I guess it's to allow any power of 2 number of colours (up to the maximum). Fitting groups of 5 bits into a 16 bit chunk requires either wasting space, when space was at a premium, or a lot of fiddly bit shifting.
The partially drawn issue was never really a problem with double buffering.
Another advantage of bitplanes was the dual playfield mode. 3 bitplanes for a 16 colour background and 3 for a 15 colour + transparent foreground. Both could be scrolled independently.
You can add an extra layer to key escrow though. What if the government, the service provider and a third party, contractually obliged to not hand over keys without a court order, all have to provide a key? The government can't really be trusted, but the third party is only going to allow the government access if all the legalities are sorted out, and the service provider will have an incentive to challenge
I mean I'm not disagreeing with your basic point. It won't work but that's because law abiding people simply don't see why they should have to hand over their keys.
There are always further mechanisms. Perhaps provide an encrypted key to the authorities, and employ a trusted third party to hold the key to unlock that, for example.You can even add multiple keys with multiple third parties to provide a more than satisfactory level of safety.
Still, I don't think the added costs and complexity (and honestly, however robust there will be some reduction in security) are really justified for the ability to read messages. I'm a little sceptical of the idea that this would even be particularly effective a measure.
I wouldn't read too much into that figure. It's a n estimate based on violin players.
Not that I completely dismiss it, but there's more to it than that. If a violin player spent 10,000 hours practising a specific piece, I have no doubt that they would play that piece flawlessly, no matter how difficult. But they wouldn't be very good at playing other music. They might not even know how to. Someone with 5,000 hours of more general practice would be able to play most popular pieces from a range of styles of music very well. Is the person who knows one song perfectly really a better musician?
Of course, nobody does that. Why would they? But we're looking at a situation where someone might be learning just one codebase for 10 years. More than enough for that "expert" level of practice. They know one piece of code flawlessly. Quite a large and complex piece of code. But they haven't been exposed to other ideas. They won't have the experience to try consider alternatives because they won't have been exposed to other ways of doing things.
People who change jobs learn a lot of ways of doing things. Also a lot of things not to do. Those are useful skills. I'd say they're more useful than depth of knowledge about a specific application
Those tend to be niche areas though. Most people don't have Premier. They take photos and videos and upload them straight to the internet.
Gamers will spend a lot more on upgrades than PCs. Between 1994 and 2012, when I was more into games, I bought a total of 2 PCs. The second one was because I couldn't buy an AT motherboard with a modern CPU. I bought about 5 or 6 motherboards in that time, and a similar number of graphics cards, of course.
That doesn't strike me as sufficient justification. Most western countries, this would be considered murder. Killing someone because of a small chance that they might be a danger rather than it being probably is insufficient grounds for lethal force. He was reaching for his waistband. Sure, there was a possibility that he had a gun, but until this is confirmed there is no justification to fire.
It's not stealing. It's copyright infringement. They really can't be more different.
If it was stealing they would have been charged in a criminal court and imprisoned. This was a civil suit, where they were charged an amount to compensate for the losses claimed by Nintendo.
The information is not destroyed in that case. Simply unavailable. Someone (with knowledge of the key) could reasonably easily restore the data.
If you destroy the encrypted key on the phone (not quite sure how these work, but I presume there password is used to unlock the key that encrypts the data or something), or you have a key on some sort of medium that you wipe, that might be considered tampering.
A lot of this can be handled with low tech methods though. Make sure the machine remains visible at all times. Put plastic tape over any access hatch so you know if it's been tampered with. These low tech security measures are a lot harder to circumvent, and based on tried and tested methods that work well even for paper hand-counted ballots.
I agree with your concerns about the network stack. And I really don't have any idea how we can avoid attacks at the development or production stages.
I don't understand the reasons behind a purely electronic system. Personally I think that any voting system should provide a piece of paper with a mark on it. If the paper is then counted by machine, then fair enough. I realise there are issues there as well. I was around for Bush v. Gore, but I think those problems can be avoided.
The problem is enforcing it right along the chain.
2 factor authentication is inconvenient, and people circumvent inconvenience. In this case they can't even be bothered doing single factor authentication properly. So they'll share the password, and the security card, or SecureID generator or whatever.
I think to get this to work we'll need to fix human stupidity. Sadly I can;t see this happening.
Sometimes I think we should remove all digital security features.
Based on the same principle that the way to make people drive more carefully would be a 6 inch spike in the middle of the steering wheel, people rely on passwords and encryption when they aren't completely effective. More to the point, the users typically don't understand them that well. The passwords themselves are next to useless here. Might as well remove them entirely.
If the security systems are removed, then we'd have to rely on things like solid cases, and physical locks and keys. Something that can not be easily broken and will show a clear indication is someone has done so. We would have to isolate the device from the network entirely.
Hollywood keeps trying this sort of thing. It doesn't work. The idea superficially makes sense. These successful films contain elements X, Y and Z, so if we make a film with elements X, Y and Z it will be successful.
The problem is, it doesn't work. This is a way to get bland generic pap. It will probably be pleasing enough but nobody will care if they see it or miss it. it's predictable and repetitive.
Yes. It's worth it to another patent troll at least. Find an infringer for any of them, and they'll probably agree to buy the patent outright for more than that.
They need to admit there's some sort of problem first.
After a couple of years of promises to deal with the work-life balance issue I decided to quit the industry. All my colleagues seemed okay with the unpaid overtime though.
That "trillion miles" thing was clearly just a wild guess though. It's probably way more likely.
Have you ever heard of such a situation in a real world situation? The only examples I can think of are in the event of wars and natural disasters where the designers can't really be expected to plan for the situation.
This is not the way most of the general public uses it. Nor is it the way that it's used in philosophy. This seems to be something unique to a subset of internet nerds based of false etymologies.
You cannot prove a negative and therefore cannot prove that god does not exist.
Why do people keep repeating this rubbish. Of course you can prove a negative. I can prove that there are no even prime numbers above 2.
If you can't prove a negative, then the statement "you can't prove a negative" would also apply to itself, yet people regurgitate it as though it's a proven fact.
I had to reread it a few times to make sense of it.
The clause was submitted as part of the regulations. If it was accepted then copyright rules would be inapplicable. It was not accepted. This actually leaves the rules in a bit of a grey area.
If you're in a developing country and live that far away from an authorized repair place, I can't imagine it's that likely you own this sort of premium technology.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess it's to allow any power of 2 number of colours (up to the maximum). Fitting groups of 5 bits into a 16 bit chunk requires either wasting space, when space was at a premium, or a lot of fiddly bit shifting.
The partially drawn issue was never really a problem with double buffering.
Another advantage of bitplanes was the dual playfield mode. 3 bitplanes for a 16 colour background and 3 for a 15 colour + transparent foreground. Both could be scrolled independently.
You can add an extra layer to key escrow though. What if the government, the service provider and a third party, contractually obliged to not hand over keys without a court order, all have to provide a key? The government can't really be trusted, but the third party is only going to allow the government access if all the legalities are sorted out, and the service provider will have an incentive to challenge
I mean I'm not disagreeing with your basic point. It won't work but that's because law abiding people simply don't see why they should have to hand over their keys.
There are always further mechanisms. Perhaps provide an encrypted key to the authorities, and employ a trusted third party to hold the key to unlock that, for example.You can even add multiple keys with multiple third parties to provide a more than satisfactory level of safety.
Still, I don't think the added costs and complexity (and honestly, however robust there will be some reduction in security) are really justified for the ability to read messages. I'm a little sceptical of the idea that this would even be particularly effective a measure.
The authorities would be delighted with that. Amateurs make heaps of mistakes with this sort of thing.
So it turns out that Bezos can not predict the future. Maybe he's just human.
I wouldn't read too much into that figure. It's a n estimate based on violin players.
Not that I completely dismiss it, but there's more to it than that. If a violin player spent 10,000 hours practising a specific piece, I have no doubt that they would play that piece flawlessly, no matter how difficult. But they wouldn't be very good at playing other music. They might not even know how to. Someone with 5,000 hours of more general practice would be able to play most popular pieces from a range of styles of music very well. Is the person who knows one song perfectly really a better musician?
Of course, nobody does that. Why would they? But we're looking at a situation where someone might be learning just one codebase for 10 years. More than enough for that "expert" level of practice. They know one piece of code flawlessly. Quite a large and complex piece of code. But they haven't been exposed to other ideas. They won't have the experience to try consider alternatives because they won't have been exposed to other ways of doing things.
People who change jobs learn a lot of ways of doing things. Also a lot of things not to do. Those are useful skills. I'd say they're more useful than depth of knowledge about a specific application
Those tend to be niche areas though. Most people don't have Premier. They take photos and videos and upload them straight to the internet.
Gamers will spend a lot more on upgrades than PCs. Between 1994 and 2012, when I was more into games, I bought a total of 2 PCs. The second one was because I couldn't buy an AT motherboard with a modern CPU. I bought about 5 or 6 motherboards in that time, and a similar number of graphics cards, of course.
That doesn't strike me as sufficient justification. Most western countries, this would be considered murder. Killing someone because of a small chance that they might be a danger rather than it being probably is insufficient grounds for lethal force. He was reaching for his waistband. Sure, there was a possibility that he had a gun, but until this is confirmed there is no justification to fire.
It's not stealing. It's copyright infringement. They really can't be more different.
If it was stealing they would have been charged in a criminal court and imprisoned. This was a civil suit, where they were charged an amount to compensate for the losses claimed by Nintendo.
The information is not destroyed in that case. Simply unavailable. Someone (with knowledge of the key) could reasonably easily restore the data.
If you destroy the encrypted key on the phone (not quite sure how these work, but I presume there password is used to unlock the key that encrypts the data or something), or you have a key on some sort of medium that you wipe, that might be considered tampering.
A lot of this can be handled with low tech methods though. Make sure the machine remains visible at all times. Put plastic tape over any access hatch so you know if it's been tampered with. These low tech security measures are a lot harder to circumvent, and based on tried and tested methods that work well even for paper hand-counted ballots.
I agree with your concerns about the network stack. And I really don't have any idea how we can avoid attacks at the development or production stages.
I don't understand the reasons behind a purely electronic system. Personally I think that any voting system should provide a piece of paper with a mark on it. If the paper is then counted by machine, then fair enough. I realise there are issues there as well. I was around for Bush v. Gore, but I think those problems can be avoided.
The problem is enforcing it right along the chain.
2 factor authentication is inconvenient, and people circumvent inconvenience. In this case they can't even be bothered doing single factor authentication properly. So they'll share the password, and the security card, or SecureID generator or whatever.
I think to get this to work we'll need to fix human stupidity. Sadly I can;t see this happening.
Sometimes I think we should remove all digital security features.
Based on the same principle that the way to make people drive more carefully would be a 6 inch spike in the middle of the steering wheel, people rely on passwords and encryption when they aren't completely effective. More to the point, the users typically don't understand them that well. The passwords themselves are next to useless here. Might as well remove them entirely.
If the security systems are removed, then we'd have to rely on things like solid cases, and physical locks and keys. Something that can not be easily broken and will show a clear indication is someone has done so. We would have to isolate the device from the network entirely.
Hollywood keeps trying this sort of thing. It doesn't work. The idea superficially makes sense. These successful films contain elements X, Y and Z, so if we make a film with elements X, Y and Z it will be successful.
The problem is, it doesn't work. This is a way to get bland generic pap. It will probably be pleasing enough but nobody will care if they see it or miss it. it's predictable and repetitive.
Yes. It's worth it to another patent troll at least. Find an infringer for any of them, and they'll probably agree to buy the patent outright for more than that.
They need to admit there's some sort of problem first.
After a couple of years of promises to deal with the work-life balance issue I decided to quit the industry. All my colleagues seemed okay with the unpaid overtime though.
That "trillion miles" thing was clearly just a wild guess though. It's probably way more likely.
Have you ever heard of such a situation in a real world situation? The only examples I can think of are in the event of wars and natural disasters where the designers can't really be expected to plan for the situation.
This is not the way most of the general public uses it. Nor is it the way that it's used in philosophy. This seems to be something unique to a subset of internet nerds based of false etymologies.
Why do people keep repeating this rubbish. Of course you can prove a negative. I can prove that there are no even prime numbers above 2.
If you can't prove a negative, then the statement "you can't prove a negative" would also apply to itself, yet people regurgitate it as though it's a proven fact.
I had to reread it a few times to make sense of it.
The clause was submitted as part of the regulations. If it was accepted then copyright rules would be inapplicable. It was not accepted. This actually leaves the rules in a bit of a grey area.
Most likely the escape tower used in pretty much everything else since the Mercury rockets. Rockets on a tower in front pull the capsule away.
I'm off to buy a generator and a satellite internet connection...
Oh, right. A measured response.
Tell the guy he's not allowed to do this? Fire him?
Why is it any business of the company, let alone the employees?
If you're in a developing country and live that far away from an authorized repair place, I can't imagine it's that likely you own this sort of premium technology.