and then small parts of West Virginia split themselves out and re-subscribed to (east) Virginia, and so forth, sometimes all the way into individual family members.
All linuxes work on all sundials as long as you order the real physical media, or burn a copy to CD for installation.
The fact that sundials will not install over the internet is an inherent standards compliance issue.
(To install linux on a sundial, tape the CD to the virtical armature, note inhanced open-standards compliant shadow. Some distros have a little reflective logo sticker on the disk that will shine a watermark back onto the display face. That is a high-performance feature limited to particular manufactureres.)
That's because HP, Dell, Lenovo and others don't try to present themselves as all socially conscious and "think[ing] differently" for the hippy sects.
Evil is evil, and we only -really- get mad when we catch people being all "boosterist for non-evil" simply because nobody actually looked for the evil.
I use Gentoo, that way every single binary is compiled for my exact CPU and if you were to take my hard-disk and put it in a lessor machine it woudln't even run because your Corei7 doesn't have the -mabm support...
(Aside: The above is actually true. Sad I know. But since I have to do some of this for work I do it at home for consistency and to have similar machines. So when work replaced my laptop with a Corei7 I had to recompile the whole distro twice to remove the -mabm AMD feature from the binaries./doh. 8-)
I seem to recall that Apple buys their touch screens from Samsung.
That's right, apple didn't go out and make this technology from whole cloth, they bought its bits and peices. It's sort of like buying corn from a corn farmer and the suing that same corn farmer for selling other people corn.
The Star Trek "PADD" device was a flat rectangular touch-screen device with rounded corners in 1988. I had found a snarky picture to that effect but I lost it.
Samsung -makes- the multi-touch screens for Apple. That is, Apple never went to Samsung with plans for the screen and said "make this please".
Apple is just yelling "how dare you" while whispering the "use the stuff you make to make a phone, like you do, after we claimed to invent the stuff you make that was invented by someone totally else like twenty years ago".
"poking a picture" (see the pre-computer definition of "icon" or "glyph") "autocomple text" (see any idiot that has ever cut you off mid-sentence bark out what he thinks you are going to say) "using a slide-bolt latch" (found at any hardware store since the invention of same, an any wood-worker for before that) "searching multiple things like in gopher" (see things like gopher)
All of these things are unspeakably innovative for their age (their age being "bronze", except for gopher, which was "computer relative (big) iron age").
The problem isn't the ability to sanely write software with a side stream etc. The problem is that the source materials DVD's and BLURAY disks not digital dumps, so what netflix -can- do is limited by the prior restraint placed inside the DVD and BLURAY players that the cache images are built out of.
There are also legal restrictions on -modifying- said playback, so even though they are allowed to stream it, there is no sense that they are allowed to edit that stream that I can find.
I mean I am just guessing at the technical details, but have you even looked at a "Rental DVD" lately? Spend a buck at a RedBox, bring a disk home, and try to access the "extras". The menu is there but all that's behind its a placquard that says "extras are not available on rental media, go out and buy a copy if you want to see this eight-second out-take".
Netflix source material may not even -have- the caption data stream to start with.
The reasonable requirement woudl be to have to have every movie in the streaming cache twice, once with the regular movie, and once wiht the movie closed closed captions on if and only if the movie was released with that option. But requiring the service to cache every movie twice is kinda not reasonable from an expense point since that, by definition, doubles the required resources.
The problem is that putting in a ramp isn't tantamont to building an entire second store.
I find closed captions distracting, but I have no problem using inclined floors and ramps.
When the accomidations are mutually exclusive why should there be a requirement to do both?
Its a mess.
Plus lots of the software would have to be re-written to make the two pools selectible instead of having a ghetto for the captioned movies etc.
The whole thing is dumb once you get far enough afield.
A local park was forced to shut down some "extra bathrooms" that they crammed into a disused corner because the tiny restrooms were in a tiny corner too small to be handicapt excessible. So while it freed up the main bathroom, since it was too tiny it had to be closed. That's just dumb. Sometimes taking a good thing to a stupid extreme should not be done. That's why the word "reasonable" was put before the word "accomodation". The courts keep forgetting the "reasonable" part because the complainers are not clued in to what things really take. They just want the be in on the game.
When we are not allowed to play rugby because the legless cannot compete, our end will be final.
Let's face it, when famous rich people "publically disapear" for a few weeks because of an "unspoken medical malady" but still have their regular e-presence, they've most likely "had work done."
Just wait three weeks and then tell him "it looks so natural, and your eyes don't look permanently surprised at all dude" when you see him next. 8-)
That or the problem is "unspeakable" for being trivially "yuchy", like a ruptured hemiroid.
It's really pointless to debate it all, as both serious and trivial/embarrassing malidies are bad for stock prices.
So even if its an emergency partial orchidectomy due to a newly realized mass, or its disasterously failed hair plugs, just pretend its a nose job being hidden. That's best for the economy no matter what.
Try de-obfuscating the interface to the blob itself. Just come out and say "our blob is something we are all stuck with, therefore, this is how you will now and alwyas operate the blob."
If you cannot, for some legitimate reason, release the API for your hardware, then release the API for your stoftware interface as a well defined and "warrented" interface.
Then make that interface your -hardware- -interface- by pushing that back into the GPU or a "front end" processor.
In short, you claim you have a mess you cannot share with us for all sorts of odd reasons...? Then put your mess inside your own junk and give us an interface we can then use. You test and warrant your half and we'll test and warrent ours. This is far superior to this thing where you calim to need to come into our yard and move the furnishing to match some fung shui most holy and secret.
And if your blob interfce is too broken to play well, then its to broken to expect us to want and need so its kinda moot that you gave it to us anyway.
This is not that hard. Not that you are that unique. Ever try to get an interface document for a Brother label writer etc? All this "my ball" crap is killing innovation.
I run gentoo on a myraid of boxes and update quite regularly including bleeding edge kernel and ~ARCH ("not yet gnerally released for this this archetecture") packages, which is as bleeding edge as you can get, and I havn't had a update failure outside of the X config (which I have been churning a lot on purpose) in forever.
If your distro is crap, maybe you should change your distro.
If your admin is crap, maybe you should change your admin.
I would characterize your characterization of patch stability under linux as "uncommonly unlikely, or procedurely impure" just on blind weight-of-anecdote compared to everyone eles I know.
Then I did drop Ubuntu because they started to bring in non-open tidbits (and freaking mono) so maybe you are choking on some binary bull (or someone else's platform envy)./doh.
Interesting theory, but not really true. For example (the first one that comes to mind) the three-masted schooner (spelling?) had a bowsprit and three masts but was a schooner. Most things had "other names".
Everything had lots of names, actually, as sea-faring didn't have an authority or intellegence requirement world-wide. So like computers its all jargon from top to bottom. Actually telling the difference between Boat and Ship is like telling the difference between LAN and WAN, which piviots on your definition of "local".
Like religion, the names and meanings were wholly dependent on what you learned and from whom instead of having any real basis in fact.
Lots of surface vessles are ships, he's just an idiot that was under water for a while and wan't to feel elite. You can either correct him every time he does it or accept that he will be your children's "crazy uncle" on the topic and nod your head and smile condescendingly when it happens.
I am diging the 7-inch. I have a 7 inch Galaxy Tab and it is -exactly- the right size to actually carry in a coat pocket, or the back pocket of jeans as long as you remember to move it before you sit. I bigger format is not something I would carry everywhere the way I can carry a 7-inch tab.
I will totally look at upgrading to this since the Galaxy Tab was abandoned by Samsung as far as updates.
I didn't switch to any of the 8-or-larger formats because they really -aren't- go anywhere devices.
If it weren't obvious, the limit on lying and spamming is imposed because a person claiming to be McDonalds would have to back up their lie with a site that initiated conversation by using the same key as the lie record in its very first response, and it would normally have to be decrypting the incomming data for the request using the correct key. Farming would therefore require non-trivial resources. It wouldn't stop it, but it would have limits.
Since any link from a legitimate site to another legitimate site would be by key fingerprint in the actual link that nobody normally inspects, once you were inside a web-of-trust the system is transparent. E.g. following from your bank to your bill payment system (etc) is natural and normally certian.
Regular text names would always be untrusted and big numbers would be trusted so the font tricks would never work as a misdirect.
Once you knew a key was bad you would know it was bad for all the sites it serves.
Communications would fail if someone tries man-in-the-middle if your first request is to send your public key to their site encrypted by the public key from the naming system cache record. So when Alice uses her phone app to scan Bob's QR code key/fingerprint she will only initiate conversation with Bob using that key. Eve would need Bob's secret key to decrypt Alice's initial request in order to be able to send back any response to Alice that is alegedly from Bob. Alice will always be able to detect Eve if she is pretending to be Bob without his key.
Only Bob can sign Bob's info block, so even though it contains his public key, it cannot be altered by Eve.
I know that digital signing is suseptable to arbitrary padding attacks where Eve could add information to Bob's record and potentially vouche for other keys etc, but limits on the size and structure of a record shoudl be able to make this practically impossible. That is, if the contents of the record can not be "Arbitrary" and the length is reasonably constrained, then for some record composition rule R, any valid record X there shoudl be no other valid record Y with the same signature. Better cryptologists than I would have to prove or disprove that the eventaully chosen rule R.
The system -assumes- poisioning and is therefore almost unblockable.
Public goods (for good or ill) could be offered in parallel without any need for collusion. (e.g. everybody could offer up a mirror of the U.S. Constitution, the Chineese News of the Day, or The Pirate Bay just by ammending their own record and repbulishing it.)
Most search terms woudln't need to go through a "search engine" at all.
Create a distributed hash database. It would be full of records. Each record is signed by a public key. Each record contains all the information currently distributed by DNS (e.g. mail aliases, machine names, ip addresses, etc.).
The records are indexed multiply by public key, key fingerprint, and arbitrary text (DNS names and search key phrases, up to some limit like 25 or 100).
Any improperly signed record is simply discarded.
Duplicate entries from different sources are the users problem to disambiguate. Normal users woudl see a "387 people claim to be McDonalds... Do you have a preference?" Real businesses would have QR codes etc on their stuff to give real people real seeds for communications. Businesses could offer real referrals by recommending keys for peers etc in their information blocks. Browsers etc. would collect up good keys as users used them so that the names would naturally disambiguate as you used them.
Real institutions wishing to do real business with "me" give me a key fingerprint or public key data on business cards and purchased materials. Sites wishing to be secure publish all their sites with signed data streams. For secure conversations both parties always start a conversation by sending their public keys for encryption as a matter of course.
Real embedded links would be by key fingerprint instead of name (or key fingerprint for accuracy and name added for legacy if they were careful).
Benefits: key space is infinitely large. Each spamming liar would need to generate a key for each lie or group their lies into easy to identify bundles. Nobody -could- "own" a search word or top-level domain. People would grow to consider names in information space to be just as vague as names in regular space (how many John(s) and Timmy(s) are there in real life?) so the problems of ambiguity would be severed by the same meat-space logic that lets us know "you're from texas! do you know Bob?" is a bad question.
Drawbacks: the internet is just as dangerous a place to place your trust in strangers as any streetcorner in the world, and people would have to "get that".
ASIDE: This system, or something like it, is inevetable. As dark-nets form and courts/governments try to exert top-down control someone somewhere will be forced to extend BitTorrent into this kind of thing. Might as well just jump in front of the train and implement it. No corporation or government is going to -like- and therefore pay for this effort, but it will happen at some level despite that.
Slashdot Mirror
and then small parts of West Virginia split themselves out and re-subscribed to (east) Virginia, and so forth, sometimes all the way into individual family members.
I made God. There. Now everybody knows. I am out of the closet.
As the Maker of God I am entitled to all proceeds from creation... Please send cash...
All linuxes work on all sundials as long as you order the real physical media, or burn a copy to CD for installation.
The fact that sundials will not install over the internet is an inherent standards compliance issue.
(To install linux on a sundial, tape the CD to the virtical armature, note inhanced open-standards compliant shadow. Some distros have a little reflective logo sticker on the disk that will shine a watermark back onto the display face. That is a high-performance feature limited to particular manufactureres.)
That's because HP, Dell, Lenovo and others don't try to present themselves as all socially conscious and "think[ing] differently" for the hippy sects.
Evil is evil, and we only -really- get mad when we catch people being all "boosterist for non-evil" simply because nobody actually looked for the evil.
I use Gentoo, that way every single binary is compiled for my exact CPU and if you were to take my hard-disk and put it in a lessor machine it woudln't even run because your Corei7 doesn't have the -mabm support...
(Aside: The above is actually true. Sad I know. But since I have to do some of this for work I do it at home for consistency and to have similar machines. So when work replaced my laptop with a Corei7 I had to recompile the whole distro twice to remove the -mabm AMD feature from the binaries. /doh. 8-)
I seem to recall that Apple buys their touch screens from Samsung.
That's right, apple didn't go out and make this technology from whole cloth, they bought its bits and peices. It's sort of like buying corn from a corn farmer and the suing that same corn farmer for selling other people corn.
I don't remember Microsoft ever being quite as evil as Apple always is.
Removing the desktop interface an making square icons you can touch and slide... The Sony Cle-something running Palm OS -never- did that before.
Innovative... I don't think that word means what you think it means...
The Star Trek "PADD" device was a flat rectangular touch-screen device with rounded corners in 1988. I had found a snarky picture to that effect but I lost it.
Samsung -makes- the multi-touch screens for Apple. That is, Apple never went to Samsung with plans for the screen and said "make this please".
Apple is just yelling "how dare you" while whispering the "use the stuff you make to make a phone, like you do, after we claimed to invent the stuff you make that was invented by someone totally else like twenty years ago".
"poking a picture" (see the pre-computer definition of "icon" or "glyph")
"autocomple text" (see any idiot that has ever cut you off mid-sentence bark out what he thinks you are going to say)
"using a slide-bolt latch" (found at any hardware store since the invention of same, an any wood-worker for before that)
"searching multiple things like in gopher" (see things like gopher)
All of these things are unspeakably innovative for their age (their age being "bronze", except for gopher, which was "computer relative (big) iron age").
Yes, we -must- protect this innovation.
Because putting the word "find" or "locate" in front of a few keywords just makes the whole transaction -impossilbe- for all us dummies... ?
Point of fact: offering -only- a CLI is dead and gone for most applications.
Point of fact: offering -no- CLI is dead and gone for those same applicaitons.
Pretending that CLI is an either-or transaction is just wee-tarded.
The problem isn't the ability to sanely write software with a side stream etc. The problem is that the source materials DVD's and BLURAY disks not digital dumps, so what netflix -can- do is limited by the prior restraint placed inside the DVD and BLURAY players that the cache images are built out of.
There are also legal restrictions on -modifying- said playback, so even though they are allowed to stream it, there is no sense that they are allowed to edit that stream that I can find.
I mean I am just guessing at the technical details, but have you even looked at a "Rental DVD" lately? Spend a buck at a RedBox, bring a disk home, and try to access the "extras". The menu is there but all that's behind its a placquard that says "extras are not available on rental media, go out and buy a copy if you want to see this eight-second out-take".
Netflix source material may not even -have- the caption data stream to start with.
The reasonable requirement woudl be to have to have every movie in the streaming cache twice, once with the regular movie, and once wiht the movie closed closed captions on if and only if the movie was released with that option. But requiring the service to cache every movie twice is kinda not reasonable from an expense point since that, by definition, doubles the required resources.
The problem is that putting in a ramp isn't tantamont to building an entire second store.
I find closed captions distracting, but I have no problem using inclined floors and ramps.
When the accomidations are mutually exclusive why should there be a requirement to do both?
Its a mess.
Plus lots of the software would have to be re-written to make the two pools selectible instead of having a ghetto for the captioned movies etc.
The whole thing is dumb once you get far enough afield.
A local park was forced to shut down some "extra bathrooms" that they crammed into a disused corner because the tiny restrooms were in a tiny corner too small to be handicapt excessible. So while it freed up the main bathroom, since it was too tiny it had to be closed. That's just dumb. Sometimes taking a good thing to a stupid extreme should not be done. That's why the word "reasonable" was put before the word "accomodation". The courts keep forgetting the "reasonable" part because the complainers are not clued in to what things really take. They just want the be in on the game.
When we are not allowed to play rugby because the legless cannot compete, our end will be final.
Everything would be different, after all, the Magic 8-Ball has always known... Outlook not so good...
Let's face it, when famous rich people "publically disapear" for a few weeks because of an "unspoken medical malady" but still have their regular e-presence, they've most likely "had work done."
Just wait three weeks and then tell him "it looks so natural, and your eyes don't look permanently surprised at all dude" when you see him next. 8-)
That or the problem is "unspeakable" for being trivially "yuchy", like a ruptured hemiroid.
It's really pointless to debate it all, as both serious and trivial/embarrassing malidies are bad for stock prices.
So even if its an emergency partial orchidectomy due to a newly realized mass, or its disasterously failed hair plugs, just pretend its a nose job being hidden. That's best for the economy no matter what.
Try de-obfuscating the interface to the blob itself. Just come out and say "our blob is something we are all stuck with, therefore, this is how you will now and alwyas operate the blob."
If you cannot, for some legitimate reason, release the API for your hardware, then release the API for your stoftware interface as a well defined and "warrented" interface.
Then make that interface your -hardware- -interface- by pushing that back into the GPU or a "front end" processor.
In short, you claim you have a mess you cannot share with us for all sorts of odd reasons...? Then put your mess inside your own junk and give us an interface we can then use. You test and warrant your half and we'll test and warrent ours. This is far superior to this thing where you calim to need to come into our yard and move the furnishing to match some fung shui most holy and secret.
And if your blob interfce is too broken to play well, then its to broken to expect us to want and need so its kinda moot that you gave it to us anyway.
This is not that hard. Not that you are that unique. Ever try to get an interface document for a Brother label writer etc? All this "my ball" crap is killing innovation.
So that's two "shitstorms"...
Oddly enough that isn't compelling in its depth of analysis, and in both cases you can point to closed vendor hardware....
hrm... patern?
I run gentoo on a myraid of boxes and update quite regularly including bleeding edge kernel and ~ARCH ("not yet gnerally released for this this archetecture") packages, which is as bleeding edge as you can get, and I havn't had a update failure outside of the X config (which I have been churning a lot on purpose) in forever.
If your distro is crap, maybe you should change your distro.
If your admin is crap, maybe you should change your admin.
I would characterize your characterization of patch stability under linux as "uncommonly unlikely, or procedurely impure" just on blind weight-of-anecdote compared to everyone eles I know.
Then I did drop Ubuntu because they started to bring in non-open tidbits (and freaking mono) so maybe you are choking on some binary bull (or someone else's platform envy). /doh.
Interesting theory, but not really true. For example (the first one that comes to mind) the three-masted schooner (spelling?) had a bowsprit and three masts but was a schooner. Most things had "other names".
Everything had lots of names, actually, as sea-faring didn't have an authority or intellegence requirement world-wide. So like computers its all jargon from top to bottom. Actually telling the difference between Boat and Ship is like telling the difference between LAN and WAN, which piviots on your definition of "local".
Like religion, the names and meanings were wholly dependent on what you learned and from whom instead of having any real basis in fact.
Lots of surface vessles are ships, he's just an idiot that was under water for a while and wan't to feel elite. You can either correct him every time he does it or accept that he will be your children's "crazy uncle" on the topic and nod your head and smile condescendingly when it happens.
Star Trek can be skittish around strangers and if you approach it from the wrong side or too qucikly.
If Star Trek begins to smoke, move away quickly and cover head.
I am diging the 7-inch. I have a 7 inch Galaxy Tab and it is -exactly- the right size to actually carry in a coat pocket, or the back pocket of jeans as long as you remember to move it before you sit. I bigger format is not something I would carry everywhere the way I can carry a 7-inch tab.
I will totally look at upgrading to this since the Galaxy Tab was abandoned by Samsung as far as updates.
I didn't switch to any of the 8-or-larger formats because they really -aren't- go anywhere devices.
If it weren't obvious, the limit on lying and spamming is imposed because a person claiming to be McDonalds would have to back up their lie with a site that initiated conversation by using the same key as the lie record in its very first response, and it would normally have to be decrypting the incomming data for the request using the correct key. Farming would therefore require non-trivial resources. It wouldn't stop it, but it would have limits.
Since any link from a legitimate site to another legitimate site would be by key fingerprint in the actual link that nobody normally inspects, once you were inside a web-of-trust the system is transparent. E.g. following from your bank to your bill payment system (etc) is natural and normally certian.
Regular text names would always be untrusted and big numbers would be trusted so the font tricks would never work as a misdirect.
Once you knew a key was bad you would know it was bad for all the sites it serves.
Communications would fail if someone tries man-in-the-middle if your first request is to send your public key to their site encrypted by the public key from the naming system cache record. So when Alice uses her phone app to scan Bob's QR code key/fingerprint she will only initiate conversation with Bob using that key. Eve would need Bob's secret key to decrypt Alice's initial request in order to be able to send back any response to Alice that is alegedly from Bob. Alice will always be able to detect Eve if she is pretending to be Bob without his key.
Only Bob can sign Bob's info block, so even though it contains his public key, it cannot be altered by Eve.
I know that digital signing is suseptable to arbitrary padding attacks where Eve could add information to Bob's record and potentially vouche for other keys etc, but limits on the size and structure of a record shoudl be able to make this practically impossible. That is, if the contents of the record can not be "Arbitrary" and the length is reasonably constrained, then for some record composition rule R, any valid record X there shoudl be no other valid record Y with the same signature. Better cryptologists than I would have to prove or disprove that the eventaully chosen rule R.
The system -assumes- poisioning and is therefore almost unblockable.
Public goods (for good or ill) could be offered in parallel without any need for collusion. (e.g. everybody could offer up a mirror of the U.S. Constitution, the Chineese News of the Day, or The Pirate Bay just by ammending their own record and repbulishing it.)
Most search terms woudln't need to go through a "search engine" at all.
Create a distributed hash database. It would be full of records. Each record is signed by a public key. Each record contains all the information currently distributed by DNS (e.g. mail aliases, machine names, ip addresses, etc.).
The records are indexed multiply by public key, key fingerprint, and arbitrary text (DNS names and search key phrases, up to some limit like 25 or 100).
Any improperly signed record is simply discarded.
Duplicate entries from different sources are the users problem to disambiguate. Normal users woudl see a "387 people claim to be McDonalds... Do you have a preference?" Real businesses would have QR codes etc on their stuff to give real people real seeds for communications. Businesses could offer real referrals by recommending keys for peers etc in their information blocks. Browsers etc. would collect up good keys as users used them so that the names would naturally disambiguate as you used them.
Real institutions wishing to do real business with "me" give me a key fingerprint or public key data on business cards and purchased materials. Sites wishing to be secure publish all their sites with signed data streams. For secure conversations both parties always start a conversation by sending their public keys for encryption as a matter of course.
Real embedded links would be by key fingerprint instead of name (or key fingerprint for accuracy and name added for legacy if they were careful).
Benefits: key space is infinitely large. Each spamming liar would need to generate a key for each lie or group their lies into easy to identify bundles. Nobody -could- "own" a search word or top-level domain. People would grow to consider names in information space to be just as vague as names in regular space (how many John(s) and Timmy(s) are there in real life?) so the problems of ambiguity would be severed by the same meat-space logic that lets us know "you're from texas! do you know Bob?" is a bad question.
Drawbacks: the internet is just as dangerous a place to place your trust in strangers as any streetcorner in the world, and people would have to "get that".
ASIDE: This system, or something like it, is inevetable. As dark-nets form and courts/governments try to exert top-down control someone somewhere will be forced to extend BitTorrent into this kind of thing. Might as well just jump in front of the train and implement it. No corporation or government is going to -like- and therefore pay for this effort, but it will happen at some level despite that.