Why on earth would we want to do that? Historically our technological innovation has been driven domestically in part because we have such an open policy to immigrants. The space program was dramatically accelerated by accepting German immigrants. The Manhattan Project owes a lot to immigrants. Let's get our collective nationalist heads out of our asses and acknowledge that there are people around the world who are smarter than most unemployed Americans. Unemployment for those with Masters in computer science/engineering is in the low single digits.
H-1B is not about Einstein or Von Braun vs. some random unemployed American. It's about random Indian bodyshop flunkies versus unemployed older tech workers – not to mention any other American tech worker who wants a raise.
The US has a separate visa, the O-1, for "Individuals with Extraordinary Ability or Achievement." That's how Linus Torvalds got his US citizenship. We don't need H-1B for that at all.
Forgive me, but I dont really understand why people in this country deserve jobs more than people in another country, particularly if theyre more skilled or asking for less money.
You know why members of Congress are called Representatives?
Because they're supposed to represent us. They are supposed to stand up for our interests. Not because Americans are somehow cosmically more worthy than non-Americans, but because it's our fucking country and it is supposed to be run for the benefit of "ourselves and our posterity."
If Indians want good stuff then they have their own democratically elected government to go to. I expect the Indian government to put the interests of Indians over the interests of Americans, but likewise I expect the U.S. government to put the interests of Americans over the interests of foreigners.
Anyone who claims this is about freedom of speech are being ridiculous. Should people be able to buy billboard space around the world and declare to the world that you are pedophile? Or something true, a compulsive masturbator? What makes a Google autocomplete any different?
What makes it different is that in the two hypothetical cases you posited, someone actively chose to levy a specific accusation against someone. In contrast, no one at Google ever specifically decided that this dentist should have the word "bankrupt" appear next to his name on Autocomplete. That decision was made automatically by a programmed algorithm without anyone approving or even knowing about it.
This opens a whole new can of worms. Can computer software commit libel? Who is responsible if it does? I suppose you could claim that Autocomplete speaks for "Google" as a corporate entity (hey, corporate personhood ought to have a downside) but what if similar suggestion software was written by an individual? Is it really fair to hold a programmer accountable for every thing his/her program does, even if there is no way to forecast all of this ahead of time?
Seriously, what's the worst that can happen? Skynet? Wait...
Note that in order to make Skynet a credible apocalyptic threat, the authors of the Terminator franchise had to give it control of nuclear weapons. Google couldn't do such a thing if they wanted to, and it's very unlikely any real-world military would even consider it, given the fact that we have all kinds of controls (such as simultaneous 2-key systems) that are specifically designed to prevent rogue soldiers from firing off nukes.
A hypothetical malevolent AI could certainly do a lot of harm given access to Google's network capability, but it would not result in billions of deaths nor in the end of the modern world.
Game AI is a very poor example, since it faces a unique challenge: it has to be just good enough to provide the player with a decent challenge, but not so good that the player is overwhelmed. And most game designers don't even need to bother with anything approximating AI; a few much simpler algorithms suffice in almost all cases.
If it can sort through a variety of data types and interpret language enough to come up with a helpful response, does it matter if such a system isn't "self aware"? I have doubts about some of my coworkers being able to pass a turing test. Watson is nearly at a level to replace two or three of them, and that is a somewhat frightening prospect for structural unemployment.
Anything even approximating strong AI would mean that capitalism would immediately become not just obsolete but destructive. Eliminating redundant jobs is a "frightening prospect for structural unemployment" in a capitalist system, but a form of human liberation in a socialist, post-scarcity society where the right to a decent income is guaranteed as a birthright.
So, I take it you have an answer to the symbol grounding problem? Or are you just reasserting computationalism in face of evidence to the contrary?
Either the brain is an organic computer, or Cartesian Dualism is true. It has to be one or the other. And Cartesian Dualism is a superstition that is contradicted by empirical reality (such as the fact that physical damage to the brain can affect the workings of the mind). Therefore the best evidence we currently have is that the brain is an organic computer. The fact that we are having trouble emulating its operations indicates a current lack of knowledge on our part; it's not an indication that the brain is somehow magical and immune to being technologically reproduced.
1) Can machines fly? Yes, planes can fly
2) Can machines swim? No, submarines don't swim.
If you can satisfactory explain the discrepancy between the answers for those two statements, you might be able to contribute. -
That's just a semantic trick that exploits the ambiguities of these two verbs in the English language. It doesn't say anything about the nature of reality, just about how English-speakers think about reality.
Re:Any progress on the file system front?
on
CentOS 5.9 Released
·
· Score: 1
That article is almost entirely political bullshit, and says very little about the actual merits of ZFS as a filesystem (which are now well-verified, even if that wasn't the case in 2006).
Any progress on the file system front?
on
CentOS 5.9 Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
IMO, one of the drawbacks of Linux (including CentOS) as a server OS compared to FreeBSD is the lack of a good file system. FreeBSD (and Solaris) have ZFS which has robust checksum and parity features, while Linux has nothing of the kind, at least not yet. Has any progress been made on this front?
The only reason Oracle bought Sun was so that Larry Ellison could use its patents to wage war against Google and Android. Java's security problems don't impair his abilities to do that, so he doesn't care.
Doesn't properly support Unicode either. That's why you will regularly see garbage if you copy and paste content that contains characters like a British pound symbol.
That will be a problem of the ISP then, if their customers can't use legitimate services because the ISP can't differentiate between the culprit and the innocent customers, the ISP has a problem. The ISP then has to have either a very good customer management which allows to disconnect culprits very fast without too many false positives, or the ISP has to introduce some kind of class ips, where the customers without complains share the "good ip", and customers with some bad stains get degraded to other, partly blacklisted IPs.
Do you really think any ISPs are going to take on these kinds of responsibilities? You're expecting them to basically be moderators for every forum on the Internet. Aside from the fact that they *shouldn't* be doing this (they should be dumb pipes), they also don't *want* to do this because it's logistically impossible and would open them up to potential legal liability.
It's 'free' for people with currently active subscriptions to the product, not every Tom, Dale, and Hates the Gimp, alas.
From further down on that same message board, from the "Community Admin" staff account:
Effective December 13, Adobe disabled the activation server for CS2 products and Acrobat 7 because of a technical glitch. These products were released over 7 years ago and do not run on many modern operating systems. But to ensure that any customers activating those old versions can continue to use their software, we issued a serial number directly to those customers. While this might be interpreted as Adobe giving away software for free, we did it to help our customers.
That's not exactly a denial. It's certainly more ambiguous than what previous employees in the same thread were saying.
But... but... but... the Office document formats have been documented! Third-party compatibility shouldn't be an issue any more. Nor should MS have to rely on a quarter century of some of the cruftiest code on the planet to maintain their monopoly. They can simply create new apps with more flexible (and comprehensible) UIs and modern, efficient code to replace the legacy Office.
Yes, I know this was sarcasm, but it's still worth elaborating upon.
The modern Office file formats are indeed properly documented. The problem is that the formats are themselves heavily influenced by legacy crap, so the design is incredibly baroque and runs well into thousands of pages. You'd need a major corporate-led effort to get good compatibility with OOXML; independent developers aren't going to be able to do it. And even Google has had trouble with it in the past. (Perhaps they've gotten better by now; this article is about 20 months old.)
But with legacy Office documents, and with crap like macros and VBA, even Microsoft probably doesn't really know how they work any more. I actually fielded a call from a family friend a few days ago about being unable to open Word 2.0 and WordPerfect documents in Office 2007. (Apparently they still use those ancient programs in some departments of the organization he consults for.) Turns out that Word supports these formats, but it's turned off by default for "security reasons". In other words, they have a ton of old legacy code that doesn't meet modern security standards and that they can't or won't rewrite, but is needed for backwards compatibility. So they just turn it off by default and sort of hope it will eventually go away.
Microsoft locked Windows RT down because it wanted to slowly get rid of the Win32 cruft dating back to the 80s and 90s.
If Microsoft gets rid of the "Win32 cruft dating back to the 80s and 90s", then there will be no reason for anyone to choose Windows over any other operating system. Legacy compatibility and a huge installed base of applications are Microsoft's primary competitive edge, but Ballmer seems to have forgotten this in his Ahab-like quest to chase down Apple.
That cruft does exist now and is used to run things like Office and Notepad etc. but Microsoft can easily rewrite them in the future.
If Microsoft could have ditched legacy API usage for Office that easily, I think they would have done so already in the first release of Surface. At this point, the Office codebase is probably so FUBARed with 20+ years of spaghetti code and the need for backwards compatibility with 500 different document types that I doubt they could rewrite it completely even if they wanted to. Office for MacOS is almost a completely different product, done by a separate business unit. And if Microsoft ever releases a slimmed-down "Office" for iOS and/or Android, then those products will probably be written from scratch, and will not be 100% backwards compatible with anything other than OOXML.
(Of course, any competent programmer could write a better version of Notepad in a month, so that's really not a factor.)
That is interesting information, thanks. It's good to know that TSMC got most of their 28nm issues ironed out by now. I've just been leery of that company ever since the original "bumpgate" which basically killed a whole generation of nVidia GPUs.
This is slightly different. The same chip is being produced (it's Apple's design), it's just a different manufacturer. No doubt Apple will be paying per chip and not per wafer, so if anything does fuck up it'll be on TSMC's head. Plus it's not like TSMC doesn't know a thing or two about producing chips.
Remember "bumpgate"?
I don't really care what TSMC's wafer yields will be; that's Apple's problem. What concerns me is that TSMC may make faulty chips that break down over time, so that iDevices start to malfunction shortly after the 1-year warranty is up.
TSMC's record is not encouraging. They totally screwed up the transition to 28nm according to both nVidia and Qualcomm. And it is that process on which Apple plans to build.
Apple needs to focus on building good products, not screwing over their competitors.
I had been planning to purchase an iPad 4 for a while, but I guess I had better do it soon. I don't really want to be a beta tester for Apple/TSMC. There have been serious problems with TSMC's 28nm process and I don't trust them to get it right. And during the past year or so, Apple has shown a disturbing trend of prioritizing screwing over their competitors (Samsung and Google) above providing a good customer experience, as demonstrated by the Apple Maps fiasco and the myriad of problems with LG displays on the Retina MacBook Pro. I'm very concerned that corners will be cut in the rush to TSMC fabrication.
Judea Pearl, an Israeli computer scientist and an early champion of the Bayesian approach to AI, replied: "In retrospect, my greatest challenge was to break away from probabilistic thinking and accept, first, that people are not probability thinkers but cause-effect thinkers and, second, that causal thinking cannot be captured in the language of probability; it requires a formal language of its own."
Maybe so, but do we necessarily want to replicate this human trait in artificial intelligences? The human mind tends to see patterns and cause-effect everywhere, whether it is actually present or not. Sometimes this is harmless (seeing shapes in clouds) and sometimes it can lead to atrocities (bad things are happening -> witches/Jews/whatever MUST be responsible!)
What Larson-Green fails to take into account is that technically experienced users (1) are still running Windows 7, and (2) turn off Customer Experience Improvement Program anyway for privacy reasons.
In addition, most corporations will turn off Customer Experience Improvement Program via group policy, for the same reasons power users do. (Even if it's not supposed to be personally identifiable, why risk sending more personal/corporate information to Microsoft than you have to?) So CEIP turns out to measure little more than the responses of technically inexperienced users who buy cheap OEM systems – a shrinking demographic.
Microsoft needs to remember that business users and power users, not the dumbasses who buy $299 eMachines, are its real customer base.
We need a back to the basics web standard that is long-term stable and only offers link interactivity. No hover, no conditional loading, no scripting, just pages linked to other pages.
This sounds like an interesting concept, but any attempt to actually implement it would descend into political morass. OK, no Javascript, that's pretty straightforward... but there are a million other arguments that would inevitably crop up. Should CSS be permitted, and if so, to what extent? (You already indicated you wouldn't want the:hover selectors.) What about images? If they're prohibited altogether, the standard would be very unlikely to catch on. Presumably a small number of widespread image formats would be allowed (JPEG and PNG most obviously). What about SVGs? Permitted or verboten? How about animated GIFs? What about iframes? Should links be allowed to pop up in a separate window/tab with the "target" attribute? (Technically, that's not JavaScript.)
Any one of these questions could take months of committee meetings to sort out.
Seriously, I can't see why anybody else would care, mouse coordinates are not useful data for anything.
From the original article: "A security vulnerability in Internet Explorer, versions 6â"10, allows your mouse cursor to be tracked anywhere on the screen, even if the Internet Explorer window is inactive, unfocused or minimised. The vulnerability is notable because it compromises the security of virtual keyboards and virtual keypads."
That would be fine. And as soon as Adobe releases real versions of photoshop and lightroom for tablets, (instead of the toy apps they have now) I'll dump the PC and never look back. But until then, I'm locked in.
I think you missed the previous poster's point. He's saying that as casual users drop away to tablets/smartphones, a larger portion of desktop users will be the kind of people who use apps like Photoshop and Lightroom – and these people are going to be more likely to demand good monitors designed for desktop work, rather than the 1080p TV-castoffs which are predominant today.
Slashdot Mirror
Why on earth would we want to do that? Historically our technological innovation has been driven domestically in part because we have such an open policy to immigrants. The space program was dramatically accelerated by accepting German immigrants. The Manhattan Project owes a lot to immigrants. Let's get our collective nationalist heads out of our asses and acknowledge that there are people around the world who are smarter than most unemployed Americans. Unemployment for those with Masters in computer science/engineering is in the low single digits.
H-1B is not about Einstein or Von Braun vs. some random unemployed American. It's about random Indian bodyshop flunkies versus unemployed older tech workers – not to mention any other American tech worker who wants a raise.
The US has a separate visa, the O-1, for "Individuals with Extraordinary Ability or Achievement." That's how Linus Torvalds got his US citizenship. We don't need H-1B for that at all.
Forgive me, but I dont really understand why people in this country deserve jobs more than people in another country, particularly if theyre more skilled or asking for less money.
You know why members of Congress are called Representatives?
Because they're supposed to represent us. They are supposed to stand up for our interests. Not because Americans are somehow cosmically more worthy than non-Americans, but because it's our fucking country and it is supposed to be run for the benefit of "ourselves and our posterity."
If Indians want good stuff then they have their own democratically elected government to go to. I expect the Indian government to put the interests of Indians over the interests of Americans, but likewise I expect the U.S. government to put the interests of Americans over the interests of foreigners.
Anyone who claims this is about freedom of speech are being ridiculous. Should people be able to buy billboard space around the world and declare to the world that you are pedophile? Or something true, a compulsive masturbator? What makes a Google autocomplete any different?
What makes it different is that in the two hypothetical cases you posited, someone actively chose to levy a specific accusation against someone. In contrast, no one at Google ever specifically decided that this dentist should have the word "bankrupt" appear next to his name on Autocomplete. That decision was made automatically by a programmed algorithm without anyone approving or even knowing about it.
This opens a whole new can of worms. Can computer software commit libel? Who is responsible if it does? I suppose you could claim that Autocomplete speaks for "Google" as a corporate entity (hey, corporate personhood ought to have a downside) but what if similar suggestion software was written by an individual? Is it really fair to hold a programmer accountable for every thing his/her program does, even if there is no way to forecast all of this ahead of time?
Seriously, what's the worst that can happen? Skynet? Wait...
Note that in order to make Skynet a credible apocalyptic threat, the authors of the Terminator franchise had to give it control of nuclear weapons. Google couldn't do such a thing if they wanted to, and it's very unlikely any real-world military would even consider it, given the fact that we have all kinds of controls (such as simultaneous 2-key systems) that are specifically designed to prevent rogue soldiers from firing off nukes.
A hypothetical malevolent AI could certainly do a lot of harm given access to Google's network capability, but it would not result in billions of deaths nor in the end of the modern world.
Game AI is a very poor example, since it faces a unique challenge: it has to be just good enough to provide the player with a decent challenge, but not so good that the player is overwhelmed. And most game designers don't even need to bother with anything approximating AI; a few much simpler algorithms suffice in almost all cases.
If it can sort through a variety of data types and interpret language enough to come up with a helpful response, does it matter if such a system isn't "self aware"? I have doubts about some of my coworkers being able to pass a turing test. Watson is nearly at a level to replace two or three of them, and that is a somewhat frightening prospect for structural unemployment.
Anything even approximating strong AI would mean that capitalism would immediately become not just obsolete but destructive. Eliminating redundant jobs is a "frightening prospect for structural unemployment" in a capitalist system, but a form of human liberation in a socialist, post-scarcity society where the right to a decent income is guaranteed as a birthright.
So, I take it you have an answer to the symbol grounding problem? Or are you just reasserting computationalism in face of evidence to the contrary?
Either the brain is an organic computer, or Cartesian Dualism is true. It has to be one or the other. And Cartesian Dualism is a superstition that is contradicted by empirical reality (such as the fact that physical damage to the brain can affect the workings of the mind). Therefore the best evidence we currently have is that the brain is an organic computer. The fact that we are having trouble emulating its operations indicates a current lack of knowledge on our part; it's not an indication that the brain is somehow magical and immune to being technologically reproduced.
1) Can machines fly? Yes, planes can fly 2) Can machines swim? No, submarines don't swim. If you can satisfactory explain the discrepancy between the answers for those two statements, you might be able to contribute. -
That's just a semantic trick that exploits the ambiguities of these two verbs in the English language. It doesn't say anything about the nature of reality, just about how English-speakers think about reality.
That article is almost entirely political bullshit, and says very little about the actual merits of ZFS as a filesystem (which are now well-verified, even if that wasn't the case in 2006).
IMO, one of the drawbacks of Linux (including CentOS) as a server OS compared to FreeBSD is the lack of a good file system. FreeBSD (and Solaris) have ZFS which has robust checksum and parity features, while Linux has nothing of the kind, at least not yet. Has any progress been made on this front?
The only reason Oracle bought Sun was so that Larry Ellison could use its patents to wage war against Google and Android. Java's security problems don't impair his abilities to do that, so he doesn't care.
Doesn't properly support Unicode either. That's why you will regularly see garbage if you copy and paste content that contains characters like a British pound symbol.
That will be a problem of the ISP then, if their customers can't use legitimate services because the ISP can't differentiate between the culprit and the innocent customers, the ISP has a problem. The ISP then has to have either a very good customer management which allows to disconnect culprits very fast without too many false positives, or the ISP has to introduce some kind of class ips, where the customers without complains share the "good ip", and customers with some bad stains get degraded to other, partly blacklisted IPs.
Do you really think any ISPs are going to take on these kinds of responsibilities? You're expecting them to basically be moderators for every forum on the Internet. Aside from the fact that they *shouldn't* be doing this (they should be dumb pipes), they also don't *want* to do this because it's logistically impossible and would open them up to potential legal liability.
It's 'free' for people with currently active subscriptions to the product, not every Tom, Dale, and Hates the Gimp, alas.
From further down on that same message board, from the "Community Admin" staff account:
That's not exactly a denial. It's certainly more ambiguous than what previous employees in the same thread were saying.
But... but... but... the Office document formats have been documented! Third-party compatibility shouldn't be an issue any more. Nor should MS have to rely on a quarter century of some of the cruftiest code on the planet to maintain their monopoly. They can simply create new apps with more flexible (and comprehensible) UIs and modern, efficient code to replace the legacy Office.
Yes, I know this was sarcasm, but it's still worth elaborating upon.
The modern Office file formats are indeed properly documented. The problem is that the formats are themselves heavily influenced by legacy crap, so the design is incredibly baroque and runs well into thousands of pages. You'd need a major corporate-led effort to get good compatibility with OOXML; independent developers aren't going to be able to do it. And even Google has had trouble with it in the past. (Perhaps they've gotten better by now; this article is about 20 months old.)
But with legacy Office documents, and with crap like macros and VBA, even Microsoft probably doesn't really know how they work any more. I actually fielded a call from a family friend a few days ago about being unable to open Word 2.0 and WordPerfect documents in Office 2007. (Apparently they still use those ancient programs in some departments of the organization he consults for.) Turns out that Word supports these formats, but it's turned off by default for "security reasons". In other words, they have a ton of old legacy code that doesn't meet modern security standards and that they can't or won't rewrite, but is needed for backwards compatibility. So they just turn it off by default and sort of hope it will eventually go away.
Microsoft locked Windows RT down because it wanted to slowly get rid of the Win32 cruft dating back to the 80s and 90s.
If Microsoft gets rid of the "Win32 cruft dating back to the 80s and 90s", then there will be no reason for anyone to choose Windows over any other operating system. Legacy compatibility and a huge installed base of applications are Microsoft's primary competitive edge, but Ballmer seems to have forgotten this in his Ahab-like quest to chase down Apple.
That cruft does exist now and is used to run things like Office and Notepad etc. but Microsoft can easily rewrite them in the future.
If Microsoft could have ditched legacy API usage for Office that easily, I think they would have done so already in the first release of Surface. At this point, the Office codebase is probably so FUBARed with 20+ years of spaghetti code and the need for backwards compatibility with 500 different document types that I doubt they could rewrite it completely even if they wanted to. Office for MacOS is almost a completely different product, done by a separate business unit. And if Microsoft ever releases a slimmed-down "Office" for iOS and/or Android, then those products will probably be written from scratch, and will not be 100% backwards compatible with anything other than OOXML.
(Of course, any competent programmer could write a better version of Notepad in a month, so that's really not a factor.)
That is interesting information, thanks. It's good to know that TSMC got most of their 28nm issues ironed out by now. I've just been leery of that company ever since the original "bumpgate" which basically killed a whole generation of nVidia GPUs.
This is slightly different. The same chip is being produced (it's Apple's design), it's just a different manufacturer. No doubt Apple will be paying per chip and not per wafer, so if anything does fuck up it'll be on TSMC's head. Plus it's not like TSMC doesn't know a thing or two about producing chips.
Remember "bumpgate"?
I don't really care what TSMC's wafer yields will be; that's Apple's problem. What concerns me is that TSMC may make faulty chips that break down over time, so that iDevices start to malfunction shortly after the 1-year warranty is up.
TSMC's record is not encouraging. They totally screwed up the transition to 28nm according to both nVidia and Qualcomm. And it is that process on which Apple plans to build.
Apple needs to focus on building good products, not screwing over their competitors.
I had been planning to purchase an iPad 4 for a while, but I guess I had better do it soon. I don't really want to be a beta tester for Apple/TSMC. There have been serious problems with TSMC's 28nm process and I don't trust them to get it right. And during the past year or so, Apple has shown a disturbing trend of prioritizing screwing over their competitors (Samsung and Google) above providing a good customer experience, as demonstrated by the Apple Maps fiasco and the myriad of problems with LG displays on the Retina MacBook Pro. I'm very concerned that corners will be cut in the rush to TSMC fabrication.
McAfee the person hasn't been associated with McAfee labs for a long time now.
No, but that doesn't mean that his actions can't tarnish the brand. It is, after all, named after him, even if he isn't there any more.
Judea Pearl, an Israeli computer scientist and an early champion of the Bayesian approach to AI, replied: "In retrospect, my greatest challenge was to break away from probabilistic thinking and accept, first, that people are not probability thinkers but cause-effect thinkers and, second, that causal thinking cannot be captured in the language of probability; it requires a formal language of its own."
Maybe so, but do we necessarily want to replicate this human trait in artificial intelligences? The human mind tends to see patterns and cause-effect everywhere, whether it is actually present or not. Sometimes this is harmless (seeing shapes in clouds) and sometimes it can lead to atrocities (bad things are happening -> witches/Jews/whatever MUST be responsible!)
What Larson-Green fails to take into account is that technically experienced users (1) are still running Windows 7, and (2) turn off Customer Experience Improvement Program anyway for privacy reasons.
In addition, most corporations will turn off Customer Experience Improvement Program via group policy, for the same reasons power users do. (Even if it's not supposed to be personally identifiable, why risk sending more personal/corporate information to Microsoft than you have to?) So CEIP turns out to measure little more than the responses of technically inexperienced users who buy cheap OEM systems – a shrinking demographic.
Microsoft needs to remember that business users and power users, not the dumbasses who buy $299 eMachines, are its real customer base.
We need a back to the basics web standard that is long-term stable and only offers link interactivity. No hover, no conditional loading, no scripting, just pages linked to other pages.
This sounds like an interesting concept, but any attempt to actually implement it would descend into political morass. OK, no Javascript, that's pretty straightforward... but there are a million other arguments that would inevitably crop up. Should CSS be permitted, and if so, to what extent? (You already indicated you wouldn't want the :hover selectors.) What about images? If they're prohibited altogether, the standard would be very unlikely to catch on. Presumably a small number of widespread image formats would be allowed (JPEG and PNG most obviously). What about SVGs? Permitted or verboten? How about animated GIFs? What about iframes? Should links be allowed to pop up in a separate window/tab with the "target" attribute? (Technically, that's not JavaScript.)
Any one of these questions could take months of committee meetings to sort out.
Seriously, I can't see why anybody else would care, mouse coordinates are not useful data for anything.
From the original article: "A security vulnerability in Internet Explorer, versions 6â"10, allows your mouse cursor to be tracked anywhere on the screen, even if the Internet Explorer window is inactive, unfocused or minimised. The vulnerability is notable because it compromises the security of virtual keyboards and virtual keypads."
That would be fine. And as soon as Adobe releases real versions of photoshop and lightroom for tablets, (instead of the toy apps they have now) I'll dump the PC and never look back. But until then, I'm locked in.
I think you missed the previous poster's point. He's saying that as casual users drop away to tablets/smartphones, a larger portion of desktop users will be the kind of people who use apps like Photoshop and Lightroom – and these people are going to be more likely to demand good monitors designed for desktop work, rather than the 1080p TV-castoffs which are predominant today.