Why doesn't the Library simply work a deal with the Wayback Machine Internet Archive. They seem to have this problem fairly well thought out. Maybe they plan to do that. I can't tell because the site that wants to archive all of Britain seems slashdotted at the moment.
I imagine that it will eventually happen, and that it will end up enriching the archive.org system when it does. Maybe it won't happen for a year or two, but when we're talking about long term preservation, that's not so important and the global nature of the internet makes it valuable (and logical) to globally coordinate the historical archives of it as well.
It seems that libraries are about the only place that can get away with ignoring copyright these days.
National libraries cannot ignore copyright, but they have a special position with regards to copyright law: they're explicitly empowered to retain copies for future generations whether the publishers like it or not (and whether or not they're Big Media). If you don't want it archived for future generations, don't publish it at all.
Our ability to identify and quarantine disease is obviously what it was at the beginning of the 20th century. No big breakthroughs since then.
Problem is, the breakthroughs we've made in the past 50 years or so have been in a time with relatively few 'flu-like pandemics. We don't actually know if the breakthroughs will help with anything that infectious. We might be in a good position to deal with it, or that might just be total hubris.
I suspect that the real problem is that this is a metastasized liver-related cancer, and without good liver function chemotherapy is really likely to kill the patient. Which is a damn shame; I really like his books.
Except RPC refers to an inter-process communication technique. This doesn't account for either scalability or composability aspects that the parent mentioned. Yes, there are parallels. No, it is not the same thing.
It's pretty much the same thing actually. There are more abstraction layers, which solve many of the issues, and accumulated expertise with the point where it is best to put the interface, which solves many of the other issues, but it's definitely a continuation of the same thing.
Same thing with the housing bubble, which some were observing as a bubble in 2003, and it took all the way until 2008 before it finally popped. Only since the housing bubble wasn't as entrenched in nearly as many adjacent industries (the banking industry being a notable exception,) the GDP wasn't artificially propped up so we didn't see the miracle economy with the non-existent business cycle that we had in the late 90's. Gingrich claimed he was a pro at balancing the budget and Clinton claimed to be an economics pro, only neither was true, the revenue stream was just artificially high so it gave them both free bullet points on their resume's.
Maybe not in the US, but in other parts of the world the housing bubble was hugely coupled to the rest of the economy in ways that the tech bubble wasn't. The wreckage in the EU was substantial. What's more, banking was deeply involved in the housing bubble and that's caused (and is still causing) gigantic problems. The terrifying/enraging part is that there are banks saying that they are such a large part of the economy that not only can they not be allowed to fail, they can't be allowed to shrink either, and some governments seem to be buying this argument.
I think I want to stop thinking about this now before I become totally enfuriated. I'd rather spend my time doing productive stuff like writing code...
Perhaps you play by this "has to happen before noon" rule, but this year is the first I have ever heard of that, in 30 years of living in this country and fucking with people's head on April 1st.
I've heard of it before, and always considered it to be a bunch of misinformation put about by people who can't cope with the concept of a joke. If you look closely, it's always the most humorless who insist most on this "rule", clinging to it desperately like a drowning man to a lifebelt.
So the actual color you see is the frequency spectrum of the light source, times the frequency emission response (color reflection spectrum) of the object, convolved with the frequency response of the cones in your eyes.
What's more, many surfaces reflect different colors at different amounts depending on the exact angle you view them at. Butterfly wings are an extreme example of this, or soap bubbles, but the phenomenon is common. (If you ever want to write a physically-accurate ray tracer, you get to deal with a lot of this complexity.) This can make a surface made of a single substance look very different across it. Now, these effects are functions of the wavelength of the incoming light (and the reflection angle, with the surface as a general functional parameter) so you can't just use a simple tri-chromatic approach when calculating what happens. More convolution! Yay!
The good thing about the new sensor is that it is trying to not throw away photons, which should greatly improve performance in low light. (For some reason, most pictures I take seem to be in low light level conditions. Probably due to spending too much time in meetings.)
The main deficiencies I see with X for remote access are:
1. Applications that insist on client side rendering (maybe some X issue is leading to that, but Chromium is a real pain over a remote connection). 2. It doesn't perform well unless you layer something like NX on top of it. The wire protocol is too chatty or low-level. 3. It needs some kind of middle layer so that you can move applications between displays, and displays between consoles. Think something like screen or tmux. Once you launch an app on a display, it is stuck there.
The one thing that is always painful with remote access is when you're shipping large and complex bitmaps back and forth, and that's simply because it is when you are critically dependent on the bandwidth and latency. With very complex application-level rendering, you simply don't get good performance when you've not got the app on the same system as the display (avoiding "client" and "server" terms); when they're both local, you've got additional options that provide much higher performance (e.g., shared memory). The trick to getting good performance is to put as much rendering as possible on the display side; tell the server to draw a line or place an image, instead of doing all the pixel bashing yourself (video rendering probably always needs to be done from an app local to the display). Alas, a lot of the things like complex font rendering have been put on the client side in recent years, and that will cause problems with network performance.
I'd say that this is just unfortunate, except that the problem is actually that the people writing the font rendering libraries don't understand the importance of putting rendering in the display engine where it belongs. The font rendering authors are coincidentally also the very same people who are deeply into Wayland now. Funny that. Would it be unfair for me to say that I suspect the real problem is that they're crap at protocol design?
For your third point, transferring an application between displays isn't at all trivial for other reasons. The easiest way to solve it is to have the app actually exist on both displays with a common Model but separate Views and Controllers. That's an app-level solution, not a toolkit-level or protocol-level one. X11 gives you the tools to solve it (as a single app can have many independent display connections open) but doesn't magically do it all for you. (This mattered a lot more when computers had a lot less video memory and so had to use complex rendering models.)
X11 isn't so bad. The current server is messy and some code and parts of the protocol should be deprecated. But these projects are all trying to throw out the baby with the bathwater, and that's why they are all likely doomed to fail..
X11 is very messy in places. There's some critical issues in there that need to be fixed soon (notably the use of 16 bit values in the protocol level for window sizes and locations). The ICCCM has a lot of wreckage of earlier protocols in it that are just totally in need of being scrapped. Taking a broom to X11 to give it a thorough clean (with selected bits of incompatibility) would be a tremendous thing.
But the compositing stuff that has the Wayland people worked up? Totally not an issue to me as a GUI toolkit maintainer. Nor is it an issue to any of the application authors or users I know.
But the GPL ravers seem to think it's the only open source license on the planet.
But that's what they want otherwise-uncommitted software developers to think. It's a political statement intended to bamboozle, just like the Reps/Dems pretending that the only other political party is the other one. I think it is a damn shame when being "pro-Freedom" is done by being actually anti-choice; I want both, and I hope others do too (but won't force them).
Either you're feeding a family of 15 or you're buying way too many (or too bulky) groceries. Or your carts are tiny and you should trade up to the size that normal people use.
Betteridge says "No". Kickstarter hasn't peaked, and it doesn't matter. Phew! Thought I might have to read the article (or even follow the links!) there, and we can't be having that.
Unfortuanately, the lack of certificate validation (because few mailservers have signed certificates) makes them open to man-in-the-middle attacks, but not to simple packet sniffing.
They're not just open to MitM attacks, they're trivially open them. This is because anyone and his uncle's dead dog's fleas can make a self-signed certificate and say anything in the signature on it. Well, provided they can stand working with the awful interfaces the tools for working with certificates have. (OpenSSL, how do I hate thee? Let me count the ways...)
On the other hand, SMTP servers aren't configured to listen to proxies so deploying the attack requires DNS poisoning or packet interception. It also probably requires a lot of hardware if you're going to sustain the attack; SMTP servers usually carry lots of traffic and you've got to wait for the messages you're interested in to actually be delivered (which can take arbitrarily long; I've known it take months, though that was an extreme case). I'm guessing that the Feds probably want the ability to just go in and read any old message they want to off the real service, as that would be far cheaper for them.
All PA announcements are broadcast over this system and preempt the entertainment audio.
I wish they'd only do that for safety announcements, and not the frequent "oh, we want to sell things to you now" ones (I've never ever bought a gift on a flight; the concept mixes two forms of hell — flying long-haul and shopping — into one maelstrom of awfulness). It would also be nice if they didn't sometimes turn on the PA system without making an announcement at all. Just because. If you've got important information, I've no problem listening to it. But random interruption of the entertainment for miscellaneous other reasons is irritating.
Even if you accept that it's representative data, there has still been persistent inflation. Even if it's only 2-3 percent/year, it adds up. One dollar today is worth 79 cents in 2003.
Call that an incentive for you to get your money working for you (i.e., to invest in something) instead of leaving it under the bed.
Meaning that solving bitcoin blocks will be exponentially easier for a quantum computer, as compared to a standard binary system.
Maybe. Making a quantum computer give useful results is furiously difficult, as the likelihood of decoherence (and hence loss of all results of the current calculation run) increases as the number of qubits increases and the number of operations increases. Right now, it looks very much like a scaled up research tool and not something you'd use in practice; we're still a good way off the point where any of these machines can tackle modern crypto at all.
It's like how the government can both be incredibly incompetent and diabolically all controlling at the same time.
Often with the same person claiming both in the same post. Always interesting to see someone who's a candidate for an olympic gold medal in mental gymnastics (even if I wouldn't want to actually talk to them).
Because before the war, there was no business in Malaya, and all the Chinese were on Singapore? How about learning some history before you start trying to teach it.
Yes. For example, prior to WW2 the (British colonial) capital of Malaysia was Singapore. Singapore and Malaysia went their different ways because the Chinese (in Singapore) and the Malays didn't want to be ruled by the other group. "Dump on the other guys" has been a classic way of running a democracy in a highly divided society; you see it in many places. (It's worse where you've got race as a distinguisher as well as political perspective, but it's not good anywhere and it's a very common type of demagoguery.)
Lego: because none of us really wanted to grow up. (I preferred building factories though, with conveyors, sorters, hoppers, etc. Lots of repurposed bricks, and a thing of wonder when it worked, sorting bricks by size automatically...)
A PhD student has the right to expect a project that generates a decent body of work within those four years.
Four years? Ha! That's a good one!
The easiest way to enforce that is for the awarding institution to say that if it isn't done in 4 years, it will be taken as a complete failure. Suddenly, people find that it is possible to write up in time. (Seriously, if you can't stop pissing around "doing just one more experiment" or "reading just one more paper" and write up your thesis, you're a failure as a researcher and should be publicly branded as such.)
Slashdot Mirror
Why doesn't the Library simply work a deal with the Wayback Machine Internet Archive. They seem to have this problem fairly well thought out. Maybe they plan to do that. I can't tell because the site that wants to archive all of Britain seems slashdotted at the moment.
I imagine that it will eventually happen, and that it will end up enriching the archive.org system when it does. Maybe it won't happen for a year or two, but when we're talking about long term preservation, that's not so important and the global nature of the internet makes it valuable (and logical) to globally coordinate the historical archives of it as well.
It seems that libraries are about the only place that can get away with ignoring copyright these days.
National libraries cannot ignore copyright, but they have a special position with regards to copyright law: they're explicitly empowered to retain copies for future generations whether the publishers like it or not (and whether or not they're Big Media). If you don't want it archived for future generations, don't publish it at all.
Our ability to identify and quarantine disease is obviously what it was at the beginning of the 20th century. No big breakthroughs since then.
Problem is, the breakthroughs we've made in the past 50 years or so have been in a time with relatively few 'flu-like pandemics. We don't actually know if the breakthroughs will help with anything that infectious. We might be in a good position to deal with it, or that might just be total hubris.
Well, punk? Do you feel lucky?
I suspect that the real problem is that this is a metastasized liver-related cancer, and without good liver function chemotherapy is really likely to kill the patient. Which is a damn shame; I really like his books.
Except RPC refers to an inter-process communication technique. This doesn't account for either scalability or composability aspects that the parent mentioned. Yes, there are parallels. No, it is not the same thing.
It's pretty much the same thing actually. There are more abstraction layers, which solve many of the issues, and accumulated expertise with the point where it is best to put the interface, which solves many of the other issues, but it's definitely a continuation of the same thing.
Same thing with the housing bubble, which some were observing as a bubble in 2003, and it took all the way until 2008 before it finally popped. Only since the housing bubble wasn't as entrenched in nearly as many adjacent industries (the banking industry being a notable exception,) the GDP wasn't artificially propped up so we didn't see the miracle economy with the non-existent business cycle that we had in the late 90's. Gingrich claimed he was a pro at balancing the budget and Clinton claimed to be an economics pro, only neither was true, the revenue stream was just artificially high so it gave them both free bullet points on their resume's.
Maybe not in the US, but in other parts of the world the housing bubble was hugely coupled to the rest of the economy in ways that the tech bubble wasn't. The wreckage in the EU was substantial. What's more, banking was deeply involved in the housing bubble and that's caused (and is still causing) gigantic problems. The terrifying/enraging part is that there are banks saying that they are such a large part of the economy that not only can they not be allowed to fail, they can't be allowed to shrink either, and some governments seem to be buying this argument.
I think I want to stop thinking about this now before I become totally enfuriated. I'd rather spend my time doing productive stuff like writing code...
Perhaps you play by this "has to happen before noon" rule, but this year is the first I have ever heard of that, in 30 years of living in this country and fucking with people's head on April 1st.
I've heard of it before, and always considered it to be a bunch of misinformation put about by people who can't cope with the concept of a joke. If you look closely, it's always the most humorless who insist most on this "rule", clinging to it desperately like a drowning man to a lifebelt.
So the actual color you see is the frequency spectrum of the light source, times the frequency emission response (color reflection spectrum) of the object, convolved with the frequency response of the cones in your eyes.
What's more, many surfaces reflect different colors at different amounts depending on the exact angle you view them at. Butterfly wings are an extreme example of this, or soap bubbles, but the phenomenon is common. (If you ever want to write a physically-accurate ray tracer, you get to deal with a lot of this complexity.) This can make a surface made of a single substance look very different across it. Now, these effects are functions of the wavelength of the incoming light (and the reflection angle, with the surface as a general functional parameter) so you can't just use a simple tri-chromatic approach when calculating what happens. More convolution! Yay!
The good thing about the new sensor is that it is trying to not throw away photons, which should greatly improve performance in low light. (For some reason, most pictures I take seem to be in low light level conditions. Probably due to spending too much time in meetings.)
The main deficiencies I see with X for remote access are:
1. Applications that insist on client side rendering (maybe some X issue is leading to that, but Chromium is a real pain over a remote connection).
2. It doesn't perform well unless you layer something like NX on top of it. The wire protocol is too chatty or low-level.
3. It needs some kind of middle layer so that you can move applications between displays, and displays between consoles. Think something like screen or tmux. Once you launch an app on a display, it is stuck there.
The one thing that is always painful with remote access is when you're shipping large and complex bitmaps back and forth, and that's simply because it is when you are critically dependent on the bandwidth and latency. With very complex application-level rendering, you simply don't get good performance when you've not got the app on the same system as the display (avoiding "client" and "server" terms); when they're both local, you've got additional options that provide much higher performance (e.g., shared memory). The trick to getting good performance is to put as much rendering as possible on the display side; tell the server to draw a line or place an image, instead of doing all the pixel bashing yourself (video rendering probably always needs to be done from an app local to the display). Alas, a lot of the things like complex font rendering have been put on the client side in recent years, and that will cause problems with network performance.
I'd say that this is just unfortunate, except that the problem is actually that the people writing the font rendering libraries don't understand the importance of putting rendering in the display engine where it belongs. The font rendering authors are coincidentally also the very same people who are deeply into Wayland now. Funny that. Would it be unfair for me to say that I suspect the real problem is that they're crap at protocol design?
For your third point, transferring an application between displays isn't at all trivial for other reasons. The easiest way to solve it is to have the app actually exist on both displays with a common Model but separate Views and Controllers. That's an app-level solution, not a toolkit-level or protocol-level one. X11 gives you the tools to solve it (as a single app can have many independent display connections open) but doesn't magically do it all for you. (This mattered a lot more when computers had a lot less video memory and so had to use complex rendering models.)
X11 isn't so bad. The current server is messy and some code and parts of the protocol should be deprecated. But these projects are all trying to throw out the baby with the bathwater, and that's why they are all likely doomed to fail..
X11 is very messy in places. There's some critical issues in there that need to be fixed soon (notably the use of 16 bit values in the protocol level for window sizes and locations). The ICCCM has a lot of wreckage of earlier protocols in it that are just totally in need of being scrapped. Taking a broom to X11 to give it a thorough clean (with selected bits of incompatibility) would be a tremendous thing.
But the compositing stuff that has the Wayland people worked up? Totally not an issue to me as a GUI toolkit maintainer. Nor is it an issue to any of the application authors or users I know.
But the GPL ravers seem to think it's the only open source license on the planet.
But that's what they want otherwise-uncommitted software developers to think. It's a political statement intended to bamboozle, just like the Reps/Dems pretending that the only other political party is the other one. I think it is a damn shame when being "pro-Freedom" is done by being actually anti-choice; I want both, and I hope others do too (but won't force them).
the unicorn cannot be both pink and invisible at the same time; it has to be visible to have a colour.
It's color attribute (RGBA) is #FF69B400, which is hot pink with a fully transparent alpha channel. QED!
I need about 4 overfilled carts per week.
Either you're feeding a family of 15 or you're buying way too many (or too bulky) groceries. Or your carts are tiny and you should trade up to the size that normal people use.
Betteridge says "No". Kickstarter hasn't peaked, and it doesn't matter. Phew! Thought I might have to read the article (or even follow the links!) there, and we can't be having that.
Unfortuanately, the lack of certificate validation (because few mailservers have signed certificates) makes them open to man-in-the-middle attacks, but not to simple packet sniffing.
They're not just open to MitM attacks, they're trivially open them. This is because anyone and his uncle's dead dog's fleas can make a self-signed certificate and say anything in the signature on it. Well, provided they can stand working with the awful interfaces the tools for working with certificates have. (OpenSSL, how do I hate thee? Let me count the ways...)
On the other hand, SMTP servers aren't configured to listen to proxies so deploying the attack requires DNS poisoning or packet interception. It also probably requires a lot of hardware if you're going to sustain the attack; SMTP servers usually carry lots of traffic and you've got to wait for the messages you're interested in to actually be delivered (which can take arbitrarily long; I've known it take months, though that was an extreme case). I'm guessing that the Feds probably want the ability to just go in and read any old message they want to off the real service, as that would be far cheaper for them.
Obviously not 'lightest', but 'least dense'.
You've just got to apply a correction factor. Ask yourself whether it is the lightest material per kilogram...
All PA announcements are broadcast over this system and preempt the entertainment audio.
I wish they'd only do that for safety announcements, and not the frequent "oh, we want to sell things to you now" ones (I've never ever bought a gift on a flight; the concept mixes two forms of hell — flying long-haul and shopping — into one maelstrom of awfulness). It would also be nice if they didn't sometimes turn on the PA system without making an announcement at all. Just because. If you've got important information, I've no problem listening to it. But random interruption of the entertainment for miscellaneous other reasons is irritating.
Even if you accept that it's representative data, there has still been persistent inflation. Even if it's only 2-3 percent/year, it adds up. One dollar today is worth 79 cents in 2003.
Call that an incentive for you to get your money working for you (i.e., to invest in something) instead of leaving it under the bed.
Meaning that solving bitcoin blocks will be exponentially easier for a quantum computer, as compared to a standard binary system.
Maybe. Making a quantum computer give useful results is furiously difficult, as the likelihood of decoherence (and hence loss of all results of the current calculation run) increases as the number of qubits increases and the number of operations increases. Right now, it looks very much like a scaled up research tool and not something you'd use in practice; we're still a good way off the point where any of these machines can tackle modern crypto at all.
In my 10 year career as software developer I have never seen real innovation
Keep on looking! It does happen very occasionally, and it is wonderful to observe. Hold to the hope!
As far as I can tell, not a single one of the new approved gTLDs can be written using standard ASCII
They can, provided you use the punycoded form. It's very ugly, but works.
You stop paying these administrators 6-digit salaries and you get 5-digit quality administrators.
Ah, but they're already getting 5-digit quality administrators. They just happen to be paying 6-digit salaries...
It's like how the government can both be incredibly incompetent and diabolically all controlling at the same time.
Often with the same person claiming both in the same post. Always interesting to see someone who's a candidate for an olympic gold medal in mental gymnastics (even if I wouldn't want to actually talk to them).
Because before the war, there was no business in Malaya, and all the Chinese were on Singapore? How about learning some history before you start trying to teach it.
Yes. For example, prior to WW2 the (British colonial) capital of Malaysia was Singapore. Singapore and Malaysia went their different ways because the Chinese (in Singapore) and the Malays didn't want to be ruled by the other group. "Dump on the other guys" has been a classic way of running a democracy in a highly divided society; you see it in many places. (It's worse where you've got race as a distinguisher as well as political perspective, but it's not good anywhere and it's a very common type of demagoguery.)
The lego moonbase set was my favorite as a kid.
Wait, who am I kidding? It's still my favorite!
Lego: because none of us really wanted to grow up. (I preferred building factories though, with conveyors, sorters, hoppers, etc. Lots of repurposed bricks, and a thing of wonder when it worked, sorting bricks by size automatically...)
A PhD student has the right to expect a project that generates a decent body of work within those four years.
Four years? Ha! That's a good one!
The easiest way to enforce that is for the awarding institution to say that if it isn't done in 4 years, it will be taken as a complete failure. Suddenly, people find that it is possible to write up in time. (Seriously, if you can't stop pissing around "doing just one more experiment" or "reading just one more paper" and write up your thesis, you're a failure as a researcher and should be publicly branded as such.)