The Republican primaries were a gauntlet of Tea Party idiots. So everyone had to steer to the extreme far right to win their support to get on the ballot.
If you think Romney was 'extreme right', you must be to the left of Stalin. Romney's problem was that he was trying to be a Democrat, and there was already a Democrat candidate for anyone who wanted one.
So long as what people are adding is verifiable, who cares who they are? The only way to bias a Wikipedia article while remaining verifiable is to delete stuff, and that's where the wars tend to happen.
Not to mention that schemes like Verified By Visa mean you often now have to enter a password into a bank-served iframe that verifies you.
Which just gets people used to typing their password into a random web frame, if they can even remember what it is. This is why I normally use my Amex card for ordering online, it doesn't have any of this crap.
If Republicans wanted to win the last election, they wouldn't have picked Romney as their candidate. Either they had no idea that their own supporters would rather stay home than hold their noses and vote for him (and you didn't need fancy analytic software for that, just common sense), or they intentionally gave Obama the win.
The one, single biggest weakness with the whole IoT-movement is the lack of any sorts of standards.
The one, single biggest weakness with the whole IoT movement is the lack of any sort of use.
I don't want my washing machine talking to my fridge and downloading malware from the Internet. I don't need to check whether the dryer has finished drying from my tablet. I don't need to turn my lights on and off from a hotel on the other side of the world.
And I certainly don't want all those things open to remote access hacks.
'Climatologists' predicted that the Arctic would be ice-free by now. That's what happens when you mindlessly follow short-term trends and extrapolate them into the future.
A trillion dollars will buy you about ten thousand fighters, even at today's crazy prices, or a million missiles. That's rather more than the Chinese can fit on an aircraft carrier.
If you only have two seconds to fire in order to score a hit, the missile only has two seconds to maneuver towards you in order to score a hit. I can't see how a sea-skimming hypersonic missile could hit a ship unless its position at time of impact were known with high accuracy.
An aircraft carrier is a rather larger target than a missile.
Sure, but, in the real world, you don't launch a trillion dollar missile at an aircraft carrier, and you don't put a dozen high-ranking generals in a tank.
When exactly, have hundreds of incoming missiles been a problem for the US?
That's like asking in late 1941 'when have light bombers and torpedo planes ever been a problem for the US'?
Obviously you don't have to worry about hypersonic missiles if you stick to attacking nations that can't shoot back. But, if you actually try attacking a competent nation again, they can probably afford hundreds of times as many missiles as you have aircraft carriers.
Its not particularly hard to intercept a very fast object that you know can't make sharp turns.
It's pretty hard to intercept one when it's flying at low level so you only have a second or two to track it, target it, and hit it. It's very hard to hit a hundred of them all coming in at the same time.
Except that 95% reflective coating still means you need to put out 20x as much energy as a laser fired at a non-reflective missile. That's either a much bigger laser, or a laser hitting the target for longer.
The other thing is, all these 'oh, but laser!' arguments assume the other guy is going to play nice and only attack one at a time, like a bad martial arts movie. Sure, maybe you can shoot down one missile heading your way, but what happens when there are five? ten? one hundred?
You wouldn't want to fire a hundred missiles at a tank, but those hundred missiles would probably be much cheaper than replacing the aircraft carrier you just sank with them.
Let me just point out, Wayland came out of the X11 community.
Yeah, the people who wrote the X11 code and keep complaining about how bad it is are going to write the new wonderful, shiny display interface, but, trust them, it will all be wonderful and fart unicorns this time.
X11 was the protocol for the last big 'users don't need good hardware' fad. In the brave old future, we'd all have dumb X terminals on our desk and run our software on big iron servers while the display went over the LAN to the X terminal.
In the brave new future, we're now going to run our software on virtual cloud servers while the display goes over the Internet to our web browser, using Javascript instead of X11.
Wayland is a modern display system for Unixes which is similar to what Windows and OSX use.
So instead of an antiquated, creaky old display system similar to thirty year old Unix code, it's a modern, sophisticated display system similar to thirty year old Windows code?
Slashdot Mirror
The Republican primaries were a gauntlet of Tea Party idiots. So everyone had to steer to the extreme far right to win their support to get on the ballot.
If you think Romney was 'extreme right', you must be to the left of Stalin. Romney's problem was that he was trying to be a Democrat, and there was already a Democrat candidate for anyone who wanted one.
So long as what people are adding is verifiable, who cares who they are? The only way to bias a Wikipedia article while remaining verifiable is to delete stuff, and that's where the wars tend to happen.
Not to mention that schemes like Verified By Visa mean you often now have to enter a password into a bank-served iframe that verifies you.
Which just gets people used to typing their password into a random web frame, if they can even remember what it is. This is why I normally use my Amex card for ordering online, it doesn't have any of this crap.
If Republicans wanted to win the last election, they wouldn't have picked Romney as their candidate. Either they had no idea that their own supporters would rather stay home than hold their noses and vote for him (and you didn't need fancy analytic software for that, just common sense), or they intentionally gave Obama the win.
The one, single biggest weakness with the whole IoT-movement is the lack of any sorts of standards.
The one, single biggest weakness with the whole IoT movement is the lack of any sort of use.
I don't want my washing machine talking to my fridge and downloading malware from the Internet. I don't need to check whether the dryer has finished drying from my tablet. I don't need to turn my lights on and off from a hotel on the other side of the world.
And I certainly don't want all those things open to remote access hacks.
The USA is imploding and will become a failed state in a few decades.
That long?
Even I am surprised as much as I hate Windows 8 I assumed due to it being installed on every computer at least some app writters would target it.
Everyone hates Metro. Pushing it onto the desktop only made people hate it more. So the only place you might sell a Metro app is a Windows phone.
And who in their right mind wants Windows on their phone?
Don't you, like, buy an operating system to run apps?
Why would you buy a Windows tablet if you're just going to run Android apps?
'Climatologists' predicted that the Arctic would be ice-free by now. That's what happens when you mindlessly follow short-term trends and extrapolate them into the future.
Public schools will always be shit, because they exist for the benefit of the government and teachers, not the kids.
A trillion dollars will buy you about ten thousand fighters, even at today's crazy prices, or a million missiles. That's rather more than the Chinese can fit on an aircraft carrier.
No country is going to pick a fight with any country that can produce hundreds of hypersonic missiles.
And no country is going to pick a fight with any country that can produce tens of thousands of fighters and bombers, so WWII didn't happen, right?
If you only have two seconds to fire in order to score a hit, the missile only has two seconds to maneuver towards you in order to score a hit. I can't see how a sea-skimming hypersonic missile could hit a ship unless its position at time of impact were known with high accuracy.
An aircraft carrier is a rather larger target than a missile.
Sure, but, in the real world, you don't launch a trillion dollar missile at an aircraft carrier, and you don't put a dozen high-ranking generals in a tank.
When exactly, have hundreds of incoming missiles been a problem for the US?
That's like asking in late 1941 'when have light bombers and torpedo planes ever been a problem for the US'?
Obviously you don't have to worry about hypersonic missiles if you stick to attacking nations that can't shoot back. But, if you actually try attacking a competent nation again, they can probably afford hundreds of times as many missiles as you have aircraft carriers.
Its not particularly hard to intercept a very fast object that you know can't make sharp turns.
It's pretty hard to intercept one when it's flying at low level so you only have a second or two to track it, target it, and hit it. It's very hard to hit a hundred of them all coming in at the same time.
No, when hypersonic missiles become obsolete, they'll just be replaced with ludicrousonic missiles.
Except that 95% reflective coating still means you need to put out 20x as much energy as a laser fired at a non-reflective missile. That's either a much bigger laser, or a laser hitting the target for longer.
The other thing is, all these 'oh, but laser!' arguments assume the other guy is going to play nice and only attack one at a time, like a bad martial arts movie. Sure, maybe you can shoot down one missile heading your way, but what happens when there are five? ten? one hundred?
You wouldn't want to fire a hundred missiles at a tank, but those hundred missiles would probably be much cheaper than replacing the aircraft carrier you just sank with them.
Because this could explain why the Adobe software I used in the 90s and early 2000s (e.g. Premiere) was such a crash-ridden heap of bugs.
"Previously, it had closely resembled Microsoft Windows, but a new update now strongly mimics Apple's OS X."
Sounds like it was written by the Gnome developers.
When did techies become so change averse? Sheesh! Change happens. Embrace it.
Why should we embrace change for the sake of change? Most change in the IT world over the last few years has been makework at best and awful at worst.
Techies want something better, not something that changed just because.
Let me just point out, Wayland came out of the X11 community.
Yeah, the people who wrote the X11 code and keep complaining about how bad it is are going to write the new wonderful, shiny display interface, but, trust them, it will all be wonderful and fart unicorns this time.
X11 was the protocol for the last big 'users don't need good hardware' fad. In the brave old future, we'd all have dumb X terminals on our desk and run our software on big iron servers while the display went over the LAN to the X terminal.
In the brave new future, we're now going to run our software on virtual cloud servers while the display goes over the Internet to our web browser, using Javascript instead of X11.
Wayland is a modern display system for Unixes which is similar to what Windows and OSX use.
So instead of an antiquated, creaky old display system similar to thirty year old Unix code, it's a modern, sophisticated display system similar to thirty year old Windows code?