When I started using Google it was great. If you had Google Fu especially. Google Fu meant being good enough with language and having enough understanding of its use to search for the right phrases, etc because Google was fairly strict about things. Google Fu still applies but it's not what it used to be.
Over time it has gotten less and less strict to the point of being obsessed with optimising for popular results. It will rewrite search queries, randomly ignore words and generally try to be clever in a way which is counter productive when you want to find information that is more obscure. This is horrific sometimes especially as the internet is now more full of pop junk than every. I remember a time that even if I put in a bunch of words Google rather than a phrase would treat them all more or less equally and find good matches with those words clustered and associated closely together. Today it's like Google plays a game when you do this, pick a word, any word.
I worry a lot about things especially when it comes to neutrality. I experimented a while ago with Google's speech recognition in chrome which is experimental. You need a kind of Google Fu for this as well because it seems to have the same predictive problems as the search engine especially where terms are mildly similar. You sort of have to resort to the most commonly used terms of phrase for things. It's interesting because this was an early release of a technology that is better and I think that they had things tuned up so high it makes these anomalies very obvious. It was like it was way too fuzzy and smudged. What was really glaring is when saying any garbage out of range of the microphone so that it is indecipherable sound. When I looked at the read out for whatever I muttered out of mic shot it would nearly always come up with things like nike, sony, google, etc. In a way it's scarily like the human brain that does funny things predictively when a vocal sound source is just distant enough to hear but not successfully process. In this case it revealed a clear bias in their system towards popular brands. Why Sony? Why not only or like for example? I am not sure that their intention is actually to have major brands come up intentionally, rather than is a side effect of optimising for these. If someone asked for Sony they want to reduce impedance, make it a path of least resistance.
I find that these things are actually adding a great deal of impedance for me when I'm using Google because I'm not interested in looking up celebrity gossip. I don't think the way it's going Google can cater to everyone. Some of us need a real search engine.
I don't see it totally meaningless. It can at least provoke some though and educated speculation. High IQ tends to be linked to good education and wealthy nations which doesn't really come without some order. Causes will be varied. Greater wealth. Greater knowledge of the risks of using pirated software (nightmare to update, get support for, almost impossible to rule out viruses, etc). Greater knowledge towards making or finding alternatives. Greater adherence to law and greater risk aversion towards piracy, etc.
It more falls into the category of that's obvious.
Node is great basically because it fills a set of niches really nicely. I've been developing for a long time doing the same thing in Java, C even PHP which is a horrible language to write a sockets daemon in.
If you have a really rich web/browser targeting application where you want fast real time communications with things like websock and integration into a lot of sources node.js is great. You can whip up things in it really fast and connect things together extremely easily. It also has the benefit of being able to share libraries between server and client.
It does have a lot of hangups as well though. I agree lack of quality control on NPM is concerning. Writing especially large enterprise systems in JS also takes and additional amount of effort to decide how to enforce a structure and the things is, no one does the exactly the same thing. Scaling is also a problem although there are some techniques. What I find really problematic is when I make CPP native extensions for it. It might be my error but as of yet all indications are that JS is about as fast in CPP due to internals and the internal API as it is in JS and this is a pain point for optimising when some other languages run things ten times faster switching to implementing native extensions or plugins than node.js does for the same tasks. JS is still improving on the callback hell front. Generators will make things better for a little while but it's still quite convoluted. The jury is out on what to do with that. The ES6 changes are also making JS even more inconsistent and unpredictable although some of the changes there are very welcome. There are also big issues with the documentation and lack of clear explanation of event flow control that the community ignores and eschews from making a standard for. Things like updating your node code also incur a cost as you need to restart processes unless you do fancy things.
However if you stick to the niches the node.js cover, it's way more productive than anything else.
Better to wait for generators to really take off. They are showing some promise.
I reached a point where I was having call back hell, looked at async, promises and decided screw that, I need some kind of new language feature to solve that. Amazingly, a year later generators came to the scene to address that which isn't too long to wait. I hate an argument with someone about promises and implemented my own promises library just to prove the point that I knew what he was talking about and that it sucked.
Someone else has also gone through the same mess but unlike me could has tried everything else rather than to skip the 3 or 4 common ways to deal with callback hell until something worth actually going for arrives:
http://blog.namangoel.com/deal...
node.js is great for integration of multiple realtime sources of data and for some solid net linked applications.
However to replace the LAMP stack for something as simple as blogs, standard webpages, etc is a bad use of node.
Node is not a toy language but people do use it for things that it is not really suited to or inappropriately.
It can be a lot faster than LAMP but takes much more effort for it to scale.
Generally speaking, if your webpage is an application and has realtime connectivity, heavy datasync, etc, you might want node.js. If your webpage is part of a traditional website you probably want to stick with LAMP.
There is nothing racist about this at all.
The people who are prone to things such as racism are the very same people who equate this to racism using the same fallacies and poor thinking that themselves gave rise and continue to give rise to real racism.
You have to be careful with sensitivity. There's being insensitive and being too sensitive. These whiners fall into the latter category. The best way to deal with them is to ignore them and get on with their lives.
As everyone else has the common sense to say, if they don't like this feature, they don't have to use it.
> (Upon seeing the email, Motherboard immediately contacted local law enforcement, who are responding to the situation. We are not naming the person who made the post, but we believe the story is notable because of its public nature and the fact that nearly the entirety of the editor’s letter centered on the toxicity of the Wikimedia community, a topic that is increasingly a part of the overall Wikipedia conversation.)
> Update: The person who posted the letter has been contacted by local law enforcement and says he is feeling better.
I see this as over the top.
Reddit was already turning into something like that. I was very disappointed. I am really hoping for a free and open alternative to reddit that is dark, open, honest, filled with controversy and mods that don't give a damn about your spilt milk.
The difference according to the info-graphic is a few percent net and looking at the graph it seems to be around 20-30% more. I'm not even sure that their numbers are actually reliable. Based on their publication, it's a good thing they aren't scientists because I think they would fail peer review.
I sent a reused content request to them asking if I could reused it as toilet paper since I have run out.
The problem is with "community" is they are actually the ones defining it. You can't avoid that to some extent but it's no excuse for things such as doublespeak or going to extremes.
In my experience with this kind of thing I have always been one of the most reluctant to use the ban hammer or some form of authority. Most things others would moderate I say let the community deal with it. There are a lot of exceptions and different rules for different contexts. One might be the relative volume of such submissions which would raise the bar somewhat respectfully. The Guardian is not falling upon those standards. I would describe it as more devious in its approach.
| bigoted
I tend to find in a lot of "communities" that this is used not simply mean those who come along and say something like "let kill and mutilate all the niknaks because of some big lie or misrepresented fact" or generally pointless meaningful things. People see it as a right to impose speech restrictions to impose their own morality and beliefs on others.
| But xenophobia, racism, sexism and homophobia were all seen regularly. Take for example, some of the comments left below an article on the mass drownings of migrant men, women and children in the Mediterranean: “These people contribute nothing to the countries they enter”; “The more corpses floating in the sea, the better”; “LET THEM ALL DROWN!”
I thought I might be paranoid but the Guardian proves me right further on in the article. Lets take a look at what they consider bigoted and vile:
* “These people contribute nothing to the countries they enter”
This should not be moderated and in fact opens healthy debate on that particular subject. If there's anything wrong with it it is that is is not well articulated. Obviously they don't literally contribute nothing but they might not make a net contribution or might not contribute enough.
* “The more corpses floating in the sea, the better”
Well this one doesn't add a great deal and is somewhat absurd so could be prune worthy if going for high quality comments. Otherwise it's nothing more than an way of saying "I really, really, really do not care." and that's a problem because the Guardian more than anything wants people to care. You can't have examples of people not caring going unpunished. All you have here is an article saying "YOU MUST CARE ABOUT THIS SO SO MUCH" and people responding with "Frankly, I couldn't give a damn." What you really have here is a sample of a comment that doesn't support the article. The comment is being removed because it's not in line with what the article wants you to think, feel, etc. I wonder if they did a poll on "do you support this article" if they would moderate the votes saying no for being bigoted.
* “LET THEM ALL DROWN!”
This is borderline. All it's saying is, "I'm apathetic." like the previous. It's very similar to the previous but less absurd. It's not really a serious discussion type comment so it could be pruned for that reason. It's harsh as hell but it's not saying the same as "Lets drown them." although the Guardian would no doubt want you to think that way. Although the Guardian would also like you to think that they are being forced onto boats there's no reason to believe that the sheer majority of them are making a wilful decision to try to come here.
Let analysis their conclusions:
* articles written by women attract more abuse and dismissive trolling than those written by men, regardless of what the article is about.
I've almost never paid attention to the author of a news story. Once in a blue moon I might check or accidentally notice. If I'm representative of the common case then it might be because of what or how women right. I have no doubt this comment on the guardian would have me branded as a bigot and gagged accordingly. I find this article of theirs provocative so perhaps there's a higher chance it's written by a woman? It looks like it's half and half so not far off the mark there. I'd like to see what happens if they don't show the reporter's name.
Not one of these comments is actually bigoted in any sense that is meaningful. At best they simply aren't saying enough. Here's what I think and that's all, not why. Removing them for that is fine. Removing them because if you don't agree with the article you must be bigoted then you have a problem of the opinion you are writing about becoming a delusion.
There is also a possibility that moderators are spending more effort on articles written by members of groups they deem "vulnerable". Other possibilitie
You can crowd source. I've done personal security experiments with this kind of thing. You basically just proxy the captcha and make a frame work for doing that.
You have a normal captcha system that before making a captcha first checks a queue of ones already available and uses one of those if present. The user input is forwarded and the response used. If there is nothing in the queue it uses the normal captcha mechanism. Obviously you want some kind of timeout. The bot/s can simply keep getting new captchas until one is fullfilled. The bot puts captchas on the queue, and takes answers off the queue. The bot also puts results on the queue. The captcha library pulls captchas from the queue and puts answers on the queue.
You have several methods of dissemination. First you can put it on your own sites. Second you can disseminate the library normally and webdevs will simply download and use it, similarly you can offer it as a service (API, etc) and they may never figure it out. Finally you can put it on hacked websites.
I came up with this solution years ago but have never heard of it being used. I expect that eventually I will. Especially since I posted it. Someone will tell me of a case or go implement it themselves. Someone is going to get rich now with their captcha breaking API.
I'm still really happy with my S5 after over a year. It will probably do for another year or two. It gets a bit hot sometimes but it hasn't melted yet.
When they decided to be Apple they only really succeeded in becoming inapplicable. I didn't by the S5 because I wanted an iPhone that runs Android. Things like removable battery, SD card slot are important and the water proofing is just great.
The only thing I really hated with the S5 was their stock distro which you couldn't strip down or remove crapware from so you have to go cyanogen mod just to have your own clean unpolluted personal device.
The S7 takes a step towards Samsung restoring their glory but I'm really not a fan of the integrated battery. If I want to buy spares for long a long journey, etc then I can't.
MicroSoft is doing what would be the right thing, but they are doing it the wrong way. We have always needed better options for updating software automatically in a centralised fashion. But if I wanted what microsoft are doing I would just install android or OSX on my PC instead.
> Windows Update Client for Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2: March 2016
> This article describes an update that contains some improvements to Windows Update Client in Windows 7 Service Pack 1 (SP1) and Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1. This update has a prerequisite.
About this update
> This update contains some improvements to Windows Update Client in Windows 7 SP1 and Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1.
Improvements? What constitutes an improvement? What's the problem solved? Who is it an improvement for?
http://www.infoworld.com/artic...
Oh, it's Windows 10 which I DO NOT WANT. I do not want a fully remote managed operating system. I want a PC. PERSONAL Computer. Didn't I hide that update option as well?
North Korea can deliberately use dams to cause floods which may clear the way beyond some mine fields and military bases. Then you have tunnels.
Add chemical/biological warheads into the mix. Small nukes. Add drugged soldiers, millions of them with a lot of go as a consequence. Casual clothing instead of uniforms. The problem is that once you have a million man army in the South rampaging through it inseparable from civilians engaging in guerilla and urban warfare you have a very unpleasant problem to deal with when it comes to exercising air power. If they can mobilise several million and fight to win at any cost then South Korea could make Syria look like a minor skirmish.
These are worst case scenarios though.
Their end game is not having to surrender or fear invasion and continual other forms of attack from the USA and pals.
Presumably there is a goal of reunification which can be achieved if people are patient enough to accept something such as a 50 year plan but no reason to believe there is a will beyond that to extort, achieve vengeance, conquer or otherwise.
Addendum:
> He needs an external enemy to justify his rule.
Be careful. This is from our propaganda about how we love the people we just hate their leaders. Given the situation we would be against their leaders even if democratically elected so really we're for the people as long as their leaders are for us.
There is no reason to believe that North Korea wont get along fine without the constant external existential threat there.
The only real risk on all fronts is a change to the status quo especially as the North Korean quagmire has existed in a constant state for half a century.
No one really knows anything different any more so its a great unknown that anyone would be hesitant to face.
I agree then I disagree.
Other parties have been notoriously disruptive when it comes to calm negotiation. The only thing they really want is to negotiate North Korea's surrender. So it doesn't really go very far. Then there are the power games US and Japan play.
Slashdot Mirror
When I started using Google it was great. If you had Google Fu especially. Google Fu meant being good enough with language and having enough understanding of its use to search for the right phrases, etc because Google was fairly strict about things. Google Fu still applies but it's not what it used to be.
Over time it has gotten less and less strict to the point of being obsessed with optimising for popular results. It will rewrite search queries, randomly ignore words and generally try to be clever in a way which is counter productive when you want to find information that is more obscure. This is horrific sometimes especially as the internet is now more full of pop junk than every. I remember a time that even if I put in a bunch of words Google rather than a phrase would treat them all more or less equally and find good matches with those words clustered and associated closely together. Today it's like Google plays a game when you do this, pick a word, any word.
I worry a lot about things especially when it comes to neutrality. I experimented a while ago with Google's speech recognition in chrome which is experimental. You need a kind of Google Fu for this as well because it seems to have the same predictive problems as the search engine especially where terms are mildly similar. You sort of have to resort to the most commonly used terms of phrase for things. It's interesting because this was an early release of a technology that is better and I think that they had things tuned up so high it makes these anomalies very obvious. It was like it was way too fuzzy and smudged. What was really glaring is when saying any garbage out of range of the microphone so that it is indecipherable sound. When I looked at the read out for whatever I muttered out of mic shot it would nearly always come up with things like nike, sony, google, etc. In a way it's scarily like the human brain that does funny things predictively when a vocal sound source is just distant enough to hear but not successfully process. In this case it revealed a clear bias in their system towards popular brands. Why Sony? Why not only or like for example? I am not sure that their intention is actually to have major brands come up intentionally, rather than is a side effect of optimising for these. If someone asked for Sony they want to reduce impedance, make it a path of least resistance.
I find that these things are actually adding a great deal of impedance for me when I'm using Google because I'm not interested in looking up celebrity gossip. I don't think the way it's going Google can cater to everyone. Some of us need a real search engine.
I don't see it totally meaningless. It can at least provoke some though and educated speculation. High IQ tends to be linked to good education and wealthy nations which doesn't really come without some order. Causes will be varied. Greater wealth. Greater knowledge of the risks of using pirated software (nightmare to update, get support for, almost impossible to rule out viruses, etc). Greater knowledge towards making or finding alternatives. Greater adherence to law and greater risk aversion towards piracy, etc. It more falls into the category of that's obvious.
I've had this really tiny drill bit for ages and I've been wanting to find a use for it. Thanks to Intel I now at last can do something with it.
Node is great basically because it fills a set of niches really nicely. I've been developing for a long time doing the same thing in Java, C even PHP which is a horrible language to write a sockets daemon in.
If you have a really rich web/browser targeting application where you want fast real time communications with things like websock and integration into a lot of sources node.js is great. You can whip up things in it really fast and connect things together extremely easily. It also has the benefit of being able to share libraries between server and client.
It does have a lot of hangups as well though. I agree lack of quality control on NPM is concerning. Writing especially large enterprise systems in JS also takes and additional amount of effort to decide how to enforce a structure and the things is, no one does the exactly the same thing. Scaling is also a problem although there are some techniques. What I find really problematic is when I make CPP native extensions for it. It might be my error but as of yet all indications are that JS is about as fast in CPP due to internals and the internal API as it is in JS and this is a pain point for optimising when some other languages run things ten times faster switching to implementing native extensions or plugins than node.js does for the same tasks. JS is still improving on the callback hell front. Generators will make things better for a little while but it's still quite convoluted. The jury is out on what to do with that. The ES6 changes are also making JS even more inconsistent and unpredictable although some of the changes there are very welcome. There are also big issues with the documentation and lack of clear explanation of event flow control that the community ignores and eschews from making a standard for. Things like updating your node code also incur a cost as you need to restart processes unless you do fancy things.
However if you stick to the niches the node.js cover, it's way more productive than anything else.
Strings are also unicode by default which sucks on backend. There's a few gotches like that going from a client to backend language.
That's just functional language snobbery.
Better to wait for generators to really take off. They are showing some promise. I reached a point where I was having call back hell, looked at async, promises and decided screw that, I need some kind of new language feature to solve that. Amazingly, a year later generators came to the scene to address that which isn't too long to wait. I hate an argument with someone about promises and implemented my own promises library just to prove the point that I knew what he was talking about and that it sucked. Someone else has also gone through the same mess but unlike me could has tried everything else rather than to skip the 3 or 4 common ways to deal with callback hell until something worth actually going for arrives: http://blog.namangoel.com/deal...
node.js is great for integration of multiple realtime sources of data and for some solid net linked applications. However to replace the LAMP stack for something as simple as blogs, standard webpages, etc is a bad use of node. Node is not a toy language but people do use it for things that it is not really suited to or inappropriately. It can be a lot faster than LAMP but takes much more effort for it to scale. Generally speaking, if your webpage is an application and has realtime connectivity, heavy datasync, etc, you might want node.js. If your webpage is part of a traditional website you probably want to stick with LAMP.
There is nothing racist about this at all. The people who are prone to things such as racism are the very same people who equate this to racism using the same fallacies and poor thinking that themselves gave rise and continue to give rise to real racism. You have to be careful with sensitivity. There's being insensitive and being too sensitive. These whiners fall into the latter category. The best way to deal with them is to ignore them and get on with their lives. As everyone else has the common sense to say, if they don't like this feature, they don't have to use it.
> (Upon seeing the email, Motherboard immediately contacted local law enforcement, who are responding to the situation. We are not naming the person who made the post, but we believe the story is notable because of its public nature and the fact that nearly the entirety of the editor’s letter centered on the toxicity of the Wikimedia community, a topic that is increasingly a part of the overall Wikipedia conversation.) > Update: The person who posted the letter has been contacted by local law enforcement and says he is feeling better. I see this as over the top.
Draw them in, lock the door, toss key.
Reddit was already turning into something like that. I was very disappointed. I am really hoping for a free and open alternative to reddit that is dark, open, honest, filled with controversy and mods that don't give a damn about your spilt milk.
The difference according to the info-graphic is a few percent net and looking at the graph it seems to be around 20-30% more. I'm not even sure that their numbers are actually reliable. Based on their publication, it's a good thing they aren't scientists because I think they would fail peer review. I sent a reused content request to them asking if I could reused it as toilet paper since I have run out.
The problem is with "community" is they are actually the ones defining it. You can't avoid that to some extent but it's no excuse for things such as doublespeak or going to extremes.
In my experience with this kind of thing I have always been one of the most reluctant to use the ban hammer or some form of authority. Most things others would moderate I say let the community deal with it. There are a lot of exceptions and different rules for different contexts. One might be the relative volume of such submissions which would raise the bar somewhat respectfully. The Guardian is not falling upon those standards. I would describe it as more devious in its approach.
| bigoted
I tend to find in a lot of "communities" that this is used not simply mean those who come along and say something like "let kill and mutilate all the niknaks because of some big lie or misrepresented fact" or generally pointless meaningful things. People see it as a right to impose speech restrictions to impose their own morality and beliefs on others.
| But xenophobia, racism, sexism and homophobia were all seen regularly. Take for example, some of the comments left below an article on the mass drownings of migrant men, women and children in the Mediterranean: “These people contribute nothing to the countries they enter”; “The more corpses floating in the sea, the better”; “LET THEM ALL DROWN!”
I thought I might be paranoid but the Guardian proves me right further on in the article. Lets take a look at what they consider bigoted and vile:
* “These people contribute nothing to the countries they enter”
This should not be moderated and in fact opens healthy debate on that particular subject. If there's anything wrong with it it is that is is not well articulated. Obviously they don't literally contribute nothing but they might not make a net contribution or might not contribute enough.
* “The more corpses floating in the sea, the better”
Well this one doesn't add a great deal and is somewhat absurd so could be prune worthy if going for high quality comments. Otherwise it's nothing more than an way of saying "I really, really, really do not care." and that's a problem because the Guardian more than anything wants people to care. You can't have examples of people not caring going unpunished. All you have here is an article saying "YOU MUST CARE ABOUT THIS SO SO MUCH" and people responding with "Frankly, I couldn't give a damn." What you really have here is a sample of a comment that doesn't support the article. The comment is being removed because it's not in line with what the article wants you to think, feel, etc. I wonder if they did a poll on "do you support this article" if they would moderate the votes saying no for being bigoted.
* “LET THEM ALL DROWN!”
This is borderline. All it's saying is, "I'm apathetic." like the previous. It's very similar to the previous but less absurd. It's not really a serious discussion type comment so it could be pruned for that reason. It's harsh as hell but it's not saying the same as "Lets drown them." although the Guardian would no doubt want you to think that way. Although the Guardian would also like you to think that they are being forced onto boats there's no reason to believe that the sheer majority of them are making a wilful decision to try to come here.
Let analysis their conclusions:
* articles written by women attract more abuse and dismissive trolling than those written by men, regardless of what the article is about.
I've almost never paid attention to the author of a news story. Once in a blue moon I might check or accidentally notice. If I'm representative of the common case then it might be because of what or how women right. I have no doubt this comment on the guardian would have me branded as a bigot and gagged accordingly. I find this article of theirs provocative so perhaps there's a higher chance it's written by a woman? It looks like it's half and half so not far off the mark there. I'd like to see what happens if they don't show the reporter's name.
Not one of these comments is actually bigoted in any sense that is meaningful. At best they simply aren't saying enough. Here's what I think and that's all, not why. Removing them for that is fine. Removing them because if you don't agree with the article you must be bigoted then you have a problem of the opinion you are writing about becoming a delusion.
There is also a possibility that moderators are spending more effort on articles written by members of groups they deem "vulnerable". Other possibilitie
You can crowd source. I've done personal security experiments with this kind of thing. You basically just proxy the captcha and make a frame work for doing that. You have a normal captcha system that before making a captcha first checks a queue of ones already available and uses one of those if present. The user input is forwarded and the response used. If there is nothing in the queue it uses the normal captcha mechanism. Obviously you want some kind of timeout. The bot/s can simply keep getting new captchas until one is fullfilled. The bot puts captchas on the queue, and takes answers off the queue. The bot also puts results on the queue. The captcha library pulls captchas from the queue and puts answers on the queue. You have several methods of dissemination. First you can put it on your own sites. Second you can disseminate the library normally and webdevs will simply download and use it, similarly you can offer it as a service (API, etc) and they may never figure it out. Finally you can put it on hacked websites. I came up with this solution years ago but have never heard of it being used. I expect that eventually I will. Especially since I posted it. Someone will tell me of a case or go implement it themselves. Someone is going to get rich now with their captcha breaking API.
I'm still really happy with my S5 after over a year. It will probably do for another year or two. It gets a bit hot sometimes but it hasn't melted yet. When they decided to be Apple they only really succeeded in becoming inapplicable. I didn't by the S5 because I wanted an iPhone that runs Android. Things like removable battery, SD card slot are important and the water proofing is just great. The only thing I really hated with the S5 was their stock distro which you couldn't strip down or remove crapware from so you have to go cyanogen mod just to have your own clean unpolluted personal device. The S7 takes a step towards Samsung restoring their glory but I'm really not a fan of the integrated battery. If I want to buy spares for long a long journey, etc then I can't.
MicroSoft is doing what would be the right thing, but they are doing it the wrong way. We have always needed better options for updating software automatically in a centralised fashion. But if I wanted what microsoft are doing I would just install android or OSX on my PC instead.
Oh and they have built up now. So I'm pretty much resolved to stop updating windows.
> Windows Update Client for Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2: March 2016 > This article describes an update that contains some improvements to Windows Update Client in Windows 7 Service Pack 1 (SP1) and Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1. This update has a prerequisite. About this update > This update contains some improvements to Windows Update Client in Windows 7 SP1 and Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1. Improvements? What constitutes an improvement? What's the problem solved? Who is it an improvement for? http://www.infoworld.com/artic... Oh, it's Windows 10 which I DO NOT WANT. I do not want a fully remote managed operating system. I want a PC. PERSONAL Computer. Didn't I hide that update option as well?
The article has a lot of abstract waffle. It doesn't really say much.
North Korea can deliberately use dams to cause floods which may clear the way beyond some mine fields and military bases. Then you have tunnels. Add chemical/biological warheads into the mix. Small nukes. Add drugged soldiers, millions of them with a lot of go as a consequence. Casual clothing instead of uniforms. The problem is that once you have a million man army in the South rampaging through it inseparable from civilians engaging in guerilla and urban warfare you have a very unpleasant problem to deal with when it comes to exercising air power. If they can mobilise several million and fight to win at any cost then South Korea could make Syria look like a minor skirmish. These are worst case scenarios though.
Their end game is not having to surrender or fear invasion and continual other forms of attack from the USA and pals. Presumably there is a goal of reunification which can be achieved if people are patient enough to accept something such as a 50 year plan but no reason to believe there is a will beyond that to extort, achieve vengeance, conquer or otherwise.
Addendum: > He needs an external enemy to justify his rule. Be careful. This is from our propaganda about how we love the people we just hate their leaders. Given the situation we would be against their leaders even if democratically elected so really we're for the people as long as their leaders are for us. There is no reason to believe that North Korea wont get along fine without the constant external existential threat there. The only real risk on all fronts is a change to the status quo especially as the North Korean quagmire has existed in a constant state for half a century. No one really knows anything different any more so its a great unknown that anyone would be hesitant to face.
I agree then I disagree. Other parties have been notoriously disruptive when it comes to calm negotiation. The only thing they really want is to negotiate North Korea's surrender. So it doesn't really go very far. Then there are the power games US and Japan play.