It's a filter to filter out the people you don't want to have as employees. For example it constantly bugs you to give them your e-mail accounts so it can get your contacts!
... that their new movie is as good as "Manos Hands of Fate", or speaking English as good as "Günther Ã-ttinger".
Seriously, _all_ mobile operating systems are shit when it comes to security. Android has the theoretical advantage that you can root it and hypothetically install iptables. That's not a lot, but it can help you to make sure your device only tries to talk to your server and not other servers.
Now if you live in a country where, for example, homosexuality is illegal, and you want to go to a "gay bar" you can't, because no cash means no way to anonymously pay for your drink.
The same goes for many other areas where people have opinions that may be illegal but not morally wrong.Cash is essential there.
It started right away with "big budget" devices. Devices that were hard to program and had to sell huge numbers to recover their investments. Those devices were then aimed at the "fitness tracker" market and nothing else. Not even displaying the time was a priority any more. Also screens have been to small compared to their sci-fi counterparts and nobody bothered about the input problem. In fact in order to use (=program) all of those computers you had to use a separate computer with a special development environment. Any idea you have for such a device will be eliminated by the frustrating experience of installing that environment and actually doing the programming. Also, since most of those devices run fully fledged bloated operating systems, they needed to recharge quite more often to be useful.
What we would need is a simple system centred around the software a digital watch would usually run, then add hooks to allow people to hook their own code to experiment with the system. This sort of "experimental phase with geeks" is rather important, but the modern smartwatch industry tried to skip it.
Actually the big advantage would be if you didn't actually transmit the password, but had some public key authentication scheme... unfortunately browser vendors care more about binary Javascript and USB access from the browser than making client side TLS authentication usable.
They had a "Java ring" which used that technology to communicate with others. That way you could exchange contact information just by shaking hands with someone.
In reality this isn't constrained to ones body, just like coaxial cables you do have a certain leakage to the outside.
The whole "FreeDesktop" Movement seems to be about making Linux more and more incomprehensible.
My theory for why this is is like this: There are lots of people now growing up when Windows kinda worked (since about 2000). At the same time, involvement in "Open Source" software is seen as a good career move. So they churn out some shitty badly designed code as potential recruiters cannot tell good from bad code. Also they take part in design processes without the experience necessary for this. The result are overcomplex buggy solutions which suck in manpower to maintain them.
Take a look at the *BSD people. The team maintaining OpenBSD is probably smaller than the SystemD team, yet they manage to maintain a whole operating system.
In the past it was trivial to just mirror websites as they typically only consisted of some HTML pages and some images. If something like that happened in the past, you'd just have mirrors popping up everywhere.
Today websites are much more complicated. Even something as simple as a blog is now dynamically generated every time its loaded. You cannot simply mirror that.
There were no references to French people as such particularly since nation states apparently did not exist any more. There was one reference to "Frogs" being a kind of animal. In the series there were just blurry shapes with glitter. There actually was a French version of that series which seemingly got lost in the mists of time. Only one fragment exists.
The reason why there were only so few episodes was that it was _really_ expensive to make. Multiple German TV stations had to cooperate to finance it. Since it was filmed just before TV stations invested in colour, it didn't get sold abroad very much. There were plans to make a second series in colour but those were abandoned.
What really drew new generations of viewers to that series are the sets and the dancing. Both incredibly goofy even for a 1960s show.
Well most 'technies' are also unable to solve any decently complicated problems because of incompetence.
You don't need to be a good software developer to write the 457th version of Candy Crush, but you may need to be one to actually solve an important problem.
I mean there would be lots of things like building a secure mobile device. The problem is that your average "Java jockey" won't understand that their desire to make everything complicated is part of the security problem.
Also most problems in the world cannot be solved by technology. You cannot solve the problem of few people owning most of the world with technology. In fact if you are an incompetent "techie" you commonly even make it worse. A typical example are websites today. HTML used to be something simple, something everybody could do. Today it becomes more and more complex, so complex that there's just a hand full of working browser engines around.
Well there was no way to prevent dumping the ROM on those machines. And the schematics were obviously there to signal that the machines are maintainable. Also back then virtually any electronic device came with its schematics.
I mean realism is not everything with those shows, but it hurts when they include segments that make no sense in he context and are historically inaccurate.
I'm specifically talking about the "reverse engineering the IBM PC" bit. That bit involved reading a PROM with switches and LEDs... those LEDs came in colours unimaginable back in the 1980s. That wouldn't be bad if the whole scene would have made no sense. You can read out that PROM with the BASIC Interpreter provided with the computer... and the rest was documented in the manuals. The IBM PC was, essentially, open source (but not free). That's why it áfas to popular. There was no need to reverse engineer.
So spending a large part of your episode showing something that made no sense... and showing that very badly, kinda killed it for me.
I don't know how the other episodes went, but this kinda pissed me off. In a time where we have TV series like Silicon Valley or Mr Robot we shouldn't applaud a props guy ordering some C-64s.
I mean most of the ideas would be fine, if there wasn't some sort of large organization behind it. It doesn't really matter if that organization is non-profit or not, they all have to act in ways to keep themselves existing, even if that goes against he will of their users.
Yes, but only a fraction of people could use those on their PCs, as MS-DOS didn't come with an actual development system. Most people had to get Turbo Pascal or something separately.
After all, Microsoft and the DOS community messed up to many points badly. For example the "driver" concept was basically unused. Few people ran ansi.sys because it meant sacrificing a ridiculous amount of RAM. That's why most software had to access the hardware directly, even for primitive things like coloured text. Also there was the problem of not having a compiler coming with the operating system which meant that there was no free software movement. People actually sent out binary files. So every software was restricted to a narrow band of hardware.
Essentially there is now the need for a "new DOS". It would run on hardware like STM32-class microcontrollers which have (much) less than a megabyte of RAM and no memory management.You'd start off with decent lightweight hardware abstraction, then add a file system as well as simple version of the usual UNIX tools. Once you have an editor and a shell you'll have a decently working system which can be used for all kinds of things.
There are still 4 bit microcontrollers. Even if you can get a C compiler, the limitations will be so severe most of the time just writing assembler directly will be a _lot_ less work.
Also certain things like "long arithmetic" are actually simpler in Assembler. Or just try to add 2 1024 bit numbers in C. It's surprisingly difficult. On Assembler you can simply use the carry flags.
First of all, many, if not most, computers run software so trivial on microcomputers so small, installing a compiler for them would just be _way_ more effort than to just code to program in C. Typical examples are the microcontrollers in electric toothbrushes or other smaller embedded systems. It's hard to get your software running on a 4 bit microcontroller as modern C makes assumptions like having your memory addressible at a byte level.
Then there is another, in my opinion more important, point. Assembler is a great teaching aid. It shows you what the computer actually does. Understanding things like pointers is trivial in Assembler so you can learn a lot from it. Also in Assembler every control structure hurts, as you need to keep track of it yourself. This nudges you towards writing simpler code, away from thousands of nested if statements and functions with hundreds of lines. Those are desirable traits in all programming languages.
No language is suitable for everything, but most languages have at least one are where they are really useful.
A network will always be able to mess with your data. Trusting in the security of a network is stupid. It used to be a theoretical threat, but now we know that organizations like the NSA sniff everything they get.
The Internet has taught us that we must always use end-to-end encryption. That's why, unlike the phone network, a big percentage of data is secure. The phone network is one of those networks that are considered to be "secure". In reality it's very likely that most phone calls, and particularly their "metadata", will be recorded. In fact many phone companies record the "metadata" in order to be able to send you a bill.
At least in a minor form. We could now have 20 hour workweeks, yet we have chosen to go down the path of "Bullshit Jobs". Those are Jobs that serve no productive use and are just there to keep people occupied. Typical examples are certain types of marketing executives and middle management people, others are badly educated engineers which do not know how to solve problems and are not in a situation where they could ever learn that. The effect is that you have huge numbers of people working all day accomplishing nothing.
First of all it's a bit misleading when we are talking about software here. Technically it is, but actually it's more like a parameter set the actual software is working on. The actual software is the same for many companies and written by Bosch.
Dubious parameters have been used by other companies before. One example is BMW motorcycles.
Let's first ban all forms of DRM so that I can easily just watch my BluRay disks or copy them to harddisk without having to go through dubious providers.
Once DRM is gone and piracy therefore has dropped considerably as you can simply pay for DRM-free copies on the Internet, we can talk about hunting "pirates".
The MPAA has to understand that their 1970s business models of "renting cartivision tapes" just can't coexist with a computerized digital world where making copies is trivial.
Apparently Outlook renders HTML-mail. That's unfortunately a common bug found in mail clients today. That's nearly as bad as some mail clients incorrectly encoding your mail as HTML.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a filter to filter out the people you don't want to have as employees. For example it constantly bugs you to give them your e-mail accounts so it can get your contacts!
... that their new movie is as good as "Manos Hands of Fate", or speaking English as good as "Günther Ã-ttinger".
Seriously, _all_ mobile operating systems are shit when it comes to security. Android has the theoretical advantage that you can root it and hypothetically install iptables. That's not a lot, but it can help you to make sure your device only tries to talk to your server and not other servers.
Now if you live in a country where, for example, homosexuality is illegal, and you want to go to a "gay bar" you can't, because no cash means no way to anonymously pay for your drink.
The same goes for many other areas where people have opinions that may be illegal but not morally wrong.Cash is essential there.
It started right away with "big budget" devices. Devices that were hard to program and had to sell huge numbers to recover their investments. Those devices were then aimed at the "fitness tracker" market and nothing else. Not even displaying the time was a priority any more. Also screens have been to small compared to their sci-fi counterparts and nobody bothered about the input problem. In fact in order to use (=program) all of those computers you had to use a separate computer with a special development environment. Any idea you have for such a device will be eliminated by the frustrating experience of installing that environment and actually doing the programming. Also, since most of those devices run fully fledged bloated operating systems, they needed to recharge quite more often to be useful.
What we would need is a simple system centred around the software a digital watch would usually run, then add hooks to allow people to hook their own code to experiment with the system. This sort of "experimental phase with geeks" is rather important, but the modern smartwatch industry tried to skip it.
Fingerprints are something you own not something you know. It's much easier for the police to take things from you than to extract knowledge from you.
It's a bit weird to get through all that hassle as your fingerprints are probably on the phone itself. (or on a nearby object)
Actually the big advantage would be if you didn't actually transmit the password, but had some public key authentication scheme... unfortunately browser vendors care more about binary Javascript and USB access from the browser than making client side TLS authentication usable.
They had a "Java ring" which used that technology to communicate with others. That way you could exchange contact information just by shaking hands with someone.
In reality this isn't constrained to ones body, just like coaxial cables you do have a certain leakage to the outside.
The whole "FreeDesktop" Movement seems to be about making Linux more and more incomprehensible.
My theory for why this is is like this:
There are lots of people now growing up when Windows kinda worked (since about 2000). At the same time, involvement in "Open Source" software is seen as a good career move. So they churn out some shitty badly designed code as potential recruiters cannot tell good from bad code. Also they take part in design processes without the experience necessary for this. The result are overcomplex buggy solutions which suck in manpower to maintain them.
Take a look at the *BSD people. The team maintaining OpenBSD is probably smaller than the SystemD team, yet they manage to maintain a whole operating system.
In the past it was trivial to just mirror websites as they typically only consisted of some HTML pages and some images. If something like that happened in the past, you'd just have mirrors popping up everywhere.
Today websites are much more complicated. Even something as simple as a blog is now dynamically generated every time its loaded. You cannot simply mirror that.
There were no references to French people as such particularly since nation states apparently did not exist any more. There was one reference to "Frogs" being a kind of animal. In the series there were just blurry shapes with glitter. There actually was a French version of that series which seemingly got lost in the mists of time. Only one fragment exists.
The reason why there were only so few episodes was that it was _really_ expensive to make. Multiple German TV stations had to cooperate to finance it. Since it was filmed just before TV stations invested in colour, it didn't get sold abroad very much. There were plans to make a second series in colour but those were abandoned.
What really drew new generations of viewers to that series are the sets and the dancing. Both incredibly goofy even for a 1960s show.
Well most 'technies' are also unable to solve any decently complicated problems because of incompetence.
You don't need to be a good software developer to write the 457th version of Candy Crush, but you may need to be one to actually solve an important problem.
I mean there would be lots of things like building a secure mobile device. The problem is that your average "Java jockey" won't understand that their desire to make everything complicated is part of the security problem.
Also most problems in the world cannot be solved by technology. You cannot solve the problem of few people owning most of the world with technology. In fact if you are an incompetent "techie" you commonly even make it worse. A typical example are websites today. HTML used to be something simple, something everybody could do. Today it becomes more and more complex, so complex that there's just a hand full of working browser engines around.
Well there was no way to prevent dumping the ROM on those machines. And the schematics were obviously there to signal that the machines are maintainable. Also back then virtually any electronic device came with its schematics.
I mean realism is not everything with those shows, but it hurts when they include segments that make no sense in he context and are historically inaccurate.
I'm specifically talking about the "reverse engineering the IBM PC" bit. That bit involved reading a PROM with switches and LEDs... those LEDs came in colours unimaginable back in the 1980s. That wouldn't be bad if the whole scene would have made no sense. You can read out that PROM with the BASIC Interpreter provided with the computer... and the rest was documented in the manuals. The IBM PC was, essentially, open source (but not free). That's why it áfas to popular. There was no need to reverse engineer.
So spending a large part of your episode showing something that made no sense... and showing that very badly, kinda killed it for me.
I don't know how the other episodes went, but this kinda pissed me off. In a time where we have TV series like Silicon Valley or Mr Robot we shouldn't applaud a props guy ordering some C-64s.
I mean most of the ideas would be fine, if there wasn't some sort of large organization behind it. It doesn't really matter if that organization is non-profit or not, they all have to act in ways to keep themselves existing, even if that goes against he will of their users.
You can always take an image of a dead iris scan, manipulate it, and feed that to the camera.
Actually it did come with Microsoft BASIC... which back at that time was the only development environment Microsoft had made.
Yes, but only a fraction of people could use those on their PCs, as MS-DOS didn't come with an actual development system. Most people had to get Turbo Pascal or something separately.
After all, Microsoft and the DOS community messed up to many points badly. For example the "driver" concept was basically unused. Few people ran ansi.sys because it meant sacrificing a ridiculous amount of RAM. That's why most software had to access the hardware directly, even for primitive things like coloured text.
Also there was the problem of not having a compiler coming with the operating system which meant that there was no free software movement. People actually sent out binary files. So every software was restricted to a narrow band of hardware.
Essentially there is now the need for a "new DOS". It would run on hardware like STM32-class microcontrollers which have (much) less than a megabyte of RAM and no memory management.You'd start off with decent lightweight hardware abstraction, then add a file system as well as simple version of the usual UNIX tools. Once you have an editor and a shell you'll have a decently working system which can be used for all kinds of things.
There are still 4 bit microcontrollers. Even if you can get a C compiler, the limitations will be so severe most of the time just writing assembler directly will be a _lot_ less work.
Also certain things like "long arithmetic" are actually simpler in Assembler. Or just try to add 2 1024 bit numbers in C. It's surprisingly difficult. On Assembler you can simply use the carry flags.
First of all, many, if not most, computers run software so trivial on microcomputers so small, installing a compiler for them would just be _way_ more effort than to just code to program in C. Typical examples are the microcontrollers in electric toothbrushes or other smaller embedded systems. It's hard to get your software running on a 4 bit microcontroller as modern C makes assumptions like having your memory addressible at a byte level.
Then there is another, in my opinion more important, point. Assembler is a great teaching aid. It shows you what the computer actually does. Understanding things like pointers is trivial in Assembler so you can learn a lot from it. Also in Assembler every control structure hurts, as you need to keep track of it yourself. This nudges you towards writing simpler code, away from thousands of nested if statements and functions with hundreds of lines. Those are desirable traits in all programming languages.
No language is suitable for everything, but most languages have at least one are where they are really useful.
A network will always be able to mess with your data. Trusting in the security of a network is stupid. It used to be a theoretical threat, but now we know that organizations like the NSA sniff everything they get.
The Internet has taught us that we must always use end-to-end encryption. That's why, unlike the phone network, a big percentage of data is secure. The phone network is one of those networks that are considered to be "secure". In reality it's very likely that most phone calls, and particularly their "metadata", will be recorded. In fact many phone companies record the "metadata" in order to be able to send you a bill.
At least in a minor form. We could now have 20 hour workweeks, yet we have chosen to go down the path of "Bullshit Jobs". Those are Jobs that serve no productive use and are just there to keep people occupied. Typical examples are certain types of marketing executives and middle management people, others are badly educated engineers which do not know how to solve problems and are not in a situation where they could ever learn that. The effect is that you have huge numbers of people working all day accomplishing nothing.
First of all it's a bit misleading when we are talking about software here. Technically it is, but actually it's more like a parameter set the actual software is working on. The actual software is the same for many companies and written by Bosch.
Dubious parameters have been used by other companies before. One example is BMW motorcycles.
If you want to get some information with some credibility, watch this talk:
https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-73...
Those people have reverse-engineered the software and the parameter set... and they have done actual real-life tests to verify that.
Let's first ban all forms of DRM so that I can easily just watch my BluRay disks or copy them to harddisk without having to go through dubious providers.
Once DRM is gone and piracy therefore has dropped considerably as you can simply pay for DRM-free copies on the Internet, we can talk about hunting "pirates".
The MPAA has to understand that their 1970s business models of "renting cartivision tapes" just can't coexist with a computerized digital world where making copies is trivial.
Apparently Outlook renders HTML-mail. That's unfortunately a common bug found in mail clients today. That's nearly as bad as some mail clients incorrectly encoding your mail as HTML.