That's the point of this that just about every but apple and android seems to be ignoring.
I don't think that Microsoft are ignoring it, they just don't have any choice. If they released a new version of Windows for tablets, then no current Windows software will run on it, and the only reason people buy Windows is to run their old Windows apps.
So the backwards compatibility that made them rich in the past is now screwing them as they try to get into new markets.
And if netbooks were slow and sucky I don't see how tablets based on the same platform are going to be any different.
If netbooks were 'slow and sucky' due to using Atom CPUs, why do you think a tablet based on an even slower CPU is going to be better?
There are plenty of ARM-based chips which can offload video decoding to hardware so that it doesn't require as much CPU power, but for anything that's limited by CPU power, why would you want a slower CPU? ARMs are used because of their cost and power consumption, not because of their processing power.
Didn't the plethora of netbooks teach us the Atom processor is woefully underpowered?
If the Atom is 'woefully underpowered', what does that make the average ARM chip? I believe you need the fastest ARM generally available to beat an Atom on CPU performance.
Cutting a few dollars from the education or science system isn't likely to make you much dumber, so why not?
Since educational standards have dropped while education spending has risen in real terms, you could make a strong argument that the best way to improve educational standards is to slash education spending.
Private companies typically do not engage in long-term research that isn't likely to lead to directly commercializable results. I know this flies in the face of red-blooded 'merican "all socialism is evil" doctrine, but public sector research, funded by tax-payer money, is needed to build the foundations for tomorrow's industries.
Could you name a few things that 'public sector research' has come up with 'as the foundations of tomorrow's industries' which private companies wouldn't have done themselves for far less?
The Chinese increased the 2010 science budget by 8%, to $24 billion, according to Science magazine.
Yeah, and?
Seriously, when was the last time that a government science fund produced something worth $24,000,000,000? Every major invention I can think of came from a private company doing research for a specific need, not a government program doing research in order to keep scientists eating from the taxpayers' pork trough.
The Chinese just have far more dollars than they know what to do with, and are desperate to find anything useful they can do with them.
The BBC method is probably the best, they make a series on using whatever funds they get and if they get renewed they do it again. So never any random stops.
Of course that's easier when your sets are made from old cardboard boxes and your 'monster' is a guy wrapped in bubble-wrap and sprayed green:).
ok, say that the Russians, or some other actor wanted to stage a raid and try to capture some of those nukes. Should the US government provide them blueprints of the facility, guard rotation and schedules, lists of the COTS items purchased to detect illicit entry, etc? Because apparently you're saying so......
Where?
Oh, of course, I said no such thing, it's just a straw-man you made up.
Suspecting it and actually confirming it for them with an official US government document are two separate things.
Assuming that bin Laden actually believes said document and doesn't assume it's disinformation.
And you still haven't given a reason why it should be released.
Because if someone sees they're working at a place which is officially listed as 'critical infrastructure' then they might take security more seriously? Or, horrors, someone completely unrelated to the operations might come up with a way to make it less critical?
There are plenty of reasons why this openness be a good thing rather than a bad thing. For example, I was reading an anecdote by a British airbase worker a while back saying how he was on occasion left to 'protect' a nuclear-armed bomber by himself at night and all he had as a weapon was a pickaxe handle. You could argue that letting people know that the RAF was so broke that all it could do to prevent people from stealing nuclear weapons was send a guy out to stand by the plane with a pickaxe handle would be an invitation to anyone to come and steal some, but you could equally well argue that if the population of Britain knew that was the RAF's idea of nuclear security then the politicos would be forced to provide some actual real security within days of that information getting out.
Take the list of critical US infrastructure that Wikileaks published. There is nothing to be gained by having 100% transparency on that and everything to lose since it's basically a blue print on how to attack the US.
Do you really think the bad guys don't know these things?
I remember when I was a kid there was a nuclear weapons store a few miles from where we lived. Everyone knew it was there, the USSR could see it on their satellite photos, but strangely it was completely missing from any official maps of the area. Who was that secrecy supposed to be protecting?
I don't really see the USA going 100% vegan, 100% sex-segregated (and probably several other types of segregation too) and giving away all our "capitalist excesses" just to appease our critics.
Vegans are evil: think of all the cows who would never exist if we couldn't drink milk or eat burgers.
In any case, the idea that there's no such thing as 'fundamental evil' is naive: what can you call the deliberate murder of millions in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Maoist China and Pol-Pot's Cambodia, other than evil?
Seems someone is afraid of the very essence of capitalism?
Pretty much all big companies dread the free market, because they know that if they relax for a moment their smaller competitos will eat them for lunch.
The customer picks the best offer and the worse ones either catch up or perish. This is the golden rule set by Adam Smith.
That's the way that it would work in a free market. Sadly, in the real world the 'worse ones' get the government to impose regulations which prevent anyone from providing better offers: for example, the story from a few days ago about US courts prohibiting the sale of imported products at a lower price than imports 'authorized' by the manufacturer, or zoning laws which encourage big business over small ones, or simply increasing the cost of regulation to the point where no-one can afford to set up a small business to compete with them.
Yes, if one of the sides is clearly false. Ignorance is not a point of view.
And who gets to decide whether something is 'clearly false'? Short of simple mathematics, there is very little that can be proven to be 'clearly false'.
I agree with the summary, this isn't the defeat of String Theory. It is a chance to refine and improve it.
Am I the only one who sees 'string theory' as the modern equivalent of the geocentric model of the universe? When it makes a prediction that doesn't match reality, we 'refine and improve' it by adding more spheres within spheres (or presumably strings within strings in this case).
So with hundreds of millions of netbooks around the world and a few million iPads, and that means the netbook market is dead? Wow.
I'd certainly say it's probably saturated at this point, but netbooks have big advantages over tablets (most obviously a keyboard), as well as some disadvantages. I can't see myself replacing my netbook with a tablet any time soon.
Does IPSEC really allow random padding? If so, the design is even worse than I imagined... I thought people figured out that non-deterministic padding was bad well over 10 years ago.
However, if i's padded pre-encryption it's far less useful for an attacker since either it would have to somehow leak key bits into the encrypted data (which would require code that was obviously monumentally broken) or it would only leak key information to the system on the other end of the IPSEC link.
The allegation is inclusion of a side-channel in the crypto algorithm for leakage of key bits.
If you know about crypto coding, you'll know instantly why that would be easy to hide and hard to find.
IPSEC is a well-documented standard: you can't just stick 'random numbers' which happen to contain parts of the key in the data stream as you could with some home-grown crypto system. The fact that it is a standard which has to interoperate with other implementations of the standard eliminates most of the usual methods of deliberately leaking keys.
Certainly there could be deliberate timing effects, etc, but everyone these days should be using crypto implementations which protect against such things.
It works for the MOB and gangs... want a rival killed? start rumors they are working for the cops, fbi, are dirty and skimming from the boss, etc.. Keep it up and word wil spread and get back to his guys who end up "fixing the problem".
Interestingly, I was reading this morning about the FBI in the 70s spreading false claims that members of radical groups were actually FBI informants in the hope of disrupting said radical groups.
Also software IPSEC implementations are layered above TCP hardware, so the content is in that case en/decrypted before/after it goes through network hardware.
Uh, end-to-end IPSEC goes from my computer to your computer, so if it's encrypted properly the only people who can read the data are me and you. Certainly you might want to use IPSEC for router to router connections, but that's an extra layer on top.
The big flaw with IPSEC is that it's designed by committee with the kitchen sink thrown in, so it's insanely difficult to configure, and very easy to configure wrong: for example, you can configure it not to encrypt at all.
I don't know... through sheer persistence, the Xbox has finally become a decent console.
But it's still lost them billions of dollars, its profitability is debatable and the next generation console will cost them billions more. Microsoft live and die on Windows and Office, nothing else really makes them any significant amounts of money.
I do agree about the Microsoft mouse though, probably the best thing Microsoft have ever produced. But, if I remember correctly, isn't it just some product they bought in and re-labelled?
I completely ignored the actual plot of the movie for a good minute while thinking about the special effects. That is a BAD thing for a movie maker. (Well, except Lucas, who uses special effects to hide the lack-of-plot...)
Considering how stupid Avatar's plot was, ignoring it was probably a good move.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the point of this that just about every but apple and android seems to be ignoring.
I don't think that Microsoft are ignoring it, they just don't have any choice. If they released a new version of Windows for tablets, then no current Windows software will run on it, and the only reason people buy Windows is to run their old Windows apps.
So the backwards compatibility that made them rich in the past is now screwing them as they try to get into new markets.
And if netbooks were slow and sucky I don't see how tablets based on the same platform are going to be any different.
If netbooks were 'slow and sucky' due to using Atom CPUs, why do you think a tablet based on an even slower CPU is going to be better?
There are plenty of ARM-based chips which can offload video decoding to hardware so that it doesn't require as much CPU power, but for anything that's limited by CPU power, why would you want a slower CPU? ARMs are used because of their cost and power consumption, not because of their processing power.
No idea what MS was thinking.
Let me guess: 'Windows users can't run existing Windows software on ARM, so we need an x86 chip instead'.
Didn't the plethora of netbooks teach us the Atom processor is woefully underpowered?
If the Atom is 'woefully underpowered', what does that make the average ARM chip? I believe you need the fastest ARM generally available to beat an Atom on CPU performance.
Cutting a few dollars from the education or science system isn't likely to make you much dumber, so why not?
Since educational standards have dropped while education spending has risen in real terms, you could make a strong argument that the best way to improve educational standards is to slash education spending.
Private companies typically do not engage in long-term research that isn't likely to lead to directly commercializable results. I know this flies in the face of red-blooded 'merican "all socialism is evil" doctrine, but public sector research, funded by tax-payer money, is needed to build the foundations for tomorrow's industries.
Could you name a few things that 'public sector research' has come up with 'as the foundations of tomorrow's industries' which private companies wouldn't have done themselves for far less?
The Chinese increased the 2010 science budget by 8%, to $24 billion, according to Science magazine.
Yeah, and?
Seriously, when was the last time that a government science fund produced something worth $24,000,000,000? Every major invention I can think of came from a private company doing research for a specific need, not a government program doing research in order to keep scientists eating from the taxpayers' pork trough.
The Chinese just have far more dollars than they know what to do with, and are desperate to find anything useful they can do with them.
The BBC method is probably the best, they make a series on using whatever funds they get and if they get renewed they do it again. So never any random stops.
Of course that's easier when your sets are made from old cardboard boxes and your 'monster' is a guy wrapped in bubble-wrap and sprayed green :).
ok, say that the Russians, or some other actor wanted to stage a raid and try to capture some of those nukes. Should the US government provide them blueprints of the facility, guard rotation and schedules, lists of the COTS items purchased to detect illicit entry, etc? Because apparently you're saying so......
Where?
Oh, of course, I said no such thing, it's just a straw-man you made up.
Suspecting it and actually confirming it for them with an official US government document are two separate things.
Assuming that bin Laden actually believes said document and doesn't assume it's disinformation.
And you still haven't given a reason why it should be released.
Because if someone sees they're working at a place which is officially listed as 'critical infrastructure' then they might take security more seriously? Or, horrors, someone completely unrelated to the operations might come up with a way to make it less critical?
There are plenty of reasons why this openness be a good thing rather than a bad thing. For example, I was reading an anecdote by a British airbase worker a while back saying how he was on occasion left to 'protect' a nuclear-armed bomber by himself at night and all he had as a weapon was a pickaxe handle. You could argue that letting people know that the RAF was so broke that all it could do to prevent people from stealing nuclear weapons was send a guy out to stand by the plane with a pickaxe handle would be an invitation to anyone to come and steal some, but you could equally well argue that if the population of Britain knew that was the RAF's idea of nuclear security then the politicos would be forced to provide some actual real security within days of that information getting out.
Take the list of critical US infrastructure that Wikileaks published. There is nothing to be gained by having 100% transparency on that and everything to lose since it's basically a blue print on how to attack the US.
Do you really think the bad guys don't know these things?
I remember when I was a kid there was a nuclear weapons store a few miles from where we lived. Everyone knew it was there, the USSR could see it on their satellite photos, but strangely it was completely missing from any official maps of the area. Who was that secrecy supposed to be protecting?
I don't really see the USA going 100% vegan, 100% sex-segregated (and probably several other types of segregation too) and giving away all our "capitalist excesses" just to appease our critics.
Vegans are evil: think of all the cows who would never exist if we couldn't drink milk or eat burgers.
In any case, the idea that there's no such thing as 'fundamental evil' is naive: what can you call the deliberate murder of millions in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Maoist China and Pol-Pot's Cambodia, other than evil?
Seems someone is afraid of the very essence of capitalism?
Pretty much all big companies dread the free market, because they know that if they relax for a moment their smaller competitos will eat them for lunch.
The customer picks the best offer and the worse ones either catch up or perish. This is the golden rule set by Adam Smith.
That's the way that it would work in a free market. Sadly, in the real world the 'worse ones' get the government to impose regulations which prevent anyone from providing better offers: for example, the story from a few days ago about US courts prohibiting the sale of imported products at a lower price than imports 'authorized' by the manufacturer, or zoning laws which encourage big business over small ones, or simply increasing the cost of regulation to the point where no-one can afford to set up a small business to compete with them.
How else are we going to pay for the wonderful health care we'd get from the very same government that gave us the TSA?
Just think of the benefits. Apparently from next year Americans are going to get a free prostate exam from the TSA every time they fly.
The "News" shows are just as bad as the "editorials." It is all propaganda.
And you think that any other 'news' shows are any different?
Yes, if one of the sides is clearly false. Ignorance is not a point of view.
And who gets to decide whether something is 'clearly false'? Short of simple mathematics, there is very little that can be proven to be 'clearly false'.
FOX also makes sure to point out any 'controversy' in science stories.
Are you claiming that news shows giving both sides of a story is a _bad_ thing?
I agree with the summary, this isn't the defeat of String Theory. It is a chance to refine and improve it.
Am I the only one who sees 'string theory' as the modern equivalent of the geocentric model of the universe? When it makes a prediction that doesn't match reality, we 'refine and improve' it by adding more spheres within spheres (or presumably strings within strings in this case).
The advent of the tablets killed the netbooks.
So with hundreds of millions of netbooks around the world and a few million iPads, and that means the netbook market is dead? Wow.
I'd certainly say it's probably saturated at this point, but netbooks have big advantages over tablets (most obviously a keyboard), as well as some disadvantages. I can't see myself replacing my netbook with a tablet any time soon.
Does IPSEC really allow random padding? If so, the design is even worse than I imagined... I thought people figured out that non-deterministic padding was bad well over 10 years ago.
However, if i's padded pre-encryption it's far less useful for an attacker since either it would have to somehow leak key bits into the encrypted data (which would require code that was obviously monumentally broken) or it would only leak key information to the system on the other end of the IPSEC link.
The allegation is inclusion of a side-channel in the crypto algorithm for leakage of key bits.
If you know about crypto coding, you'll know instantly why that would be easy to hide and hard to find.
IPSEC is a well-documented standard: you can't just stick 'random numbers' which happen to contain parts of the key in the data stream as you could with some home-grown crypto system. The fact that it is a standard which has to interoperate with other implementations of the standard eliminates most of the usual methods of deliberately leaking keys.
Certainly there could be deliberate timing effects, etc, but everyone these days should be using crypto implementations which protect against such things.
It works for the MOB and gangs... want a rival killed? start rumors they are working for the cops, fbi, are dirty and skimming from the boss, etc.. Keep it up and word wil spread and get back to his guys who end up "fixing the problem".
Interestingly, I was reading this morning about the FBI in the 70s spreading false claims that members of radical groups were actually FBI informants in the hope of disrupting said radical groups.
Also software IPSEC implementations are layered above TCP hardware, so the content is in that case en/decrypted before/after it goes through network hardware.
Uh, end-to-end IPSEC goes from my computer to your computer, so if it's encrypted properly the only people who can read the data are me and you. Certainly you might want to use IPSEC for router to router connections, but that's an extra layer on top.
The big flaw with IPSEC is that it's designed by committee with the kitchen sink thrown in, so it's insanely difficult to configure, and very easy to configure wrong: for example, you can configure it not to encrypt at all.
I don't know... through sheer persistence, the Xbox has finally become a decent console.
But it's still lost them billions of dollars, its profitability is debatable and the next generation console will cost them billions more. Microsoft live and die on Windows and Office, nothing else really makes them any significant amounts of money.
I do agree about the Microsoft mouse though, probably the best thing Microsoft have ever produced. But, if I remember correctly, isn't it just some product they bought in and re-labelled?
I completely ignored the actual plot of the movie for a good minute while thinking about the special effects. That is a BAD thing for a movie maker. (Well, except Lucas, who uses special effects to hide the lack-of-plot...)
Considering how stupid Avatar's plot was, ignoring it was probably a good move.