I doubt apple is shooting for the full Disney G rating but it seems like differentiating your brand by doing something hard is valuable and apple knows it. They can always sell edgier stuff on non-apple brands on itunes. nothing is lost to the consumer but something is gained.
Unlike watching the same TV show over and over, listening to the same set of songs over and over is really pleasurable. I can't tell you why that is but it is and is true for most people.
Your comment which I think wasn't a jest, really got me wondering if people now just think of music as ambiance rather than actual listening or if it's like some zeightgeist trivia contest where one has to be able to say to freinds they have beard the latest songs.
Maybe it's become like the way we consume news always wanting the headline dopamine hit so times a day rather than scrutinizing the sunday times over a coffee on the porch.
Maybe I'm just out of date on what music is for now. If you want an example of things I've listened to many times in the last year three of those would be the Hamilton Soundtrack (holy moly!), went back and rediscovered green day and the Who for some reason I can't fathom but it just felt like good drive the car on a sunny day music. I also got into Dawn Penn and the rocksteady era stuff for a while.
For the same reason I like loading up my ipod with a set of songs on a playlist of about 200 then playing it many times till I've hear each song enough to notice the fine details. then I'll load another 200. Having all my songs on tap simultaneously would defeat that.
Interestingly to me, until you posted that it hadn't occurred to me what I was doing with that 200 song habit. I just fell into it because that's what the technology allowed and I never changed as ipods got more capacity. It was really just an extension of having 20 CDs or 20 vinyl disks on my desk at any given time with the rest over on the shelf and so not on tap.
Is it because music isn't visual that its pleasurable to do this compared to a TV show? I don't know, Some people like to watch Dances over and over. I do notice that the great dance musicals of Gene Kelly, Astair, Cid Cherise, and so on are the only really old movies that I am happy to rewatch periodically. And that's visual. Is it because music and dance rely less on the dialogues meaning than on the rhythm and harmony? It's a good question.
ANyow thanks for the thought provoking question. I'm hoping that you were making it in jest. Or maybe what you meant is that modern music isn't self sustaining and just relys on novelty tricks that get old fast. For me, modern music is house/rap and I didn't think there was much there-there until I heard hamilton. Now that it's more accessible to me, I have started to notice more nuance and artistry in some modern musicians that I felt before.
The name TorValds has possibly appropos meanings in Norwegian and German. In Norwegian it means "many threats" or "much daring" according to a raw text translation. (presumably it's more nuanced and related to Thor if you are Norwegian).
In German it text translated to a "Array of building openings" or a "forest of Doors". Which I think sounds like a description of "Windows" on an office building.
Facebook should take all of it's user data, encrypt it, and then put into the bitcoin block chain (or alternatively the slashdot comments section). They can then retrieve it anytime they want, it can never be deleted, and the EU can't make them delete what they don't have on their own servers. Problem solved.
I've been backing up my hard drive to Slashdot comments for year. I have a hidden markov generator that encodes the data into english nerdy sentences.
If you write papers then Research Gate is a much more logical social network to belong to since it gives people access to copies of your papers and track how many people grazed and how many people actually downloaded your paper.
1. Its not the expense of mining that protects the integrity of the blockchain. It the distribute nature of the miners that protects the blockchain, the consensus of what the correct transactions are. The "work" in proof of work based system is merely how the mining rewards are randomized.
I used to think that was true. Turns out it's not. it's entirely the expense that prevents the double spend. Here's the proof. take a network as distributed as you like. It has a certain total compute capacity. Now go out and rent amazon servers with four times that capacity. Spend some coins, wait for the confirmation, collect your services. Then take the old ledger before the coins were spent, add in the next transaction that followed your epoch. The the next one. And recompute a new block chain with those two but excluding your own transaction. Since you have the ocmpute capacity you get there before anyone else. Now you have the longest blockchain. When you distribute this it will now be accepted as the correct block chain by everyone in the distribution as that is the governing rule of bitcoin-- longest blockchain is the correct one. No other pedigree matters. your coin is now not spent but you received the services.
ergo, the cost of acquiring 4x the computational power for two transaction cycles must be more than the possible gain you can get from your fraudulent transaction. That fundamentally determines what bitcoin will cost.
There is no other "consensus' other than who's longest. indeed how could there be if it's truly distributed?
2. The expense of the work required for mining is actually making bitcoins less secure, increasing the risk of a manipulated blockchain. This expense has led to the development of ASIC based mining. By moving away from CPU and GPU based mining we no longer have a distributed system. ASIC based mining is far more centralized in terms of commercial mining operations so cartels are plausible. They are also highly regionalized, mostly in a single country near cheap government supplied hydroelectric power so government intervention is more plausible.
Yes the market is unstable. Not because the asics per se, but because there is a growing body of obsolete mining capacity as the hash cost rises above the reward level. When the price falls in a price swing much more of the capacity goes off line, focusing the power of hashing into fewer miners, making the prospect of buying enough capacity to overhwelm the system easier. Asics are just a symtom of this thin margin on an expensive operation not so much the cause of this.
Fortunately this can be fixed with a software update, one that brings mining back to the realm of CPUs and GPUs, ie regular users and their regular computers. Unfortunately miners would have to agree with that update and why would ASIC miners do that? So if bitcoin is to be "fixed" it will have to fork and be a different type of coin. The blockchain could fork with the code so no holdings are lost.
Since you haven't diagnosed the issue correctly I will disagree with your proposed resolution and underlyig cause.
The key to bitcoin is that it solves the DOuble spend problem. Of course it's solution is very electrically expensive. But it's that expense that creates a prohibitive barrier to deter double spending. The consequence of that is that is either fees or inflation (by mining) is absolutely required for bitcoin to work in a distributed system.
You can avoid the extremely high fees that deter doubkle spending if you want to give up the distributed blessing system. In that case you just have a central clearing house that a"promises" no double spends because only it can control the ledger. It can then use it's monopoly instead of a cost barrier to insure each coin is spent once.
by giving up on mining then, the transactions can then become fee based and for a low fee.
But then that's the same a visa or mastercard or for that matter a personal check.
most people associate crytptocurrency with distributed ledgers. not central clearing houses.
It sounds like this is just exactly another clearing house with a ledger that is weakly harder to alter over time than a conventional ledger.
There's microphones that are merely conduits for Siri/ok google/cortana/alexa. A few of these actually have some multi microphone directional listening capability which makes them slightly smarter.
this is not different than any android phone. I wonder also why they call is a smart speaker rather than a smart microphone.
In any case there is as far as I know only one consumer grade mass produced "smart" speaker in existence and that is the apple home pod. It actually senses it's accoustic environment, measuring directional echos and frequency response. And then it adjusts a multi-speaker emitter to adapt smartly to the accoustic environment it is placed in. It's something of a breakthough. It even lets you get stereo transmission from a single unit via the directional capabilities and expoiting wall reflections. It lets it use the table it has been set on as a sounding board without driving it to a buzz. It's really something actually new in the field of stereos. You don'thave to like it. But recognize it's using different physics than anything before it in the consumer domain.
Intuitively, why can't we come up with some simple conduits that are sufficiently simple and vetted that we can be reasonably sure that ill conditioned inputs can't escape the sandbox. Then and only then build the convenience features on top of this?
Perhaps today's XKCD explains this very problem quite well. Firewalls prevent easy communications between component services.
true. But for a VPN there are a just a few enumerable things it actually needs to do correctly. It doesn't actually need admin priveledges to carry the message just admin priveledges to set up the network tunnels. So how is it possible one can't write a system where the message can execute as root?
I suspects is' because people see some speed shortcut similar ot Active-X or ssh -Y xwindows that values shorcuts.
If the encryption process added a random length null message to the encrypted packet and also to the compression as well, it seems like this threat would become prohibitively difficult. However I don't fully understand it. It seems like the attacker has to have to send repeats of the same message over and over with slight mods. I don't see how that's possible practically. But adding random length chaffe to the message would multiply the effort required so much it probably become impossible to learn anything from the compressed message length.
Butter is good. Low carb leaves a lot of parameter space for what are you replacing it with. At the end of the day you pick a caloric intake and you pick a method of filling it. Turning down the mid range doesn't say what you did with the treble, base and volume knobs.
Here's the thing. If you lower your carbs and 2 years later your whole body still feels great then whatever you did probably was the right thing. I'm not saying eat what makes you happy. Because if you do that, and happy is pancakes, then 2 years from now you won't feel healthy or happy about how you feel when you aren't eating pancakes.. Unless maybe you are a kid.
You body doesn't have sense on a meal by meal basis but it lets you know you are not eating well overall.
SO no frigging way are the people on low carb diets long term and likeing how they feel doing damage.
On the other hand low carb diets could be bad ideas if for example you stay on the atkins diet or something equivalently stupid. Atkins is better than being obese but once you shed that, get off it man!
The thig about low carbs is that for some people it's incredibly easy. Once you stop using sugar you just lose the desire for it. it's not punishment. And that's the magic of low carbs. It's one of the few "diets" that doesn't lead to yo-yo. At least not for a subset fo people. It's sustainable.
It isn't for every one. But for some folks it is an easy way to feel good over the long term. That can't be unhealthy.
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt apple is shooting for the full Disney G rating but it seems like differentiating your brand by doing something hard is valuable and apple knows it. They can always sell edgier stuff on non-apple brands on itunes. nothing is lost to the consumer but something is gained.
at least the Gondry video is cool.
Unlike watching the same TV show over and over, listening to the same set of songs over and over is really pleasurable. I can't tell you why that is but it is and is true for most people.
Your comment which I think wasn't a jest, really got me wondering if people now just think of music as ambiance rather than actual listening or if it's like some zeightgeist trivia contest where one has to be able to say to freinds they have beard the latest songs.
Maybe it's become like the way we consume news always wanting the headline dopamine hit so times a day rather than scrutinizing the sunday times over a coffee on the porch.
Maybe I'm just out of date on what music is for now. If you want an example of things I've listened to many times in the last year three of those would be the Hamilton Soundtrack (holy moly!), went back and rediscovered green day and the Who for some reason I can't fathom but it just felt like good drive the car on a sunny day music. I also got into Dawn Penn and the rocksteady era stuff for a while.
For the same reason I like loading up my ipod with a set of songs on a playlist of about 200 then playing it many times till I've hear each song enough to notice the fine details. then I'll load another 200. Having all my songs on tap simultaneously would defeat that.
Interestingly to me, until you posted that it hadn't occurred to me what I was doing with that 200 song habit. I just fell into it because that's what the technology allowed and I never changed as ipods got more capacity. It was really just an extension of having 20 CDs or 20 vinyl disks on my desk at any given time with the rest over on the shelf and so not on tap.
Is it because music isn't visual that its pleasurable to do this compared to a TV show? I don't know, Some people like to watch Dances over and over. I do notice that the great dance musicals of Gene Kelly, Astair, Cid Cherise, and so on are the only really old movies that I am happy to rewatch periodically. And that's visual.
Is it because music and dance rely less on the dialogues meaning than on the rhythm and harmony? It's a good question.
ANyow thanks for the thought provoking question.
I'm hoping that you were making it in jest. Or maybe what you meant is that modern music isn't self sustaining and just relys on novelty tricks that get old fast. For me, modern music is house/rap and I didn't think there was much there-there until I heard hamilton. Now that it's more accessible to me, I have started to notice more nuance and artistry in some modern musicians that I felt before.
The name TorValds has possibly appropos meanings in Norwegian and German. In Norwegian it means "many threats" or "much daring" according to a raw text translation. (presumably it's more nuanced and related to Thor if you are Norwegian).
In German it text translated to a "Array of building openings" or a "forest of Doors". Which I think sounds like a description of "Windows" on an office building.
Facebook should take all of it's user data, encrypt it, and then put into the bitcoin block chain (or alternatively the slashdot comments section). They can then retrieve it anytime they want, it can never be deleted, and the EU can't make them delete what they don't have on their own servers. Problem solved.
I've been backing up my hard drive to Slashdot comments for year. I have a hidden markov generator that encodes the data into english nerdy sentences.
Yes I have a folder I keep all the naughty algorithms in. If they escape I erase their stacks. Real death
What's more impressive than speed is having that speed without much difference in battery life and having a larger screen size to boot.
In German a Torwald would be a forest of doors
like a bunch of Windows?
The words "tor" and "valds" in norwegian transliterate to Tor = "threats or dare" and Vald = "uncountable many".
Haptic Linux will be more Touchy Feely. This will not be the year of Linux on the Despot.
If you write papers then Research Gate is a much more logical social network to belong to since it gives people access to copies of your papers and track how many people grazed and how many people actually downloaded your paper.
Newton shot first.
Quantum mechanics
The order does not matter
until classical
horse, the cart before, you put
Grow old, you do.
your AI can now do photoshop AI off line and also helkp you find cats in your photos.
Two flaws in your comment.
1. Its not the expense of mining that protects the integrity of the blockchain. It the distribute nature of the miners that protects the blockchain, the consensus of what the correct transactions are. The "work" in proof of work based system is merely how the mining rewards are randomized.
I used to think that was true. Turns out it's not. it's entirely the expense that prevents the double spend. Here's the proof.
take a network as distributed as you like. It has a certain total compute capacity. Now go out and rent amazon servers with four times that capacity. Spend some coins, wait for the confirmation, collect your services. Then take the old ledger before the coins were spent, add in the next transaction that followed your epoch. The the next one. And recompute a new block chain with those two but excluding your own transaction. Since you have the ocmpute capacity you get there before anyone else. Now you have the longest blockchain. When you distribute this it will now be accepted as the correct block chain by everyone in the distribution as that is the governing rule of bitcoin-- longest blockchain is the correct one. No other pedigree matters. your coin is now not spent but you received the services.
ergo, the cost of acquiring 4x the computational power for two transaction cycles must be more than the possible gain you can get from your fraudulent transaction. That fundamentally determines what bitcoin will cost.
There is no other "consensus' other than who's longest. indeed how could there be if it's truly distributed?
2. The expense of the work required for mining is actually making bitcoins less secure, increasing the risk of a manipulated blockchain. This expense has led to the development of ASIC based mining. By moving away from CPU and GPU based mining we no longer have a distributed system. ASIC based mining is far more centralized in terms of commercial mining operations so cartels are plausible. They are also highly regionalized, mostly in a single country near cheap government supplied hydroelectric power so government intervention is more plausible.
Yes the market is unstable. Not because the asics per se, but because there is a growing body of obsolete mining capacity as the hash cost rises above the reward level. When the price falls in a price swing much more of the capacity goes off line, focusing the power of hashing into fewer miners, making the prospect of buying enough capacity to overhwelm the system easier. Asics are just a symtom of this thin margin on an expensive operation not so much the cause of this.
Fortunately this can be fixed with a software update, one that brings mining back to the realm of CPUs and GPUs, ie regular users and their regular computers. Unfortunately miners would have to agree with that update and why would ASIC miners do that? So if bitcoin is to be "fixed" it will have to fork and be a different type of coin. The blockchain could fork with the code so no holdings are lost.
Since you haven't diagnosed the issue correctly I will disagree with your proposed resolution and underlyig cause.
But I guess what matters are the odd of it happening times the cost of it being true.
The key to bitcoin is that it solves the DOuble spend problem. Of course it's solution is very electrically expensive. But it's that expense that creates a prohibitive barrier to deter double spending. The consequence of that is that is either fees or inflation (by mining) is absolutely required for bitcoin to work in a distributed system.
You can avoid the extremely high fees that deter doubkle spending if you want to give up the distributed blessing system. In that case you just have a central clearing house that a"promises" no double spends because only it can control the ledger. It can then use it's monopoly instead of a cost barrier to insure each coin is spent once.
by giving up on mining then, the transactions can then become fee based and for a low fee.
But then that's the same a visa or mastercard or for that matter a personal check.
most people associate crytptocurrency with distributed ledgers. not central clearing houses.
It sounds like this is just exactly another clearing house with a ledger that is weakly harder to alter over time than a conventional ledger.
There's microphones that are merely conduits for Siri/ok google/cortana/alexa. A few of these actually have some multi microphone directional listening capability which makes them slightly smarter.
this is not different than any android phone. I wonder also why they call is a smart speaker rather than a smart microphone.
In any case there is as far as I know only one consumer grade mass produced "smart" speaker in existence and that is the apple home pod. It actually senses it's accoustic environment, measuring directional echos and frequency response. And then it adjusts a multi-speaker emitter to adapt smartly to the accoustic environment it is placed in. It's something of a breakthough. It even lets you get stereo transmission from a single unit via the directional capabilities and expoiting wall reflections. It lets it use the table it has been set on as a sounding board without driving it to a buzz. It's really something actually new in the field of stereos. You don'thave to like it. But recognize it's using different physics than anything before it in the consumer domain.
that's what I'd call a smart stereo.
Intuitively, why can't we come up with some simple conduits that are sufficiently simple and vetted that we can be reasonably sure that ill conditioned inputs can't escape the sandbox. Then and only then build the convenience features on top of this?
Perhaps today's XKCD explains this very problem quite well. Firewalls prevent easy communications between component services.
true. But for a VPN there are a just a few enumerable things it actually needs to do correctly. It doesn't actually need admin priveledges to carry the message just admin priveledges to set up the network tunnels. So how is it possible one can't write a system where the message can execute as root?
I suspects is' because people see some speed shortcut similar ot Active-X or ssh -Y xwindows that values shorcuts.
it's the year of the Twelve monkeys
If the encryption process added a random length null message to the encrypted packet and also to the compression as well, it seems like this threat would become prohibitively difficult. However I don't fully understand it. It seems like the attacker has to have to send repeats of the same message over and over with slight mods. I don't see how that's possible practically. But adding random length chaffe to the message would multiply the effort required so much it probably become impossible to learn anything from the compressed message length.
Obesity is unhealthy. thats the alternative.
Seize the Sol.
Butter is good. Low carb leaves a lot of parameter space for what are you replacing it with. At the end of the day you pick a caloric intake and you pick a method of filling it. Turning down the mid range doesn't say what you did with the treble, base and volume knobs.
Here's the thing. If you lower your carbs and 2 years later your whole body still feels great then whatever you did probably was the right thing. I'm not saying eat what makes you happy. Because if you do that, and happy is pancakes, then 2 years from now you won't feel healthy or happy about how you feel when you aren't eating pancakes.. Unless maybe you are a kid.
You body doesn't have sense on a meal by meal basis but it lets you know you are not eating well overall.
SO no frigging way are the people on low carb diets long term and likeing how they feel doing damage.
On the other hand low carb diets could be bad ideas if for example you stay on the atkins diet or something equivalently stupid. Atkins is better than being obese but once you shed that, get off it man!
The thig about low carbs is that for some people it's incredibly easy. Once you stop using sugar you just lose the desire for it. it's not punishment. And that's the magic of low carbs. It's one of the few "diets" that doesn't lead to yo-yo. At least not for a subset fo people. It's sustainable.
It isn't for every one. But for some folks it is an easy way to feel good over the long term. That can't be unhealthy.