Zero addictions. Zero medical conditions (unless wearing glasses counts). In fact, doctors keep de-registering me. Not a hippie, but haven't taken a pill in years because unless I have a need, I don't need to touch them (literally... a paracetamol once every couple of years for a serious headache, THAT'S IT).
But holier-than-thou? Against someone who can't resist the fucking temptation to use their phone rather than do their job (in this case writing)? It's not much to write home about.
P.S. I work in IT, it would be a fucking cinch to be addicted to the screen. My phone actually has settings to silence various things after 6pm so I don't get emails and calls about work, and people are always whining that I'm not online or not taking their calls.
When your child does this, you know what you should do.
You take the phone away, turn it off, only allow use in certain hours.
Because you're an adult, I expect you to a) be able to do it to yourself, b) not NEED to do that as you have impulse control, c) notice if you're failing in that and grow up rather quickly.
The problem extends because people don't even apply this to their children anymore, let alone themselves. You're an adult. Grow up and stop it. Same thing that I say to smokers. If you are purely acting on base impulses and instincts, of course you'll never cure such things. Just say "Oh, no, I shouldn't be doing that" and stop it. It's not like an iPhone is coated in some addictive narcotic (though it's priced like that).
Nobody expect immediate compliance and perfect application, but come on. You know it's bad for you and you're still allowing it to happen. There's a part of your brain that's been around for millions of years and whose purpose is basically to do nothing more than override the instinctual part of your brain by applying reason. It's basically the bit that makes you a human and not an ape.
Windows can't use many Windows device drivers. Are we really suggesting that ReactOS's hardware compatibility is anywhere close to providing support for hardware that's not supported on Linux? TV tuner cards are pretty much one of the best-supported devices out there, for instance. Only Ethernet cards would beat them, in fact.
ReactOS development may be beneficial to Wine, but surely that's the point... they do more for Wine, and Wine has a much bigger base, that it's not really people using ReactOS so much as those using Wine that are driving development.
To be honest, quite how much ReactOS is actually deployed is pretty much a mystery and guesswork, but wine is in just about every software repository available.
It's like FreeDOS vs DOSBox, except FreeDOS has a ton of niche uses (BIOS updates, etc.) that are nowhere near GUI requirements. I have literally never seen a ReactOS box in the wild. But I have FreeDOS disks issued by big-name manufacturers for BIOS/drivers/etc., and seen Wine in use on commercial projects (sometimes even commercial ports).
Gosh, if only you'd created a browser with its own rendering engine that you then didn't sell off to a company that immediately replaced it, and then go on to "revive" the old browser by... creating another browser based on the Chrome browser too.
As a Vivaldi user, I can confirm that it's nothing more than a Chrome clone, and a pretty boring one. All the interesting Opera features haven't made it in in all the years it's existed and been promised.
Guess what? When you make a Chrome-clone, you have to do what the people who make Chrome want you to do. Shocking, isn't it?
And, given the choice, I think most people would rather just emulate an entire Windows box, run it through Wine (which stands ten times more chance of actually working), or just hack it to run on modern Windows instead.
DOSBox is for games, almost 99% of the time. It's bundled in Steam releases of old games, etc.etc. and it sucks at lots of things (e.g. physical hardware interaction, requires an entire PC set up and running an OS already to work etc.).
As such, ReactOS fills an EVEN TINIER niche. Not for running games (there are vanishingly few old Windows games that don't work nowadays), but actually for running ancient Windows business apps (with nothing in the way of ActiveX, etc. integration) on base hardware itself.
The use case of ReactOS kinda blows it out of the water for anything except the most niche of uses. Literally "this half-a-million-dollar microscope runs from an old version of Windows which we can't get any more because the microscope company refuse to support or supply it, and it literally does almost nothing in terms of physical interaction but MUST run on the old computer inside the microscope". At that point, it's cheaper to bin it and buy another rather than try to get it working on Windows itself, let alone ReactOS.
Let's be honest, ReactOS is WineOS. As someone who purchased Codeweavers back in the day to run Office 2000 on Linux, so I totally get the use-cases, I can't see a use for ReactOS that would suggest any reasonable amount of development effort being put into it to facilitate that.
DOSBox is literally bouyed up by people using it to play games. ReactOS is... just a toy, really.
To be honest, I'd rather efforts were put into making a Linux distro that works kinda-like the old versions of Windows, with a native Wine association for.exe files etc. It would run more, work on modern hardware, and fill those needs people have better.
At this point, starting up an OS means starting over for every device driver and OS / BIOS interaction. That just means decades of work to get back to where we are again, where even Linux can struggle with Windows-only hardware and deprecates old hardware regularly.
Actually, according to the documents I have on my new car, once I have paid at least 50% of the balance, it's mine and they can't take it from me. If they want to recover from there, they can only pursue me as per a normal debt.
After 50%, it literally states that it's legally my property. Sure, if I refuse to pay, they know I should have a car, but they can't just repossess it immediately. Before 50%, if I refused to make payments, they could disable it, recover it, just walk up to it with a manufacturer's key and take it - it's still theirs.
And it counts the deposit and the finance, so you actually own the car earlier than halfway through the payment term.
Now, it's a bog-standard personal car purchase, so I imagine that that's pretty standard for the UK/EU or that it's a statutory ruling that they have to abide by and tell you.
2 hour travel to a London airport. 3 hour wait time in security, the lounge, check-in queues, etc. at a London airport. God-knows-how-long a flight, in cramped conditions, unable to escape. 1 hour wait time to pass security the other end. 2 hour travel to your hotel.
All the same again a few days later.
Sorry, but it's got nothing to do with autism or anything else - what a horrible way to go, just to give a talk. Sod that. I wouldn't do that to start a week's holiday in Europe.
I think you miss the point that "travel" doesn't just mean "wander around a country" but the hassle of getting there in the first place, which can consume a vast portion of your free time. If you're not going to get a holiday, are going to working / giving a talk while you're there, you'd have to pay me a LOT of money to suffer that, especially so in Turing's day.
The "experience" of travel - as in "holidaying" - is entirely different to travelling for business / academia.
YOUR opinion is biased in favour of your limited, bigoted, mis-targeted, attacking view without an understanding of what's being discussed.
Turing lived in America for a while. He detested it. And he also hated the journey.
P.S. Yes, even travel for a "holiday", sorry, but I've been many, many, many places for everything from tent-camping to five-star cruise ships (e.g. the QE2). Most "travel" sucks. Especially if you are only able to go see the same tourist attractions as everyone else. There are moments, but just because you have a funny incident in Mumbai once doesn't mean that it's a life-changing and necessary experience.
Just having been to a country that someone else hasn't doesn't make you a world expert on it. Nor does it mean you're going to "discover yourself" and "learn about new cultures" or any of the other cliches that people trot out.
Travel-and-live-there, yes, possibly. Anything else is just holidaying.
You know when things say "just port-forward" and people just do that?
There ya go.
One of the reasons that I look upon any port-forward as incredibly suspicious, professionally, and only like doing it if it goes via a device capable of connection-limiting, rate-limiting and performing intrusion-protection and sanitisation for the exact protocol in question.
"Hey, just bash a hole in your house so the postman can deliver your parcels. Hey, just bash another hole so the gas man can read your meter. Hey, just bash another hole so your lightbulbs can talk out."... at the point it starts sounding silly, that's the point it already is silly.
You mean the guy that ran from police who were yelling "Stop" and "Armed Police", who then boarded a crowded train, still running, and then reached into a rucksack.
Or, buy the cheapest you can find, because price is intrinsically linked to the number and extent of median processes and it costs less to fly bananas to countries than it does to try to heat greenhouses to grow them in that country.
And then give the difference to Greenpeace or whatever. Or use it to plant your own garden.
Just because you want to save the planet, doesn't mean you need to be a hippie living in a tree.
In my country, there's a good chance you'd end up on the news for discharging a firearm like that. Certainly everybody in earshot would be calling the police, and most of them would then be looking for the shooter, even if just out of their windows.
This is much more to do with becoming acclimatised to being in a country where any idiot can own a gun and fire it, than anything to do with the police.
Few. Far between. Certainly not the norm. Considered specialist units. Literally lived in England my entire life and only ever seen them at airports. Also almost always have cams on them nowadays.
Shootings by police are INCREDIBLY rare and are often discovered to be against people who have things like Uzis (literally no legal method of owning such a thing in my country) hidden in their car that they reached for.
You want a product. You want a product so bad that you finance the company to make it before it even exists. Your reward for doing this is to receive the product.
Is this not just pre-ordering something that doesn't exist? If it works and is successful, you'll be able to pick one up not long after they make them anyway, whether you invested or not. If it doesn't work, you're going to lose money or receive a substandard product.
What's in it for you to crowd-fund that kind of thing?
Now, I have crowdfunded things. Literally, they were all limited run, support-for-the-creators projects, where the product wouldn't exist afterwards and/or the product wouldn't get made otherwise where the creators had a proven history of success.
For example, Defense Grid 2. It couldn't have happened without the kickstarter. The people behind it had proven themselves already. There was in fact already a substantial amount of the game complete. They weren't reliant on just the kickstarter. And actually I profited quite heavily as AMD gave them some graphics cards to give away to backers, I got the game, and all kinds of other stuff. Even then, that kickstarter really worried me, as it's not how I normally do things. I've only ever backed four or five small projects with a tiny percentage of my disposable income. Four succeeded, delivered the product, after having proven they could deliver a product before they even started. One stopped the kickstarter and never took the money because they found investment, and the game came out anyway (and backers got a free copy).
But... at no point did I put money, into an unknown company, with no track history, promising to make something that didn't exist, that you'd just be able to buy normally later even if you hadn't funded it.
I'm afraid I have to apply my normal rule here. If it doesn't exist, in a shop, to buy, today, then it's all hype and hyperbole. For anything from fancy battery technologies and electric cars, to Half-Life 3, to the latest iPhone, or even a movie.
All the pre-hyping stuff just flies over my head, because it's all irrelevant if you can't actually buy that product yet.
You can "invest", but what you're really doing is "donating" - to be honest I'm quite happy donating to a project where I'm enjoying the fruits of their previous labours so much that I think they deserve more. If I get something else out of that too, cool. If not, I've paid them back for something they gave me (yes... even if I have paid more than I needed to, I'm fine with that if - say - a computer game cost me almost nothing but ended up giving me hundreds of hours of entertainment.
I've been known to buy second copies for friends, even if those friends likely won't play that game, etc. It's the only reason I'll buy DLC too... to support the original game).
If you can't buy it today, but you could buy it tomorrow no matter what, then why would you lay down money today instead of just waiting?
Tesla (best-selling electric car company) car sales worldwide last year:
76,000.
They literally AREN'T even making a dent. And that's the RATE of change, really (each year, rather than total on the road). Tesla could sell for a thousand years at those rates and not catch up ONE year of other car sales.
Others don't sink R&D into it because a) there's not much place to go while batteries are shit, b) Tesla are the guineau pig who they can out-spend in 1/1000th of a year (e.g. 8 hours) if consumers actually like/want something they make, c) electric cars are a pathetic proportion of their market.
Concern about the environment doesn't come into it, when you're putting a huge peak-load current into tons of lithium.
SpaceX is better, but still - all their interesting stuff is non-profitable, been done before (they're now going back to parachute-ocean-landings for their flights because the re-use landings don't really make sense), and COMPLETELY OBLITERATES all the environmental goodness of every electric car they've ever sold, overnight.
Let's not even get into the "fast train that needs hundreds of kilometers of vacuum tube to go a bit faster".
Musk is a show-artist. He makes a claim, throws money at it, hits the bare minimum, realises the money is all a waste and will never be a viable product, goes on to something else.
The things he does are not hard to do. And rarely profitable. Anyone can throw money at a problem, with no hope of long-term recuperation. You'd be better off donating bikes to kids if that's what you want to do, though.
Electric vehicles haven't changed that much. Tesla haven't "invented" anything even worth monetising a patent for. They just put existing (better than it used to be) tech into a vehicle. They cut corners on places, they threw money at it, they made grandiose claims, and sunk a ton of money on the gamble they can reduce lithium battery prices by working in bulk (gosh, so there's not another lithium battery factory on the planet producing standard lithium cells in bulk? Really?).
But we've had electric vehicles, commercially used every day, en masse, throughout cities like London, on short delivery runs, since at least the 60's (look for "milk float" online).
Musk talks a good talk, throws money at problems, claims it's all fabulous and unprecedented and unique. While using off-the-shelf components, standardised modules, to replicate 60's business models with modern components (milk floats used to be lead-acid, I bet they are already Li-Ion at least by now).
But along the way, nothing he does generates significant amounts of profit. Which means the changes he makes have a very limited impact on industry, or timespan. The electric market is still stupendously tiny worldwide. And there's nothing to suggest that Tesla will only be in the running if it does take off. Every manufacturer has an electric variant by now, and could sink ten times more into R&D if they haven't already.
He has good intentions. That's about as far as I could go, I think.
If you then want it to load content, operate as a computer, browse the Internet, have a separate device.
Hey presto, your TV will always work by plugging it back into another working device, your content device will always work by plugging it back into another TV.
TVs are just large monitors nowadays. That's it. Stop locking yourself into the apps, content, media, etc. supported by a Smart TV. Buy a Dumb TV (I would actually advertise one as that if I were a brand-leader, people WOULD buy it, if only for self-deprecation!). Buy a smart device that displays your content. In fact, get several. It'll cost no more and you'll have a backup.
And nowadays a Dumb TV, a variety of cheap/free devices to display over-the-air content / casts / streams will be cheaper than, more reliable than, most cost-effective than, more upgradable than, and more resilient to service failure than a single Smart TV.
"The world consumption of new gold produced is about 50% in jewelry, 40% in investments, and 10% in industry."
Gold's industrial uses are positively minimal compared to "ooh, shiny" and "I know other people like ooh shiny things".
It also wouldn't improve ANYTHING in electronics, its only plus is its resistant to corrosion (which only applies in circuits liable to corrosion, not everyday consumer electronics). Copper is actually more conductive per volume, and cheaper to source.
Gold's physical value is... well... mostly decorative. It does have uses but in such small quantities that they hardly figure compared to the jewellery market.
Why do people want shiny crystals and yellow metal? Same kind of questions. Same kind of answer: scarcity but demand. You can't find them lying around in the back garden, but equally other people want them (because THEY can't find them lying around in their back garden either).
Bitcoins aren't generated by raw processing power as such - it's a specialist type of processing. FGPA and ASICs generate more Bitcoin that CPUs/GPUs ever could. Hence the harder to make in bulk, the more valuable they are.
You can "track" the wallets from creation to end. Yes. But that doesn't necessarily tell you anything. The WannaCry guys have spent their Bitcoins, still nobody knows who paid the ransoms, who received them or what they were spent on. Just that they were spent.
Physical merchants don't take stock certificates, or even cheques any more. But they still have value to people. And anyone can accept them, the same as anyone can accept Bitcoin. But it's like me offering to pay for your car in bananas. Sure, you can. There's a famous legal case about it. But do the bananas - despite having an obvious value - have that value TO YOU as opposed to, say, a banana dealer, or someone who owns a food store? Probably not.
A programmed key, with a guy who knows what key it fits, where he lives, how much money he's got, etc. is running around in some employee's pocket "by accident".
No. You just keep the keys in a cabinet in the dealership, press the buttons on the keys you have until the care you want unlocks.
What a bunch of idiots to lose those keys? Absolutely. Including that one rogue guy who has a nice sideline in cars stolen-to-order and the paperwork behind them.
Shift while deleting deletes without the recycling bin.
Almost all programs that "delete" do so bypassing the recycling bin.
The command line knows nothing of the recycling bin.
When the disk is full, or the recycling bin hits quota, it gets emptied.
Network drives do not have a recycling bin.
It's the worst possible place to use, expect or rely on.
On all my networks, I disable it to stop people relying on it. It doesn't work on their (default home) network drives anyway.
Shadow copies (basically filesystem snapshots) gives you a safety barrier for EVERY file on the drive with some of the same kind of caveats but at least it's transparent to applications - they don't need to support it for it to work. It also works on network drives, and you can restore several versions of files and entire folders or drives, or even cherry-pick an old revision of a file and copy it without having to rollback to it.
But here, it's complete apathy for file safety. No backups, and let's just use my files rather than a copy of my files.
If the US has a copy of all root digital certificates in the world, it doesn't help them decrypt a conversation one jot.
Those certs have a private and public key. Public keys encrypt. Private keys decrypt. You can't make/discover/etc. the private one from the public one. You literally GIVE AWAY the public key to anyone and never reveal the private one. They can then encrypt a message to you knowing that ONLY the private key can unlock that message.
A cert is generated by:
- Making your own private key, that you NEVER REVEAL. - "signing" a message that includes your public key (a "CSR" - certificate signing request). This signing does not involve ANY INFORMATION about your private key leaking. But it can be verified that ONLY your private key could have done that signing (hence it could ONLY be you signing it). - giving that CSR to a CA who sign it with their private key (which you never know, but can prove they own it). - the general public are then given copies of your public "encryption" key (if you like), which you and and the CA are signing to say are "genuine" (they ensure you own the domain you claim you do).
AT NO POINT does the CA have, can derive, or require access to YOUR private key. They don't have any way to decrypt communications encrypted for you or by that certificate by an end-user. Your private encryption key NEVER LEAVES YOUR COMPUTER, never gets sent to a CA, is never required except on the HTTPS server itself to decrypt the messages people are sending you.
No certificate in the world can contain a private key that will decrypt things encrypted with that public key (that you've both signed as "genuine"). If they try to fake that key, it will flag - your users will get errors, people will notice, you can even configure your DNS to tell people what the key SHOULD BE and to STOP USING IT if it ever changes.
But the SSL certificate is nothing more than "John owns domain.com", and you saying "you can send domain.com a secret message that only domain.com can read using these details". If they fake the first, or try to change the certificate used, your users will ALL see errors in their browsers with dire warnings (even smartphones, etc. will flag if Facebook/Google are being intercepted!).
CA's DO NOT and CANNOT decrypt your messages. Otherwise one hack of Thawte and the entire world's banking would be accessible. That's not how it works.
The only person in the entire world who knows how to decrypt the messages you send to a TLS-secured website - without flagging up errors BEFORE you send any critical data - is the guy who created the private key that has probably NEVER left the machine he made it on. Nobody in the process from then on can hack it, derive it, fake it, replace it, change it, eavesdrop on it, or anything else.
The US can be required to sign every.com on the planet. It wouldn't give them the keys that decrypt the messages encoded with it, and any tricks they play will flag up in any vaguely modern browser as a certificate error before you even start. You USED to be able to, say, make a fake domain.com certificate and pretend it was the genuine one. Now, with things like HSTS, public records of TLS certificates, etc. any changes made to the certificate used on a service immediately flag and error people's browsers.
The reason nobody talks about it? Because you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. They can have the private key to every root certificate of every CA on the planet. Nothing would happen. People would still sign their certs with those CAs. And people's websites would still all be secure.
Only idiots that don't use the modern standards to say "This is my cert, and if it ever changes without me signing the change, scream like fuck" would ever be affected, but that's literally the 90's tech that shouldn't be on the net and is using insecure algorithms anyway.
It's people like you that genuinely think the crap about "acres of datacenters" or "listening to every phone call" actually does fuck all.
Slashdot Mirror
Zero addictions.
Zero medical conditions (unless wearing glasses counts).
In fact, doctors keep de-registering me. Not a hippie, but haven't taken a pill in years because unless I have a need, I don't need to touch them (literally... a paracetamol once every couple of years for a serious headache, THAT'S IT).
But holier-than-thou? Against someone who can't resist the fucking temptation to use their phone rather than do their job (in this case writing)? It's not much to write home about.
P.S. I work in IT, it would be a fucking cinch to be addicted to the screen. My phone actually has settings to silence various things after 6pm so I don't get emails and calls about work, and people are always whining that I'm not online or not taking their calls.
Grow up.
When your child does this, you know what you should do.
You take the phone away, turn it off, only allow use in certain hours.
Because you're an adult, I expect you to a) be able to do it to yourself, b) not NEED to do that as you have impulse control, c) notice if you're failing in that and grow up rather quickly.
The problem extends because people don't even apply this to their children anymore, let alone themselves. You're an adult. Grow up and stop it. Same thing that I say to smokers. If you are purely acting on base impulses and instincts, of course you'll never cure such things. Just say "Oh, no, I shouldn't be doing that" and stop it. It's not like an iPhone is coated in some addictive narcotic (though it's priced like that).
Nobody expect immediate compliance and perfect application, but come on. You know it's bad for you and you're still allowing it to happen. There's a part of your brain that's been around for millions of years and whose purpose is basically to do nothing more than override the instinctual part of your brain by applying reason. It's basically the bit that makes you a human and not an ape.
Try using it.
Windows can't use many Windows device drivers. Are we really suggesting that ReactOS's hardware compatibility is anywhere close to providing support for hardware that's not supported on Linux? TV tuner cards are pretty much one of the best-supported devices out there, for instance. Only Ethernet cards would beat them, in fact.
ReactOS development may be beneficial to Wine, but surely that's the point... they do more for Wine, and Wine has a much bigger base, that it's not really people using ReactOS so much as those using Wine that are driving development.
To be honest, quite how much ReactOS is actually deployed is pretty much a mystery and guesswork, but wine is in just about every software repository available.
It's like FreeDOS vs DOSBox, except FreeDOS has a ton of niche uses (BIOS updates, etc.) that are nowhere near GUI requirements. I have literally never seen a ReactOS box in the wild. But I have FreeDOS disks issued by big-name manufacturers for BIOS/drivers/etc., and seen Wine in use on commercial projects (sometimes even commercial ports).
Gosh, if only you'd created a browser with its own rendering engine that you then didn't sell off to a company that immediately replaced it, and then go on to "revive" the old browser by... creating another browser based on the Chrome browser too.
As a Vivaldi user, I can confirm that it's nothing more than a Chrome clone, and a pretty boring one. All the interesting Opera features haven't made it in in all the years it's existed and been promised.
Guess what? When you make a Chrome-clone, you have to do what the people who make Chrome want you to do. Shocking, isn't it?
And, given the choice, I think most people would rather just emulate an entire Windows box, run it through Wine (which stands ten times more chance of actually working), or just hack it to run on modern Windows instead.
DOSBox is for games, almost 99% of the time. It's bundled in Steam releases of old games, etc.etc. and it sucks at lots of things (e.g. physical hardware interaction, requires an entire PC set up and running an OS already to work etc.).
As such, ReactOS fills an EVEN TINIER niche. Not for running games (there are vanishingly few old Windows games that don't work nowadays), but actually for running ancient Windows business apps (with nothing in the way of ActiveX, etc. integration) on base hardware itself.
The use case of ReactOS kinda blows it out of the water for anything except the most niche of uses. Literally "this half-a-million-dollar microscope runs from an old version of Windows which we can't get any more because the microscope company refuse to support or supply it, and it literally does almost nothing in terms of physical interaction but MUST run on the old computer inside the microscope". At that point, it's cheaper to bin it and buy another rather than try to get it working on Windows itself, let alone ReactOS.
Let's be honest, ReactOS is WineOS. As someone who purchased Codeweavers back in the day to run Office 2000 on Linux, so I totally get the use-cases, I can't see a use for ReactOS that would suggest any reasonable amount of development effort being put into it to facilitate that.
DOSBox is literally bouyed up by people using it to play games. ReactOS is... just a toy, really.
To be honest, I'd rather efforts were put into making a Linux distro that works kinda-like the old versions of Windows, with a native Wine association for .exe files etc. It would run more, work on modern hardware, and fill those needs people have better.
At this point, starting up an OS means starting over for every device driver and OS / BIOS interaction. That just means decades of work to get back to where we are again, where even Linux can struggle with Windows-only hardware and deprecates old hardware regularly.
It's a solution looking for a problem.
Actually, according to the documents I have on my new car, once I have paid at least 50% of the balance, it's mine and they can't take it from me. If they want to recover from there, they can only pursue me as per a normal debt.
After 50%, it literally states that it's legally my property. Sure, if I refuse to pay, they know I should have a car, but they can't just repossess it immediately. Before 50%, if I refused to make payments, they could disable it, recover it, just walk up to it with a manufacturer's key and take it - it's still theirs.
And it counts the deposit and the finance, so you actually own the car earlier than halfway through the payment term.
Now, it's a bog-standard personal car purchase, so I imagine that that's pretty standard for the UK/EU or that it's a statutory ruling that they have to abide by and tell you.
2 hour travel to a London airport.
3 hour wait time in security, the lounge, check-in queues, etc. at a London airport.
God-knows-how-long a flight, in cramped conditions, unable to escape.
1 hour wait time to pass security the other end.
2 hour travel to your hotel.
All the same again a few days later.
Sorry, but it's got nothing to do with autism or anything else - what a horrible way to go, just to give a talk. Sod that. I wouldn't do that to start a week's holiday in Europe.
I think you miss the point that "travel" doesn't just mean "wander around a country" but the hassle of getting there in the first place, which can consume a vast portion of your free time. If you're not going to get a holiday, are going to working / giving a talk while you're there, you'd have to pay me a LOT of money to suffer that, especially so in Turing's day.
The "experience" of travel - as in "holidaying" - is entirely different to travelling for business / academia.
YOUR opinion is biased in favour of your limited, bigoted, mis-targeted, attacking view without an understanding of what's being discussed.
Turing lived in America for a while. He detested it. And he also hated the journey.
P.S. Yes, even travel for a "holiday", sorry, but I've been many, many, many places for everything from tent-camping to five-star cruise ships (e.g. the QE2). Most "travel" sucks. Especially if you are only able to go see the same tourist attractions as everyone else. There are moments, but just because you have a funny incident in Mumbai once doesn't mean that it's a life-changing and necessary experience.
Just having been to a country that someone else hasn't doesn't make you a world expert on it. Nor does it mean you're going to "discover yourself" and "learn about new cultures" or any of the other cliches that people trot out.
Travel-and-live-there, yes, possibly. Anything else is just holidaying.
Precisely.
You know when things say "just port-forward" and people just do that?
There ya go.
One of the reasons that I look upon any port-forward as incredibly suspicious, professionally, and only like doing it if it goes via a device capable of connection-limiting, rate-limiting and performing intrusion-protection and sanitisation for the exact protocol in question.
"Hey, just bash a hole in your house so the postman can deliver your parcels. Hey, just bash another hole so the gas man can read your meter. Hey, just bash another hole so your lightbulbs can talk out."... at the point it starts sounding silly, that's the point it already is silly.
You mean the guy that ran from police who were yelling "Stop" and "Armed Police", who then boarded a crowded train, still running, and then reached into a rucksack.
Yes, what a poor innocent soul.
Or, buy the cheapest you can find, because price is intrinsically linked to the number and extent of median processes and it costs less to fly bananas to countries than it does to try to heat greenhouses to grow them in that country.
And then give the difference to Greenpeace or whatever. Or use it to plant your own garden.
Just because you want to save the planet, doesn't mean you need to be a hippie living in a tree.
This is what happens when gunfire is normal.
In my country, there's a good chance you'd end up on the news for discharging a firearm like that. Certainly everybody in earshot would be calling the police, and most of them would then be looking for the shooter, even if just out of their windows.
This is much more to do with becoming acclimatised to being in a country where any idiot can own a gun and fire it, than anything to do with the police.
"guys with guns" in England?
Few. Far between. Certainly not the norm. Considered specialist units. Literally lived in England my entire life and only ever seen them at airports. Also almost always have cams on them nowadays.
Shootings by police are INCREDIBLY rare and are often discovered to be against people who have things like Uzis (literally no legal method of owning such a thing in my country) hidden in their car that they reached for.
Okay, please explain.
You want a product. You want a product so bad that you finance the company to make it before it even exists. Your reward for doing this is to receive the product.
Is this not just pre-ordering something that doesn't exist? If it works and is successful, you'll be able to pick one up not long after they make them anyway, whether you invested or not. If it doesn't work, you're going to lose money or receive a substandard product.
What's in it for you to crowd-fund that kind of thing?
Now, I have crowdfunded things. Literally, they were all limited run, support-for-the-creators projects, where the product wouldn't exist afterwards and/or the product wouldn't get made otherwise where the creators had a proven history of success.
For example, Defense Grid 2. It couldn't have happened without the kickstarter. The people behind it had proven themselves already. There was in fact already a substantial amount of the game complete. They weren't reliant on just the kickstarter. And actually I profited quite heavily as AMD gave them some graphics cards to give away to backers, I got the game, and all kinds of other stuff. Even then, that kickstarter really worried me, as it's not how I normally do things. I've only ever backed four or five small projects with a tiny percentage of my disposable income. Four succeeded, delivered the product, after having proven they could deliver a product before they even started. One stopped the kickstarter and never took the money because they found investment, and the game came out anyway (and backers got a free copy).
But... at no point did I put money, into an unknown company, with no track history, promising to make something that didn't exist, that you'd just be able to buy normally later even if you hadn't funded it.
I'm afraid I have to apply my normal rule here. If it doesn't exist, in a shop, to buy, today, then it's all hype and hyperbole. For anything from fancy battery technologies and electric cars, to Half-Life 3, to the latest iPhone, or even a movie.
All the pre-hyping stuff just flies over my head, because it's all irrelevant if you can't actually buy that product yet.
You can "invest", but what you're really doing is "donating" - to be honest I'm quite happy donating to a project where I'm enjoying the fruits of their previous labours so much that I think they deserve more. If I get something else out of that too, cool. If not, I've paid them back for something they gave me (yes... even if I have paid more than I needed to, I'm fine with that if - say - a computer game cost me almost nothing but ended up giving me hundreds of hours of entertainment.
I've been known to buy second copies for friends, even if those friends likely won't play that game, etc. It's the only reason I'll buy DLC too... to support the original game).
If you can't buy it today, but you could buy it tomorrow no matter what, then why would you lay down money today instead of just waiting?
Why the hell you think that would stop you being sued for copyright infringement, I can't fathom.
Read more in my latest book: Harriet Petter and the Quarter-blood Princess.
There's parody (e.g. Barry Trotter books) but you have to be REALLY careful even then. This guy's going to get sued.
Nobody is making electric cars, anyway.
Cars sold worldwide so far this year:
78,590,000
Tesla (best-selling electric car company) car sales worldwide last year:
76,000.
They literally AREN'T even making a dent. And that's the RATE of change, really (each year, rather than total on the road). Tesla could sell for a thousand years at those rates and not catch up ONE year of other car sales.
Others don't sink R&D into it because a) there's not much place to go while batteries are shit, b) Tesla are the guineau pig who they can out-spend in 1/1000th of a year (e.g. 8 hours) if consumers actually like/want something they make, c) electric cars are a pathetic proportion of their market.
Concern about the environment doesn't come into it, when you're putting a huge peak-load current into tons of lithium.
SpaceX is better, but still - all their interesting stuff is non-profitable, been done before (they're now going back to parachute-ocean-landings for their flights because the re-use landings don't really make sense), and COMPLETELY OBLITERATES all the environmental goodness of every electric car they've ever sold, overnight.
Let's not even get into the "fast train that needs hundreds of kilometers of vacuum tube to go a bit faster".
Musk is a show-artist. He makes a claim, throws money at it, hits the bare minimum, realises the money is all a waste and will never be a viable product, goes on to something else.
But...
The things he does are not hard to do. And rarely profitable. Anyone can throw money at a problem, with no hope of long-term recuperation. You'd be better off donating bikes to kids if that's what you want to do, though.
Electric vehicles haven't changed that much. Tesla haven't "invented" anything even worth monetising a patent for. They just put existing (better than it used to be) tech into a vehicle. They cut corners on places, they threw money at it, they made grandiose claims, and sunk a ton of money on the gamble they can reduce lithium battery prices by working in bulk (gosh, so there's not another lithium battery factory on the planet producing standard lithium cells in bulk? Really?).
But we've had electric vehicles, commercially used every day, en masse, throughout cities like London, on short delivery runs, since at least the 60's (look for "milk float" online).
Musk talks a good talk, throws money at problems, claims it's all fabulous and unprecedented and unique. While using off-the-shelf components, standardised modules, to replicate 60's business models with modern components (milk floats used to be lead-acid, I bet they are already Li-Ion at least by now).
But along the way, nothing he does generates significant amounts of profit. Which means the changes he makes have a very limited impact on industry, or timespan. The electric market is still stupendously tiny worldwide. And there's nothing to suggest that Tesla will only be in the running if it does take off. Every manufacturer has an electric variant by now, and could sink ten times more into R&D if they haven't already.
He has good intentions. That's about as far as I could go, I think.
A TV is a display device.
If you then want it to load content, operate as a computer, browse the Internet, have a separate device.
Hey presto, your TV will always work by plugging it back into another working device, your content device will always work by plugging it back into another TV.
TVs are just large monitors nowadays. That's it. Stop locking yourself into the apps, content, media, etc. supported by a Smart TV. Buy a Dumb TV (I would actually advertise one as that if I were a brand-leader, people WOULD buy it, if only for self-deprecation!). Buy a smart device that displays your content. In fact, get several. It'll cost no more and you'll have a backup.
And nowadays a Dumb TV, a variety of cheap/free devices to display over-the-air content / casts / streams will be cheaper than, more reliable than, most cost-effective than, more upgradable than, and more resilient to service failure than a single Smart TV.
"The world consumption of new gold produced is about 50% in jewelry, 40% in investments, and 10% in industry."
Gold's industrial uses are positively minimal compared to "ooh, shiny" and "I know other people like ooh shiny things".
It also wouldn't improve ANYTHING in electronics, its only plus is its resistant to corrosion (which only applies in circuits liable to corrosion, not everyday consumer electronics). Copper is actually more conductive per volume, and cheaper to source.
Gold's physical value is... well... mostly decorative. It does have uses but in such small quantities that they hardly figure compared to the jewellery market.
Why do people want shiny crystals and yellow metal? Same kind of questions. Same kind of answer: scarcity but demand. You can't find them lying around in the back garden, but equally other people want them (because THEY can't find them lying around in their back garden either).
Bitcoins aren't generated by raw processing power as such - it's a specialist type of processing. FGPA and ASICs generate more Bitcoin that CPUs/GPUs ever could. Hence the harder to make in bulk, the more valuable they are.
You can "track" the wallets from creation to end. Yes. But that doesn't necessarily tell you anything. The WannaCry guys have spent their Bitcoins, still nobody knows who paid the ransoms, who received them or what they were spent on. Just that they were spent.
Physical merchants don't take stock certificates, or even cheques any more. But they still have value to people. And anyone can accept them, the same as anyone can accept Bitcoin. But it's like me offering to pay for your car in bananas. Sure, you can. There's a famous legal case about it. But do the bananas - despite having an obvious value - have that value TO YOU as opposed to, say, a banana dealer, or someone who owns a food store? Probably not.
Anyone else hear "business model" and think "how can we screw the customer for every penny"?
I've only ever heard the phrase used in terms of things like rentals, recurring licencing, "cheap printers, expensive proprietary ink", etc.
If you have to have a business model beyond "make product, sell product", I'm not sure I want it.
I'd be very suspicious, to be honest.
A programmed key, with a guy who knows what key it fits, where he lives, how much money he's got, etc. is running around in some employee's pocket "by accident".
No. You just keep the keys in a cabinet in the dealership, press the buttons on the keys you have until the care you want unlocks.
What a bunch of idiots to lose those keys? Absolutely. Including that one rogue guy who has a nice sideline in cars stolen-to-order and the paperwork behind them.
I don't see why anyone relies on it.
Shift while deleting deletes without the recycling bin.
Almost all programs that "delete" do so bypassing the recycling bin.
The command line knows nothing of the recycling bin.
When the disk is full, or the recycling bin hits quota, it gets emptied.
Network drives do not have a recycling bin.
It's the worst possible place to use, expect or rely on.
On all my networks, I disable it to stop people relying on it. It doesn't work on their (default home) network drives anyway.
Shadow copies (basically filesystem snapshots) gives you a safety barrier for EVERY file on the drive with some of the same kind of caveats but at least it's transparent to applications - they don't need to support it for it to work. It also works on network drives, and you can restore several versions of files and entire folders or drives, or even cherry-pick an old revision of a file and copy it without having to rollback to it.
But here, it's complete apathy for file safety. No backups, and let's just use my files rather than a copy of my files.
Hey, "developer".
Shadow Copies.
And back your shit up.
Rather than relying on Recycle Bin.
I wish you were an expert in this field too.
If the US has a copy of all root digital certificates in the world, it doesn't help them decrypt a conversation one jot.
Those certs have a private and public key. Public keys encrypt. Private keys decrypt. You can't make/discover/etc. the private one from the public one. You literally GIVE AWAY the public key to anyone and never reveal the private one. They can then encrypt a message to you knowing that ONLY the private key can unlock that message.
A cert is generated by:
- Making your own private key, that you NEVER REVEAL.
- "signing" a message that includes your public key (a "CSR" - certificate signing request). This signing does not involve ANY INFORMATION about your private key leaking. But it can be verified that ONLY your private key could have done that signing (hence it could ONLY be you signing it).
- giving that CSR to a CA who sign it with their private key (which you never know, but can prove they own it).
- the general public are then given copies of your public "encryption" key (if you like), which you and and the CA are signing to say are "genuine" (they ensure you own the domain you claim you do).
AT NO POINT does the CA have, can derive, or require access to YOUR private key. They don't have any way to decrypt communications encrypted for you or by that certificate by an end-user. Your private encryption key NEVER LEAVES YOUR COMPUTER, never gets sent to a CA, is never required except on the HTTPS server itself to decrypt the messages people are sending you.
No certificate in the world can contain a private key that will decrypt things encrypted with that public key (that you've both signed as "genuine"). If they try to fake that key, it will flag - your users will get errors, people will notice, you can even configure your DNS to tell people what the key SHOULD BE and to STOP USING IT if it ever changes.
But the SSL certificate is nothing more than "John owns domain.com", and you saying "you can send domain.com a secret message that only domain.com can read using these details". If they fake the first, or try to change the certificate used, your users will ALL see errors in their browsers with dire warnings (even smartphones, etc. will flag if Facebook/Google are being intercepted!).
CA's DO NOT and CANNOT decrypt your messages. Otherwise one hack of Thawte and the entire world's banking would be accessible. That's not how it works.
The only person in the entire world who knows how to decrypt the messages you send to a TLS-secured website - without flagging up errors BEFORE you send any critical data - is the guy who created the private key that has probably NEVER left the machine he made it on. Nobody in the process from then on can hack it, derive it, fake it, replace it, change it, eavesdrop on it, or anything else.
The US can be required to sign every .com on the planet. It wouldn't give them the keys that decrypt the messages encoded with it, and any tricks they play will flag up in any vaguely modern browser as a certificate error before you even start. You USED to be able to, say, make a fake domain.com certificate and pretend it was the genuine one. Now, with things like HSTS, public records of TLS certificates, etc. any changes made to the certificate used on a service immediately flag and error people's browsers.
The reason nobody talks about it? Because you don't have the first clue what you're talking about. They can have the private key to every root certificate of every CA on the planet. Nothing would happen. People would still sign their certs with those CAs. And people's websites would still all be secure.
Only idiots that don't use the modern standards to say "This is my cert, and if it ever changes without me signing the change, scream like fuck" would ever be affected, but that's literally the 90's tech that shouldn't be on the net and is using insecure algorithms anyway.
It's people like you that genuinely think the crap about "acres of datacenters" or "listening to every phone call" actually does fuck all.