Comes up as a significant number of the first page results for "removal of amyloid plaques" - not that that necessarily means anything, but it's a significant hint.
Do you not believe in plant-based medicines? A vast percentage of common synthetic medications are based on compounds first isolated in medicinal plants or fungi, and there's a rapidly growing body of evidence that hemp offers a cornucopia of therapeutic compounds.
Does it actually need a bunch of fonts for that though?
"GNU FreeFont (also known as Free UCS Outline Fonts) is a family of free OpenType, TrueType and WOFF vector fonts, implementing as much of the Universal Character Set (UCS) as possible." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Three font styles (-Serif, -Sans, and -Mono), aiming to work for any language, even if right now FreeSerif, the most complete, only includes about 10,000 glyphs (I find it quite useful for using uncommon specialist glyphs intermixed with normal text.)
What would be the penalty for including one "uberfont" that was simply an amalgamation of every specialized OSS font out there. Not necessarily even a consistent look to start with, just - this font can display any unicode text correctly. It would probably be kind of huge, but it would remove the overhead of digging though massive piles of irrelevant fonts when looking for the one you want.
Not good, but not likely to kill anyone either. Of course, that was just a small consumer drone - something substantially larger could be far more dangerous, and there's always the possibility that it's loaded with impact explosives, which could make things much worse.
Or it's a test of the military's anti-drone capabilities under low-stakes conditions. They've now predictably been called in, and we'll see how well they do at actually eliminating the threat.
Seems like this sort of attack could be relatively easy to keep up for a long time - just have some guys driving around releasing fully autonomous radio-silenced drones as fast as they get brought down. Even with ubiquitous surveillance it would likely take a long time to identify them, and a well-organized and well-funded group could probably keep it up almost indefinitely. It'd be an interesting take on a war of attrition.
Not if you shut down the airport to prevent such a problem, which was the point. And I assume that they have to assume that in an intentional denial of service attack like this, the drones would be programmed to *try* to get sucked into an engine, so shutting the airport down is an entirely reasonable precaution.
I mean seriously - what sort of idiot would even try to fly through such an airspace denial zone outside of an armed conflict?
That's rather the point though, isn't it? The drones present a clear and present threat of extensive economic damage, and possible injuries or deaths, while offering very little threat of actual deaths. And flying through such a region is obviously dangerous, deflecting a large share of responsibility (and outrage) over any incidents onto the airline who chose to do so.
They've managed to shut down a major transportation hub during a high-traffic period, inflicting substantial financial costs, without injuring a single person or incurring any of the sort of international outrage that would result from that. If their goal is to inflict highly visible economic damage with as few moral or PR repercussions as possible, this was an excellent attack.
Is a drone with motor and batteries substantially more likely to take out more than one engine? I suppose there's a question of direct impact with the wing, where the mass and durability of the drone is likely to do more damage than a goose - but enough to severely compromise the structural integrity or flight characteristics beyond what a hydraulics failure would cause?
Part is probably a reasonably well-tuned filter bubble that knows I'm looking for substantial information, as well as a refusal to waste my attention on obvious trash and click-bait, no matter how compelling it seems. Which probably helps with the filter bubble, come to think of it.
But more to the point - I don't blame others for yelling at me, when I can only hear them when I go looking for what they were yelling about.
*SOME* plants remove benzene, though you're right that it does appear that golden pothos ivy is one of the top performers among common houseplants - so I would hope they're seeing a marked improvement to be worth mentioning. On the other hand, I'm not finding much reference to anything removing chloroform naturally.
With the notable difference being that the internet is client-driven, so that nobody can even whisper at you unless you explicitly ask them too (Or somebody you have asked offers them a soapbox)
If you don't like the idiots asking you for money, stop asking them to yell at you.
There's also the problem that police are sometimes (usually?) required to respond to all 911 calls. Just in case an attacker gets the phone before they answer I guess, and tells a nice story. Or maybe so that they can't just completely ignore people. Anyway, had it happen to me once when I misdialed a number while drunk. Somehow got 911, explained and apologized, and got a hell of a surprise a while later when I've suddenly got a half-dozen officers on my front porch and circling the house.
>As for the "false pixels," that's the design. Different displays have different electrical designs. Each pixel has 2 sub pixels, but that doesn't change the number of pixels; even if some displays are capable of producing more colors per pixel.
Why stop at 2? Just claim your standard LCD monitor has only one sub-pixel per pixel and you've tripled the resolution!
Now, compare that to the current fastest computer interface - typing. A crazy-fast typist might reach 120WPM, or about 10 characters a second, from a set of maybe 60-80. Lets be generous, 80 characters = 6.3 bits, so 63 bits per second.
Compare that to a 64-bit parallel interface that can fire once every 4 ms = 16,000 bits per second. 254 times as fast. Maybe half that, if we assume a symmetric bi-directional interface.
Now, whether you could productively use that much potential bandwidth for well structured information transfer is another question all together - how much of the speed limit on a typical typist is physical dexterity and speed, versus the ability to structure thoughts coherently?
But, if such an interface did no more than let the average person "type" at 100wpm, without any physical interaction, that would make computers far less restricting to use.
Another possibility, probably more intuitive - i.e. better harnessing the way our brain naturally operates, would be to use the data-stream to control a pair (or more) of "virtual hands", complete with limited tactile feedback, to interact with a virtual space that could optionally be displayed in VR or AR with the use a much-higher-bandwidth headset. As an added bonus - you then have a well-trained interface to operate arm-like robots in the physical word - which would have all sorts of interesting applications. Let AI work out how the particular robot arm has to behave to put the hand where you want it to be.
Have you ever tried a real VR system? There's a reason Daydream and other phone-based VR experiences suck - the same reason they're so inexpensive: they're a cheap novelty, nothing more. The hardware is totally unsuited to VR. Fundamentally flawed rotation-only approximate head tracking is no substitute for real positional tracking. The frame rate sucks. The resolution probably sucks (depending on your phone). The lag sucks. The controller sucks. And the software mostly sucks - because anyone with resources that's developing for VR is doing it for much higher quality and more capable platforms.
The entire experience is designed to give a teaser-taste of VR to people who can't justify buying something that's worth the price.
*Anything* is going to suck compared to $2500+ PC-based VR system (except a $100,000+ industrial VR system). When the PS6 has performance to kick the ass of today's $2000PC, it will still be getting its ass kicked by the $2000 PCs on the market then.
The question isn't how it compares to the top-of-the-line. It's how good the experience is judged on its own merits.
We've got the Oculus Quest probably coming out soon, which will eliminate the need for external hardware, ditch the wires, and greatly simplify (and expand, if you have the room) your playing space with it's "inside-out" room tracking cameras. But it's only going to have Nintendo-class graphics. That's the necessary tradeoff with current technology. And it's not necessarily a problem - realism is largely irrelevant to a compelling experience.
My only complaint is that it's from Facebook - and I'm not big on the idea of giving Facebook that sort of surveillance power over my game-playing, or the inside of my home.
Even resolution isn't necessarily a big problem - the problem is the artifacts of how that resolution is presented. The old micro-mirror array based projection TVs offered incredible picture quality at huge sizes, despite the fact that they were no better resolution than the blocky-looking LCD screens of similar size. Why? Because they smoothly blended adjacent pixels together, treating the color data as point-samples, rather than blocks, and creating a seamless, film-like image. It continues to astound me that none of the VR headset manufacturers include a pixel-blending filter in front of the screen to accomplish a similar result and eliminate the "screen door effect". Actually... I think I heard recently that someone finally is pursuing it, though I forget who.
As someone who spent a few years teaching college courses, I can't think of any group better qualified to write such a book, except possibly a really exceptional student. Knowing the subject is one thing - teaching it well is something else entirely.
I only had one professor that I know of who wrote a text book (computer science), and he made a point of making it available free online. Of course this was a greybeard Linux enthusiast (may his rest be joyous) at an edge-of-nowhere university who's mission statement involved creating opportunities for under-served populations. So not necessarily the sort of place representative of the industry.
An x32 program is NOT a 32 bit program though. It's a 64bit program using a 32-bit address space.
I think _merlin covered the high points of the distinction. Basically it seems x32 combines the performance advantages of both x86 and x64, for a specific subclass of programs that don't need more than 4GB of memory or access to proprietary 3rd party libraries.
And yes, you could possibly use 32 bit indexing instead of pointers in some situations, but that means you can't use polymorphism, have to write your own memory handlers if anything will ever be "delete"d, probably need to pre-allocate all the data space you might possibly need (or used a paged array, but that comes with additional performance overhead), and need to leave all of your data accessible to all aspects of your program. Not an ideal solution.
I don't see it. X is designed for Y. If you use it for Z, when labeling and/or common sense clearly indicate it's not suited for such a use... that's your problem.
Hehe. I decided on my sig to warn people where I was coming from. I usually sincerely mean what I'm saying, but have been known to change sides mid-argument if I start getting poorly-reasoned "support".
Ouch - I hadn't thought of the userland and library incompatibilities.
That probably restricts its practical use to mostly embedded and research-related software with minimal/custom UIs, and OSS, which can recompile its 3rd-party libraries. Intersect that set with the software that works with less than 4GB of data, AND uses enough pointer-heavy data structures to justify the added difficulty...
Yeah, even if it were well-known, I'm just not seeing a potential user base large enough to justify the maintenance overhead.
Non-standard pixel layouts seem to be in the minority, but apparently crop up all over the place - all the more reason to do research on the specific model you're considering - which you should *really* do anyway, since other features can span the gamut as well. For example Samsung TV latency spans the full range from "among the best" to "among the worst" depending on the model you're looking at - and it's actually some of the premium model lines that have the worst latency - as in more than a tenth of a second bad, which will be obvious even in office tasks, much less gaming.
You're probably not going to find 75Hz in a TV there's just no demand for a non-standard refresh rate in the target market. Most are 60Hz, though some will accept 120Hz inputs, at least for 1080p (NOT to be confused with the relatively common 120 Hz MotionPlus, etc - which update the screen at 120Hz, but still only accept a 60Hz input signal). 4k 120Hz input support is currently pretty rare.
However - Freesync support seems to be becoming more common in TVs, and that actually lets the framerate be adjusted on a frame-by-frame basis if you have an AMD video card that supports it, which essentially lets each frame of animation can be displayed as soon as i's ready, rather than waiting for the next screen refresh if it wasn't quite finished rendering in time for the last one. (If you're not gaming, then higher refresh rates became pointless with the switch from CRT to LCD)
Really? Care to clue me in? I've not seen any for under $1000, and usually much more, which I would not consider particularly affordable (I paid almost that for my current one, but it was a major indulgence).
Meanwhile, there's a few 40-43" 4k TVs for ~1/3rd that price that get very good reviews for use as a monitor, and I really wouldn't want anything bigger than that.
That depends. If I built you a standard set of stairs, and they collapsed when you tried to send a herd of elephants up them, I absolutely *would* blame you. You are the one using them in ways they were never designed for.
Similarly, if you rapidly kill an SSD by abusing it with an incredibly write-intensive workload, when it's limitations are clearly labeled, I would also blame you.
Slashdot Mirror
Comes up as a significant number of the first page results for "removal of amyloid plaques" - not that that necessarily means anything, but it's a significant hint.
Do you not believe in plant-based medicines? A vast percentage of common synthetic medications are based on compounds first isolated in medicinal plants or fungi, and there's a rapidly growing body of evidence that hemp offers a cornucopia of therapeutic compounds.
Does it actually need a bunch of fonts for that though?
"GNU FreeFont (also known as Free UCS Outline Fonts) is a family of free OpenType, TrueType and WOFF vector fonts, implementing as much of the Universal Character Set (UCS) as possible." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Three font styles (-Serif, -Sans, and -Mono), aiming to work for any language, even if right now FreeSerif, the most complete, only includes about 10,000 glyphs (I find it quite useful for using uncommon specialist glyphs intermixed with normal text.)
What would be the penalty for including one "uberfont" that was simply an amalgamation of every specialized OSS font out there. Not necessarily even a consistent look to start with, just - this font can display any unicode text correctly. It would probably be kind of huge, but it would remove the overhead of digging though massive piles of irrelevant fonts when looking for the one you want.
Good video, thanks.
Not good, but not likely to kill anyone either. Of course, that was just a small consumer drone - something substantially larger could be far more dangerous, and there's always the possibility that it's loaded with impact explosives, which could make things much worse.
Or it's a test of the military's anti-drone capabilities under low-stakes conditions. They've now predictably been called in, and we'll see how well they do at actually eliminating the threat.
Seems like this sort of attack could be relatively easy to keep up for a long time - just have some guys driving around releasing fully autonomous radio-silenced drones as fast as they get brought down. Even with ubiquitous surveillance it would likely take a long time to identify them, and a well-organized and well-funded group could probably keep it up almost indefinitely. It'd be an interesting take on a war of attrition.
Not if you shut down the airport to prevent such a problem, which was the point. And I assume that they have to assume that in an intentional denial of service attack like this, the drones would be programmed to *try* to get sucked into an engine, so shutting the airport down is an entirely reasonable precaution.
I mean seriously - what sort of idiot would even try to fly through such an airspace denial zone outside of an armed conflict?
That's rather the point though, isn't it? The drones present a clear and present threat of extensive economic damage, and possible injuries or deaths, while offering very little threat of actual deaths. And flying through such a region is obviously dangerous, deflecting a large share of responsibility (and outrage) over any incidents onto the airline who chose to do so.
They've managed to shut down a major transportation hub during a high-traffic period, inflicting substantial financial costs, without injuring a single person or incurring any of the sort of international outrage that would result from that. If their goal is to inflict highly visible economic damage with as few moral or PR repercussions as possible, this was an excellent attack.
Is a drone with motor and batteries substantially more likely to take out more than one engine? I suppose there's a question of direct impact with the wing, where the mass and durability of the drone is likely to do more damage than a goose - but enough to severely compromise the structural integrity or flight characteristics beyond what a hydraulics failure would cause?
Part is probably a reasonably well-tuned filter bubble that knows I'm looking for substantial information, as well as a refusal to waste my attention on obvious trash and click-bait, no matter how compelling it seems. Which probably helps with the filter bubble, come to think of it.
But more to the point - I don't blame others for yelling at me, when I can only hear them when I go looking for what they were yelling about.
*SOME* plants remove benzene, though you're right that it does appear that golden pothos ivy is one of the top performers among common houseplants - so I would hope they're seeing a marked improvement to be worth mentioning. On the other hand, I'm not finding much reference to anything removing chloroform naturally.
With the notable difference being that the internet is client-driven, so that nobody can even whisper at you unless you explicitly ask them too (Or somebody you have asked offers them a soapbox)
If you don't like the idiots asking you for money, stop asking them to yell at you.
>easy white list if you feel sorry enough for a beggar crying for money on the internet?
You mean the people producing the content you want to see? Since when is someone trying to get paid for the work you obviously appreciate a beggar?
There's also the problem that police are sometimes (usually?) required to respond to all 911 calls. Just in case an attacker gets the phone before they answer I guess, and tells a nice story. Or maybe so that they can't just completely ignore people. Anyway, had it happen to me once when I misdialed a number while drunk. Somehow got 911, explained and apologized, and got a hell of a surprise a while later when I've suddenly got a half-dozen officers on my front porch and circling the house.
>As for the "false pixels," that's the design. Different displays have different electrical designs. Each pixel has 2 sub pixels, but that doesn't change the number of pixels; even if some displays are capable of producing more colors per pixel.
Why stop at 2? Just claim your standard LCD monitor has only one sub-pixel per pixel and you've tripled the resolution!
Now, compare that to the current fastest computer interface - typing. A crazy-fast typist might reach 120WPM, or about 10 characters a second, from a set of maybe 60-80. Lets be generous, 80 characters = 6.3 bits, so 63 bits per second.
Compare that to a 64-bit parallel interface that can fire once every 4 ms = 16,000 bits per second. 254 times as fast. Maybe half that, if we assume a symmetric bi-directional interface.
Now, whether you could productively use that much potential bandwidth for well structured information transfer is another question all together - how much of the speed limit on a typical typist is physical dexterity and speed, versus the ability to structure thoughts coherently?
But, if such an interface did no more than let the average person "type" at 100wpm, without any physical interaction, that would make computers far less restricting to use.
Another possibility, probably more intuitive - i.e. better harnessing the way our brain naturally operates, would be to use the data-stream to control a pair (or more) of "virtual hands", complete with limited tactile feedback, to interact with a virtual space that could optionally be displayed in VR or AR with the use a much-higher-bandwidth headset. As an added bonus - you then have a well-trained interface to operate arm-like robots in the physical word - which would have all sorts of interesting applications. Let AI work out how the particular robot arm has to behave to put the hand where you want it to be.
And yet they can go their whole lives without ever being subjected to an accurate lie detector test. In fact, nobody has ever done anything else.
That should be:
"To make sure they don't get paid, Vitaminwater will subject them to a phony lie-detector test at the end of the year."
Have you ever tried a real VR system? There's a reason Daydream and other phone-based VR experiences suck - the same reason they're so inexpensive: they're a cheap novelty, nothing more. The hardware is totally unsuited to VR. Fundamentally flawed rotation-only approximate head tracking is no substitute for real positional tracking. The frame rate sucks. The resolution probably sucks (depending on your phone). The lag sucks. The controller sucks. And the software mostly sucks - because anyone with resources that's developing for VR is doing it for much higher quality and more capable platforms.
The entire experience is designed to give a teaser-taste of VR to people who can't justify buying something that's worth the price.
*Anything* is going to suck compared to $2500+ PC-based VR system (except a $100,000+ industrial VR system). When the PS6 has performance to kick the ass of today's $2000PC, it will still be getting its ass kicked by the $2000 PCs on the market then.
The question isn't how it compares to the top-of-the-line. It's how good the experience is judged on its own merits.
We've got the Oculus Quest probably coming out soon, which will eliminate the need for external hardware, ditch the wires, and greatly simplify (and expand, if you have the room) your playing space with it's "inside-out" room tracking cameras. But it's only going to have Nintendo-class graphics. That's the necessary tradeoff with current technology. And it's not necessarily a problem - realism is largely irrelevant to a compelling experience.
My only complaint is that it's from Facebook - and I'm not big on the idea of giving Facebook that sort of surveillance power over my game-playing, or the inside of my home.
Even resolution isn't necessarily a big problem - the problem is the artifacts of how that resolution is presented. The old micro-mirror array based projection TVs offered incredible picture quality at huge sizes, despite the fact that they were no better resolution than the blocky-looking LCD screens of similar size. Why? Because they smoothly blended adjacent pixels together, treating the color data as point-samples, rather than blocks, and creating a seamless, film-like image. It continues to astound me that none of the VR headset manufacturers include a pixel-blending filter in front of the screen to accomplish a similar result and eliminate the "screen door effect". Actually... I think I heard recently that someone finally is pursuing it, though I forget who.
As someone who spent a few years teaching college courses, I can't think of any group better qualified to write such a book, except possibly a really exceptional student. Knowing the subject is one thing - teaching it well is something else entirely.
I only had one professor that I know of who wrote a text book (computer science), and he made a point of making it available free online. Of course this was a greybeard Linux enthusiast (may his rest be joyous) at an edge-of-nowhere university who's mission statement involved creating opportunities for under-served populations. So not necessarily the sort of place representative of the industry.
An x32 program is NOT a 32 bit program though. It's a 64bit program using a 32-bit address space.
I think _merlin covered the high points of the distinction. Basically it seems x32 combines the performance advantages of both x86 and x64, for a specific subclass of programs that don't need more than 4GB of memory or access to proprietary 3rd party libraries.
And yes, you could possibly use 32 bit indexing instead of pointers in some situations, but that means you can't use polymorphism, have to write your own memory handlers if anything will ever be "delete"d, probably need to pre-allocate all the data space you might possibly need (or used a paged array, but that comes with additional performance overhead), and need to leave all of your data accessible to all aspects of your program. Not an ideal solution.
You sure Pence wouldn't tow the line?
I don't see it. X is designed for Y. If you use it for Z, when labeling and/or common sense clearly indicate it's not suited for such a use... that's your problem.
Hehe. I decided on my sig to warn people where I was coming from. I usually sincerely mean what I'm saying, but have been known to change sides mid-argument if I start getting poorly-reasoned "support".
Ouch - I hadn't thought of the userland and library incompatibilities.
That probably restricts its practical use to mostly embedded and research-related software with minimal/custom UIs, and OSS, which can recompile its 3rd-party libraries. Intersect that set with the software that works with less than 4GB of data, AND uses enough pointer-heavy data structures to justify the added difficulty...
Yeah, even if it were well-known, I'm just not seeing a potential user base large enough to justify the maintenance overhead.
Non-standard pixel layouts seem to be in the minority, but apparently crop up all over the place - all the more reason to do research on the specific model you're considering - which you should *really* do anyway, since other features can span the gamut as well. For example Samsung TV latency spans the full range from "among the best" to "among the worst" depending on the model you're looking at - and it's actually some of the premium model lines that have the worst latency - as in more than a tenth of a second bad, which will be obvious even in office tasks, much less gaming.
You're probably not going to find 75Hz in a TV there's just no demand for a non-standard refresh rate in the target market. Most are 60Hz, though some will accept 120Hz inputs, at least for 1080p (NOT to be confused with the relatively common 120 Hz MotionPlus, etc - which update the screen at 120Hz, but still only accept a 60Hz input signal). 4k 120Hz input support is currently pretty rare.
However - Freesync support seems to be becoming more common in TVs, and that actually lets the framerate be adjusted on a frame-by-frame basis if you have an AMD video card that supports it, which essentially lets each frame of animation can be displayed as soon as i's ready, rather than waiting for the next screen refresh if it wasn't quite finished rendering in time for the last one. (If you're not gaming, then higher refresh rates became pointless with the switch from CRT to LCD)
Really? Care to clue me in? I've not seen any for under $1000, and usually much more, which I would not consider particularly affordable (I paid almost that for my current one, but it was a major indulgence).
Meanwhile, there's a few 40-43" 4k TVs for ~1/3rd that price that get very good reviews for use as a monitor, and I really wouldn't want anything bigger than that.
That depends. If I built you a standard set of stairs, and they collapsed when you tried to send a herd of elephants up them, I absolutely *would* blame you. You are the one using them in ways they were never designed for.
Similarly, if you rapidly kill an SSD by abusing it with an incredibly write-intensive workload, when it's limitations are clearly labeled, I would also blame you.