Voting for a third party candidate who might get 2% of the vote is a waste of time. It just is.
No it isn't. The difference between winning and losing is often not much more than 2% in these races. If a candidate next time around looks at your candidate and says 'if I adopt those policies, I can pick up another 2% of the vote,' then you're likely to have a lot more impact than voting for whatever they claimed previously.
While mostly true, for a medical doctor she still willingly hinted at buying into standard anti-vaccination stupidity (whether sincere or not, that's a problem).
That's not at all what she said. She pointed out that there's a lot of regulatory capture at the FDA and that, while the anti-vax hysteria was nonsense, the approval process for drugs needs a lot of reform. This then somehow was spun as 'she's an anti-vaxxer'.
Apple has always supported control-click for right click. It's over a decade since all Apple-supplied pointing devices have included a right-click interface (two-finger click on laptops for the last 6 years). It's built into most of the standard Cocoa view classes to produce a context menu and anything that involves text editing has a default one wired up, so all applications support it without needing any extra code.
The Apple HIGs tell you not to rely on right click being possible, which turns out to be a really good thing if you need to use a touchscreen.
Somehow, you post has made me really want one of these: a 15cm square escape key, with 'Escape!' written in large letters across it, that I can hammer with a fist sounds like an excellent idea. You just need another one that has control-Z (or command-Z) next to it...
All of those are bad examples, because the latter form factor is better in every way except its ability to fit hardware inside. If you could make a laptop that contained the same hardware as a desktop, for the same price, then it would obviously be better. A decade ago, laptop sales outpaced desktop sales and so the economies of scale started to tilt things in favour of the laptop. As desktops become increasingly niche, the prices will keep going up and a lot of desktops now are just laptops without the built-in screen, keyboard, or battery.
If you take a desktop and scaled everything down so that you had the same amount of storage, CPU and GPU power, and RAM in a laptop form factor, for the same price, then obviously the laptop is better for most people (people who need PCIe slots being the exceptions).
If you took a laptop and scaled everything down so that you had the same amount of storage, CPU and GPU power, and RAM in a phone form factor, then you'll have a very powerful phone, but it won't replace a laptop. There are a lot of things where you can open up the laptop and start working immediately, but the phone will need connecting to an external monitor and keyboard before it's equally useful. Even putting a picoprojector in the phone won't entirely solve that, as you often don't have a useable projection space.
That may be less of an advantage than you'd think, because you need to know by about half way through the first season whether it's worth commissioning a second. It's definitely an advantage for longer-running things (if people are still discovering it when you're in the fifth season and starting from the beginning, then it's probably worth a sixth, for example), but it might be a disadvantage at the start of the process.
Uh, no. All RowHammer attacks use a hardware vulnerability. That's the definition. The JavaScript attack allows you to exploit this vulnerability from a bug-free JavaScript VM, with the only requirement being that it implements TypedArray objects as contiguous (virtual) memory arrays (which is the obvious way of implementing them, and it would be difficult to implement them usefully any other way if you want to use them with WebGL). The only variation is which bits you choose to try to flip with the RowHammer attack. This is the equivalent of running a different program with a known attack, not a new attack.
Rowhammer has been usable from JavaScript for ages. As I said above (in the post currently at 0 overrated), one of the published ways of exploiting it is to use TypedArray objects to get a large chunk of contiguous memory, which then gives you a load of addresses in the same cache associativity set. You then hammer those addresses, which forces repeated cache evictions and eventually flips some adjacent bits. You can then use this to escape from the JavaScript sandbox. I don't know why this attack wouldn't work on mobile devices, so I don't really see what's new here.
One of the simplest existing known attacks involves creating an 8MB TypedArray object in JavaScript. This gives you a contiguous virtual address range, which allows you to generate 9 addresses that will be aliased to the same cache line and therefore where 9 sequential writes will trigger an eviction and a write back to RAM. What made this attack now work on mobile devices?
The Apple watch can unlock my computer when I'm next to it and lock it again when I move away.
Apple Pay on the watch looks like it might actually be more convenient than getting the card out of my wallet - on a phone it doesn't.
A two-factor auth device that I carry around with me on my wrist sounds useful.
Calendar appointment reminders without having to get something out of my pocket.
More convenient map / direction display to glance at while cycling.
There are probably a lot more. The problem is that current smartwatches are like early-90s Nokia smartphones. All of the basic ingredients are there, but the technology isn't up to the vision. A decent smartwatch would be about 5mm thick, have a battery that lasts a few days, charge via induction from a thing I can leave on my bedside table, have always-available network connection without a smartphone, and be waterproof and rugged enough to survive frequent knocks. Give it another 5-10 years and we might get there...
I wouldn't be surprised if there's also a much more direct feedback loop for Netflix-produced content (though HBO is probably similar). Think about how a normal TV show is created:
Someone has an idea. They persuade a studio to fund a pilot.
The studio takes a loss on the pilot and shops it around to TV channels.
The TV channels evaluate it and decide the demographics that will watch it and if a large enough segment of a profitable (i.e. high income, low impulse control) of the population might like it, they commission the series.
The studio produces the series.
The channel sells ads.
If the ad purchasers think that the ads are worthwhile (via a complex indirect feedback mechanism involving tracking sales against projections) then they'll be happy and the studio will renew the show (unless a new show that could possibly make more money in the same slot comes along).
Now compare that to Netflix.
Someone has an idea. They persuade a studio to fund a pilot.
Netflix decides that people might like it and funds the full series.
As soon as the show is available, Netflix records how many people watch it, how many didn't finish an episode, and what the review score distribution is from the subset of people that bother to write reviews.
If it's popular, Netflix funds another season.
Which of these is more likely to produce shows that lots of people want to watch?
So if there were outside factors that biologically predisposed men and women towards different career paths or interests would you accept that those might result in something other than an even distribution of employment in certain vocations?
This doesn't make sense. The differences are either innate (biological) or the result of external factors. If they're the result of external factors (i.e. not biological) then they're likely to be amenable to change. The fact that the participation of women varies hugely between cultures (for example, in India, Korea, Israel, Iran, and Lithuania, Romania, it's a lot higher) implies strongly that external factors are far more of a reason why we have so few women than anything biological.
If every role model of a programmer you see until you're a teenager is male.
If computer programmer Barbie involves the girl doing some design, but the actual coding being done by boys.
If every children's TV show that includes both women and computers has the woman saying computers are hard and the man solving the problems.
If all of the clever boys at your school are encouraged into extracurricular activities involving computers, but the girls aren't.
I'm sure it would have no impact at all on you.
If you don't think that this is real, then sit down for a couple of hours this evening and watch two hours of children's TV. Count the number of male vs female lead roles. Count the number of times anyone builds anything and whether it's done by a male or female character.
Most attacks these days are a sequence of memory safety violation followed by memory disclosure followed by arbitrary code execution. ASLR is meant to make the memory disclosure part harder, but there are now half a dozen known attack techniques that allow ASLR to be bypassed. Off the shelf attack toolkits will include these mechanisms, so it's a mistake to assume that an attacker won't be able to bypass it. It increases the barrier to entry from script kiddie with 5-year-old toys to script kiddie with new toys.
If you don't have a job, "relocation" is a bus ticket. But very few people move to improve their circumstances.
Not true. If you don't believe me, look at the statistics for worker mobility - they correlate strongly with wealth. Poor people are a lot more reliant on their support networks (family, friends, and so on). If they're in a poorly paying job, then they probably can't afford to take a month to look for a new one in the new location (especially with the real possibility that they won't find one). If they don't have a job, then there's a strong psychological pressure not to move to places with fewer jobs and there's likely to be a delay in receiving unemployment benefit as these things are typically administered locally.
In contrast, someone like a typical Slashdot poster can afford to stay in a hotel room for a week or two (or have an employer willing to pay the cost) while they look for somewhere to live and will typically be able to find a job before they start moving.
Oh, if we're willing to tax the first dollar of earnings (over the UBI), it's far more credible. But right now the majority pays effectively no income tax, so that would be a massive change.
UBI itself is a massive change, so it's weird to think that you'd introduce it without introducing massive changes. Most proposals for UBI have it replace the tax-free allowance. You might have a very small tax-free allowance on top of it, but generally the way of balancing the books involves paying tax on all earned income.
But the good ones are either simply not there anymore because they left, or they are not working in coding outsourcing because it pays badly
That's not quite true. The problem is that most Indian outsourcing firms are really crap places to work. They have huge staff turnover (as in, close to 100% over the course of a month). If you set up an office in Bangalore, have a mixture of people who moved out there and know your company and locals who know the environment, then you can still hire a lot of competent people. You'll probably be paying them a few times more than the local outsourcing sweatshops, but it's still cheap. You can also do the same thing on a smaller scale if you work with individuals and build a long-term relationship (pay them a 10-20% of a Silicon Valley salary and they'll have a standard of living vastly better than they'd get if they moved to the USA, so there's no big incentive for them to leave India and their family / friends).
But if you go with one of the big outsourcing outfits, or just do short-term contracts, you're likely to get either people who don't have the skills, or ones that do but will be gone before the end of the project because they've got a much better offer from somewhere else.
I think you're mischaracterising Trump. It's more fair to say he's the "candidate who says what I hate and will certainly try to do it". Unlike Clinton, he doesn't have the backing of the Washington machine and has managed to alienate both parties. Both Clinton and Trump are likely to push policies that are counter to the interests of the majority of the population, the difference is that Clinton is more likely to succeed.
Problem is, the math doesn't work. Lets say we pay out 100% of current federal revenue as UBI (setting aside the fact we'd still need Medicare etc). That's just over $10,000 per citizen. Is that even a subsistence wage?
In a lot of the country, yes. UBI would likely be accompanied by a redistribution of people. Currently, poor people are the least mobile: they aren't being headhunted by companies willing to pay relocation costs and they aren't able to speculatively move somewhere with lower costs of living and hope that there will be jobs waiting. With UBI, they would be able to guarantee that they'd have that $10K/year wherever they were and move to places where it would give them a higher standard of living.
You're also assuming that you'd be giving everyone a net increase of $10K/year. I'd expect that under a workable UBI proposal I'd have a bit less take-home income because my tax rate would go up slightly.
Tell that legend to the people who have jobs in the Bay Area but cannot afford to live there
Here's a secret: a lot of Bay Area companies will happily pay 80% of a Bay Area salary for competent people to live somewhere where the cost of living is 10% that of the Bay. They're happy, because they're paying you less than if you were local (even if they're paying for a few of you to rent an office, the cost will be a tiny fraction of the expense of a desk in the Bay Area). You're happy because your take-home pay is vastly more (and you don't have to live in the Bay Area).
Tell that to techs finding their entry level jobs simply don't exist any more.
That's really the problem, and it's been a problem for well over a decade (and not just in IT-related fields): companies want to hire experienced people, they don't want to hire inexperienced people and train them.
On the plus side for RAID cards is battery-backed write caches and freeing the OS from a certain level of overhead -- you can just unload your write on the card in very few cycles and let it deal with sorting out the parity and actually managing disk writes.
This is not an issue for ZFS. RAID-Z doesn't have the RAID-5 write hole.
You also get the advantage of a redundant OS boot LUN.
FreeBSD can happily boot from a RAID-Z pool (though you do need to duplicate the bootloader on all disks, but that's under 1MB).
Slashdot Mirror
Voting for a third party candidate who might get 2% of the vote is a waste of time. It just is.
No it isn't. The difference between winning and losing is often not much more than 2% in these races. If a candidate next time around looks at your candidate and says 'if I adopt those policies, I can pick up another 2% of the vote,' then you're likely to have a lot more impact than voting for whatever they claimed previously.
While mostly true, for a medical doctor she still willingly hinted at buying into standard anti-vaccination stupidity (whether sincere or not, that's a problem).
That's not at all what she said. She pointed out that there's a lot of regulatory capture at the FDA and that, while the anti-vax hysteria was nonsense, the approval process for drugs needs a lot of reform. This then somehow was spun as 'she's an anti-vaxxer'.
Apple has always supported control-click for right click. It's over a decade since all Apple-supplied pointing devices have included a right-click interface (two-finger click on laptops for the last 6 years). It's built into most of the standard Cocoa view classes to produce a context menu and anything that involves text editing has a default one wired up, so all applications support it without needing any extra code.
The Apple HIGs tell you not to rely on right click being possible, which turns out to be a really good thing if you need to use a touchscreen.
Somehow, you post has made me really want one of these: a 15cm square escape key, with 'Escape!' written in large letters across it, that I can hammer with a fist sounds like an excellent idea. You just need another one that has control-Z (or command-Z) next to it...
You get from the fact that I don't have an Apple watch that I'm an Apple fanboi?
All of those are bad examples, because the latter form factor is better in every way except its ability to fit hardware inside. If you could make a laptop that contained the same hardware as a desktop, for the same price, then it would obviously be better. A decade ago, laptop sales outpaced desktop sales and so the economies of scale started to tilt things in favour of the laptop. As desktops become increasingly niche, the prices will keep going up and a lot of desktops now are just laptops without the built-in screen, keyboard, or battery.
If you take a desktop and scaled everything down so that you had the same amount of storage, CPU and GPU power, and RAM in a laptop form factor, for the same price, then obviously the laptop is better for most people (people who need PCIe slots being the exceptions).
If you took a laptop and scaled everything down so that you had the same amount of storage, CPU and GPU power, and RAM in a phone form factor, then you'll have a very powerful phone, but it won't replace a laptop. There are a lot of things where you can open up the laptop and start working immediately, but the phone will need connecting to an external monitor and keyboard before it's equally useful. Even putting a picoprojector in the phone won't entirely solve that, as you often don't have a useable projection space.
That may be less of an advantage than you'd think, because you need to know by about half way through the first season whether it's worth commissioning a second. It's definitely an advantage for longer-running things (if people are still discovering it when you're in the fifth season and starting from the beginning, then it's probably worth a sixth, for example), but it might be a disadvantage at the start of the process.
Uh, no. All RowHammer attacks use a hardware vulnerability. That's the definition. The JavaScript attack allows you to exploit this vulnerability from a bug-free JavaScript VM, with the only requirement being that it implements TypedArray objects as contiguous (virtual) memory arrays (which is the obvious way of implementing them, and it would be difficult to implement them usefully any other way if you want to use them with WebGL). The only variation is which bits you choose to try to flip with the RowHammer attack. This is the equivalent of running a different program with a known attack, not a new attack.
Cognitive dissonance. If people are emotionally invested in a poor decision, then they will retroactively justify it in a lot of ways.
Rowhammer has been usable from JavaScript for ages. As I said above (in the post currently at 0 overrated), one of the published ways of exploiting it is to use TypedArray objects to get a large chunk of contiguous memory, which then gives you a load of addresses in the same cache associativity set. You then hammer those addresses, which forces repeated cache evictions and eventually flips some adjacent bits. You can then use this to escape from the JavaScript sandbox. I don't know why this attack wouldn't work on mobile devices, so I don't really see what's new here.
One of the simplest existing known attacks involves creating an 8MB TypedArray object in JavaScript. This gives you a contiguous virtual address range, which allows you to generate 9 addresses that will be aliased to the same cache line and therefore where 9 sequential writes will trigger an eviction and a write back to RAM. What made this attack now work on mobile devices?
Now compare that to Netflix.
Which of these is more likely to produce shows that lots of people want to watch?
So if there were outside factors that biologically predisposed men and women towards different career paths or interests would you accept that those might result in something other than an even distribution of employment in certain vocations?
This doesn't make sense. The differences are either innate (biological) or the result of external factors. If they're the result of external factors (i.e. not biological) then they're likely to be amenable to change. The fact that the participation of women varies hugely between cultures (for example, in India, Korea, Israel, Iran, and Lithuania, Romania, it's a lot higher) implies strongly that external factors are far more of a reason why we have so few women than anything biological.
Outside factors are not an issue.
If every role model of a programmer you see until you're a teenager is male.
If computer programmer Barbie involves the girl doing some design, but the actual coding being done by boys.
If every children's TV show that includes both women and computers has the woman saying computers are hard and the man solving the problems.
If all of the clever boys at your school are encouraged into extracurricular activities involving computers, but the girls aren't.
I'm sure it would have no impact at all on you.
If you don't think that this is real, then sit down for a couple of hours this evening and watch two hours of children's TV. Count the number of male vs female lead roles. Count the number of times anyone builds anything and whether it's done by a male or female character.
Baseball is pretty close: throw ball, hit ball, run, ad break, repeat.
You get better than 62% accuracy a year in advance by predicting that the weather will be exactly the same as a year ago.
Fairly easily, given that half of her policies come straight from old Republican manifestos.
Most attacks these days are a sequence of memory safety violation followed by memory disclosure followed by arbitrary code execution. ASLR is meant to make the memory disclosure part harder, but there are now half a dozen known attack techniques that allow ASLR to be bypassed. Off the shelf attack toolkits will include these mechanisms, so it's a mistake to assume that an attacker won't be able to bypass it. It increases the barrier to entry from script kiddie with 5-year-old toys to script kiddie with new toys.
If you don't have a job, "relocation" is a bus ticket. But very few people move to improve their circumstances.
Not true. If you don't believe me, look at the statistics for worker mobility - they correlate strongly with wealth. Poor people are a lot more reliant on their support networks (family, friends, and so on). If they're in a poorly paying job, then they probably can't afford to take a month to look for a new one in the new location (especially with the real possibility that they won't find one). If they don't have a job, then there's a strong psychological pressure not to move to places with fewer jobs and there's likely to be a delay in receiving unemployment benefit as these things are typically administered locally.
In contrast, someone like a typical Slashdot poster can afford to stay in a hotel room for a week or two (or have an employer willing to pay the cost) while they look for somewhere to live and will typically be able to find a job before they start moving.
Oh, if we're willing to tax the first dollar of earnings (over the UBI), it's far more credible. But right now the majority pays effectively no income tax, so that would be a massive change.
UBI itself is a massive change, so it's weird to think that you'd introduce it without introducing massive changes. Most proposals for UBI have it replace the tax-free allowance. You might have a very small tax-free allowance on top of it, but generally the way of balancing the books involves paying tax on all earned income.
But the good ones are either simply not there anymore because they left, or they are not working in coding outsourcing because it pays badly
That's not quite true. The problem is that most Indian outsourcing firms are really crap places to work. They have huge staff turnover (as in, close to 100% over the course of a month). If you set up an office in Bangalore, have a mixture of people who moved out there and know your company and locals who know the environment, then you can still hire a lot of competent people. You'll probably be paying them a few times more than the local outsourcing sweatshops, but it's still cheap. You can also do the same thing on a smaller scale if you work with individuals and build a long-term relationship (pay them a 10-20% of a Silicon Valley salary and they'll have a standard of living vastly better than they'd get if they moved to the USA, so there's no big incentive for them to leave India and their family / friends).
But if you go with one of the big outsourcing outfits, or just do short-term contracts, you're likely to get either people who don't have the skills, or ones that do but will be gone before the end of the project because they've got a much better offer from somewhere else.
I think you're mischaracterising Trump. It's more fair to say he's the "candidate who says what I hate and will certainly try to do it". Unlike Clinton, he doesn't have the backing of the Washington machine and has managed to alienate both parties. Both Clinton and Trump are likely to push policies that are counter to the interests of the majority of the population, the difference is that Clinton is more likely to succeed.
Problem is, the math doesn't work. Lets say we pay out 100% of current federal revenue as UBI (setting aside the fact we'd still need Medicare etc). That's just over $10,000 per citizen. Is that even a subsistence wage?
In a lot of the country, yes. UBI would likely be accompanied by a redistribution of people. Currently, poor people are the least mobile: they aren't being headhunted by companies willing to pay relocation costs and they aren't able to speculatively move somewhere with lower costs of living and hope that there will be jobs waiting. With UBI, they would be able to guarantee that they'd have that $10K/year wherever they were and move to places where it would give them a higher standard of living.
You're also assuming that you'd be giving everyone a net increase of $10K/year. I'd expect that under a workable UBI proposal I'd have a bit less take-home income because my tax rate would go up slightly.
Tell that legend to the people who have jobs in the Bay Area but cannot afford to live there
Here's a secret: a lot of Bay Area companies will happily pay 80% of a Bay Area salary for competent people to live somewhere where the cost of living is 10% that of the Bay. They're happy, because they're paying you less than if you were local (even if they're paying for a few of you to rent an office, the cost will be a tiny fraction of the expense of a desk in the Bay Area). You're happy because your take-home pay is vastly more (and you don't have to live in the Bay Area).
Tell that to techs finding their entry level jobs simply don't exist any more.
That's really the problem, and it's been a problem for well over a decade (and not just in IT-related fields): companies want to hire experienced people, they don't want to hire inexperienced people and train them.
On the plus side for RAID cards is battery-backed write caches and freeing the OS from a certain level of overhead -- you can just unload your write on the card in very few cycles and let it deal with sorting out the parity and actually managing disk writes.
This is not an issue for ZFS. RAID-Z doesn't have the RAID-5 write hole.
You also get the advantage of a redundant OS boot LUN.
FreeBSD can happily boot from a RAID-Z pool (though you do need to duplicate the bootloader on all disks, but that's under 1MB).