when all the spaces are occupied by people just saving a few bucks or just top up every day because they come early. Just because it's "green" you still have well-pissers who don't care how their use of a common resource negatively affects others.
There is an exponential amount of scientific research, but there's a diminishing gain. Over the last 40 years we've expanded average life span here in Norway with less than a decade and the trend is slowing. Healthcare is exploding with new and advanced treatments that is extracting the last bits of life at an exponential complexity and cost. The Concorde is still the world's fastest passenger jet and it's not because people don't value time anymore. Every 10 mph you want to increase road speeds with puts increasing demands on roads, cars, drivers and resource efficiency. Building a ten story building is not twice as hard as a five story building, it's harder.
Computers have so far dodged most of the physical limitations, but we know the sky is not the limit. Process technology can't get arbitrarily small, it can't run arbitrarily fast, batteries can't get arbitrarily powerful and the faster you want to go the more power, frequency spectrum and other resources you'll need. In 30 years I've seen a ~6 order of magnitude improvement in RAM, from 64 kB to 64 GB. I really doubt that in 30 years we'll have 64 PB and even if we did, the number of things you can't do in 64 kB is much larger than the things you can't do in 64 GB. Most of the electronic revolution is behind us, not ahead of us. But of course, we can always come up with more new things. That we'll always find major advances and not just hit a wall of marginal improvements is optimistic though.
And you think either will survive the hoarding and looting during the early collapse? Anywhere that lots of people know about is going to be hit with well armed and/or desperate masses. The only way a modern city survives is through massive imports of food from the countryside, cut the supplies and the electricity so there's no refridgerators or freezers and mass starvation starts in less than a week as food is eaten and spoiled and not being replaced by anything. Even if you can survive the worst of it by stashing away some supplies, it's still not a sustainable place to be. I'd probably go with a rural farm at the end of the road, prep for 19th century-style living off the land. Nothing big or fancy, just far enough off the radar that you won't get hordes from the city - who'll soon run out of gas and be stuck where they are and not worth the trouble for the few stragglers that come by. With maybe a bugout bunker up in the hills with supplies if you meet heavier resistance than you can handle, a roving band needs to keep roving to sustain itself so they'll be on their way soon.
1. Detection
Pulses of prime numbers. Not natural phenomenon, same in all number systems. Simple beat with silence:
2-3-5-7-11-13-17-19
011
0111
011111
01111111
011111111111
01111111111111
011111111111111111
01111111111 111111111
2. Binary, you speak it
We repeat this in binary, which should be fairly easy to recognize as the previous information aligned to 8 bit = byte values.
00000010 00000011 00000101 00000111
00001011 00001101 00010001 00010011
3. Length of payload in bytes + payload
00000000 00000000 00000001 10110000 = 432
432 x ????????
4. Goto 1, rotate payload.
As for the actual payload.... You could for example send atom configuration from the periodic table.
...
...
1 - 1
2 - 2
3 - 2,1
10 - 2,8
11 - 2,8,1
18 - 2,8,8
19 - 2,8,8,1
20 - 2,8,8,2
21 - 2,8,9,2
22 - 2,8,10,2
23 - 2,8,11,2
24 - 2,8,13,1
etc.
It will be pretty obvious to any physicist this is the list of elements. Using that and a bit more you can explain the units of mass, time, distance and so on.
For math you can send a list of (input A, operator code, input B, result) and it will be obvious that this operator means addition, subtraction, multiplication, division and so on. Once you have subtraction, explain 0-1 and two's complement and you'll have negative numbers.
Then you can start making advanced concepts like C+O+O = CO2 and describe properties of that gas. I really don't think it's going to become a problem bootstrapping communication, if we could just find someone to communicate with.
Anyhow, if we were to reinstate some sort of poll test, it may not be used to disenfranchise according to racial lines, but you can be sure that whoever is in power will find a way to stop others from voting or to make their vote count less. It's probably impossible to design a system that couldn't be manipulated once you start disenfranchising people. Who gets to define the relevant "knowledge"? How do we measure " intelligence"?
And you must realize that political parties immediately get incentive to do this if the voters most likely to be excluded lean a particular way politically. Say party A is strong with the low income families and party B is more of a middle class party and that statistically if you make the test harder more low income families will drop out because they're already working their ass off making ends meet. Now one party has obvious incentive to set the bar higher, the other to set the bar lower. Here in Norway there's a campaign to lower the voting age from 18 to 16, you can compare the youth vote scores with the parties supporting it and it's obvious why. Voters who've mostly never had a real job, never paid taxes and never had to balance a budget because they live at home with mom and dad with an allowance tend to vote quite differently than people who've had to support themselves.
You have to remember that Christianity is at its core a guilt trip. We are all pitiful sinners that can be redeemed by the mercy of our Lord, who selflessly sent his only son so he could die for our sins. That's how it starts in the garden of Eden with the original sin, the seven deadly sins of lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride and so on. Who has never had a touch of any of them? Not to mention all the implied ones by breaking the commandments and so on, unless you're a walking saint everybody needs forgiveness for something. Sexuality is of course a big one, take a basic instinct humans have and turn it into something shameful and you'll have a never-ending supply of people needing forgiveness for their sinful thoughts. Fortunately this institutionalized manipulation is in massive retreat though there's still some slut shaming at the fringes but for the most part people seem to feel good about their sexuality. As it should be.
Yeah, DDR3 prices hit rock bottom right before Christmas 2013. I was considering upgrading to 32GB just because it was so cheap, but really I had nothing maxing out 16GB. Still don't really, even now running a ton of crap I'm only using 8-9GB and the rest is cache. For prosumer money ($1000) you can even get 8x16GB DDR4 for an X99 motherboard, prices have bottomed out but so has demand for most people too. Faster CPU, GPU, SSD and so on great.... more memory? Meh. I suppose it could be cheaper, but at least on the PC it's not much of the total anyway. It's usually the tablet and laptop producers charging an arm and a leg for RAM upgrades.
The question is also how much has he tired from politics in general or the LKML in particular. Because whenever you are building something together with other people, you'll have disagreements on how it's supposed to be built and how it's supposed to work. One of the freedoms of open source is copying the code and going home, saying I'm build my own kernel. By myself. Exactly how I want it to be. And I don't have to discuss or argue or respect any majority opinion or prove why it's a good idea or anything. And when I'm done people can use it or not use it, I don't have to market it or make a business case for it.
So he wants to ditch the politics and just write the code, good for him and it could even result in some nice features if somebody else goes up to bat for it on the LKML or one of the other places opinions clash. But there's always going to be a place like the LKML, there's always going to be disagreements there and in any sufficiently large group of people there will be jerks and drama queens. The question is if the LKML is a particularly bad case or if you could actually create something better. Maybe it's just my experience, but often when you try you end up attracting all the malcontents of the current incarnation and the new place is actually worse since they all expect this to be the place they get their way.
Branching happens all the time, either to develop a feature or because it's doing something that upstream won't accept. One man maintaining his own patches isn't a fork. A fork would imply that that you're planning to diverge from or replace the project you branched from, nothing in his post indicates he wants to compete with Linux or the LKML. He's just saying I'll make my own patches and provide them for those who want them, but I'm not going to bother trying to upstream them. Kinda like Debian and Ubuntu, Canonical made a lot of patches for Debian but they weren't trying to fork it. They just rebased off it every six months, being a downstream variation. He's making a downstream variation with some interface from BSD. Big whoop.
Passenger car emission standards are g/mi and are the same for all fuel types. Epa is exploring ways to combat this type of fraud. But any test they make needs to be objective and reproducible for all vehicles, so it may be hard to eliminate this cheat vector.
No. What they need to do is to create an objective and reproducible test, then a "sanity check" where the car is driven an ordinary, mixed road trip with a sensor attached to the exhaust pipe that can't in any reasonable way be distinguished from ordinary driving. The latter will obviously be somewhat variable due to the particular route, road conditions, environmental temperature, traffic and so on but I imagine it would be a fairly narrow band that could be considered normal. If it exceeds that, start investigating.
The Nobel prize is 8.000.000 SEK this year or ~960.000 USD. Divided by three that's $320k each. That you are very likely to only get once for a career in research stretching over decades. I suppose you could say it's a whole lot more than nothing, but if you wanted to make money you should have become a NFL quarterback or something.
Yeah, I have to agree. Autobahn has very strict rules about not passing someone to their right, and people actually follow them.
Because it's the slower car's job to get out of the left lane so if there's space and they're impatient they'll be sure to blink or honk to get you out of their way. I guess it's a cultural thing, if it's the faster car's job has to find a free lane to pass that system works too. Mixing the systems don't though, if both switch lanes at the same time the result could easily be a crash. And then there's the systems where lanes are fluid or non-existing including but not limited to opposing lanes, if it fits do it and if it doesn't then honk and do it anyway. There are countries the Google car won't touch with a ten foot pole.
Highways are very simple, continuous lanes, very little complication, city roads are a whole different story. Non-story.
On the other hand... if you have a bunch of depots in conjunction with the Autobahn, you just pick up/drop off goods at the one closest to you and automated trucks bring it to the depot closest to the destination that could be a much quicker road to implementation than dealing with inner city traffic. Also much easier to map out, assuming you need that. The point is to start somewhere.
Back in the real world, The Martian was mastered in 2K and hardly anybody noticed. I have a UHD monitor and using RAW still photos I can tell the difference between a photo natively cropped to 3840x2160 and one that's between downscaled to 1920x1080 and back at my typically sitting distance but you need to watch some fine detail. There's no way I'd see anything past 4K. In theory a person with 20/10 vision (yes, they do exist) sitting in the middle of a large screen cinema should be able to see 7K, but that's only when trying to read one of those eye charts at maximum contrast.
Most of the comparisons you see are not apples-to-apples comparison, they show you one 4K screen and one not-4K screen and surprise surprise the one they want to sell looks much better. I look forward to 4K BluRay though, in addition to resolution with HDR, Rec. 2020 and 10 bit color it will improve contrast, colors and banding All three of those are probably just as noticeable as the change in resolution, though I suspect it'll take a while before we have TVs that can take full advantage of it.
The answer you end up with depends on who you think started it, yes some websites took advertising too far and users hated it. But instead of using the sites that had "acceptable" ads and stop using the sites that had "annoying" ads, the solution was to start blocking ads. Now I don't subscribe to the whole "blocking ads is stealing" tripe but obviously the whole point of ads is that people see them. If everybody blocks them, there no point in paying for them and so the sites don't get any funding and the model breaks down. And it was the low-hanging fruit that mostly got hurt, the scummy sites with annoying ads were also the ones who'd most quickly resort to circumvention techniques to shove the ads in your face anyway.
The assumption here is that at least some users will be nice and accept to see som ads, if you're going to do that why not go for a real opt-in system? Tag all the advertising elements on your page with an <div class="ad">(ad goes here)</div>. Publish an advertising policy, like robots.txt Kindly ask ad blockers to replace ads tagged as such with "This website relies on advertising revenue to operate. You are currently blocking ads. Please click here to unblock and support our site."
If you click it, you get a dialog saying:
"This site has requested you to unblock ads. Their advertising policy is as follows:
Banner ads: Yes
Animated ads: No
Ads with sound: No
Interstitial ads: No
Pop-ups: No
Pop-unders: No
[Unblock ads] [Cancel]
You may at any time block ads again by.... (explanation)"
Of course you could have dick ad blockers that just remove the ads, but I think the popular ones could be convinced to play nice. Sites wouldn't have to get on any approval list tied to any particular blocker and everyone would decide for themselves what sites they want to support. No money for just being click bait, users have to actually like you enough to unblock. Not sure it'd work, but if that won't work then "acceptable ads" won't either.
Their PR arguments also hold no water. Let's assume that all their arguments about safety, quality, crime, and so on are all true. Why should we not have the choice anyway to pick who drives us? I am happy driving a friend to a location, they are happy to drive me, people drive themselves, yet somehow cabbies have twisted this into licensed uber drivers as being the best way to get yourself killed. So the regulations that largely exist for all drivers such as not being drunk, having insurance, having a safe car, having a licence, all make sense for normal drivers; so why don't they make sense for Uber drivers. Does the uber app somehow make them worse drivers?
You might say pretty much exactly the same about cooking, but I still think it's fair to hold professional food serving businesses to a different standard than me inviting a friend over for dinner. As for insurance, the rates reflect the risk and letting commercially operated cars pool with your average commuter unfairly shoves their risk over on us. I don't see a problem with Uber being required to check if you are properly licensed to transport strangers for money before you're allowed to participate. This isn't a phone book, Uber is taking a cut for every ride. Imagine a P2P program with a central server that charged you to pair up, if you want to download game of thrones season one that'll be $0.50 of which we'll take $0.10 and the uploader $0.40. Oh and the peers are legally responsible for whether the files are legal, we're only a matchmaker. How long do you think they'd be in business?
As is the idea that he was 950 years old when he died. Also totally believable.
Well, we have reason to believe some trees are over 5000 years old so if you believe in the creation myth and that Adam and Eve were created by divine touch that diminished over generations that is actually one of the less incredible parts. That we don't live longer is probably a compromise between reproductive age and retaining experience and knowledge between generations as giving birth to a new healthy generation might be more evolutionary "fit" than growing longer life spans, not any true kind of hard limit. Having seen how long we have and haven't gotten in medicine I don't think we'll see it in my lifetime but within the next few hundred years of science I think a thousand year life span is possible. Which doesn't mean that I think ancient people of the past lived that long, but still far more in the realm of the possible than some of the other stuff.
Well, they can't prevent you from return home since you're a citizen but there's no requirement they let you import anything, so who knows.... your belongings might be stuck in customs for years while your lawyer and theirs fight it out in court.
Note, by the by, that helping Assad against ISIS allows Assad to use more of his own troops against, say, the Kurds, who are our nominal allies in the region.
I might be wrong, but my impression was that Assad's strongholds were in the west/southwest and the Kurds in the north with ISIS in between so they don't really have any common border to fight on. It's the other rebel groups in Syria that are taking the piss with Assad's forces on one side and ISIS on the other. And now possibly Russian death from above, they must start to feel somebody up there hates them...
That would be a more appropriate headline. The $2 admission their company charges is basically the cover charge to get into a party with sale of alcoholic beverages. Does this sound like your typical fan gathering?:
Defendants boast that the "5th Annual Unofficial Pokemon PAX Kickoff Party" will feature among other things, "Pokemon themed shots and drinks - Smash Bros. Tournament with cash prize - Dancing - Giveaways - Cosplay Contest and more," and an "AMAZIN POKEMON MASHUP."
This sounds like a typical commercial "theme night" that bars and clubs might have, only instead of using a generic unprotected theme like Halloween they made a Pokemon party. Not surprised their lawyers got angry, They managed to put a very good media spin on it though, clearly they as event organizers know how to get media attention and manipulate it. I hope they get to pay every dollar.
Color me skeptical; I don't think this is going to happen via private industry for another 20 to 50 years at the very least.
A moon shot is only marginally more difficult if at all than a GEO satellite. Or for that matter a Mars shot, it's just a slightly longer rocket burn. The difficult part is what the fsck do you do when you're in orbit, it's the descent/landing that is challenging. That SpaceX can land rockets is obviously to save costs here on Earth but it's also to fill a major gap in our capability to go to Mars. I don't think a dedicated lander will ever get sufficient private funding, a spin-off technology of landing rockets here on Earth just might. It's not like the private industry is 50 years behind Apollo in technology, it's that they lack a business plan for going.
The GPL does not prevent you from learning from the source code to implement a compatible version under a different license.
No, but "derived from" extends further than implementing the exact same thing with different variable names that you typed up yourself. It's the same for all copyrighted material, you don't need direct quotes to infringe on a book, the exact samples to infringe on a song's melody or using cutouts to infringe on a photograph. It's not a patent, it doesn't get a monopoly on every implementation. But you have to show it's not the same implementation, because that will infringe copyright.