Browsers frequently follow the "auto-execute random code" paradigm, where it just takes one rogue ad to redirect you to a page that tries to force a download of "java_update.exe".
navigating the directory structure to find the original folder and file.
Most programs (or the OS) at least remembers the last location at which the file was saved, thus you only have to navigate the directory structure the first time you have to open a specific file. That's why the save window often doesn't revert back to some default folder for each new file.
Not to mention that some of this directory navigation wouldn't be as difficult if apps made it easy to find their files.
Just make the fucking C compiler give you an error when you go out of bounds.
There's at least one platform where you need to use a pointer to a specific point in memory. Perhaps some old programmer may remember "char far *video_buffer = 0xA000:0000" from Borland C when doing basic graphics. Here, the compiler can't tell if you're going out of bounds, since it doesn't automatically know what you're doing.
Same applies to modern C. There may be the odd situation where you access memory directly (e.g. some memory mapped file, shared memory between two processes, etc.) and the compiler can't tell if you're going out of bounds for what you're specifically you're doing because there's no way of telling if something is in-bounds for the whole region but out of bounds just for one item.
Regardless of whether or not C has bounds checking, all programming languages are all implemented in a language that has no inherent bounds checking (assembly language, machine language or generic VM code).
> If every merchant would support contactless payments,
It means the credit card can be used at least once without having to enter the pin.
As for the phone - it was very often a source of surprise $8000 bill because ITunes didn't authenticate each individual purchase. The child purchases something with stored credentials, and doesn't know that it has an impact until a few weeks later. It's also the reason a game for cats company had to come up with a custom authentication method to prevent animals from accidentally making a purchase as well.
This may have recently improvied, but still doesn't change the fact that it was worse security than classic credit cards.
> You don't authenticate to your credit card.
You authenticate to the credit card (or at least the payment processor) if you enter a pin.
In a crash, self-driving cars should be predictable, rather than coming up with convoluted means to determine which group of pedestrians should be slammed.
Human drivers are erratic enough. No need to make computer-assised drivers to also be erratic.
There's another type of Caller ID known as Automatic Number Identification (ANI). How easy is it to fake that?
Some parts of the telephone system need a way to provide perfect information about who called, such as with Psychic Buddy's 1-900-SUC-KERS toll lines. If that is faked (even outside real-time), then those people would lose out on money from inbound callers.
I didnÃ(TM)t watch my brothers lie face down in the mud
And that's all you need to say. Everything else past that is either bullshit (identified simply by a simple Internet search), or low-quality Internet cold reading.
Vietnam
That war was mostly an American issue. If you want to invoke that war, you should be prepared to explain why and how the United Kingdom was involved with it.
Unless you're claiming to be a veteran, in which case you should explain how well boot camp/basic training went - something you will mess up because you don't know which term is correct in the UK.
I can't see much that is newer art than doubling the value of a work by shredding it in public.
Shredding isn't new, it's simply a variation of what's already been done by US flag burners. It's a "statement" that US Flag Burners consider the flag to be worthless and they signal it by publicly burning the flag. Likewise, publicly shredding the Balloon Girl copy is simply stating that it's worthless.
Only the doubling by shredding is new, and it is actually bullshit. This print is actually a reproduction (or reprint, etc.), the price is artificially increased to begin with (because it went for three times the estimate and was identical to the artist's prior record profit), and it was a publicity stunt to create shock rather than to create art.
And for eff's sake, there's already auto-destructive art on a daily basis. Just need to see game companies close (especially MMOs), and those pieces of art are gone forever. Driving up the price is simply a publicity stunt scam.
IMHO being able to arrange something like this shows that Banksy actually is worth the money.
I see more value in a red-blue-red stripe painting than I do with shredded canvas.
That is true, however a game about figuring out the solutions to puzzles shouldn't include a means to bypass most of them. It's quite possible someone could stumble upon them by accident or brute force - like entering the fireplace, and trying every combination in that book that lists possible answers. Maybe one could do that a bit faster then getting deadlocked on one of the other island puzzles.
Other adventure games that can be completed that quicky include Alpine Encounter, where you can get a backpack (by waiting at a certain area), call the inspector (whom you weren't introduced to yet), and give the backpack to the inspector (which then solves some crime).
How does a random programmer create these Quality, Fast, Efficient, Lasting, Foundational stuff?
For example, if one notices or feels a lack of free PDF editors, what does said programmer need in order to create one? Given the nature of this application, it's likely to be the first time said programmer wrote it, and is unlikely to be meet any of the first two. As an editor, it's going to be more complex than a viewer, and part of the complexity is from rendering the content.
Oh, and it's expected to be portable to eventually run on both Windows and Linux. Have fun.
They did this back in the early 90s when hard drive controllers were paired (y'all remember the PATA ribbon drive cables, right kids?) with a master drive and a slave drive
That actually made sense to rename them, because the "slave" drive was independent of the "master" drive. No need to declare offense, it simply was the incorrect terms to use.
This doesn't extend to what appears to be the current use in Python. In this case, it's mostly trying to dodge offense.
Chrome auto-disables extensions that don't come from the chrome store, and Opera does the same. It's not developer friendly, because you need to track down that special build of Chrome that believes you know what you're doing and allows you to develop extensions without interference.
There's a certain website that catalogs disaster in the IT industry. First two examples in the article:
Theory distracts and confuses: Lack of theory causes people to implement O(n^3) procedures when there's already a stock solution that does something default. In one case, someone managed to do an O(n^2) insert for a hash table.
Academic languages are rarely used: I haven't seen these "academic" languages either in the wild, nor in the classroom. However, users should still be able to port their knowledge over. Also, that site does document some esoteric languages (although giving them alternate names such as "MUMPS"), some of which are really wrapped around PHP.
When I jump to the last point to analyze it to sandwich the list, the article's starting to look like anti-intellectualism. I also see no solid recommendations on what the author wants - the intro starts with him saying that so many programming languages are a bad thing, but finishes with saying that "angular" and "react" - two different ways of doing JavaScript - are good. Reeks a bit of hypocrisy there.
Actually, there's some bits that require dumbing down.
QBasic was as simple as "Screen 13", followed by "Pset (1,1),43", plus there's other quick graphics functions available. This is as simple as it gets.
In C for MS-DOS, you could do simple graphics rather quickly. Maybe you needed a library for C in order to quickly produce graphics, but you're still only one step away from drawing whatever picture is desired. You may need a library, but any proper compiler would have allowed directly calling the appropriate BIOS procedure. Still on the simple side.
In C/C++ for Windows, creating a drawing space is much more complex, requiring a few screens of code just to setup the drawing region, Read here to see how it's bulky. Similar reasoning applies to XWindows.
Most of this bulk is expected, since one has to create a window and make sure it doesn't interfere with others. However, it's still something that could take a lot of simplification in the future.
You've spent perhaps 20 years learning Windows, then re-learning it differently every three years when Microsoft redoes it.
For day-to-day stuff, there's practically no difference. The only major changes was with Windows 95 (where programs get launched via start menu rather than program manager), and with Windows 10 (where the start menu got redefined). Maybe Windows 8 would have been a relearning time, but there was already third-party utilities that removed the need for that.
For the first few years I used Linux, I frequently referenced a Unix book from the early 1980s. Everything in the book still worked the same 20 years later.
That could be a bad thing, because some of the old stuff in the Unix book could lead you to something that should be deprecated, or is otherwise non-optimal on modern computers or practices. For example, a unix programming book may mention select(), when one may probably prefer using poll() instead.
Same applies to an old Linux book. Most of the stuff may work, but something less common such as ifconfig was deprecated in favor of other tools.
It's not like they're mutually exclusive... If you have to force a dichotomy, then it's clear the question isn't thought out in the first place. Perhaps they're both good options and should both be implemented.
Same applies if neither should be selected, in favor of something that actually fixes the problems, or if both options are actually a bad thing to implement.
Most likely, this will cause a device handling Netflix/Spotify to have the basic cell phone alert, followed by Netflix/Spotify giving out an alert as well. This simply causes an alert to be an annoyance rather than being useful.
They should have easily learned from what happened in Ontario: A province wide amber alert (played with an alarm at full volume), an amendment to the province wide amber alert (also played at full volume), and finally the cancellation of the amber alert (again, full volume.) If anything, one is likely to get six notifications instead of what should be one, which makes it more annoying than those apps that want their daily attention.
So instead of jamming alerts everywhere, perhaps they could focus on a standard way to make sure alerts are properly handled so that people don't get constant unnecessary alerts.
That's not how the amendments are written. They're phrased similar to "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" instead of "Poeple have the right to complain in the courthouse about the security of their persons, houses, papers and effects being violated against unreasonable searches and seizures". This means the government is supposed to follow said constitution rather than each defendant having to parrot those rights over and over again.
It still doesn't change that the prosecution/judge is the one being unconstitutional. Especially with the Gideon example I provided, where the claim to the right of council was denied despite the constitution saying otherwise.
It also doesn't change the blatant disregard of the constitution, as cops simply pull someone over, claim they smell the drug de jour and do a random search - regardless of whether or not someone exercised their rights.
Just standing there and not opening your mouth - that's contempt.
US cops have either been telling people that they have the right to remain silent, or are supposed to do so. If they're instead required to not be silent, this becomes the court contradicting what the cops said, perhaps being a form of entrapment.
Perhaps it's the news feeds I subscribe to, but there's a disproportionate number of civil rights violations within the United States, as if it's a systemic issue. I should be hearing similar complaints from adjacent countries, yet it's as if those legal systems have those issues under control.
The 5th only means government isn't supposed to deprive people of those rights (without due process of law). It doesn't that law enforcement must be held personally liable for claims.
Rather, I see a stronger argument found in the 1st amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
As long as there's a way to have compensation to those who had their rights violated, it's perfectly fine to give law enforcement personnel immunity from torts. The problem arises when all parties get immunity.
If you have one called SafeDisc, it will not work on Windows 10 (or earlier versions of windows with KB3086255), and there is no "official" way of getting around that.
This recently prevented me from playing American Conquest: Fight Back, and it will likely prevent me from playing other games as well.
Steam places the files directly in c:\program files (x86)\steam\steamapps\common via the Steam service. It's unaffected by the virtual store, and it would be bad if it did use it because it would result in an installation per user.
The Windows Virtual Store applies to older programs that still save files in the directory they're running in, and places them in c:\users\{profile}\appdata\local\virtualstore - it's only meant for those older games/applications that store their.ini files in c:\windows, or wherever the program is normally installed
Steam on Windows doesn't ask for admin privileges either, because it operates via a service that has admin privileges.
Steam can operate on Linux in the same fashion. It installs games in a way where it doesn't need the user to call root - either it's in a location where the user can freely write to, or it can do a background escalation without the need for user intervention.
You don't need to read his books to know that these laws are flawed. Some of these flaws are visible at the most basic level, while others get uncovered as technology gets improved.
I'll grant that general AI has been developed, otherwise these laws aren't actually useful.
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
United States currently has a mass shooter crisis. While it's best to prevent it in the first place, sometimes it has to be resolved when the situation is identified. Does the robot injure the criminal (thus violating the first law), or let the criminal continue the rampage (thus violating the first law)?
Also, there's the classic moral-dilemma thing that some people like applying to self-driving cars, or the usual runaway trolley problem, but don't say which answer is first-law compliant.
A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
"Hey robot, I'm your new owner."
Basically, this allows random people off the street to steal robots, thus allowing for chaos.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
Also known as a robot cannot sacrifice itself (even when made of now-cheap components) to prevent greater damages. Please note that modern computers support something known as a "backup", thus robots would support that too. This law would basically be dysfunctional, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Browsers frequently follow the "auto-execute random code" paradigm, where it just takes one rogue ad to redirect you to a page that tries to force a download of "java_update.exe".
Most programs (or the OS) at least remembers the last location at which the file was saved, thus you only have to navigate the directory structure the first time you have to open a specific file. That's why the save window often doesn't revert back to some default folder for each new file.
Not to mention that some of this directory navigation wouldn't be as difficult if apps made it easy to find their files.
There's at least one platform where you need to use a pointer to a specific point in memory. Perhaps some old programmer may remember "char far *video_buffer = 0xA000:0000" from Borland C when doing basic graphics. Here, the compiler can't tell if you're going out of bounds, since it doesn't automatically know what you're doing.
Same applies to modern C. There may be the odd situation where you access memory directly (e.g. some memory mapped file, shared memory between two processes, etc.) and the compiler can't tell if you're going out of bounds for what you're specifically you're doing because there's no way of telling if something is in-bounds for the whole region but out of bounds just for one item.
Regardless of whether or not C has bounds checking, all programming languages are all implemented in a language that has no inherent bounds checking (assembly language, machine language or generic VM code).
> If every merchant would support contactless payments,
It means the credit card can be used at least once without having to enter the pin.
As for the phone - it was very often a source of surprise $8000 bill because ITunes didn't authenticate each individual purchase. The child purchases something with stored credentials, and doesn't know that it has an impact until a few weeks later. It's also the reason a game for cats company had to come up with a custom authentication method to prevent animals from accidentally making a purchase as well.
This may have recently improvied, but still doesn't change the fact that it was worse security than classic credit cards.
> You don't authenticate to your credit card.
You authenticate to the credit card (or at least the payment processor) if you enter a pin.
In a crash, self-driving cars should be predictable, rather than coming up with convoluted means to determine which group of pedestrians should be slammed.
Human drivers are erratic enough. No need to make computer-assised drivers to also be erratic.
There's another type of Caller ID known as Automatic Number Identification (ANI). How easy is it to fake that?
Some parts of the telephone system need a way to provide perfect information about who called, such as with Psychic Buddy's 1-900-SUC-KERS toll lines. If that is faked (even outside real-time), then those people would lose out on money from inbound callers.
And that's all you need to say. Everything else past that is either bullshit (identified simply by a simple Internet search), or low-quality Internet cold reading.
That war was mostly an American issue. If you want to invoke that war, you should be prepared to explain why and how the United Kingdom was involved with it.
Unless you're claiming to be a veteran, in which case you should explain how well boot camp/basic training went - something you will mess up because you don't know which term is correct in the UK.
Shredding isn't new, it's simply a variation of what's already been done by US flag burners. It's a "statement" that US Flag Burners consider the flag to be worthless and they signal it by publicly burning the flag. Likewise, publicly shredding the Balloon Girl copy is simply stating that it's worthless.
Only the doubling by shredding is new, and it is actually bullshit. This print is actually a reproduction (or reprint, etc.), the price is artificially increased to begin with (because it went for three times the estimate and was identical to the artist's prior record profit), and it was a publicity stunt to create shock rather than to create art.
And for eff's sake, there's already auto-destructive art on a daily basis. Just need to see game companies close (especially MMOs), and those pieces of art are gone forever. Driving up the price is simply a publicity stunt scam.
I see more value in a red-blue-red stripe painting than I do with shredded canvas.
That is true, however a game about figuring out the solutions to puzzles shouldn't include a means to bypass most of them. It's quite possible someone could stumble upon them by accident or brute force - like entering the fireplace, and trying every combination in that book that lists possible answers. Maybe one could do that a bit faster then getting deadlocked on one of the other island puzzles.
Myst can be completed within 5 minutes. Faster if you speedrun it.
Proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Other adventure games that can be completed that quicky include Alpine Encounter, where you can get a backpack (by waiting at a certain area), call the inspector (whom you weren't introduced to yet), and give the backpack to the inspector (which then solves some crime).
How does a random programmer create these Quality, Fast, Efficient, Lasting, Foundational stuff?
For example, if one notices or feels a lack of free PDF editors, what does said programmer need in order to create one? Given the nature of this application, it's likely to be the first time said programmer wrote it, and is unlikely to be meet any of the first two. As an editor, it's going to be more complex than a viewer, and part of the complexity is from rendering the content.
Oh, and it's expected to be portable to eventually run on both Windows and Linux. Have fun.
This still doesn't change that the slave drive is still independent of the master drive.
That actually made sense to rename them, because the "slave" drive was independent of the "master" drive. No need to declare offense, it simply was the incorrect terms to use.
This doesn't extend to what appears to be the current use in Python. In this case, it's mostly trying to dodge offense.
Chrome auto-disables extensions that don't come from the chrome store, and Opera does the same. It's not developer friendly, because you need to track down that special build of Chrome that believes you know what you're doing and allows you to develop extensions without interference.
Vivaldi still accepts unpacked extensions.
There's a certain website that catalogs disaster in the IT industry. First two examples in the article:
Theory distracts and confuses: Lack of theory causes people to implement O(n^3) procedures when there's already a stock solution that does something default. In one case, someone managed to do an O(n^2) insert for a hash table.
Academic languages are rarely used: I haven't seen these "academic" languages either in the wild, nor in the classroom. However, users should still be able to port their knowledge over. Also, that site does document some esoteric languages (although giving them alternate names such as "MUMPS"), some of which are really wrapped around PHP.
When I jump to the last point to analyze it to sandwich the list, the article's starting to look like anti-intellectualism. I also see no solid recommendations on what the author wants - the intro starts with him saying that so many programming languages are a bad thing, but finishes with saying that "angular" and "react" - two different ways of doing JavaScript - are good. Reeks a bit of hypocrisy there.
Actually, there's some bits that require dumbing down.
QBasic was as simple as "Screen 13", followed by "Pset (1,1),43", plus there's other quick graphics functions available. This is as simple as it gets.
In C for MS-DOS, you could do simple graphics rather quickly. Maybe you needed a library for C in order to quickly produce graphics, but you're still only one step away from drawing whatever picture is desired. You may need a library, but any proper compiler would have allowed directly calling the appropriate BIOS procedure. Still on the simple side.
In C/C++ for Windows, creating a drawing space is much more complex, requiring a few screens of code just to setup the drawing region, Read here to see how it's bulky. Similar reasoning applies to XWindows.
Most of this bulk is expected, since one has to create a window and make sure it doesn't interfere with others. However, it's still something that could take a lot of simplification in the future.
For day-to-day stuff, there's practically no difference. The only major changes was with Windows 95 (where programs get launched via start menu rather than program manager), and with Windows 10 (where the start menu got redefined). Maybe Windows 8 would have been a relearning time, but there was already third-party utilities that removed the need for that.
That could be a bad thing, because some of the old stuff in the Unix book could lead you to something that should be deprecated, or is otherwise non-optimal on modern computers or practices. For example, a unix programming book may mention select(), when one may probably prefer using poll() instead.
Same applies to an old Linux book. Most of the stuff may work, but something less common such as ifconfig was deprecated in favor of other tools.
It's not like they're mutually exclusive... If you have to force a dichotomy, then it's clear the question isn't thought out in the first place. Perhaps they're both good options and should both be implemented.
Same applies if neither should be selected, in favor of something that actually fixes the problems, or if both options are actually a bad thing to implement.
Most likely, this will cause a device handling Netflix/Spotify to have the basic cell phone alert, followed by Netflix/Spotify giving out an alert as well. This simply causes an alert to be an annoyance rather than being useful.
They should have easily learned from what happened in Ontario: A province wide amber alert (played with an alarm at full volume), an amendment to the province wide amber alert (also played at full volume), and finally the cancellation of the amber alert (again, full volume.) If anything, one is likely to get six notifications instead of what should be one, which makes it more annoying than those apps that want their daily attention.
So instead of jamming alerts everywhere, perhaps they could focus on a standard way to make sure alerts are properly handled so that people don't get constant unnecessary alerts.
That's not how the amendments are written. They're phrased similar to "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" instead of "Poeple have the right to complain in the courthouse about the security of their persons, houses, papers and effects being violated against unreasonable searches and seizures". This means the government is supposed to follow said constitution rather than each defendant having to parrot those rights over and over again.
It still doesn't change that the prosecution/judge is the one being unconstitutional. Especially with the Gideon example I provided, where the claim to the right of council was denied despite the constitution saying otherwise.
It also doesn't change the blatant disregard of the constitution, as cops simply pull someone over, claim they smell the drug de jour and do a random search - regardless of whether or not someone exercised their rights.
US cops have either been telling people that they have the right to remain silent, or are supposed to do so. If they're instead required to not be silent, this becomes the court contradicting what the cops said, perhaps being a form of entrapment.
"Taking the fifth" is automatic, in the same way that "taking the sixth" is also automatic, or even "taking the eighth".
The US Constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the land, As the supreme law, it's the duty of law enforcement to follow said law rather than requiring accused to appeal to the supreme court to get the right to council that they should have been entitled to in the first place, or permitting random citizens to be kidnapped and dragged across state lines.
Perhaps it's the news feeds I subscribe to, but there's a disproportionate number of civil rights violations within the United States, as if it's a systemic issue. I should be hearing similar complaints from adjacent countries, yet it's as if those legal systems have those issues under control.
The 5th only means government isn't supposed to deprive people of those rights (without due process of law). It doesn't that law enforcement must be held personally liable for claims.
Rather, I see a stronger argument found in the 1st amendment:
As long as there's a way to have compensation to those who had their rights violated, it's perfectly fine to give law enforcement personnel immunity from torts. The problem arises when all parties get immunity.
Boxed games tend to use copy-protection schemes.
If you have one called SafeDisc, it will not work on Windows 10 (or earlier versions of windows with KB3086255), and there is no "official" way of getting around that.
This recently prevented me from playing American Conquest: Fight Back, and it will likely prevent me from playing other games as well.
Steam places the files directly in c:\program files (x86)\steam\steamapps\common via the Steam service. It's unaffected by the virtual store, and it would be bad if it did use it because it would result in an installation per user.
The Windows Virtual Store applies to older programs that still save files in the directory they're running in, and places them in c:\users\{profile}\appdata\local\virtualstore - it's only meant for those older games/applications that store their .ini files in c:\windows, or wherever the program is normally installed
Steam on Windows doesn't ask for admin privileges either, because it operates via a service that has admin privileges.
Steam can operate on Linux in the same fashion. It installs games in a way where it doesn't need the user to call root - either it's in a location where the user can freely write to, or it can do a background escalation without the need for user intervention.
You don't need to read his books to know that these laws are flawed. Some of these flaws are visible at the most basic level, while others get uncovered as technology gets improved.
I'll grant that general AI has been developed, otherwise these laws aren't actually useful.
United States currently has a mass shooter crisis. While it's best to prevent it in the first place, sometimes it has to be resolved when the situation is identified. Does the robot injure the criminal (thus violating the first law), or let the criminal continue the rampage (thus violating the first law)?
Also, there's the classic moral-dilemma thing that some people like applying to self-driving cars, or the usual runaway trolley problem, but don't say which answer is first-law compliant.
"Hey robot, I'm your new owner."
Basically, this allows random people off the street to steal robots, thus allowing for chaos.
Also known as a robot cannot sacrifice itself (even when made of now-cheap components) to prevent greater damages. Please note that modern computers support something known as a "backup", thus robots would support that too. This law would basically be dysfunctional, etc.