I don't just mean Samsung phones are $550 and LGs are $350 and now Samsung has to cut back; I mean Crocs are not the new hotness anymore, and everyone wants an iPad, and, with $700 and an offering of a $650 iPad and $100 Crocs, they have to decide if they're going to buy Crocs or an iPad. If it costs you $25 to make Crocs and the fad is over because the iPad is the new hotness, you're only going to be able to hold sales by selling Crocs for $50 or less; if it costs you $75 to make Crocs, you're just going out of business.
Why do you think people only pay a certain amount of money at most for a good?
is there a limit on consumption regardless of cost?
Production-end of this is scarcity: 10% growth means you have 10% more people, and add 10% more farmers (if 5% of your population is farmers and you have 100,000 new people, then you get 5,000 new farmers); if 10% more people suddenly require 25% more farmers (fertile land's run out; rocks and dirt, more fertilizer, more irrigation, less yield), costs increase and the ability to produce all the things in proportion to the new population decreases (i.e. there's not as much of each good to distribute to this population, so we're growing poor people).
But how much, really, can people possibly want? If you make clothes cheaper, will people buy more? They are already disposable. If you make food cheaper, will people buy more?
Today, food and clothing are a hell of a lot cheaper--from 42% of the median family income down to 14%. We've increased our spending on healthcare by 50%, and tripled our spending on entertainment. People buy more and better healthcare and consume entertainment and luxury goods at an extreme rate.
There's a limit to how many luxury goods a person has time to enjoy
Can you buy a Tesla Roadster, right now? $120,000 car?
How about in 40 years, when the manufacturing technology required to make that exact car--or something substantially equivalent--requires 1/10 of the labor, and a Tesla Roadster would cost $12,000 (adjusted for inflation) off the shelf? Suddenly, a Tesla Roadster is 20% of your income instead of 200%.
If you run out of sheer bulk of goods to buy, you can always leverage the fact that everything you once wanted now only costs 1% of your income to spend the other 99% on buying ridiculous rich-people luxuries that cost ungodly amounts of cash. Maybe you can't buy your own jumbo jet, but everyone in the world can own a high-end Porsche (not a Ferrari; those god damned things cost $3 million). You don't just have two cars, a cell phone, and a tablet; you have two Porsche Carerra super-power electric self-driving cars, the *best* smartphone, the highest-end tablet available, and a paid accountant and maid service, even though you make a modest, middle-class salary.
That's not even getting into the hygroscopic, high-tension, abrasion-resistant, high-performance, carbon nano-fiber clothes that keep you cool and dry in humid, 140F weather, but cost $250 for a shirt.
There's always the need to employ people. The thing is, today, people spend 40% of their income on toys; they've increased spending on medical services; and they've decreased spending on food and clothing. Why? Because WE DON'T NEED TO EMPLOY AS MANY PEOPLE TO MAKE FOOD OR CLOTHING; we buy more medical services, more Netflix, more XBox, more iPad, and more cowbell than ever, and somebody has to run the factories.
How many people run those factories?
A hell of a lot fewer per product made than would have 20 years ago--so we buy twice as much crap, and need the same amount of people to work to produce that crap.
As for distributing needed goods, more modern welfare systems (e.g. Universal Social Security) produce superior economic results; they are, however, infeasible if your economy is poor--this shit would have collapsed the United States economy in 1950, and dramatically improves it in 2015. When 98% of your spending is "means to live" and the Government wants to take 10% to make sure everyone else has the means to live, you suddenly can't survive anymore; and when 40% of your spending is "games and stuff I don't really need" and the government is *already* taking almost 20% of of your income to try (with dismal success) to make sure everyone has the means to live, snagging 15%-20% of your income for a replacement welfare scheme that works is not only feasible, but superior.
You're still thinking in terms of "we'll all lose our jobs and then starve". Problem is the world of the future isn't "there won't be any jobs"; not in the long-run, anyway. In the short term, we can easily mishandle things and cause an economic crisis; or we can take steps to prevent such a crisis and transition onto a new golden age of extreme wealth spread among the lower- and middle-classes (the rich will still get more of it, and everyone will complain they're somehow poorer, but I don't honestly care).
That only happens if you automate the entire stack and eliminate all human labor entirely. Failing that, luxuries move downward from the rich to the poor. For example: the rich used to be able to taxi carriages, while the poor walked; then people could afford horses; now everyone owns cars.
When the hot-blast furnace was invented, it made 86,400 tonnes of iron in the same amount of invested human labor as the prior process required to produce only 400 tonnes. This (and new steel rolling process) allowed us to create railroads, increasing trade, reducing the cost of goods to people (by producing them where the least labor was required), thus allowing people to buy more goods. That moved some luxuries down into the hands of the common man, as those luxuries cost less of a man's year's worth of labor--it took fewer labor-hours to make, thus the wages paid to a man in a year were divided smaller into that good--thus the common man can buy more. Cheap steel? Cheaper machines to mine oil and coal; cheaper rail car rides; cheaper transportation; eventually, cheaper automobiles.
The cost to manufacture a cell phone and to operate a cellular network has decreased. The level of service possible in the same cost has increased as a result. Back in the day, a fiber optic line could carry about 1Mbit/s of data, and running thousands of them together could get you 1Gbit/s; now we can carry 2Gbit/s, 8Gbit/s, or 10Gbit/s over multiplexed fiber, and can run dozens of them to get hundreds of gigabits of connectivity. We don't need massive data centers sucking tons of power to process all that, either; each unit of network hardware today handles hundreds of times the data as a similar machine produced in 1985 would. That $4,000 cell phone with $0.42/minute voice back in 1984? It should be $9,000 today, with about $500/month of service cost for 2 hours of voice per week; instead, it's a high-end smartphone that only costs $350, stores 64GB of data, has 8 CPU cores, and gives unlimited voice and text/media messaging as well as a couple small gigabytes of high-speed data for $60/month.
90% of American laborers were farm workers in 1870; it's under 2% today, and about 10% more support the farm with chemicals (fertilizer, pesticide), equipment (tractors), and energy (irrigation, fuel). The result is food costs a fraction of our budget--just in 1900 the median family spent 43% of their income on food, and today it's almost 11%--and we buy tons of other goods, including more healthcare, leading to a lot of retail jobs, IT jobs, and medical service jobs.
Your worst-case scenario happens if we drop all of the new tech rapidly. Raise minimum wages, raise payroll taxes, increase the cost of a worker, delay regulation enabling the use of autonomous drivers and drone delivery, and then finally cut it loose all at once and tell businesses to go ahead and replace that $15/hr pizza driver and the expensive shipping infrastructure with machines sans operators; watch a third of the jobs in the country vanish overnight. If we stabilize it by supplying a non-wage income (e.g. a universal social security), reducing payroll taxes (your employer pays less to employ you, and you receive the same wage), and countering general unemployment by reducing or eliminating VAT and sales tax, then the changes come spanned across large timescales, and consumer buying power moves around, and we avoid a severe unemployment crisis.
Not simple. Doable, and important to understand if you're going to keep an economy from collapsing during a period of sudden technical progress; but not a trivial task, in any case.
The key to understanding deities and devils is to understand that they exist to control your life by fear. The foremost rule of religious deities is might makes right: they can destroy you, thus you obey.
That is to say: gods and devils are oppressive attackers, and should be repelled with maximum force, if not hunted down and destroyed.
Education is technology. The assembly line is technology. Every technique which improves efficiency by increasing the output possible with a given amount of human labor is technology.
For thousands of years, we have performed this type of reduction, allowing a smaller amount of human labor to provide the same goods. The result? Where you needed 1,000 people to provide 1,000 luxury items for 1,000 rich people, suddenly you need 1; then, every idiot middle-classer decides he needs a cell phone; and finally, every poor kid in the country manages to buy a smartphone, somehow, and you have 350,000 retail monkeys handling smart phone sales, and 80,000 truckers delivering the damned things to stores, and 2 million IT workers running the network, and someone talks about how we lost all these jobs to China.
Now we have this dialogue about how the next step of technology will make jobs go away FOREVER--not that we might lose jobs rapidly in a technical-revolution, ending up with 80% unemployment because the economy didn't create new jobs; but that the jobs that go away will necessarily go away forever, with no new jobs to replace them, and that employment will come to an end and everyone will starve. People don't believe in slowing and spreading the next step forward, because they think that will just make us bleed more slowly, and the bleeding won't ever stop.
That's the real problem with the SV technology dialogue: they think technology will replace humans, permanently. They're deluded.
The planet can provide for 68-135 million hunter-gatherer humans in optimal conditions. Intensive farming raised that to hundreds of millions; GMO, fertilization, and pesticides raised that to billions. These strategies reduced the expended working time required to sustain a population's food supply (some economists argue that agriculture INCREASED work, but allowed humans to live in large-population communities which would otherwise need to forage over intractably-large areas and expend excess energy walking long distances; I argue that the work required to support a large-population community by forage is much higher than the work required to support a large-population community by agriculture, and thus that said economists are comparing dissimilar things).
The truth is we're talking about technology. Cupping water out of a freshwater stream with your hands is technology for acquisition of water. Carrying that water to the village in buckets is technology. Pumping technology to pull freshwater reserves from underground is technology. Reservoirs and water treatment plants are technology. Desalinization is technology. At a hands-in-river level of technology, you can't support a strong, highly-productive society, and you *definitely* can't get enough water for intensive agriculture and a large population.
The WSL implements a subsystem that runs Linux programs in the same way Linux has subsystems that run BSD programs. Windows95 and such had Win16 subsystems as well.
Drivers are not kernel code.
You're trying to argue that there is no Linux subsystem because Linux itself isn't running in some form of hypervisor--thin (e.g. paravirtualization, like Xen) or otherwise. That wouldn't be a subsystem; it would be a virtualized operating system running distinct from the main OS. The fact is Windows 10 now provides a partial implementation of Linux--it provides the executable loader and kernel facilities--in the same way ReactOS provides a partial implementation of Windows, with the distinction that ReactOS is primarily a Windows system and Windows is providing a Linux subsystem.
Oh, and it's implemented in Windows kernel code.
You need everyone in the world to be wrong so you can be right and pat yourself on the back. You're the kind of person who will make ludicrous arguments about how spaces are 6 square feet smaller because they have a door (never mind that you could just use a pocket door) and ignore real data in favor of just calling your opponent wrong and preening your feathers.
What worked for me was to very humbly ASK the doctor about my preferred medication, to not seem overly confident that I wanted that specific medication. "I was reading about ABC and sounded interesting because XYZ. Would it be worth trying ABC, do you think?"
Has its own hazards. I started building my interactions with people on the platform of always dealing honestly, which I find can almost compensate for being an asshole about it. If the doctor says no or tries to put me on amphetamines, I'm going to have a problem; I don't *want* adderall, it's going to cause side-effects I'm not willing to tolerate, and I'm not going to be able to just spin another line of bullshit to cover for "it's not working exactly the way I want" even though it isn't. Spending the whole time putting on an act like I haven't planned all this way in advance is fragile.
On the flip side, I'm already on adrafinil, and know how it compares to methylphenidate (at a distance--I stopped that 15 years ago, and never slept when I was on it) and something very close to an amphetamine (e.g. adderall). You might notice the lower-left benzine on methylphenidate (Ritalin, Concerta) leading to that HN on the right, as well.
I have a good, honest argument for these kinds of stimulants causing too many side-effects, carrying too much risk, and just not working as well as other things. Adrafinil becomes Modafinil in the body; it's a better proxy to judge modafinil than phenylpiracetam is to judge adderall. You make a good argument for buy-in--people respond well to being in charge of the decision--and I'm just remiss to use that tactic as a basis for a patient-physician relationship.
I am, of course, horribly unsocialized, and don't know what to expect when interacting with people in general. I haven't spoken to a doctor in 15 years--more than half my life. Maybe I'm just unfairly assuming they'll all be hostile and totally disinterested in the patient's perspective.
Maybe I just hate people passing around wrong information. How is "this isn't a subsystem and it doesn't do anything in the kernel" accurate when the syscall interface is implemented in the kernel and uses kernel facilities to provide POSIX and Linux kernel facilities?
Yeah ADHD does weird things. I've been trying to fix mine--I dropped all medication 15 years ago, and have recently become rather annoyed that my past 4 years of effort have consisted of piling up things I should do and then watching Twitch or just staring at a wall to avoid bothering--and have been... somewhat hyper-focused on ADHD study. That complicates things; I'm going to try to get a Modafinil prescription from a doctor now, and uh. Patient walks in asking for drugs, seems well-informed. Spinning a line of bullshit or nah?
Some people like to claim ADHD gives you a type of superpower, because you see things differently. It's not true. I wanted to get back to where I was at 19-23 (non-drugged), because I accomplished great things then; I accomplished great things because I had no control and was hyperfocusing. Now I'm trying to accomplish things and hyperfocusing on other things. I don't "work differently" and thus better on different things; I'm a broken, dysfunctional tool 100% of the time.
Amphetamine-like drugs get me high by the time they treat ADHD; methylphenidate made me never eat and never sleep (terrible insomnia is a thing I still have, drugged or not, and I'm not sure if that's a result of development problems from being on insomnia-causing stimulants from 8-16 or if it's a primary condition); and Adrafinil is like taking 3,500mg of tylenol (liver doesn't like it). The adrafinil (becomes modafinil by metabolism) produced zero sensation and seemed to do nothing, until I tried to do something and holy shit, my attention system recognizes external stimuli, immediately makes a decision on whether to respond or ignore, and then goes directly toward what I've decided is important! You know what? That's better.
Even without ADHD, though, people filter out noise. I'm not processing hilarious amounts of information from my environment, drugged or not; like you say, you just shift attention arbitrarily, and miss the things you wanted to pay attention to. It's a cognitive defect, not hidden genius. With normal people, they generally don't notice things outside their selective attention, if you can give them enough information to fully-engage their selective attention system and prevent them from recognizing other, non-critical defects like a gorilla strolling by (a gorilla charging will probably get someone's attention).
Still, on balance a driver *should* be looking at the road ahead of them, not how many LEDs burned out in the green light, or the color of the buildings they are driving by
Depending on background, a driver might not notice a pedestrian moving somewhat with the crowd, but differently, such that he's about to pass a parked car and enter the road. Many advanced driving courses teach a form of active vigilance, which eventually internalizes and causes you to briefly shift attention to things like that.
More usefully, body language is *highly* visible to humans. If you try to enter an office building or military base, you get stopped; and if you try to enter the same place, dressed the same way, but in the complete mindset of someone who belongs there, you'll print exactly like all the other hundreds of people passing by all day, and nobody will notice you standing out from the five or six folks in their field-of-view at that moment. They look right at you and don't see you.
Scott Adams once walked into Logitech's corporate headquarters, passed the reception desk unchallenged, went to an upper floor, and sat in on a high-level executive meeting. He started *presenting*. He forked over a whole heap of bullshit and, forty minutes later, they had developed a new mission for the company before he finally told them he was full of shit and didn't even work there. He's done this *twice*.
You could literally take over a country that way. It's been done. It happened to *France*.
My point is that a lot of magician's tricks fall apart upon close inspection, and resist said inspection because
Broadcaster here. Please continue to support local TV and big broadcast networks until we figure out how to monetize streaming well enough to survive Comcast's and Dish's downward negotiating pressure on rebroadcast prices. Maybe we can license live stream rebroadcasting to Netflix and Hulu.
(That's commentary; I don't represent a broadcasting corporation.)
Alex is a great guy and pretty brilliant; he's slightly-wrong in this case, as Linux binaries can't call Windows system functions (no Win32 API). The attack surface does include accessing the Windows file system, but not triggering Windows programs.
He's not the kind of raging psycho typified by RMS or Theo de Raadt, at least.
BarbaraHudson is a known-super-bitch. Her posting history consists of personal attacks on everyone else in a desperate attempt to cover her own insecurities. The same goes for her facebook page, except occasionally she feeds stray cats and talks about how everyone else is assholes because she's the little angel taking care of the poor animals.
She crossed me once in the worst way--by spouting stupidity and incorrect information--so I'm temporarily amusing myself by reminding everyone she's a cunt every time she gets a little cunty.
So, a self-contained system inside a larger system isn't a subsystem?
Implementing such a thing in userland is, in fact, a valid way to make a subsystem. Linux's own dynamic loader is a userspace program (the Linux kernel doesn't know how to load dynamic shared objects); and some systems (e.g. Minix, L4) implement their entire native execution environments and even hardware drivers in userspace.
Besides that,
The Windows Subsystem for Linux includes kernel mode drivers (lxss.sys and lxcore.sys) that are responsible for handling Linux system call requests in coordination with the Windows NT kernel. The drivers do not contain code from the Linux kernel but are instead a clean room implementation of Linux-compatible kernel interfaces. On native Linux, when a syscall is made from a user mode executable it is handled by the Linux kernel. On WSL, when a syscall is made from the same executable the Windows NT kernel forwards the request to lxcore.sys. Where possible, lxcore.sys translates the Linux syscall to the equivalent Windows NT call which in turn does the heavy lifting. Where there is no reasonable mapping the Windows kernel mode driver must service the request directly.
WSL uses a kernel-level interface to perform the actions required to satisfy POSIX and Linux system behaviors. This includes everything from procfs to execve() calls. File system permissions management is handled by kernel-level decisions on whether or not a program's effective permissions and capabilities mesh with the file system ACL (which is stored as extended NTFS attributes).
WSL doesn't use a kernel-level dynamic loader, and neither does Linux; as you pointed out, it loads ELF programs by using a PE executable process to bring the file into memory appropriately, like Wine. It's only necessary to have one type of kernel-level executable; all others can use a userspace loader, which is why Linux proper only supports static-linked executables and calls ld-linux.so to perform dynamic linking.
You appear to have made yet another post full of wrong information just to be aggressive and mean to other people. It's like your whole day revolves around finding ways to be an asshole to everyone else.
It's probably the usual information decay. "TOR is for privacy and anonymity" becomes "TOR protects your privacy" becomes "TOR protects your data" becomes "TOR keeps hackers from looking at your secret data and using it to blackmail you and take over your computer" becomes "TOR is secure! You must have secure! Computers are so fucking dangerous hackers everywhere OMG we must all secure! We must all TOR!"
It's like the Barack Obama thing where someone went asking random folks if Barack Obama was still a threat to America. People kept answering yes, "Because he's still out there, and he's a threat, and we haven't stopped him yet." Most people facepalm at idiots not differentiating Barack Obama from Osama bin Laden; and if you think about it long enough (Fridge Logic), you suddenly realize everyone was afraid of Osama bin Laden "because he's still out there." No reason, just I heard he was a bad dude.
That's where we are with computer security. We need security, because hackers are out there, and security is important. What is security? What are hackers? I don't know, but I heard about it on the news, a man in New Hampshire had a security, and he got arrested, or someone got arrested because of what they did to his security, I don't remember. There's also identity theft, which can ruin your life somehow, I think people steal your Social Security?
Tor is more security sauce like airport backscatter scanners are more Osama sauce.
As a professional magician, were you more amazed by how the tricks worked mechanically, or by the very fact that people are too stupid to live and will simply not notice what they're looking *right* *at* if it's out of the ordinary?
There's a routine where you perform a recorded magic trick while changing a bunch of shit on the stage. People watching the video don't notice the changes (they happen off-screen). When it's brought up and a replay is shown, people will then become fascinated with the blatant scenery changes they didn't notice the first time; a significant portion of the audience then starts to wonder how the actual trick was carried out--which typically involves just handing off one prop for another, and is blatantly visible on-screen during the breakdown, but people are watching everything else change and miss that the performer e.g. handed his deck of cards to an assistant and got a brand new one *while* *they* *were* *watching*.
6,000 years of jews and muslims haven't stopped alcohol, blowjobs, or work on weekends, despite being combined the dominant religions across a large segment of the human population for thousands of years, and eventually forking off a child religion that also tried to stop alcohol, blowjobs, and work on weekends.
And it's not artificial scarcity, they get 50 of these keycases in and they're gone in 2 days
It *is* artificial scarcity. Scarcity occurs when the human labor required to make something increases with scale (e.g. you run out of fertile farm land, so it takes twice the number of human labor hours--thus twice the pay--to make food? Food is getting more expensive, thus less available; if you keep scaling up, you WILL fail to make enough food for everyone, even if everyone starts working for free to make food). Counterfeiters can make these easy enough; Gucci could make more of them and keep them stocked.
So trust me, some people still care about that "crap", you probably just don't make enough money to be aware of it.
I'm too lazy to cook. I spend $600/month on food because I eat out every meal.
I spend roughly 30% of my income. I pile $18,000 into my 401(k), $3,500 into my HSA, and an extra $5,000 into ROTH IRA if I'm feeling it each year. At the end of every month, I've got between $1,800 and $3,100 of my paycheck unspent.
I waste my money on food; I'll buy a $2,000 stove one day and re-teach myself to cook; first I've got to treat the ADHD, because I don't do *anything* I want to do. That $7,000 piano I bought last year? I haven't learned to play yet; I spend all day watching Twitch instead. I want to learn programming as a well-developed skill; haven't bothered. I finally caught up on learning foreign languages. I bought a $400 Wacom tablet to learn to draw, then stopped practicing in a week. It's time for me to fix this shit--stimulants, behavioral therapy, whatever I need--and get shit done.
I'm not "aware" of this stuff because it's complete and utter horse shit. People in my generation aren't buying diamonds, and the Economist ran an article discussing the phenomena--it's because diamonds are bullshit rocks that don't do a god damned thing, but cost $9999. The U.S. Military lets Belleville sell civilians a combat boot produced by the combined effort of no less than 6 vendors, with high- and low-temperature stable materials, high traction on ice and in mud, Goretex and 3M Thinsulate lining for waterproofing and insulation, the works, for $142; or you could buy some Uggs that come with a warning that they're not made for HEAVY WALKING for $150, and they'll fall apart if it happens to rain because the engineering is shit. Me, I buy a pair of leather Chucks and a $6 tube of Freesole, and keep my $50 shoes in one piece for 3-5 years.
I bought a house and paid it off in 4 years. It was going to be 3, but I wanted to build my 401(k) as a loan source first, do some insulation work, have trees removed....
Maybe I'm just not retarded. $500 for a pair of sunglasses, seriously.
Slashdot Mirror
What about competition?
I don't just mean Samsung phones are $550 and LGs are $350 and now Samsung has to cut back; I mean Crocs are not the new hotness anymore, and everyone wants an iPad, and, with $700 and an offering of a $650 iPad and $100 Crocs, they have to decide if they're going to buy Crocs or an iPad. If it costs you $25 to make Crocs and the fad is over because the iPad is the new hotness, you're only going to be able to hold sales by selling Crocs for $50 or less; if it costs you $75 to make Crocs, you're just going out of business.
Why do you think people only pay a certain amount of money at most for a good?
Yet unemployment is now lower, so some other job (e.g. fast food?) has arrived to take the place of bellhops.
We have fewer farmers and more doctors now.
It's easy to fight a head-on attack. It's hard to sort a rag-tag bunch of misfits out of a crowd of billions of non-hostile rag-tag misfits.
is there a limit on consumption regardless of cost?
Production-end of this is scarcity: 10% growth means you have 10% more people, and add 10% more farmers (if 5% of your population is farmers and you have 100,000 new people, then you get 5,000 new farmers); if 10% more people suddenly require 25% more farmers (fertile land's run out; rocks and dirt, more fertilizer, more irrigation, less yield), costs increase and the ability to produce all the things in proportion to the new population decreases (i.e. there's not as much of each good to distribute to this population, so we're growing poor people).
But how much, really, can people possibly want? If you make clothes cheaper, will people buy more? They are already disposable. If you make food cheaper, will people buy more?
Today, food and clothing are a hell of a lot cheaper--from 42% of the median family income down to 14%. We've increased our spending on healthcare by 50%, and tripled our spending on entertainment. People buy more and better healthcare and consume entertainment and luxury goods at an extreme rate.
There's a limit to how many luxury goods a person has time to enjoy
Can you buy a Tesla Roadster, right now? $120,000 car?
How about in 40 years, when the manufacturing technology required to make that exact car--or something substantially equivalent--requires 1/10 of the labor, and a Tesla Roadster would cost $12,000 (adjusted for inflation) off the shelf? Suddenly, a Tesla Roadster is 20% of your income instead of 200%.
If you run out of sheer bulk of goods to buy, you can always leverage the fact that everything you once wanted now only costs 1% of your income to spend the other 99% on buying ridiculous rich-people luxuries that cost ungodly amounts of cash. Maybe you can't buy your own jumbo jet, but everyone in the world can own a high-end Porsche (not a Ferrari; those god damned things cost $3 million). You don't just have two cars, a cell phone, and a tablet; you have two Porsche Carerra super-power electric self-driving cars, the *best* smartphone, the highest-end tablet available, and a paid accountant and maid service, even though you make a modest, middle-class salary.
That's not even getting into the hygroscopic, high-tension, abrasion-resistant, high-performance, carbon nano-fiber clothes that keep you cool and dry in humid, 140F weather, but cost $250 for a shirt.
There's always the need to employ people. The thing is, today, people spend 40% of their income on toys; they've increased spending on medical services; and they've decreased spending on food and clothing. Why? Because WE DON'T NEED TO EMPLOY AS MANY PEOPLE TO MAKE FOOD OR CLOTHING; we buy more medical services, more Netflix, more XBox, more iPad, and more cowbell than ever, and somebody has to run the factories.
How many people run those factories?
A hell of a lot fewer per product made than would have 20 years ago--so we buy twice as much crap, and need the same amount of people to work to produce that crap.
As for distributing needed goods, more modern welfare systems (e.g. Universal Social Security) produce superior economic results; they are, however, infeasible if your economy is poor--this shit would have collapsed the United States economy in 1950, and dramatically improves it in 2015. When 98% of your spending is "means to live" and the Government wants to take 10% to make sure everyone else has the means to live, you suddenly can't survive anymore; and when 40% of your spending is "games and stuff I don't really need" and the government is *already* taking almost 20% of of your income to try (with dismal success) to make sure everyone has the means to live, snagging 15%-20% of your income for a replacement welfare scheme that works is not only feasible, but superior.
You're still thinking in terms of "we'll all lose our jobs and then starve". Problem is the world of the future isn't "there won't be any jobs"; not in the long-run, anyway. In the short term, we can easily mishandle things and cause an economic crisis; or we can take steps to prevent such a crisis and transition onto a new golden age of extreme wealth spread among the lower- and middle-classes (the rich will still get more of it, and everyone will complain they're somehow poorer, but I don't honestly care).
That only happens if you automate the entire stack and eliminate all human labor entirely. Failing that, luxuries move downward from the rich to the poor. For example: the rich used to be able to taxi carriages, while the poor walked; then people could afford horses; now everyone owns cars.
When the hot-blast furnace was invented, it made 86,400 tonnes of iron in the same amount of invested human labor as the prior process required to produce only 400 tonnes. This (and new steel rolling process) allowed us to create railroads, increasing trade, reducing the cost of goods to people (by producing them where the least labor was required), thus allowing people to buy more goods. That moved some luxuries down into the hands of the common man, as those luxuries cost less of a man's year's worth of labor--it took fewer labor-hours to make, thus the wages paid to a man in a year were divided smaller into that good--thus the common man can buy more. Cheap steel? Cheaper machines to mine oil and coal; cheaper rail car rides; cheaper transportation; eventually, cheaper automobiles.
The cost to manufacture a cell phone and to operate a cellular network has decreased. The level of service possible in the same cost has increased as a result. Back in the day, a fiber optic line could carry about 1Mbit/s of data, and running thousands of them together could get you 1Gbit/s; now we can carry 2Gbit/s, 8Gbit/s, or 10Gbit/s over multiplexed fiber, and can run dozens of them to get hundreds of gigabits of connectivity. We don't need massive data centers sucking tons of power to process all that, either; each unit of network hardware today handles hundreds of times the data as a similar machine produced in 1985 would. That $4,000 cell phone with $0.42/minute voice back in 1984? It should be $9,000 today, with about $500/month of service cost for 2 hours of voice per week; instead, it's a high-end smartphone that only costs $350, stores 64GB of data, has 8 CPU cores, and gives unlimited voice and text/media messaging as well as a couple small gigabytes of high-speed data for $60/month.
90% of American laborers were farm workers in 1870; it's under 2% today, and about 10% more support the farm with chemicals (fertilizer, pesticide), equipment (tractors), and energy (irrigation, fuel). The result is food costs a fraction of our budget--just in 1900 the median family spent 43% of their income on food, and today it's almost 11%--and we buy tons of other goods, including more healthcare, leading to a lot of retail jobs, IT jobs, and medical service jobs.
Your worst-case scenario happens if we drop all of the new tech rapidly. Raise minimum wages, raise payroll taxes, increase the cost of a worker, delay regulation enabling the use of autonomous drivers and drone delivery, and then finally cut it loose all at once and tell businesses to go ahead and replace that $15/hr pizza driver and the expensive shipping infrastructure with machines sans operators; watch a third of the jobs in the country vanish overnight. If we stabilize it by supplying a non-wage income (e.g. a universal social security), reducing payroll taxes (your employer pays less to employ you, and you receive the same wage), and countering general unemployment by reducing or eliminating VAT and sales tax, then the changes come spanned across large timescales, and consumer buying power moves around, and we avoid a severe unemployment crisis.
Not simple. Doable, and important to understand if you're going to keep an economy from collapsing during a period of sudden technical progress; but not a trivial task, in any case.
The key to understanding deities and devils is to understand that they exist to control your life by fear. The foremost rule of religious deities is might makes right: they can destroy you, thus you obey.
That is to say: gods and devils are oppressive attackers, and should be repelled with maximum force, if not hunted down and destroyed.
The drop from 80mph to 55mph during WW2 saved 2% of the gasoline consumed by cars.
Education is technology. The assembly line is technology. Every technique which improves efficiency by increasing the output possible with a given amount of human labor is technology.
For thousands of years, we have performed this type of reduction, allowing a smaller amount of human labor to provide the same goods. The result? Where you needed 1,000 people to provide 1,000 luxury items for 1,000 rich people, suddenly you need 1; then, every idiot middle-classer decides he needs a cell phone; and finally, every poor kid in the country manages to buy a smartphone, somehow, and you have 350,000 retail monkeys handling smart phone sales, and 80,000 truckers delivering the damned things to stores, and 2 million IT workers running the network, and someone talks about how we lost all these jobs to China.
Now we have this dialogue about how the next step of technology will make jobs go away FOREVER--not that we might lose jobs rapidly in a technical-revolution, ending up with 80% unemployment because the economy didn't create new jobs; but that the jobs that go away will necessarily go away forever, with no new jobs to replace them, and that employment will come to an end and everyone will starve. People don't believe in slowing and spreading the next step forward, because they think that will just make us bleed more slowly, and the bleeding won't ever stop.
That's the real problem with the SV technology dialogue: they think technology will replace humans, permanently. They're deluded.
The planet can provide for 68-135 million hunter-gatherer humans in optimal conditions. Intensive farming raised that to hundreds of millions; GMO, fertilization, and pesticides raised that to billions. These strategies reduced the expended working time required to sustain a population's food supply (some economists argue that agriculture INCREASED work, but allowed humans to live in large-population communities which would otherwise need to forage over intractably-large areas and expend excess energy walking long distances; I argue that the work required to support a large-population community by forage is much higher than the work required to support a large-population community by agriculture, and thus that said economists are comparing dissimilar things).
The truth is we're talking about technology. Cupping water out of a freshwater stream with your hands is technology for acquisition of water. Carrying that water to the village in buckets is technology. Pumping technology to pull freshwater reserves from underground is technology. Reservoirs and water treatment plants are technology. Desalinization is technology. At a hands-in-river level of technology, you can't support a strong, highly-productive society, and you *definitely* can't get enough water for intensive agriculture and a large population.
The WSL implements a subsystem that runs Linux programs in the same way Linux has subsystems that run BSD programs. Windows95 and such had Win16 subsystems as well.
Drivers are not kernel code.
You're trying to argue that there is no Linux subsystem because Linux itself isn't running in some form of hypervisor--thin (e.g. paravirtualization, like Xen) or otherwise. That wouldn't be a subsystem; it would be a virtualized operating system running distinct from the main OS. The fact is Windows 10 now provides a partial implementation of Linux--it provides the executable loader and kernel facilities--in the same way ReactOS provides a partial implementation of Windows, with the distinction that ReactOS is primarily a Windows system and Windows is providing a Linux subsystem.
Oh, and it's implemented in Windows kernel code.
You need everyone in the world to be wrong so you can be right and pat yourself on the back. You're the kind of person who will make ludicrous arguments about how spaces are 6 square feet smaller because they have a door (never mind that you could just use a pocket door) and ignore real data in favor of just calling your opponent wrong and preening your feathers.
Barbara "No Wire Hangers!!!" Hudson
What worked for me was to very humbly ASK the doctor about my preferred medication, to not seem overly confident that I wanted that specific medication. "I was reading about ABC and sounded interesting because XYZ. Would it be worth trying ABC, do you think?"
Has its own hazards. I started building my interactions with people on the platform of always dealing honestly, which I find can almost compensate for being an asshole about it. If the doctor says no or tries to put me on amphetamines, I'm going to have a problem; I don't *want* adderall, it's going to cause side-effects I'm not willing to tolerate, and I'm not going to be able to just spin another line of bullshit to cover for "it's not working exactly the way I want" even though it isn't. Spending the whole time putting on an act like I haven't planned all this way in advance is fragile.
On the flip side, I'm already on adrafinil, and know how it compares to methylphenidate (at a distance--I stopped that 15 years ago, and never slept when I was on it) and something very close to an amphetamine (e.g. adderall). You might notice the lower-left benzine on methylphenidate (Ritalin, Concerta) leading to that HN on the right, as well.
I have a good, honest argument for these kinds of stimulants causing too many side-effects, carrying too much risk, and just not working as well as other things. Adrafinil becomes Modafinil in the body; it's a better proxy to judge modafinil than phenylpiracetam is to judge adderall. You make a good argument for buy-in--people respond well to being in charge of the decision--and I'm just remiss to use that tactic as a basis for a patient-physician relationship.
I am, of course, horribly unsocialized, and don't know what to expect when interacting with people in general. I haven't spoken to a doctor in 15 years--more than half my life. Maybe I'm just unfairly assuming they'll all be hostile and totally disinterested in the patient's perspective.
Maybe I just hate people passing around wrong information. How is "this isn't a subsystem and it doesn't do anything in the kernel" accurate when the syscall interface is implemented in the kernel and uses kernel facilities to provide POSIX and Linux kernel facilities?
Sounds like you prefer politics over facts.
Kernel-mode drivers are not kernel code. There's some news for you. What other pearls of wisdom do you have? Starches are not carbohydrates?
Yeah ADHD does weird things. I've been trying to fix mine--I dropped all medication 15 years ago, and have recently become rather annoyed that my past 4 years of effort have consisted of piling up things I should do and then watching Twitch or just staring at a wall to avoid bothering--and have been... somewhat hyper-focused on ADHD study. That complicates things; I'm going to try to get a Modafinil prescription from a doctor now, and uh. Patient walks in asking for drugs, seems well-informed. Spinning a line of bullshit or nah?
Some people like to claim ADHD gives you a type of superpower, because you see things differently. It's not true. I wanted to get back to where I was at 19-23 (non-drugged), because I accomplished great things then; I accomplished great things because I had no control and was hyperfocusing. Now I'm trying to accomplish things and hyperfocusing on other things. I don't "work differently" and thus better on different things; I'm a broken, dysfunctional tool 100% of the time.
Amphetamine-like drugs get me high by the time they treat ADHD; methylphenidate made me never eat and never sleep (terrible insomnia is a thing I still have, drugged or not, and I'm not sure if that's a result of development problems from being on insomnia-causing stimulants from 8-16 or if it's a primary condition); and Adrafinil is like taking 3,500mg of tylenol (liver doesn't like it). The adrafinil (becomes modafinil by metabolism) produced zero sensation and seemed to do nothing, until I tried to do something and holy shit, my attention system recognizes external stimuli, immediately makes a decision on whether to respond or ignore, and then goes directly toward what I've decided is important! You know what? That's better.
Even without ADHD, though, people filter out noise. I'm not processing hilarious amounts of information from my environment, drugged or not; like you say, you just shift attention arbitrarily, and miss the things you wanted to pay attention to. It's a cognitive defect, not hidden genius. With normal people, they generally don't notice things outside their selective attention, if you can give them enough information to fully-engage their selective attention system and prevent them from recognizing other, non-critical defects like a gorilla strolling by (a gorilla charging will probably get someone's attention).
Still, on balance a driver *should* be looking at the road ahead of them, not how many LEDs burned out in the green light, or the color of the buildings they are driving by
Depending on background, a driver might not notice a pedestrian moving somewhat with the crowd, but differently, such that he's about to pass a parked car and enter the road. Many advanced driving courses teach a form of active vigilance, which eventually internalizes and causes you to briefly shift attention to things like that.
More usefully, body language is *highly* visible to humans. If you try to enter an office building or military base, you get stopped; and if you try to enter the same place, dressed the same way, but in the complete mindset of someone who belongs there, you'll print exactly like all the other hundreds of people passing by all day, and nobody will notice you standing out from the five or six folks in their field-of-view at that moment. They look right at you and don't see you.
Scott Adams once walked into Logitech's corporate headquarters, passed the reception desk unchallenged, went to an upper floor, and sat in on a high-level executive meeting. He started *presenting*. He forked over a whole heap of bullshit and, forty minutes later, they had developed a new mission for the company before he finally told them he was full of shit and didn't even work there. He's done this *twice*.
You could literally take over a country that way. It's been done. It happened to *France*.
My point is that a lot of magician's tricks fall apart upon close inspection, and resist said inspection because
Broadcaster here. Please continue to support local TV and big broadcast networks until we figure out how to monetize streaming well enough to survive Comcast's and Dish's downward negotiating pressure on rebroadcast prices. Maybe we can license live stream rebroadcasting to Netflix and Hulu.
(That's commentary; I don't represent a broadcasting corporation.)
Alex is a great guy and pretty brilliant; he's slightly-wrong in this case, as Linux binaries can't call Windows system functions (no Win32 API). The attack surface does include accessing the Windows file system, but not triggering Windows programs.
He's not the kind of raging psycho typified by RMS or Theo de Raadt, at least.
Thanks, was looking for this. You can't even launch Windows PE binaries.
BarbaraHudson is a known-super-bitch. Her posting history consists of personal attacks on everyone else in a desperate attempt to cover her own insecurities. The same goes for her facebook page, except occasionally she feeds stray cats and talks about how everyone else is assholes because she's the little angel taking care of the poor animals.
She crossed me once in the worst way--by spouting stupidity and incorrect information--so I'm temporarily amusing myself by reminding everyone she's a cunt every time she gets a little cunty.
So, a self-contained system inside a larger system isn't a subsystem?
Implementing such a thing in userland is, in fact, a valid way to make a subsystem. Linux's own dynamic loader is a userspace program (the Linux kernel doesn't know how to load dynamic shared objects); and some systems (e.g. Minix, L4) implement their entire native execution environments and even hardware drivers in userspace.
Besides that,
The Windows Subsystem for Linux includes kernel mode drivers (lxss.sys and lxcore.sys) that are responsible for handling Linux system call requests in coordination with the Windows NT kernel. The drivers do not contain code from the Linux kernel but are instead a clean room implementation of Linux-compatible kernel interfaces. On native Linux, when a syscall is made from a user mode executable it is handled by the Linux kernel. On WSL, when a syscall is made from the same executable the Windows NT kernel forwards the request to lxcore.sys. Where possible, lxcore.sys translates the Linux syscall to the equivalent Windows NT call which in turn does the heavy lifting. Where there is no reasonable mapping the Windows kernel mode driver must service the request directly.
WSL uses a kernel-level interface to perform the actions required to satisfy POSIX and Linux system behaviors. This includes everything from procfs to execve() calls. File system permissions management is handled by kernel-level decisions on whether or not a program's effective permissions and capabilities mesh with the file system ACL (which is stored as extended NTFS attributes).
WSL doesn't use a kernel-level dynamic loader, and neither does Linux; as you pointed out, it loads ELF programs by using a PE executable process to bring the file into memory appropriately, like Wine. It's only necessary to have one type of kernel-level executable; all others can use a userspace loader, which is why Linux proper only supports static-linked executables and calls ld-linux.so to perform dynamic linking.
You appear to have made yet another post full of wrong information just to be aggressive and mean to other people. It's like your whole day revolves around finding ways to be an asshole to everyone else.
It's probably the usual information decay. "TOR is for privacy and anonymity" becomes "TOR protects your privacy" becomes "TOR protects your data" becomes "TOR keeps hackers from looking at your secret data and using it to blackmail you and take over your computer" becomes "TOR is secure! You must have secure! Computers are so fucking dangerous hackers everywhere OMG we must all secure! We must all TOR!"
It's like the Barack Obama thing where someone went asking random folks if Barack Obama was still a threat to America. People kept answering yes, "Because he's still out there, and he's a threat, and we haven't stopped him yet." Most people facepalm at idiots not differentiating Barack Obama from Osama bin Laden; and if you think about it long enough (Fridge Logic), you suddenly realize everyone was afraid of Osama bin Laden "because he's still out there." No reason, just I heard he was a bad dude.
That's where we are with computer security. We need security, because hackers are out there, and security is important. What is security? What are hackers? I don't know, but I heard about it on the news, a man in New Hampshire had a security, and he got arrested, or someone got arrested because of what they did to his security, I don't remember. There's also identity theft, which can ruin your life somehow, I think people steal your Social Security?
Tor is more security sauce like airport backscatter scanners are more Osama sauce.
As a professional magician, were you more amazed by how the tricks worked mechanically, or by the very fact that people are too stupid to live and will simply not notice what they're looking *right* *at* if it's out of the ordinary?
There's a routine where you perform a recorded magic trick while changing a bunch of shit on the stage. People watching the video don't notice the changes (they happen off-screen). When it's brought up and a replay is shown, people will then become fascinated with the blatant scenery changes they didn't notice the first time; a significant portion of the audience then starts to wonder how the actual trick was carried out--which typically involves just handing off one prop for another, and is blatantly visible on-screen during the breakdown, but people are watching everything else change and miss that the performer e.g. handed his deck of cards to an assistant and got a brand new one *while* *they* *were* *watching*.
There's also the bouncing balls trick.
6,000 years of jews and muslims haven't stopped alcohol, blowjobs, or work on weekends, despite being combined the dominant religions across a large segment of the human population for thousands of years, and eventually forking off a child religion that also tried to stop alcohol, blowjobs, and work on weekends.
Damn. Glad I lucked out on the 770 model then. I wanted something for snow, and they've held up for years.
And it's not artificial scarcity, they get 50 of these keycases in and they're gone in 2 days
It *is* artificial scarcity. Scarcity occurs when the human labor required to make something increases with scale (e.g. you run out of fertile farm land, so it takes twice the number of human labor hours--thus twice the pay--to make food? Food is getting more expensive, thus less available; if you keep scaling up, you WILL fail to make enough food for everyone, even if everyone starts working for free to make food). Counterfeiters can make these easy enough; Gucci could make more of them and keep them stocked.
So trust me, some people still care about that "crap", you probably just don't make enough money to be aware of it.
I'm too lazy to cook. I spend $600/month on food because I eat out every meal.
I spend roughly 30% of my income. I pile $18,000 into my 401(k), $3,500 into my HSA, and an extra $5,000 into ROTH IRA if I'm feeling it each year. At the end of every month, I've got between $1,800 and $3,100 of my paycheck unspent.
I waste my money on food; I'll buy a $2,000 stove one day and re-teach myself to cook; first I've got to treat the ADHD, because I don't do *anything* I want to do. That $7,000 piano I bought last year? I haven't learned to play yet; I spend all day watching Twitch instead. I want to learn programming as a well-developed skill; haven't bothered. I finally caught up on learning foreign languages. I bought a $400 Wacom tablet to learn to draw, then stopped practicing in a week. It's time for me to fix this shit--stimulants, behavioral therapy, whatever I need--and get shit done.
I'm not "aware" of this stuff because it's complete and utter horse shit. People in my generation aren't buying diamonds, and the Economist ran an article discussing the phenomena--it's because diamonds are bullshit rocks that don't do a god damned thing, but cost $9999. The U.S. Military lets Belleville sell civilians a combat boot produced by the combined effort of no less than 6 vendors, with high- and low-temperature stable materials, high traction on ice and in mud, Goretex and 3M Thinsulate lining for waterproofing and insulation, the works, for $142; or you could buy some Uggs that come with a warning that they're not made for HEAVY WALKING for $150, and they'll fall apart if it happens to rain because the engineering is shit. Me, I buy a pair of leather Chucks and a $6 tube of Freesole, and keep my $50 shoes in one piece for 3-5 years.
I bought a house and paid it off in 4 years. It was going to be 3, but I wanted to build my 401(k) as a loan source first, do some insulation work, have trees removed....
Maybe I'm just not retarded. $500 for a pair of sunglasses, seriously.