Or, you could rtfa to see the expected false positive rate, or wait until the stats exist. Until then, you are tilting at windmills, or chasing waterfalls, or pavements, depending on your age. It's all speculation, in other words, on your part.
You have achieved label 1 critical thinking, now you have to learn context.
This is not about enforcement. It is about being able to build in this functionality.
Why opt in?
Well how about protests where bogus data enters the stream, and conclusions are invalidated? The original data is not always available, and reprocessing might be time prohibitive. Cancelling specific data points is needed.
Other possibilities too, I'm simplifying to try to limit these off topic replies.
Now you can rant about how this will be abused, while us academics ignore you. It's about being able, not the implications of possible use.
I don't think a windows variant could do the job. There are so many mature packages for linux. Apt get or whatever keeps them up to date and patched without
1) Porting something or 2) Writing from scratch
And that functionality would not be in the server, it would be an installable package. Because if Windows needed it, they would build it.
They aren't marketing windows for cloud providers, they are hosting Azure. So why add to windows if your customers don't need it? So they can build a competing cloud?
Given time and money sure, but there is no ROI nor reason to invest time and money.
No, it is Cortana's fault, because clearly it is intended to understand and is supposed to be ready for prime time.
It was probably tested many, many times in various rooms, maybe a car. But never in the real world, on a stage. And that's where Microsoft keeps fucking up. It works here, and here, why would it not work anywhere else?
The entire point of Microsoft's computing base is that it should work on a desktop, in a living room, in a board room, in a subway, and of course it isn't rated to be on a stage with microphones and feedback and audience noise and applause and shutter sounds because who would do that?
I guarantee it was tested many times, but not in that environment, And if in that environment, then when it was empty.
Everything Apple unveils has had a huge amount of preparation, so that it can't fail. And they tend not to do risky live demos, but the ones they did were well refined.
You assume a lack of practice, I propose a lack of preparation.
Supply lines today are longer, and more complex than ever, and it is vital to proactively identify at-risk opportunities in your supplier base to prevent costly delays and disruptions. With global capabilities, extensive industry experience, and multi-cultural expertise, SAI Global can help you quickly identify critical supplier non-compliances, and target program investments where theyâ(TM)ll have the greatest impact.
It is business jargon, understood by the kind of people that Microsoft has the best relationship with - mid to upper management.
So what you said was "I have no idea about business. When someone says things that are outside my experience I assume there is no meaning, and all of business is therefore meaningless to me."
There is a certain amount of truth to that, but it's no different from developers talking about DRY and Single Responsibility Principle, and the like. I want my code to be dry? How does it get wet? Does that mean the drought is ending or just beginning?
We have a common language, known as jargon, that makes communication more efficient. As does every industry. If you don't understand it, you can ask an actual question, or you can sound like an anonymously retarded window-licking asshole brained fart sandwich. So kudos for posting anonymously, and wasting 5 peoples' mod points. Because obviously the are just as much fart sandwich, and would have up modded something just as ignorant. Might as well be 5 all in one place.
And we base decisions based on individual recall over data since when? Oh, never, that's the year when the human memory and ability to judge was deemed perfect.
I would trust data, and we all should. Pilot nor hobbyist.
"Most of the cuts will occur in HPâ(TM)s long-troubled Enterprise Services unit and may be offset by new hires in that unit."
E.S. is basically what they are selling off. Most of the jobs will be bought by an outsourcing company. It was on this site not too long ago, and in the summary so you could avoid the article.
I know at least 500 people from HPES, and there are overpaid and underpaid people. Guess who gets the axe? That's right, the overpaid people. Not the "expensive and worth it" but overpaid.
I'm guessing lots of middle management cuts, where people built a team to look important but do little.
Job cuts aren't always bad, sometimes the job should never have existed.
How else can you do the opposite of a merger and save money? Hiring cheap replacements is a very tiny part of the answer. Take your knee jerk cynicism elsewhere, and meanwhile learn before posting. All if it was posted right here, in dorkslush, so you didn't have to exert much energy at all.
I wrote a lot of stuff, but the basic idea is that... oh fuck it, you're not going to bother to understand why the person who started the sort of psychoacoustic research that led to the vast compression of MP3's, just as one example, do not deserve to be compensated in any way.
Their thought just magically appeared, and they have no bills to pay, and they eat no food, so Fraunhofer IIS can just eat a bag of nothing for their contribution.
You're right, patents and copyright serve no purpose.
Except, that if there were no intellectual property, two things would happen.
1) All forms of GNU license would become null and void 2) Interested participants would be limited to self-funded and independent contributors
Let's talk about ZLIB. PKZIP was good, and patented. And then free software implemented a compatible, but less efficient zlib. Who wins here? Free software, because they had a patented reference model against which to measure compatibility.
We can work around patents, I get it. But to deny that to the current developers of cutting edge software?
I'm going to ask where Libre software not just imitates, but outperforms proprietary software.
One example isn't enough, and a balance of a handfull vs. all of non-free software isn't going to convince me at all.
I understand the objection, since "monetize" is typically used in a perverse way. But Red Hat has a very successful business plan to monetize Linux, and contribute back to the community.
When someone cringes at the *word* but does not understand the *definition*, that's when I exert all my self control, and fail, and call that person a fuckhat or similar.
Implicit in that word is the idea that you want to turn everything into money. The only point in writing a program is to turn it into money. Feh!
No, that's not anywhere near implied. That's the typical usage, so you must just read a bunch of business and/or stock/money analysts and then wipe your ass with their articles without understanding how business works. How is it implied? None of the definitions I've seen even come close to that, unless you take the most recent meaning first, which is strictly an MBA track meaning.
Simply selling copies of free software was an effective way to raise money when I wrote that article, and remained so through the early 90s.
That's monetizing.
As you've noted, that isn't usually the case.
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU SMOKING? Non sequitur, it does not follow. Oh, this should be fun.
The problem is that the topic of discussion is college-to-work hires. You aren't the topic.
Being interested, or naturally talented, in some form of coding, comp sci, hardware, electronics, or related fields, will get you a great career and good if not great pay. Being a comp sci or related graduate will get you a decent career, otherwise, but not necessarily a great one or immediate hire.
This seems to say that being good in general at general stuff can lead you to a great career where things change frequently. And I work with a guy who chose comp sci because of his parents' situation, not for love of the craft. He stands out as someone with textbook knowledge, but is not seen as the go-to "understand and fix the problem so users can get back to work" guy.
I'd change the headline to "Employers value generalists to crappy specialists." Unfortunately I can't compare to the article because Forbes thinks I should either run Javascript or fuck off. Well, I chose to fuck off. Eat a barrel of dicks, Forbes, you and your Diceslash forkheads.
I was specifically replying to "No discs = no buy// Then M$ can go choke on a bucket of dicks. Shove the cloud/DRM bullshit up your ass."
And the idiot replying to you comparing Steam to Steam is obviously missing your point about "works like Steam". I have several co-workers who use Steam, like it, and have never had problems.
BUT THEY ARE ON A PC.
They are not on a closed-loop console where the only way to get content is to buy the disc. They have a general feeling that if you buy a disc, that it won't disappear. As opposed to how many other online only services, LIKE PLAYS FOR SURE, FROM MICROSOFT, that just go dark.
Sure, PC servers go dark, but if I have a single-player disc, that server goes dark when a nest of ants builds around the power supply, not when it becomes economically inconvenient to support.
Your second paragraph is exactly my point. People are not going to care, unless SOMEONE MAKES THEM CARE. And that's my advice. Go evangelise to the ignorant about how you lost your music library, or can't play certain games, because the could failed you.
Until then, eat a bowl of bags of buckets of dicks, or STFU, because typing threats on DatSlosh gets you nowhere.
Sorry I had to mansplain my explanation to you, but you obviously didn't get it. Now go manspalin to idiots about how Microsoft, who gives exactly negative shits about individuals, is going to benefit the individual gamer.
Then remove the last paragraph and reply as if it weren't there.
You can object to silly things that somehow offend your sensibilities, but at least attack the basis of the conclusion. The conclusion is based on the basis, obviously, so otherwise you're just noise.
For fuck's sake, there's probably an entire course in Corporate Citizenship in any Sociology, Poli-Sci, Economics, and almost certainly somewhere along the MBR track.
Wikipedia's article is called "Corporate social responsibility", you can start there, read the references, and stop waxing philosophical. Just because you haven't heard of something doesn't mean that raftloads of undergraduates haven't been exposed to it. do at least a little reading before wondering aloud what something is, pretty please you fucking wanker?
I warn you, the article includes a lot of words, so you have to TAKE IN information instead of SPEWING information, which you may not be accustomed to. So take it in small doses at first. First get used to reading, then we can work on understanding, and after that it's thinking before you type. Baby steps.
They have shown that the exact same room-temperature nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) experiment used to factor 143 can actually factor an entire class of numbers, although this was not known until now. Because this computation, which is based on a minimization algorithm involving 4 qubits, does not require prior knowledge of the answer, it outperforms all implementations of Shor's algorithm to date, which do require prior knowledge of the answer. Expanding on this method, the researchers also theoretically show how the same minimization algorithm can be used to factor even larger numbers, such as 291,311, with only 6 qubits.
On top of this, in the same paper the researchers demonstrated the first quantum factorization of a "triprime," which is the product of three prime numbers. Here, the researchers used a 3-qubit factorization method to factor the triprime 175, which has the factors 5, 5, and 7.
The previous record was 143, and they did 56,153. And it works on *classes* of numbers, and moves into interesting new triprime territory.
That leads me to believe your comment is dildos. This technique vastly improves on previous methods, and the research is ongoing. Quantum computing is really just beginning (okay, maybe it's 20 years old, or 50), but the progress made in 2 years is quite remarkable.
I'm currently assuming that no existing hardware will be safe in 10 years. If I'm wrong, no harm done.
1) No one is predicting the end of the world 2) People are predicting the end of traditional cryptography
This is important, because it will take a very long time to upgrade consumer level COTS hardware to have encryption that will withstand a quantum attack. That means doing everything in the clear. Even if we do it all in one week, that's a week's worth of everything in the clear.
I know people will post about how TLS is already broken, and garbage about the NSA already being able to crack everything. I'm talking about 4096 bit ciphers breakable by any Russian or Chinese group that gets money together to buy a quantum computer.
The other option is quantum computing doesn't pan out because the theory is blocked by some practical limit. You get to say you were right, no big deal.
Meanwhile, people are really concerned about fake PGP keys and signing/encrypting certificates, because it is plausible. And not in those speculative fiction kinds of ways, but in those "ongoing research continues to find them more plausible and closer to reality" kinds of ways.
It's an economic exercise at best. Economists love attaching arbitrary (though reasoned) dollar amounts on things. Then they couple all of the things that are loosely related (health care costs, investment in tech that should be replaced, cost of replacing the polluting tech for example). Then they come up with a staggeringly large number.
What they don't do is figure out the benefits to using a technology, in this case before we had a greener replacement.
This isn't about an actual bill, or actual transfer of funds. Carbon offsets and other real world things will take care of that. This is just giving you an actual idea of the magnitude of the problem. And 4 Trillion really isn't that much,
Second quarter GDP was $17,902.0 billion, aka 18 trillion, meaning $72 trillion for a year. $4 trillion to be able to produce the level of comfort and technology seems reasonable.
You posted your tagline from your blog here, which means
1) You must be correct 2) There's no point in continuing to do anything
I guess that wraps it up. pjbgravely has spoken, there's nothing we can do. Let's just all commit mass extinction and get it over with. We're only killing time until the inevitable heat death of the universe, after all.
I'm sorry, I apologise for my recent civility. I assumed that the word "surprising" was used by someone other than you. It's not in the article and it's not in the PDF, so it's something you made up right out of your ass. I should have checked that before I replied. So I'll correct that here, again my apologies for not posting this first.
To start off, this isn't "Surprises for nerds dot com", it's News. And News is things that are new. And I don't remember seeing it here before, so I'm kinda sure it qualifies as new.
Could the data be correlated be because people mostly search for Wikipedia entries using Google?
NO SHIT, SHERLOCK HOMOS AND TWATSON. Google frequently puts Wikipedia at the top, especially for mobile users in my experience. So a lot of searches never see even the full results page, they just click on the first link (and a lot of users do that because that's how they think search works)*
I know that if I'm looking for info on an unfamiliar topic, I search for it on Google, and will usually check the Wikipedia entry if there is one.
No one cares what you do, this is science. More people just click on the first link, which is frequently Wikipedia to be redundant.
I'm not sure why anybody finds the statistic even slightly remarkable.
And yet you are about to remark on it. But before that, we have more. Did you think up this idea? No? If you had, do you think you would have made some remark to someone? Do you routinely read the studies of University of Prague economist Ladislav KriÅtoufek and try, as good scientists would, to replicate his results?
Or to put it another way, did you know of a way prior to reading this that you could guess what the Google Trends hot topics would be? Because if so, you should have remarked on it sooner, you selfish asshole. Otherwise you shut up and let people do science you selfish asshole.
Or even better, The article literally says "We found remarkably high correlations between them for frequently searched keywords." Why not ask those researchers at three Japanese universities why they bothered to remark, instead of wasting our time here?
The only thing that's surprising to me is that it's not higher than 75%.
There, you remarked. Why did you find that remarkable? Or remarkably low? I'd like to see your study, I really would. Let me paraphrase , "Anything that seems obvious in retrospect, I feel that I should have come up with first, so I'm going to shit on it."
*ReadWriteWeb had a day when an article on Facebook hit the top result, and the comments for that article were along the lines of "I hate the new facebook look. Where's all my pictures? Change it back." Because that's how stupid people use the internet.
In 2010, the site didn't require JavaScript, so you could see the article. Then you have to enable discus which I'm not going to, but look at the disclaimer. I'll copy it here because you seem to be lacking in very basic thinking skills.
Dear visitors from Google. This site is not Facebook. This is a website called ReadWriteWeb that reports on news about Facebook and other Internet services. You can however click here and become a Fan of ReadWriteWeb on Facebook, to receive our updates and learn more about the Internet. To access Facebook right now, click here. For future reference, type "facebook.com" into your browser address bar or enter "facebook" into Google and click on the first result. We recommend that you then save Facebook as a bookmark in your browser.
Yes, people are that stupid. Which is why we need science to study what they do and how they do it, because people like you and me, well at least
It's not surprising when someone else comes up with the idea and does the math.
I did not know about the public stats, so I never would have thought of a 75% effective way to predict what google trends would show.
Obvious in retrospect does not mean anyone is surprised. Especially since "surprising correlation" usually really means "something I didn't previously know."
Few people use words correctly, so don't take them literally.
The next generation is years out, and you won't be in the target demographic. Specifically, cloud users will be.
Your only hope is to convince millions of individuals that their convenience is not worth the price.
Just like my favorite idiot, rms, whose paranoia turned out to be more than right.
And you will be ignored and ridiculed in the same way, and less effective. And Microsoft will get fistfulls of dollars from people who you failed to convince. And your choice will be Xbox Next or something like Steam.
Then we will learn how Next launch day was predictable, and could have been avoided, but the platform remains popular due to exclusives and some amount of backwards compatibility.
So do something now. Voting with your paycheck will not be an option, because you will be the minority.
Idiot. The trifecta understates the problem, the propaganda being that you should not be concerned. The article propaganda is that you should be concerned.
The Dashslot summary is always something almost exactly unlike the article. The article headline linked is "Microsoft intensifies data collection on Windows 7 and 8 systems" - that's the opposite of the softening and obscuring language you pointed out.
Making decisions based on Dotslash summaries is what idiots do, it is idiotic.
Because drivers are terrible and stupid. Also, this article seems to be unhelpful in the pro AV agenda.
When I pass an accident, I usually think "how inconsiderate" because there is statistically zero chance of an accident being anything other than bad driving. Weather related means the driver was going too fast for the surface or visibility conditions. The rare deer out of nowhere can be handled with better attention and reflexes.
AV won't stop all crashes, with random events like the tire falling off, but it will reduce the number, and the remaining events should be less catastrophic.
I'm not so sure I would want one until I'm old, then maybe. But lots of people need them because they are stupid.
17 years of disassembly experience should serve me well. Buy I am not allowed to share my changes. Perhaps the Mickey mouse laws should be challenged. Again.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, you could rtfa to see the expected false positive rate, or wait until the stats exist. Until then, you are tilting at windmills, or chasing waterfalls, or pavements, depending on your age. It's all speculation, in other words, on your part.
You have achieved label 1 critical thinking, now you have to learn context.
This is not about enforcement. It is about being able to build in this functionality.
Why opt in?
Well how about protests where bogus data enters the stream, and conclusions are invalidated? The original data is not always available, and reprocessing might be time prohibitive. Cancelling specific data points is needed.
Other possibilities too, I'm simplifying to try to limit these off topic replies.
Now you can rant about how this will be abused, while us academics ignore you. It's about being able, not the implications of possible use.
I don't think a windows variant could do the job. There are so many mature packages for linux. Apt get or whatever keeps them up to date and patched without
1) Porting something or
2) Writing from scratch
And that functionality would not be in the server, it would be an installable package. Because if Windows needed it, they would build it.
They aren't marketing windows for cloud providers, they are hosting Azure. So why add to windows if your customers don't need it? So they can build a competing cloud?
Given time and money sure, but there is no ROI nor reason to invest time and money.
No, it is Cortana's fault, because clearly it is intended to understand and is supposed to be ready for prime time.
It was probably tested many, many times in various rooms, maybe a car. But never in the real world, on a stage. And that's where Microsoft keeps fucking up. It works here, and here, why would it not work anywhere else?
The entire point of Microsoft's computing base is that it should work on a desktop, in a living room, in a board room, in a subway, and of course it isn't rated to be on a stage with microphones and feedback and audience noise and applause and shutter sounds because who would do that?
I guarantee it was tested many times, but not in that environment, And if in that environment, then when it was empty.
Everything Apple unveils has had a huge amount of preparation, so that it can't fail. And they tend not to do risky live demos, but the ones they did were well refined.
You assume a lack of practice, I propose a lack of preparation.
Here it is used in context:
It is business jargon, understood by the kind of people that Microsoft has the best relationship with - mid to upper management.
So what you said was "I have no idea about business. When someone says things that are outside my experience I assume there is no meaning, and all of business is therefore meaningless to me."
There is a certain amount of truth to that, but it's no different from developers talking about DRY and Single Responsibility Principle, and the like. I want my code to be dry? How does it get wet? Does that mean the drought is ending or just beginning?
We have a common language, known as jargon, that makes communication more efficient. As does every industry. If you don't understand it, you can ask an actual question, or you can sound like an anonymously retarded window-licking asshole brained fart sandwich. So kudos for posting anonymously, and wasting 5 peoples' mod points. Because obviously the are just as much fart sandwich, and would have up modded something just as ignorant. Might as well be 5 all in one place.
The difference between "Computers..." and "The way we implemented computers..." is important.
This study did not discern, nor did you.
You came closer, but did not discern. So close. But fail.
And we base decisions based on individual recall over data since when? Oh, never, that's the year when the human memory and ability to judge was deemed perfect.
I would trust data, and we all should. Pilot nor hobbyist.
"Most of the cuts will occur in HPâ(TM)s long-troubled Enterprise Services unit and may be offset by new hires in that unit."
E.S. is basically what they are selling off. Most of the jobs will be bought by an outsourcing company. It was on this site not too long ago, and in the summary so you could avoid the article.
I know at least 500 people from HPES, and there are overpaid and underpaid people. Guess who gets the axe? That's right, the overpaid people. Not the "expensive and worth it" but overpaid.
I'm guessing lots of middle management cuts, where people built a team to look important but do little.
Job cuts aren't always bad, sometimes the job should never have existed.
How else can you do the opposite of a merger and save money? Hiring cheap replacements is a very tiny part of the answer. Take your knee jerk cynicism elsewhere, and meanwhile learn before posting. All if it was posted right here, in dorkslush, so you didn't have to exert much energy at all.
I wrote a lot of stuff, but the basic idea is that ... oh fuck it, you're not going to bother to understand why the person who started the sort of psychoacoustic research that led to the vast compression of MP3's, just as one example, do not deserve to be compensated in any way.
Their thought just magically appeared, and they have no bills to pay, and they eat no food, so Fraunhofer IIS can just eat a bag of nothing for their contribution.
You're right, patents and copyright serve no purpose.
Except, that if there were no intellectual property, two things would happen.
1) All forms of GNU license would become null and void
2) Interested participants would be limited to self-funded and independent contributors
Let's talk about ZLIB. PKZIP was good, and patented. And then free software implemented a compatible, but less efficient zlib. Who wins here? Free software, because they had a patented reference model against which to measure compatibility.
We can work around patents, I get it. But to deny that to the current developers of cutting edge software?
I'm going to ask where Libre software not just imitates, but outperforms proprietary software.
One example isn't enough, and a balance of a handfull vs. all of non-free software isn't going to convince me at all.
I understand the objection, since "monetize" is typically used in a perverse way. But Red Hat has a very successful business plan to monetize Linux, and contribute back to the community.
When someone cringes at the *word* but does not understand the *definition*, that's when I exert all my self control, and fail, and call that person a fuckhat or similar.
No, that's not anywhere near implied. That's the typical usage, so you must just read a bunch of business and/or stock/money analysts and then wipe your ass with their articles without understanding how business works. How is it implied? None of the definitions I've seen even come close to that, unless you take the most recent meaning first, which is strictly an MBA track meaning.
That's monetizing.
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU SMOKING? Non sequitur, it does not follow. Oh, this should be fun.
The problem is that the topic of discussion is college-to-work hires. You aren't the topic.
Being interested, or naturally talented, in some form of coding, comp sci, hardware, electronics, or related fields, will get you a great career and good if not great pay. Being a comp sci or related graduate will get you a decent career, otherwise, but not necessarily a great one or immediate hire.
This seems to say that being good in general at general stuff can lead you to a great career where things change frequently. And I work with a guy who chose comp sci because of his parents' situation, not for love of the craft. He stands out as someone with textbook knowledge, but is not seen as the go-to "understand and fix the problem so users can get back to work" guy.
I'd change the headline to "Employers value generalists to crappy specialists." Unfortunately I can't compare to the article because Forbes thinks I should either run Javascript or fuck off. Well, I chose to fuck off. Eat a barrel of dicks, Forbes, you and your Diceslash forkheads.
Also, Forbes looks like a spinning circle without Javascript enabled, so that's two strikes.
Fuck you sideways in the nuts with a live shark's head, Dashslot's Thibault.
I was specifically replying to "No discs = no buy // Then M$ can go choke on a bucket of dicks. Shove the cloud/DRM bullshit up your ass."
And the idiot replying to you comparing Steam to Steam is obviously missing your point about "works like Steam". I have several co-workers who use Steam, like it, and have never had problems.
BUT THEY ARE ON A PC.
They are not on a closed-loop console where the only way to get content is to buy the disc. They have a general feeling that if you buy a disc, that it won't disappear. As opposed to how many other online only services, LIKE PLAYS FOR SURE, FROM MICROSOFT, that just go dark.
Sure, PC servers go dark, but if I have a single-player disc, that server goes dark when a nest of ants builds around the power supply, not when it becomes economically inconvenient to support.
Your second paragraph is exactly my point. People are not going to care, unless SOMEONE MAKES THEM CARE. And that's my advice. Go evangelise to the ignorant about how you lost your music library, or can't play certain games, because the could failed you.
Until then, eat a bowl of bags of buckets of dicks, or STFU, because typing threats on DatSlosh gets you nowhere.
Sorry I had to mansplain my explanation to you, but you obviously didn't get it. Now go manspalin to idiots about how Microsoft, who gives exactly negative shits about individuals, is going to benefit the individual gamer.
Then remove the last paragraph and reply as if it weren't there.
You can object to silly things that somehow offend your sensibilities, but at least attack the basis of the conclusion. The conclusion is based on the basis, obviously, so otherwise you're just noise.
For fuck's sake, there's probably an entire course in Corporate Citizenship in any Sociology, Poli-Sci, Economics, and almost certainly somewhere along the MBR track.
Wikipedia's article is called "Corporate social responsibility", you can start there, read the references, and stop waxing philosophical. Just because you haven't heard of something doesn't mean that raftloads of undergraduates haven't been exposed to it. do at least a little reading before wondering aloud what something is, pretty please you fucking wanker?
I warn you, the article includes a lot of words, so you have to TAKE IN information instead of SPEWING information, which you may not be accustomed to. So take it in small doses at first. First get used to reading, then we can work on understanding, and after that it's thinking before you type. Baby steps.
I assume you mean this
The previous record was 143, and they did 56,153. And it works on *classes* of numbers, and moves into interesting new triprime territory.
That leads me to believe your comment is dildos. This technique vastly improves on previous methods, and the research is ongoing. Quantum computing is really just beginning (okay, maybe it's 20 years old, or 50), but the progress made in 2 years is quite remarkable.
I'm currently assuming that no existing hardware will be safe in 10 years. If I'm wrong, no harm done.
You clearly don't understand.
1) No one is predicting the end of the world
2) People are predicting the end of traditional cryptography
This is important, because it will take a very long time to upgrade consumer level COTS hardware to have encryption that will withstand a quantum attack. That means doing everything in the clear. Even if we do it all in one week, that's a week's worth of everything in the clear.
I know people will post about how TLS is already broken, and garbage about the NSA already being able to crack everything. I'm talking about 4096 bit ciphers breakable by any Russian or Chinese group that gets money together to buy a quantum computer.
The other option is quantum computing doesn't pan out because the theory is blocked by some practical limit. You get to say you were right, no big deal.
Meanwhile, people are really concerned about fake PGP keys and signing/encrypting certificates, because it is plausible. And not in those speculative fiction kinds of ways, but in those "ongoing research continues to find them more plausible and closer to reality" kinds of ways.
It's an economic exercise at best. Economists love attaching arbitrary (though reasoned) dollar amounts on things. Then they couple all of the things that are loosely related (health care costs, investment in tech that should be replaced, cost of replacing the polluting tech for example). Then they come up with a staggeringly large number.
What they don't do is figure out the benefits to using a technology, in this case before we had a greener replacement.
This isn't about an actual bill, or actual transfer of funds. Carbon offsets and other real world things will take care of that. This is just giving you an actual idea of the magnitude of the problem. And 4 Trillion really isn't that much,
Second quarter GDP was $17,902.0 billion, aka 18 trillion, meaning $72 trillion for a year. $4 trillion to be able to produce the level of comfort and technology seems reasonable.
http://bea.gov/newsreleases/na...
You posted your tagline from your blog here, which means
1) You must be correct
2) There's no point in continuing to do anything
I guess that wraps it up. pjbgravely has spoken, there's nothing we can do. Let's just all commit mass extinction and get it over with. We're only killing time until the inevitable heat death of the universe, after all.
Wait, wait a sec. When was it common?
I'm sorry, I apologise for my recent civility. I assumed that the word "surprising" was used by someone other than you. It's not in the article and it's not in the PDF, so it's something you made up right out of your ass. I should have checked that before I replied. So I'll correct that here, again my apologies for not posting this first.
To start off, this isn't "Surprises for nerds dot com", it's News. And News is things that are new. And I don't remember seeing it here before, so I'm kinda sure it qualifies as new.
NO SHIT, SHERLOCK HOMOS AND TWATSON. Google frequently puts Wikipedia at the top, especially for mobile users in my experience. So a lot of searches never see even the full results page, they just click on the first link (and a lot of users do that because that's how they think search works)*
No one cares what you do, this is science. More people just click on the first link, which is frequently Wikipedia to be redundant.
And yet you are about to remark on it. But before that, we have more. Did you think up this idea? No? If you had, do you think you would have made some remark to someone? Do you routinely read the studies of University of Prague economist Ladislav KriÅtoufek and try, as good scientists would, to replicate his results?
Or to put it another way, did you know of a way prior to reading this that you could guess what the Google Trends hot topics would be? Because if so, you should have remarked on it sooner, you selfish asshole. Otherwise you shut up and let people do science you selfish asshole.
Or even better, The article literally says "We found remarkably high correlations between them for frequently searched keywords." Why not ask those researchers at three Japanese universities why they bothered to remark, instead of wasting our time here?
There, you remarked. Why did you find that remarkable? Or remarkably low? I'd like to see your study, I really would. Let me paraphrase , "Anything that seems obvious in retrospect, I feel that I should have come up with first, so I'm going to shit on it."
*ReadWriteWeb had a day when an article on Facebook hit the top result, and the comments for that article were along the lines of "I hate the new facebook look. Where's all my pictures? Change it back." Because that's how stupid people use the internet.
http://readwrite.com/2010/02/10/facebook_wants_to_be_your_one_true_login
In 2010, the site didn't require JavaScript, so you could see the article. Then you have to enable discus which I'm not going to, but look at the disclaimer. I'll copy it here because you seem to be lacking in very basic thinking skills.
Yes, people are that stupid. Which is why we need science to study what they do and how they do it, because people like you and me, well at least
It's not surprising when someone else comes up with the idea and does the math.
I did not know about the public stats, so I never would have thought of a 75% effective way to predict what google trends would show.
Obvious in retrospect does not mean anyone is surprised. Especially since "surprising correlation" usually really means "something I didn't previously know."
Few people use words correctly, so don't take them literally.
The next generation is years out, and you won't be in the target demographic. Specifically, cloud users will be.
Your only hope is to convince millions of individuals that their convenience is not worth the price.
Just like my favorite idiot, rms, whose paranoia turned out to be more than right.
And you will be ignored and ridiculed in the same way, and less effective. And Microsoft will get fistfulls of dollars from people who you failed to convince. And your choice will be Xbox Next or something like Steam.
Then we will learn how Next launch day was predictable, and could have been avoided, but the platform remains popular due to exclusives and some amount of backwards compatibility.
So do something now. Voting with your paycheck will not be an option, because you will be the minority.
Idiot. The trifecta understates the problem, the propaganda being that you should not be concerned. The article propaganda is that you should be concerned.
The Dashslot summary is always something almost exactly unlike the article. The article headline linked is "Microsoft intensifies data collection on Windows 7 and 8 systems" - that's the opposite of the softening and obscuring language you pointed out.
Making decisions based on Dotslash summaries is what idiots do, it is idiotic.
Because drivers are terrible and stupid. Also, this article seems to be unhelpful in the pro AV agenda.
When I pass an accident, I usually think "how inconsiderate" because there is statistically zero chance of an accident being anything other than bad driving. Weather related means the driver was going too fast for the surface or visibility conditions. The rare deer out of nowhere can be handled with better attention and reflexes.
AV won't stop all crashes, with random events like the tire falling off, but it will reduce the number, and the remaining events should be less catastrophic.
I'm not so sure I would want one until I'm old, then maybe. But lots of people need them because they are stupid.
17 years of disassembly experience should serve me well. Buy I am not allowed to share my changes. Perhaps the Mickey mouse laws should be challenged. Again.