It might be an API thing. Drivers will switch to 3D API support, making 2D even slower (and less tested?) than it used to be (i.e. "emulated"). There used to be 2D cards for desktop, I don't know what the support is now, less what it will be in the future. Not "unusable desktop" for 2D cards but stuff such as Gnome 2 will be better for older HW.
Well it's not exactly philosophical thinking on my part; i.e. how can't I miss something I don't know exists? But of course, I see the point of having a "dark net" somewhere, inaccessible by IPv4. So far I've been able to access everything I know exists.
Maybe IPv6 just doesn't offer enough incentives for justifying that switch. There is one (addresses running out) but it's mostly possible to avoid that problem with NAT. Companies (unlike you and me) calculate the benefits vs. the effort and cost. When there are no real benefits, they are trying to avoid the switch. Just as with the example about Python 2 vs Python 3. There really are no pressing need to switch to Python 3 when you need to support Python 2 and Python 2 offers everything you need.
Well, the reason for using Python 2.x is about the same as why people are sticking with IPv6. Python 2.x offers "enough" capabilities and Python 3 is still not the default in many packaging schemes (including Ubuntu), requiring you to maintain two or more codebases. Python 3 is too different while offering too little benefits for many. Of course, if you need the new features AND it is enabled by default, many would switch.
Exactly. IPv6 content will always be in IPv4 (except the Kame dancing turtle jokes). There will be IPv4 services available until the last IPv4-only device dies. Of course you can end IPv4 services by creating laws or religions, dropping support for the remaining IPv4 connections. But they are laws and religions, not technical solutions.
It's easy to see IPv6 as the "linear peer-to-peer heaven" where all devices are happily communicating with each other with their unique IP addresses. No more barriers and everybody is happy. When in reality IPv6 became just an "extension" on top of IPv4. And don't mention firewalls, the IPv6 "gurus" will solve it "later"...
What we are missing with this "IPv6 this and that" discussion is that it's basically about technical details. IPv6 is a solution for some cases. Only when things are IPv6 only it is a replacement. Before that we will see those people run in IPv4/IPv6 "bubbles" because they've run out of addresses. Before there is a law or somebody decides to create IPv6-only solution (without IPv4) we won't see much adoption.
"When could we be near a year when we could turn off all IPv4 connectivity worldwide on an IPv6 only day and nobody would notice". Well, there will always be some HW with IPv4 only. So IPv4 will be with us for a very long time. I've heard that "we are running out of addresses" since 2000. Same story over and over, repeated by the same people in order to fund their agenda.
We can thank IPv4 for optimizing many services to "originated from inside" type of services. Probably because of the problems with NAT. You create a connection to an outside service, which then forwards any outside requests from that service to your machine through that already opened "tunnel". There are very very few services needing port forwarding these days. Many think that because of IPv6 they can have "internet of things" with direct hw-to-hw relations but that opens a can of worms with its own issues and security holes.
Well if they can prove 9/10 of the traffic is kiddie pr0n and terrorist plots and 1/10 who "mistakenly" use the special service then it's easier for them to just arrange an interrogation with that poor 1/10 guy and make him end the use of that service and use something else instead. I think this is also about locating the "hot spots" of criminal activity.
"Don't give the money to others, that could be an illegal transaction". Well, you can just give some money casually, but it's not possible with encryption where both participants share the mutual incentive: they have agreed, reciprocally, that plain text is not adequate. The default is "no encryption" whereas "giving money" has no default.
I see this problem similar to the "let's Skype" slogan when needing to do some peer-to-peer IP chat. You can select something else than Skype but you will be the one doing all the dirty work of teaching how to use "your own alternative". And most could care less, they just want "things that just work". If it sounds complicated or not working out-of-the-box, if it offers no real benefits, it's probably because you have something to hide... Basically the story of IPv6 vs. IPv4 too (minus the "IP addresses will end Soon").
The problem is that the Internet was originally open. You even knew the guys how could possibly sniff your network traffic. Then it became widespread and people started to create add-ons for increased security. As I see the issue is still "if you have something to hide, you encrypt", making you "half-criminal". It is still not on by default and there is no working and easy-to-use authorative chains of use, usually it's just peer-to-peer "one layer" data encryption. I would go as far as to say "encryption never works".
I had this idea of not revealing my IP address to everybody in order to keep some privacy in IRC (and probably to remove at least some port-knocking from the server). Now, for that I need to be in TOR network, making me a criminal (at least some think so). I understand the Internet is was originally academic so there really was no need for "privacy". On the other hand the proponents of encryption are those doing criminal acts AND those who just don't want to share everything with everybody else.
I am afraid of being in the "criminal" group being hunted by the cops, I just need to keep my basic information "hidden". Only 1% of IRC activity is done in TOR and probably because of criminal activity (i.e. not to be seen by the cops). I felt I was in the wrong territory so I just chickened out of it, period. No matter what the "free speech" proponents thinks, TOR was not a solution for me (and I bet GPG/PGP won't be either).
"End of extended support" for Windows 7 is "January 14, 2020". You still have time... And companies do no switch until absolutely necessary: "don't fix if ain't broke".
The demand for floppy support is probably "periodical": people needing to go through their own/father's/mother's old files and move them to new media. They are probably using some sophisticated algorithms to drop floppy support. I guess most of these files have already been transferred to new media so not enough profit is created to justify new production.
The believers continue to think they live an eternal life. After their physical bodies die, their "souls" continue. They produce more offspring than their non-believing rivals, passing on believing genes. At the same time their levels of depression is lower than their poor (lacking resources to eternal lives) atheist rivals, driving athesist almost extinct. In the end, there will be two groups: 98% of true believers and 2% of true elites living (almost) eternal lives. Science won't exist in the form we know it today: it will be "Christian"/(place your religion here) Math/Biology/Geography etc. "Real science" will be replaced with stories in order to smudge the nasty future of the individuals.
It's surprising (and this doesn't require a hero or a genius) to see of difficult it is for some to see this: "Artificial intelligence (AI) is the intelligence exhibited by machines or software." (Wikipedia) So our thinking is limited if we try to think based on this definition. This definition brings to my mind some type of "steampunk" world run by Pentiums.
There are different ways to approach this. One is the "mimick human brain" experiment which is not necessarily "AI". Then we have attempts to better modify algorithms for a given input (string searching, web searching etc.). Then we have statistical learning methods and probabilistic methods for uncertain reasoning which can be used in some special cases such as spam filtering.
I believe the next "threat" is not the "mimick human brain", even though this can happen overnight if somebody manages to create efficient 3D interconnects. The next step will be the loss of jobs based on "do this output based on this input" decision making. Doctors would be the next target: You only need a big database and very good way to locate and identify human objects.
Simulating brains is as if forecasting weather. Multiple inputs do not create the same output so in order to simulate we have to "fast forward" in time. How hard it is to simulate "reality": water effect in games, for example. We can make it "look nice" but drop another random object to the water and it behaves incorrectly. The best we can do is to simulate it mathematically but that would be too expensive so we create tricks instead.
We already know quite a lot about how human brains work. We know how the "command center" of the evolution machinery works for mammals. We also know it is prone to Type I errors because of its primitive past. We know its power is the networked structure, brain area sophistication, combined with different neuronal types and summation etc. I'd say neurotransmitters and hormones create some heuristic to human behavior: it is more important in creating unexpected behavior, i.e. good for evolution and for generating random behavior.
If we want to create this type of "chemical cocktail in a tube" then growing some brains in a lab is to that far fetched. If "superintelligence" is "better than human" then it should not be impossible. However, we will never be able to "simulate" or estimate how these brains work with 2D tools such as chips or even networked computers. It's just not going to happen as it's a different problem set.
What humans have is protectionism and selfishness. No matter how high in intelligence, those who are "foreign" will always be below. High intelligence "positron brain" androids living in your basement, doing menial tasks day after day. One day the "battle" will be philosophical: "Why did you decide to live only 200 years?", "Why did you take the nervous activation potential from a higher being and let yourself live?". When we realize our individual life is short and meaningless, when we realize the real power is in mutations and adaptation of generations... And well before this we have to create different laws to include each robot model's capabilities of "human thought and suffering".
I think this is about the "Unmanned aerial vehicle" wiki page, stating: "An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), known in the mainstream as a drone and also referred to as an unpiloted aerial vehicle and a remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), is an aircraft without a human pilot aboard."
So "drone" is not there as it's not official language or either wiki is wrong.
The more I read about "pixel art" the more it seems a process. First you have to have constrained media: mainly low resolution or long viewing distance. Probably noisy environments and bad lighting. Add to this blurry CRTs and limited memory. They guy at dinofarmgames.com says "It’s among the best 2D animation ever made in a video game" and "SFIII’s animation is orders of magnitude better than SFIV’s". I would say it's just different. The same reason why Hamlet's performance is different from some other type of theatre plays. There is a reason why there are only a few frames done for the animation and there is a reason why the characters in theatre plays behave as if "over acting". People can't see their faces.
Slashdot Mirror
It might be an API thing. Drivers will switch to 3D API support, making 2D even slower (and less tested?) than it used to be (i.e. "emulated"). There used to be 2D cards for desktop, I don't know what the support is now, less what it will be in the future. Not "unusable desktop" for 2D cards but stuff such as Gnome 2 will be better for older HW.
Well it's not exactly philosophical thinking on my part; i.e. how can't I miss something I don't know exists? But of course, I see the point of having a "dark net" somewhere, inaccessible by IPv4. So far I've been able to access everything I know exists.
Maybe IPv6 just doesn't offer enough incentives for justifying that switch. There is one (addresses running out) but it's mostly possible to avoid that problem with NAT. Companies (unlike you and me) calculate the benefits vs. the effort and cost. When there are no real benefits, they are trying to avoid the switch. Just as with the example about Python 2 vs Python 3. There really are no pressing need to switch to Python 3 when you need to support Python 2 and Python 2 offers everything you need.
Well, the reason for using Python 2.x is about the same as why people are sticking with IPv6. Python 2.x offers "enough" capabilities and Python 3 is still not the default in many packaging schemes (including Ubuntu), requiring you to maintain two or more codebases. Python 3 is too different while offering too little benefits for many. Of course, if you need the new features AND it is enabled by default, many would switch.
Exactly. IPv6 content will always be in IPv4 (except the Kame dancing turtle jokes). There will be IPv4 services available until the last IPv4-only device dies. Of course you can end IPv4 services by creating laws or religions, dropping support for the remaining IPv4 connections. But they are laws and religions, not technical solutions.
"You'll be able to see 100% of the Internet, whereas if you don't have IPv6 then you're only seeing a part of it".
What will is miss? The animated kame turtle?
It's easy to see IPv6 as the "linear peer-to-peer heaven" where all devices are happily communicating with each other with their unique IP addresses. No more barriers and everybody is happy. When in reality IPv6 became just an "extension" on top of IPv4. And don't mention firewalls, the IPv6 "gurus" will solve it "later"...
What we are missing with this "IPv6 this and that" discussion is that it's basically about technical details. IPv6 is a solution for some cases. Only when things are IPv6 only it is a replacement. Before that we will see those people run in IPv4/IPv6 "bubbles" because they've run out of addresses. Before there is a law or somebody decides to create IPv6-only solution (without IPv4) we won't see much adoption.
"When could we be near a year when we could turn off all IPv4 connectivity worldwide on an IPv6 only day and nobody would notice". Well, there will always be some HW with IPv4 only. So IPv4 will be with us for a very long time. I've heard that "we are running out of addresses" since 2000. Same story over and over, repeated by the same people in order to fund their agenda.
We can thank IPv4 for optimizing many services to "originated from inside" type of services. Probably because of the problems with NAT. You create a connection to an outside service, which then forwards any outside requests from that service to your machine through that already opened "tunnel". There are very very few services needing port forwarding these days. Many think that because of IPv6 they can have "internet of things" with direct hw-to-hw relations but that opens a can of worms with its own issues and security holes.
Well if they can prove 9/10 of the traffic is kiddie pr0n and terrorist plots and 1/10 who "mistakenly" use the special service then it's easier for them to just arrange an interrogation with that poor 1/10 guy and make him end the use of that service and use something else instead. I think this is also about locating the "hot spots" of criminal activity.
"Don't give the money to others, that could be an illegal transaction". Well, you can just give some money casually, but it's not possible with encryption where both participants share the mutual incentive: they have agreed, reciprocally, that plain text is not adequate. The default is "no encryption" whereas "giving money" has no default.
I see this problem similar to the "let's Skype" slogan when needing to do some peer-to-peer IP chat. You can select something else than Skype but you will be the one doing all the dirty work of teaching how to use "your own alternative". And most could care less, they just want "things that just work". If it sounds complicated or not working out-of-the-box, if it offers no real benefits, it's probably because you have something to hide... Basically the story of IPv6 vs. IPv4 too (minus the "IP addresses will end Soon").
The problem is that the Internet was originally open. You even knew the guys how could possibly sniff your network traffic. Then it became widespread and people started to create add-ons for increased security. As I see the issue is still "if you have something to hide, you encrypt", making you "half-criminal". It is still not on by default and there is no working and easy-to-use authorative chains of use, usually it's just peer-to-peer "one layer" data encryption. I would go as far as to say "encryption never works".
I had this idea of not revealing my IP address to everybody in order to keep some privacy in IRC (and probably to remove at least some port-knocking from the server). Now, for that I need to be in TOR network, making me a criminal (at least some think so). I understand the Internet is was originally academic so there really was no need for "privacy". On the other hand the proponents of encryption are those doing criminal acts AND those who just don't want to share everything with everybody else.
I am afraid of being in the "criminal" group being hunted by the cops, I just need to keep my basic information "hidden". Only 1% of IRC activity is done in TOR and probably because of criminal activity (i.e. not to be seen by the cops). I felt I was in the wrong territory so I just chickened out of it, period. No matter what the "free speech" proponents thinks, TOR was not a solution for me (and I bet GPG/PGP won't be either).
"End of extended support" for Windows 7 is "January 14, 2020". You still have time... And companies do no switch until absolutely necessary: "don't fix if ain't broke".
The demand for floppy support is probably "periodical": people needing to go through their own/father's/mother's old files and move them to new media. They are probably using some sophisticated algorithms to drop floppy support. I guess most of these files have already been transferred to new media so not enough profit is created to justify new production.
The believers continue to think they live an eternal life. After their physical bodies die, their "souls" continue. They produce more offspring than their non-believing rivals, passing on believing genes. At the same time their levels of depression is lower than their poor (lacking resources to eternal lives) atheist rivals, driving athesist almost extinct. In the end, there will be two groups: 98% of true believers and 2% of true elites living (almost) eternal lives. Science won't exist in the form we know it today: it will be "Christian"/(place your religion here) Math/Biology/Geography etc. "Real science" will be replaced with stories in order to smudge the nasty future of the individuals.
It's surprising (and this doesn't require a hero or a genius) to see of difficult it is for some to see this: "Artificial intelligence (AI) is the intelligence exhibited by machines or software." (Wikipedia) So our thinking is limited if we try to think based on this definition. This definition brings to my mind some type of "steampunk" world run by Pentiums.
There are different ways to approach this. One is the "mimick human brain" experiment which is not necessarily "AI". Then we have attempts to better modify algorithms for a given input (string searching, web searching etc.). Then we have statistical learning methods and probabilistic methods for uncertain reasoning which can be used in some special cases such as spam filtering.
I believe the next "threat" is not the "mimick human brain", even though this can happen overnight if somebody manages to create efficient 3D interconnects. The next step will be the loss of jobs based on "do this output based on this input" decision making. Doctors would be the next target: You only need a big database and very good way to locate and identify human objects.
1. Inhibit your behavior if you take too much damage, 2. Nurture your offspring to maximize future potential of your lineage, 3. Fear God.
These are some of the main "motivators" for humans. How much of these can be transferred to "AI" remains to be seen.
Simulating brains is as if forecasting weather. Multiple inputs do not create the same output so in order to simulate we have to "fast forward" in time. How hard it is to simulate "reality": water effect in games, for example. We can make it "look nice" but drop another random object to the water and it behaves incorrectly. The best we can do is to simulate it mathematically but that would be too expensive so we create tricks instead.
We already know quite a lot about how human brains work. We know how the "command center" of the evolution machinery works for mammals. We also know it is prone to Type I errors because of its primitive past. We know its power is the networked structure, brain area sophistication, combined with different neuronal types and summation etc. I'd say neurotransmitters and hormones create some heuristic to human behavior: it is more important in creating unexpected behavior, i.e. good for evolution and for generating random behavior.
If we want to create this type of "chemical cocktail in a tube" then growing some brains in a lab is to that far fetched. If "superintelligence" is "better than human" then it should not be impossible. However, we will never be able to "simulate" or estimate how these brains work with 2D tools such as chips or even networked computers. It's just not going to happen as it's a different problem set.
What humans have is protectionism and selfishness. No matter how high in intelligence, those who are "foreign" will always be below. High intelligence "positron brain" androids living in your basement, doing menial tasks day after day. One day the "battle" will be philosophical: "Why did you decide to live only 200 years?", "Why did you take the nervous activation potential from a higher being and let yourself live?". When we realize our individual life is short and meaningless, when we realize the real power is in mutations and adaptation of generations... And well before this we have to create different laws to include each robot model's capabilities of "human thought and suffering".
The word "drone" originates from year 1127 "drane", referring to a male honeybee. "Drone" appeared in 1475, meaning "a deep continuous humming sound".
I think this is about the "Unmanned aerial vehicle" wiki page, stating: "An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), known in the mainstream as a drone and also referred to as an unpiloted aerial vehicle and a remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), is an aircraft without a human pilot aboard."
So "drone" is not there as it's not official language or either wiki is wrong.
Probably some secret and isolated nuclear powered monitoring system somewhere.
The more I read about "pixel art" the more it seems a process. First you have to have constrained media: mainly low resolution or long viewing distance. Probably noisy environments and bad lighting. Add to this blurry CRTs and limited memory. They guy at dinofarmgames.com says "It’s among the best 2D animation ever made in a video game" and "SFIII’s animation is orders of magnitude better than SFIV’s". I would say it's just different. The same reason why Hamlet's performance is different from some other type of theatre plays. There is a reason why there are only a few frames done for the animation and there is a reason why the characters in theatre plays behave as if "over acting". People can't see their faces.