There will be the consumers who don't need any kind of "advanced" input device. They'll happily just swipe and click wherever they are told to do so... That's essentially being click-cattle.
Those who actually work with computers already use the keyboard and will most likely use them in the foreseeable future. It's simply a local optimum and probably your only solution when you want to enter complex data and or commands. Just look at the mouse. Despite of it being around for decades now, neither one of the 2 main text editors have meaningful integration for it.
Well that guy is an idiot as he upscales the stuff to 1080p which is completely pointless and only provides degradation of quality.
The smart thing to do is to use a propper framegrabber which does no deinterlacing. Firewire ones are good and their 25 MBps codec is practically lossless, yet gets down the data to a decent size. Also they both capture audio and video in perfect sync.
Then, and only then, you de-interlace in software to get the 50 or 60 fps. ffmpeg or avconv can do that easily.
For (S-)VHS or other colour under formats, you should use an S-Video cable, for component formats you should use component framegrabbers.
So to summarize: 1. Get a decent VCR (some Panasonic or JVC S-VHS should be good enough for VHS) If you are digitizing many tapes, it might be good to to have several ones, as they are typically worn out in different way and some tapes may play getter on some VCRs than others. 2. Get a decent framegrabber (anything Firewire should be good, but others may be, too, it having both video and audio inputs is a good sign) 3. Deinterlace to 50 or 60 fps (depending on the video standard) in software afterwards.
... putting more research into actual advances into computer security, or making systems more secure, for example by banning the most insecure products and demanding minimum evidence based security standards...
he probably just wants people buying exploits on the market in order to compromise the computational devices of innocent victims.
GUIs are lacking more and more visual clues to how they work. Programs are getting rid of menu bars or scrollbars.
In the past companies used to have usability testers which tried to perform certain tasks under supervision. This is gone now and, at best, replaced by much more primitive AB tests.
Essentially we are now at the level of 1990s film-gui designs. It doesn't matter if it's efficient to use all that matters is that it looks "pretty",
Well actually it does have binary log files. Nobody uses them, but if you dig down deep enough you'll find them. I don't know where current versions hide them, but they exist. Searching for "Windows log" will bring you to screenshots of that interface.
Same goes for opaque service management with dependencies. I think this used to be under "Control-Panel" -> "Services", and there are even crude command line tools available.
Of course it doesn't do DNS or NTP, but then again, those were exotic protocol when Windows NT was designed.
a) That's a very constructed setup b) That's only an argument for _an_ audio daemon, not for one that's pseudo modular and virtually undebugable. The concept of an audio daemon can be done competently.
Besides all of that could be avoided by sticking with the unix philosophy. Would we just have extended terminal emulators to support GUIs, we wouldn't have the problems of X11 and audio. You'd have a sort of "Window manager" which can arrange your terminal windows on your screen, and also manage the audio. This would even give you usable network audio, as you could just ssh into a computer and get the audio to your local terminal.
Well "better" is not an objective thing. For Lennart, for example, "better" usually means "more complex" or "able to solve non-existent problems".
This is a certain mindset that is shaped by what you have experienced in your life. If you have used Windows before, you have never experienced the advantages of a unixoid system. For example you became accustomed to a program doing lots of things, instead of doing one thing properly and using simple interfaces to interface with other programs. Interprocess communication does exist on Windows, but it's highly complex so few programs actually implement it, making it fairly useless. You cannot just combine 2 programs without the creators having foreseen that option on Windows... while in an unixoid world you can do that easily.
Sorry, I didn't make that clear. I mean people who grew up with Windows, before they started to program. People who have experienced all the glossy surface of Windows, but never the problems of those design decisions.
They now think that the mind-set behind the design of Windows is great and that the problems are just in the implementation... and that they, obviously, can do it much better.
At the same time, they dismiss the UNIX philosophy as outdated.
We now have a huge rush of people conditioned in a Windows world transferring the ideas they learned there to the userspace. Ideas like complex service management, binary log files or the ability for a normal userspace program to disable system shutdown.
The result are monstrosities like ConsoleKit, Pulseaudio and SystemD.
Pens and quills can still be used to write books... however mobile computers have deliberately been dumbed down to only be ad displaying devices making some noise every couple of seconds.
I mean he has seen systems like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... That system, including software and operating system was far simpler than Android/iOS/whatever we have today, yet it's able to provide you with an intuitive and powerful user interface. I mean in the video you see someone drawing a program without a keyboard.
Alan Kay has seen people doing so much more with so much less effort. It's only understandable he is not impressed.
It is harmfull at Google to express views that are different from what some people think. So there are illegal opinions. (don't confuse opinions with actions, BTW, those can be illegal)
This is a very dangerous situation, as freedom of speech is most important for those who think differently. (Again, speech, not action)
We also see one of the big problem about the current pseudo left scene. They don't seem to oppose the opinion, some haven't even read that document, or Googles response to it, but they only seem to want to shit storm that person.
We need to tolerate differing opinions, ideally even temporarily suspending our believe in our own opinions to be able to find out if the other opinion is any good. If it's bad, you can use logic to argue against it, if it has some good aspects, you can take those for your own, then more refined, opinion.
A good example is the telephone network. It tries to have some security features, such as having identifiable source numbers. In reality that doesn't work and leads to false assumptions about the network.
Essentially you cannot outsource security.
The approach of the Internet is much saner. Just have a dumb network and have the endpoints do the actual security. This also allows for swift upgrades in security and for custom solutions addressing the specific security problems.
Back then internet connectivity was extremely spotty and expensive so you had to have some local processing.
Today you could simply build a mobile terminal, running something light mosh. Since LTE routers are available now you wouldn't even need to have an LTE baseband inside.
Back in the 1980s and 1990s it was more or less normal to have programming lesions in school. It was only in the 1990s when companies shipped computers without BASIC Interpreters, and marketing claimed that you could productively use computers without being able to program. Learning how to use Office 95 was enough.
Now they complain about the lost generation of people having been trained only to be dumb consumers.
One cannot say if a certain technique is good for a company without knowing what problems it should solve.
If you consider something, learn about it, think about it, make a primitive prototype. If you still think it's suitable for your needs, use it. If your prototype ends up as a complex mess of code, look somewhere else.
The company I work with deals with a rather large >100 million dataset database. It's the portability database of Germany and contains the carrier for every phone number in Germany. Lookups happen via a small program coming with Kamailio. (probably the best part of that) Updates, however, happen via a very simple shell script utilizing standard Unix tools, or faster alternatives to it. (uniq can be very slow) Data is kept in a plain text file, and a complete update takes much less than half an hour.
... you couldn't run the programs on it you expected from the platform. It could have easily attracted a market of more professional users if it wouldn't have tried to copy iOS and Android.
There is a market for something like the communicator with modern hardware. Essentially a device which on the outside is a regular phone, and once you fold it up becomes a portable computer, complete with keyboard.
The market for portable devices with an app-store is already full. However for some reason both Canonical and Microsoft are chasing it on both the portable and the desktop side. Both fail doing so, even though Microsoft should have known better since its Windows CE had a far greater market share than Windows Mobile.
Just create evicence based awareness. Make sure that users understand the risk that's involved in using office files or using Adobe software. Those 2 points alone would help a great deal.
... to define a "state of the art" regarding security. It should contain things like not mixing user input with SQL-queries, unless it goes through a whitelist of characters or is escaped by a proven to work function.
Essentially that "state of the art" should always be a bit above what idiots do in order to weed out idiots. Ideally it's defined in a way that that compilers can prove it working. (in the above case, user input strings and SQL-queries could have different types)
Slowly, but surely you'd raise the standards. This is essentially what happens with electronic safety. You have rules that are evidence based and, at least in part, blatantly obvious. Obviously those rules must be freely published.
... as if you need to have physical access to the inside of a car in order to change its firmware, that's a much more intrusive vector than just cutting the brake lines.
People stop claiming that normal intended features are security critical bugs. Locking people out of the computers they bought is not fixing anything. In fact with routers, blocking OpenWRT usually means that your users won't be able to make their system more secure.
Slashdot Mirror
There will be the consumers who don't need any kind of "advanced" input device. They'll happily just swipe and click wherever they are told to do so... That's essentially being click-cattle.
Those who actually work with computers already use the keyboard and will most likely use them in the foreseeable future. It's simply a local optimum and probably your only solution when you want to enter complex data and or commands. Just look at the mouse. Despite of it being around for decades now, neither one of the 2 main text editors have meaningful integration for it.
That's one of Microsoft's classic strategies. They did that with the web, gaining them many years of browser dominance.
Also Microsoft is changing. They want to go from software to services.
Well that guy is an idiot as he upscales the stuff to 1080p which is completely pointless and only provides degradation of quality.
The smart thing to do is to use a propper framegrabber which does no deinterlacing. Firewire ones are good and their 25 MBps codec is practically lossless, yet gets down the data to a decent size. Also they both capture audio and video in perfect sync.
Then, and only then, you de-interlace in software to get the 50 or 60 fps. ffmpeg or avconv can do that easily.
For (S-)VHS or other colour under formats, you should use an S-Video cable, for component formats you should use component framegrabbers.
So to summarize:
1. Get a decent VCR (some Panasonic or JVC S-VHS should be good enough for VHS) If you are digitizing many tapes, it might be good to to have several ones, as they are typically worn out in different way and some tapes may play getter on some VCRs than others.
2. Get a decent framegrabber (anything Firewire should be good, but others may be, too, it having both video and audio inputs is a good sign)
3. Deinterlace to 50 or 60 fps (depending on the video standard) in software afterwards.
... putting more research into actual advances into computer security, or making systems more secure, for example by banning the most insecure products and demanding minimum evidence based security standards...
he probably just wants people buying exploits on the market in order to compromise the computational devices of innocent victims.
Flying cars need even more energy than ground-based ones, particularly when in a traffic jam as you cannot turn off the engine.
The skies would also quickly fill up causing traffic jams up there. So far any increase in capacity has only
Those visions you see in presentation are just there to not scare away potential engineers, the only actual use for this is in the military.
GUIs are lacking more and more visual clues to how they work. Programs are getting rid of menu bars or scrollbars.
In the past companies used to have usability testers which tried to perform certain tasks under supervision. This is gone now and, at best, replaced by much more primitive AB tests.
Essentially we are now at the level of 1990s film-gui designs. It doesn't matter if it's efficient to use all that matters is that it looks "pretty",
Essentially you are saying that someone who has 14 years of experience somehow knows better than people who have 20 and more years of experience?
If you look at it, all the "greybeards" are against SystemD.
Besides, and I know this is a very weak argument, Redhat is more an "Open Source" company not really interrested in Free (as in speech) software.
Well actually it does have binary log files. Nobody uses them, but if you dig down deep enough you'll find them. I don't know where current versions hide them, but they exist. Searching for "Windows log" will bring you to screenshots of that interface.
Same goes for opaque service management with dependencies. I think this used to be under "Control-Panel" -> "Services", and there are even crude command line tools available.
Of course it doesn't do DNS or NTP, but then again, those were exotic protocol when Windows NT was designed.
Uhm...
a) That's a very constructed setup
b) That's only an argument for _an_ audio daemon, not for one that's pseudo modular and virtually undebugable. The concept of an audio daemon can be done competently.
Besides all of that could be avoided by sticking with the unix philosophy. Would we just have extended terminal emulators to support GUIs, we wouldn't have the problems of X11 and audio. You'd have a sort of "Window manager" which can arrange your terminal windows on your screen, and also manage the audio. This would even give you usable network audio, as you could just ssh into a computer and get the audio to your local terminal.
Well "better" is not an objective thing. For Lennart, for example, "better" usually means "more complex" or "able to solve non-existent problems".
This is a certain mindset that is shaped by what you have experienced in your life. If you have used Windows before, you have never experienced the advantages of a unixoid system. For example you became accustomed to a program doing lots of things, instead of doing one thing properly and using simple interfaces to interface with other programs. Interprocess communication does exist on Windows, but it's highly complex so few programs actually implement it, making it fairly useless. You cannot just combine 2 programs without the creators having foreseen that option on Windows... while in an unixoid world you can do that easily.
Sorry, I didn't make that clear. I mean people who grew up with Windows, before they started to program. People who have experienced all the glossy surface of Windows, but never the problems of those design decisions.
They now think that the mind-set behind the design of Windows is great and that the problems are just in the implementation... and that they, obviously, can do it much better.
At the same time, they dismiss the UNIX philosophy as outdated.
We now have a huge rush of people conditioned in a Windows world transferring the ideas they learned there to the userspace. Ideas like complex service management, binary log files or the ability for a normal userspace program to disable system shutdown.
The result are monstrosities like ConsoleKit, Pulseaudio and SystemD.
Pens and quills can still be used to write books... however mobile computers have deliberately been dumbed down to only be ad displaying devices making some noise every couple of seconds.
I mean he has seen systems like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
That system, including software and operating system was far simpler than Android/iOS/whatever we have today, yet it's able to provide you with an intuitive and powerful user interface. I mean in the video you see someone drawing a program without a keyboard.
Alan Kay has seen people doing so much more with so much less effort. It's only understandable he is not impressed.
Back in the 1980s Austrian television channel ORF1 showed a TV show about a guy with a talking car solving crimes. It was called "Knight Rider".
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TL6J...
Also note the size of that huge thumb on the left side.
...there's probably still more electric toothbrushes than webservers. And those don't run Javscript but tiny Assembler programs.
If you use a programming language simply because it's popular, there is a big chance you are using one that's unsuitable to solve your problem.
It is harmfull at Google to express views that are different from what some people think. So there are illegal opinions. (don't confuse opinions with actions, BTW, those can be illegal)
This is a very dangerous situation, as freedom of speech is most important for those who think differently. (Again, speech, not action)
We also see one of the big problem about the current pseudo left scene. They don't seem to oppose the opinion, some haven't even read that document, or Googles response to it, but they only seem to want to shit storm that person.
We need to tolerate differing opinions, ideally even temporarily suspending our believe in our own opinions to be able to find out if the other opinion is any good. If it's bad, you can use logic to argue against it, if it has some good aspects, you can take those for your own, then more refined, opinion.
A good example is the telephone network. It tries to have some security features, such as having identifiable source numbers. In reality that doesn't work and leads to false assumptions about the network.
Essentially you cannot outsource security.
The approach of the Internet is much saner. Just have a dumb network and have the endpoints do the actual security. This also allows for swift upgrades in security and for custom solutions addressing the specific security problems.
Back then internet connectivity was extremely spotty and expensive so you had to have some local processing.
Today you could simply build a mobile terminal, running something light mosh. Since LTE routers are available now you wouldn't even need to have an LTE baseband inside.
Some years ago I've heard the spokesperson of MOGIS an organisation representing child abuse victims answer the question on where to draw the line.
His simple answer as "At the victim". If there are victims it's a problem, if there aren't there's no problem.
Maybe that would be something to consider.
Back in the 1980s and 1990s it was more or less normal to have programming lesions in school. It was only in the 1990s when companies shipped computers without BASIC Interpreters, and marketing claimed that you could productively use computers without being able to program. Learning how to use Office 95 was enough.
Now they complain about the lost generation of people having been trained only to be dumb consumers.
One cannot say if a certain technique is good for a company without knowing what problems it should solve.
If you consider something, learn about it, think about it, make a primitive prototype. If you still think it's suitable for your needs, use it. If your prototype ends up as a complex mess of code, look somewhere else.
The company I work with deals with a rather large >100 million dataset database. It's the portability database of Germany and contains the carrier for every phone number in Germany. Lookups happen via a small program coming with Kamailio. (probably the best part of that) Updates, however, happen via a very simple shell script utilizing standard Unix tools, or faster alternatives to it. (uniq can be very slow) Data is kept in a plain text file, and a complete update takes much less than half an hour.
... you couldn't run the programs on it you expected from the platform. It could have easily attracted a market of more professional users if it wouldn't have tried to copy iOS and Android.
There is a market for something like the communicator with modern hardware. Essentially a device which on the outside is a regular phone, and once you fold it up becomes a portable computer, complete with keyboard.
The market for portable devices with an app-store is already full. However for some reason both Canonical and Microsoft are chasing it on both the portable and the desktop side. Both fail doing so, even though Microsoft should have known better since its Windows CE had a far greater market share than Windows Mobile.
Just create evicence based awareness. Make sure that users understand the risk that's involved in using office files or using Adobe software. Those 2 points alone would help a great deal.
... to define a "state of the art" regarding security. It should contain things like not mixing user input with SQL-queries, unless it goes through a whitelist of characters or is escaped by a proven to work function.
Essentially that "state of the art" should always be a bit above what idiots do in order to weed out idiots. Ideally it's defined in a way that that compilers can prove it working. (in the above case, user input strings and SQL-queries could have different types)
Slowly, but surely you'd raise the standards. This is essentially what happens with electronic safety. You have rules that are evidence based and, at least in part, blatantly obvious. Obviously those rules must be freely published.
... as if you need to have physical access to the inside of a car in order to change its firmware, that's a much more intrusive vector than just cutting the brake lines.
People stop claiming that normal intended features are security critical bugs. Locking people out of the computers they bought is not fixing anything. In fact with routers, blocking OpenWRT usually means that your users won't be able to make their system more secure.