There needs to be multiple paths of learning, so that those that are advancing faster can continue to advance. Why they're advancing doesn't matter in the context of a need for such a path. Some may be from wealthy families that have hired tutors for home and really focus on education and push their kids, regardless of their capacity, and at cost to other parts of their lives. Some may have a knack or natural passion for certain subjects. Some may have higher IQ's. Etc.
The shame here is that there are probably a bunch of people that *could* be in those accelerated classes, but they're not for one reason or another (and income/poverty probably plays a significant role, but there's loads of other reasons a kid could be passed over). IMO, this identification and help should be a separate tract/issue. Programs could be started to help get kids up to speed to pass the entrance exams for those classes.
BTW, was anyone else left yearning for more gifted editors or submissions?
Analysts believe black and hispanic students are at put at a disadvantage because of the way in which the program is run.
What's wrong with dm-crypt that is shipped as default disk encryption backend by most distros?
Those distros do not include Windows or Mac OS. AFAICT, FreeBSD doesn't support dm-crypt / luks either. FreeBSD's go to encryption is Geli, which isn't supported by Linux distros. eCryptFS works on FreeBSD and Linux, but it's not block level encryption.
TrueCrypt/VeraCrypt/CipherShed... they provide block level encryption that is cross platform. That's a feature that the others lack. It's theoretically possible for dm-crypt/luks to have a MacOS, WIndows, and FreeBSD driver (which would also probably require the filesystem drivers, as ext4 isn't well supported on those either), but it's not easy. Thus the obsession with Truecrypt.
IMO, I'd forego the expensive matrix KVM's as well as the loggy VNC-like solutions.
Many monitors support multiple inputs. If yours doesn't, get some that do. Use the monitors input switching for video input changes. That takes care of video (I'm pretty sure 3 inputs each is more than feasible).
For the keyboard and mouse, use any of the existing hardware solutions for those (there are old manual switches that work with PS-2 and AT stuff that are dirt cheap, and would do the job, for example). Alternatively, use something like synergy (http://synergy-project.org/)
EXACTLY what I was thinking. It still would have been pretty useless, but at least it would have been something. He didn't even the keyboards out of their plastic shells to put into one big shell... they're just sitting on a table! WTF. And he "programmed" something so they'd all work? Bullshit. He configured the keyboard remapping. That's not programming, it's configuring a program. I was actually hoping it'd show how to make a custom keyboard layout - I could probably find a use for a small one (maybe a row of keys to put on the front side of my desk, which is above my keyboard tray, so I can reach up with a finger and poke some volume/media/etc type of keys)
...because I don't give a crap enough to download all of your stupid little emojis.
Emoji's are part of Unicode/UTF-8. They work like any other character, like the ones you're reading now. When I enter "N", you may see it in Times New Roman, Arial, or whatever you have your fonts set to, so it might not look the same as what I see, but it's still a capitalized 14th letter of the english alphabet. Similarly, when someone sends you a smiling cat emoji, it's just a character code, and your system/font may or may not display it the same as their system, or may not display it at all.
Long story short, people aren't sending you pictures, and you're not downloading pictures**.
** exception to this rule is the "stickers" feature in Google Hangouts and similar stuff. Those are pictures, not emoji, though the files themselves are not sent whenever you send them (they use something similar to & to send them).
Not sure why so many people make a big deal out of this. I had a crappy wifi card in an old dell. Bought a new one Intel Centrino one and it's been rock solid. Here:
If the "right to be forgotten" applied to Google's cache of pages when those pages no longer exist, then I could concede to that provision. IE. Google shouldn't be maintaining an archive of (probably copyrighted) pages indefinitely for its own gain, especially once those pages go away, and then, even moreso, once someone specifically asks that those pages go away.
However, I don't think that's exactly what's happening. IMO, like the RIAA cases, the claims should go to the source (ie. the person hosting the resource/info). If they can't get them to remove it, then tough titties - google gets to keep indexing it cause it's what there is on the web. I'm pretty certain that's NOT how things work, but I wish it were.
(granted, I have no idea if any of the above is actually what's happening, or if it's what you were motivated by)
"Question: If a bed doesn’t fit in a room because it’s too big, what is too big? Rose: I don’t even want to pretend that. Question: If Alex lent money to Joe because they were broke, who needed the money? Rose: huh? Question: Should Greece leave the Euro? Rose: Seems like a nice place."
How, uh, impressive. If by "impressive" you mean "pathetic".
While I agree it's pretty pathetic, the questioner did a REALLY shitty job of holding a conversation. If someone chatted with me like that, they'd get even less useful results.
Eliza, as easy to recognize as she was, is still one of the more convincing ones I've seen. I just had a quick chat with the 2014 Rose (Couldn't find the 2015 Rose), and it was very frustrating because the replies were not able to identify the topic, but they picked out a word and when off on a tangent, and then it didn't engage the user - it was just some stupid statement. The worst was when Rose mentioned that Tim Berners-Lee was her hero. In my reply, I said something like, "Sadly, the decentralized web envisioned by Tim Berners-Lee is being bastardized by the likes of Facebook". Her reply - that his name sounds familiar but she's doesn't know who he is. I asked if she was being sarcastic, and she commented on my wit.
IMO, these things really need a couple (seemingly simple but probably incredibly difficult) features added:
* Remember the chat history. Log and reference the whole thing, build concepts out of it, record verbatim for quotes, etc.
* Have a _consistent_ knowledge base. If one of the "facts" about the bot is that _PERSON_ is a personal hero or something, then if that _PERSON_ is ever mentioned, make sure it answers in a way that doesn't contradict that fact. It doesn't need to confirm it every time, but don't contradict it.
* Do simple things. What's the square root of 9? It *can* easily figure that out. Check out "OK Google", "Siri", or Amazon Echo/Alexa. They do a pretty great job of speech recognition (not needed for this competition), speech synthesis (also not needed), and actually answering questions that are personally relevant (tying into your calendar, music collection, etc).
The conversation part of the problem, while difficult, seems pretty useless to me. The last thing I want when talking to a computer is to have it be as annoying and difficult to deal with as an unpaid and unscripted person. That said, it still needs to be able to "hold" the concept of a conversation in its "head", like: * me > comptuer? What' the name of the theme song to mash? * The theme song for MASH is "Suicide Is Painless" by Johnny Mandel and Mike Altman. * me > What year was that released? * It was released in 1970. * me > Read the first paragraph from wikipedia about it *.... reads it....
FWIW, amazon's alexa can do most of that, if you replace "it" with the topic in all the questions. Seems like that would be an easy problem to solve (keeping a list of topics), and would go a long way to making a conversation of sorts actually possible.
I don't leave my phone in the car, at the beach, bar, etc.
Assuming you use a car to drive to the beach and you go into the water, where do you leave your phone if not in the car or on the beach?
I mostly agree though. I've seen so many people leave their phones sitting on the bar when they go to the bathroom, or even just sitting on the table while they eat. Put it the fuck away unless you're using it, and don't use it while holding a conversation with someone else. One exception/excuse though... have you seen the size of pockets on women's pants!?!?
I think that's great. I really really do. Of course, there's a "but" coming... those numbers on the FB invite page don't look very positive:-( 615 invites 13 maybe 16 went
The fatal flaw of touch interfaces (IMO) has been the lack of context, there's no 'hover' or 'right button'; a touch is a touch.
FWIW, Samsung Galaxy S4 and up can detect and utilize/actual/ finger hover. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... It's not quite as useful as it could be, and sometimes gets in the way (webpage magnifier tends to always come up when I don't want it to), but it does work and is here today (for years now).
From the article, the Feds maintain that ""With the benefits of corporate citizenship in the United States come corresponding responsibilities..."
So, are they really claiming that they can compel citizens to commit felonies in other countries? My, what a novel legal argument!
While I don't agree with the concept of corporations as people, the concept isn't all that difficult. Where there is a conflict of laws, those need resolved one way or another. For an easy example, US citizens weren't allowed to go to Cuba, so when you go there, you were already breaking the law... what else gets done there is further breaking the law.
Microsoft had the choice of whether or not to put data centers in Ireland. If those laws contradict US laws in ways that affect their doing business there, then they need to stop doing business there. They don't get to pick and choose whose laws they want to obey on a given day. FWIW, I also think the government is overreaching in this case.
The opposite case/example, the "what if" of a foreign company having their data center in the US, still owned by them, and then violating our data privacy laws, should be compared to the situation in the EU with the EU data privacy laws. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
AFAIK, if anyone houses data on EU citizens on a server on EU land, they must comply with those laws. That also applies to data on EU citizens held on servers that are NOT on EU land (at least in business related situations). This makes it a PITA to work around and with, but I wish the US had such laws.
I got no such thing from the quora page (https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Altavista-search-engine-lose-ground-so-quickly-to-Google/answer/Marcia-J-Bates) It doesn't even have a second page!
The link from TFS is to http://www.pc-tablet.co.in/, which is just as long as the original quora page, but it's reworded to the point of being useless.
For example, where the bastardized pc-tablet page says, "Google successfully recognized the potential of URLs", the original didn't use the word URL in the entire article. What they said was, "What the Google founders recognized about search on the Web was that information about LINKS could be added to the algorithms." See, that makes much more sense, and it's actually what google did! Link to your page from other pages significantly increased your page rank, even more so if those other pages were on topic. The URL of those other pages didn't matter, and they weren't extracting any additional information from the URL.
A handful of people have asked why not go wireless instead? I know my reasons (speed, privacy, and we have an existing fiber loop) but are any wireless technologies good enough that cities should consider them?
So yeah, I think there are plenty of justifications that allow wireless to make as much or more sense. For example, a backhoe could quickly destroy a large area of fibre coverage, where as, depending on how its implemented, a wireless outage would be more like a brown out in a small location. Wireless (if it's not highly directional at the last hop) would also have a VERY different level of coverage. Slower than fiber, sure... but fiber would only be fast at that single point of termination, and most folks walk around with phones, tablets, watches, laptops, etc. Few people even run cable to their PC's, and just use wifi from wherever their access point got installed. Also, if all neighborhoods were blanketed with free wifi, then there'd be FAR less reasons to have personal access points in the home. This could significantly reduce the congestion, especially in densely populated areas. This could end up significantly improving the usable wifi speeds.
Personally, I'd rather have the fiber, and I'd really rather have both the fiber and wireless (for both redundancy and coverage reasons).
I know it's still being used; I have to deal with it every day. I was kind of hoping to stimulate a discussion where I could complain about it, but it seems there aren't enough people still using PL/B.
It's certainly complaint worthy. I haven't had to use it in a long time (about a decade, and it was old school even then), and though I did make fun of it at the time, it really wasn't that awful to work with. Maybe I was lucky to be working with a relatively well designed system, but, once I got used to some of the particulars (which didn't really take very long.. they just required a slightly different line of thought), it was easy to debug, modify, update, improve, etc. That said, I wouldn't choose to use it again unless I absolutely had to.
I was going to say "databus", which is the original PL/B. FWIW, it's still being actively used by some big/important places (http://www.dbcsoftware.com/dbcov.html).
My favorite fun fact about it: developed in the early 1970's as an alternative to COBOL because Datapoint's 8-bit computers could not fit COBOL into their limited memory. Yeah... designed for those times when COBOL is just WAY too big.
Why should they do something that complicated if...
(emphasis mine) I'm not sure what world you come from, but one line is not "that complicated" here. The GP also referred to it as, "Even thinking of it requires significant criminal energy". That's simply not true... it's dead easy; it's an insignificant change.
I do think all those external fetches should be clearly documented and relatively easy to block or redirect, but I could care less if they bypass the hosts file, and it's certainly not some huge bit of dark magic.
It's just a WebView component embedded inside a web page.
One thing I wasn't able to deduce from the article is whether or not "x-ms-webview" components can exist in publicly served webpages. Are the only for use in Universal Windows Platform (UWP) applications?
If they are available elsewhere (ex. open up a local html file with one, or from an intranet site, or from the public internet), it would seem that this *could* be a step backwards in some ways. To quote one of those articles:
The crux of the functionality stems around the powerful WebView control. Offering a comprehensive set of APIs, it overcomes several of the limitations which encumber iframes, such as framebusting sites and document loading events. Additionally, the x-ms-webview, how one declares a WebView in HTML, provides new functionality that is not possible with an iframe, such as better access to local content and the ability to take screenshots.
... so the page loading the component could, or example, be a really clean phishing attempt (ex. loading your bank and screenshotting the webview).
Actually... IGNORE EVERYTHING I JUST WROTE. I should have looked at actual tech pages: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-... It's only for windows runtime apps, and when a windows store app uses it, it ends up being turned into an iframe. Nothing new to see here.
H.264 and JPEG are supposed to output random-looking bytes, by definitions.
If you can compress those, something is very wrong.
Where'd you get that idea?
$ bzip2 test.jpg $ gzip -9 test.jpg $ ls -la -rw-r--r-- 1 me me 1519279 Feb 7 2012 test.jpg -rw-r--r-- 1 me me 1430059 Aug 28 16:42 test.jpg.bz2 -rw-r--r-- 1 me me 1427872 Aug 28 16:44 test.jpg.gz... I also tried it on a max-compressed file. Opened that test.jpg up in gimp, then saved with quality at 0 (lowest), and re-did the compressing on both: -rw-rw-r-- 1 me me 189230 Aug 28 16:50 test2.jpg -rw-rw-r-- 1 me me 111623 Aug 28 16:50 test2.jpg.bz2 -rw-rw-r-- 1 me me 117971 Aug 28 16:51 test2.jpg.gz
Feel free to try the same experiment yourself on random jpg's you find online, or your own.
The goal of H.264 and JPEG isn't minimum file size at all costs. It's also not encryption. Your premise is wrong, and even old tech can compress this stuff further than it may already be.
sed -i 's/^\(hosts:[[:space:]]\+\)files[[:space:]]/\1/'/etc/nsswitch.conf
Yeah. Lots of work on other platforms too.
(and yes, I know this is almost completely unrelated to the topic at hand; they probably just use DnsQuery with DNS_QUERY_NO_HOSTS_FILE; it's not hard though, and shouldn't be)
... I can't believe they went to all the trouble to design and implement this and aren't going to push back against people trying to disable it.
Really? What percentage of people are actually going to disable (and/or block) all of it? What percentage will disable *any* of it? ANYONE that wants cortana to work, which seems to be a large part of their marketing, will have to keep most of it enabled. Will the percentage that's left from those be enough to justify what was done? (the answer is "Hell yes it will, unless some lawsuit somehow gets in the way").
Now, you may be thinking something along the lines of, "while alienating all their true supporters and die hard fans", or something like that (eg. those who are going through the disabling steps are annoyed, and that annoyance may cost MS). Why would MS give a fuck? Anyone going through the trouble to disable all those settings has bought into Windows so completely that they're even willing to go through all that trouble just to use Windows 10... Microsoft doesn't have to worry at all about losing those customers.
Why would they push back any further within Windows 10? They can just wait 'til the next round of shitty-ui-new-version then slightly-better-new-version-that-adds-more-privacy-issues (or any other combo of two evils).
I know this 32 bit epoch is a running gag, but time_t is 64 bits on 64 bit systems and I doubt there'll be many 32 bit systems left (even embedded) by 2039!
There are still a large number of 32bit cpu's being made (like almost every android device CPU there is, and most Apple iPhone/iPad things, and many of the chromebooks out there):
All ARMv7 based CPU's, such as: * Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 (nexus 7) * ARM Cortex-A9 (ex. Exynos 4210 in Galaxy Tab 3) * ARM Cortex-A15 (ex. nvidia tegra K1 in NVIDIA SHIELD; Galaxy Tab 4 and S, ASUA Chromebook C201 with Rockchip 3288)
Apple mobile products: * Apple A4 (ARM Cortex-A8): iPhone 4, iPod Touch (4th gen), Apple TV (2nd gen) * Apple A5 (ARM Cortex-A9): iPad 2, iPhone 4S, iPod Touch (5th gen), iPad mini * Apple A6 (ARM Cortex-A15): iPhone 5
Some notable 64bit exceptions: * Apple A7 (ARMv8-A): iPhone 5S * Apple A8 (ARMv8-A): iPhone 6 and 6 Plus * Apple A8X (ARMv8-A): iPad Air 2 * Exynos 5433: Galaxy Note 4 (but it only runs in 32bit mode) * Exynos 7420: Galaxy S6 and S6 Edge * NVIDIA Tegra X1:... I don't know if this is in anything yet.
Also, like y2k, there will be LOADS of data storage issues - databases that need tables altered, etc. Unlike the printed date, it will be far more difficult to make assumptions about the values based on proximity to the current date (ie. 9/11/01 was considered to be 2001, but 7/4/48 was considered 1948). time_t was a signed 32bit int, so it will wrap around to negative which has a poorly defined behavior.
It'll only be a "gag" if everyone ends up fixing their systems, rather than crossing their fingers and assuming all cpu's and OS's will be running full 64bit. 2038 isn't even the deadline... the deadline is whenever usage of that date as a timestamp is needed:
64bit-sys$ TZ=GMT date -d "2038-01-19 03:14:07" +%s 2147483647 64bit-sys$ TZ=GMT date -d "2038-01-19 03:14:08" +%s 2147483648
32bit-sys$ TZ=GMT date -d "2038-01-19 03:14:07" +%s 2147483647 32bit-sys$ TZ=GMT date -d "2038-01-19 03:14:08" +%s date: invalid date `2038-01-19 03:14:08'
Slashdot Mirror
Just stop considering and naming it "gifted".
There needs to be multiple paths of learning, so that those that are advancing faster can continue to advance. Why they're advancing doesn't matter in the context of a need for such a path. Some may be from wealthy families that have hired tutors for home and really focus on education and push their kids, regardless of their capacity, and at cost to other parts of their lives. Some may have a knack or natural passion for certain subjects. Some may have higher IQ's. Etc.
The shame here is that there are probably a bunch of people that *could* be in those accelerated classes, but they're not for one reason or another (and income/poverty probably plays a significant role, but there's loads of other reasons a kid could be passed over). IMO, this identification and help should be a separate tract/issue. Programs could be started to help get kids up to speed to pass the entrance exams for those classes.
BTW, was anyone else left yearning for more gifted editors or submissions?
Analysts believe black and hispanic students are at put at a disadvantage because of the way in which the program is run.
What's wrong with dm-crypt that is shipped as default disk encryption backend by most distros?
Those distros do not include Windows or Mac OS.
AFAICT, FreeBSD doesn't support dm-crypt / luks either.
FreeBSD's go to encryption is Geli, which isn't supported by Linux distros.
eCryptFS works on FreeBSD and Linux, but it's not block level encryption.
TrueCrypt/VeraCrypt/CipherShed... they provide block level encryption that is cross platform. That's a feature that the others lack. It's theoretically possible for dm-crypt/luks to have a MacOS, WIndows, and FreeBSD driver (which would also probably require the filesystem drivers, as ext4 isn't well supported on those either), but it's not easy. Thus the obsession with Truecrypt.
IMO, I'd forego the expensive matrix KVM's as well as the loggy VNC-like solutions.
Many monitors support multiple inputs. If yours doesn't, get some that do.
Use the monitors input switching for video input changes. That takes care of video (I'm pretty sure 3 inputs each is more than feasible).
For the keyboard and mouse, use any of the existing hardware solutions for those (there are old manual switches that work with PS-2 and AT stuff that are dirt cheap, and would do the job, for example). Alternatively, use something like synergy (http://synergy-project.org/)
EXACTLY what I was thinking. It still would have been pretty useless, but at least it would have been something. He didn't even the keyboards out of their plastic shells to put into one big shell... they're just sitting on a table! WTF. And he "programmed" something so they'd all work? Bullshit. He configured the keyboard remapping. That's not programming, it's configuring a program.
I was actually hoping it'd show how to make a custom keyboard layout - I could probably find a use for a small one (maybe a row of keys to put on the front side of my desk, which is above my keyboard tray, so I can reach up with a finger and poke some volume/media/etc type of keys)
...because I don't give a crap enough to download all of your stupid little emojis.
Emoji's are part of Unicode/UTF-8. They work like any other character, like the ones you're reading now. When I enter "N", you may see it in Times New Roman, Arial, or whatever you have your fonts set to, so it might not look the same as what I see, but it's still a capitalized 14th letter of the english alphabet. Similarly, when someone sends you a smiling cat emoji, it's just a character code, and your system/font may or may not display it the same as their system, or may not display it at all.
Long story short, people aren't sending you pictures, and you're not downloading pictures**.
** exception to this rule is the "stickers" feature in Google Hangouts and similar stuff. Those are pictures, not emoji, though the files themselves are not sent whenever you send them (they use something similar to & to send them).
I hate the crap Broadcom WiFi card in it ...
Not sure why so many people make a big deal out of this. I had a crappy wifi card in an old dell. Bought a new one Intel Centrino one and it's been rock solid. Here:
http://www.amazon.com/Ultimate...
Intel Centrino Ultimate-N 6300 802.11 a/b/g/n 2.4Ghz and 5.0Ghz : $10.69
That's a half-height Mini PCE-E. You can get a bracket on there to extend it to full height for $4 (or just make your own).
(that's not the card I got, but it should do better than what I had picked up - mine lacks "a", but also has bluetooth)
Some details would help your case...
If the "right to be forgotten" applied to Google's cache of pages when those pages no longer exist, then I could concede to that provision. IE. Google shouldn't be maintaining an archive of (probably copyrighted) pages indefinitely for its own gain, especially once those pages go away, and then, even moreso, once someone specifically asks that those pages go away.
However, I don't think that's exactly what's happening. IMO, like the RIAA cases, the claims should go to the source (ie. the person hosting the resource/info). If they can't get them to remove it, then tough titties - google gets to keep indexing it cause it's what there is on the web. I'm pretty certain that's NOT how things work, but I wish it were.
(granted, I have no idea if any of the above is actually what's happening, or if it's what you were motivated by)
"Question: If a bed doesn’t fit in a room because it’s too big, what is too big?
Rose: I don’t even want to pretend that.
Question: If Alex lent money to Joe because they were broke, who needed the money?
Rose: huh?
Question: Should Greece leave the Euro?
Rose: Seems like a nice place."
How, uh, impressive. If by "impressive" you mean "pathetic".
While I agree it's pretty pathetic, the questioner did a REALLY shitty job of holding a conversation. If someone chatted with me like that, they'd get even less useful results.
Eliza, as easy to recognize as she was, is still one of the more convincing ones I've seen. I just had a quick chat with the 2014 Rose (Couldn't find the 2015 Rose), and it was very frustrating because the replies were not able to identify the topic, but they picked out a word and when off on a tangent, and then it didn't engage the user - it was just some stupid statement. The worst was when Rose mentioned that Tim Berners-Lee was her hero. In my reply, I said something like, "Sadly, the decentralized web envisioned by Tim Berners-Lee is being bastardized by the likes of Facebook". Her reply - that his name sounds familiar but she's doesn't know who he is. I asked if she was being sarcastic, and she commented on my wit.
IMO, these things really need a couple (seemingly simple but probably incredibly difficult) features added:
* Remember the chat history. Log and reference the whole thing, build concepts out of it, record verbatim for quotes, etc.
* Have a _consistent_ knowledge base. If one of the "facts" about the bot is that _PERSON_ is a personal hero or something, then if that _PERSON_ is ever mentioned, make sure it answers in a way that doesn't contradict that fact. It doesn't need to confirm it every time, but don't contradict it.
* Do simple things. What's the square root of 9? It *can* easily figure that out. Check out "OK Google", "Siri", or Amazon Echo/Alexa. They do a pretty great job of speech recognition (not needed for this competition), speech synthesis (also not needed), and actually answering questions that are personally relevant (tying into your calendar, music collection, etc).
The conversation part of the problem, while difficult, seems pretty useless to me. The last thing I want when talking to a computer is to have it be as annoying and difficult to deal with as an unpaid and unscripted person. That said, it still needs to be able to "hold" the concept of a conversation in its "head", like: .... reads it ....
* me > comptuer? What' the name of the theme song to mash?
* The theme song for MASH is "Suicide Is Painless" by Johnny Mandel and Mike Altman.
* me > What year was that released?
* It was released in 1970.
* me > Read the first paragraph from wikipedia about it
*
FWIW, amazon's alexa can do most of that, if you replace "it" with the topic in all the questions. Seems like that would be an easy problem to solve (keeping a list of topics), and would go a long way to making a conversation of sorts actually possible.
I don't leave my phone in the car, at the beach, bar, etc.
Assuming you use a car to drive to the beach and you go into the water, where do you leave your phone if not in the car or on the beach?
I mostly agree though. I've seen so many people leave their phones sitting on the bar when they go to the bathroom, or even just sitting on the table while they eat. Put it the fuck away unless you're using it, and don't use it while holding a conversation with someone else. One exception/excuse though... have you seen the size of pockets on women's pants!?!?
I think that's great. I really really do. Of course, there's a "but" coming... those numbers on the FB invite page don't look very positive :-(
615 invites
13 maybe
16 went
Regardless, congrats on the outcome!
I think the GP was just a joke, but comparing a cartridge with two 32gb flash chips on it to a BD-ROM is crazy. You can't update a BD-ROM.
The fatal flaw of touch interfaces (IMO) has been the lack of context, there's no 'hover' or 'right button'; a touch is a touch.
FWIW, Samsung Galaxy S4 and up can detect and utilize /actual/ finger hover. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It's not quite as useful as it could be, and sometimes gets in the way (webpage magnifier tends to always come up when I don't want it to), but it does work and is here today (for years now).
From the article, the Feds maintain that ""With the benefits of corporate citizenship in the United States come corresponding responsibilities..."
So, are they really claiming that they can compel citizens to commit felonies in other countries? My, what a novel legal argument!
While I don't agree with the concept of corporations as people, the concept isn't all that difficult. Where there is a conflict of laws, those need resolved one way or another. For an easy example, US citizens weren't allowed to go to Cuba, so when you go there, you were already breaking the law... what else gets done there is further breaking the law.
Microsoft had the choice of whether or not to put data centers in Ireland. If those laws contradict US laws in ways that affect their doing business there, then they need to stop doing business there. They don't get to pick and choose whose laws they want to obey on a given day. FWIW, I also think the government is overreaching in this case.
The opposite case/example, the "what if" of a foreign company having their data center in the US, still owned by them, and then violating our data privacy laws, should be compared to the situation in the EU with the EU data privacy laws. For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
AFAIK, if anyone houses data on EU citizens on a server on EU land, they must comply with those laws. That also applies to data on EU citizens held on servers that are NOT on EU land (at least in business related situations). This makes it a PITA to work around and with, but I wish the US had such laws.
All the more reason to wait until the Air 3 gains some traction in the market, lowering resale cost of both the 1 and 2.
I got no such thing from the quora page (https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Altavista-search-engine-lose-ground-so-quickly-to-Google/answer/Marcia-J-Bates)
It doesn't even have a second page!
The link from TFS is to http://www.pc-tablet.co.in/, which is just as long as the original quora page, but it's reworded to the point of being useless.
For example, where the bastardized pc-tablet page says, "Google successfully recognized the potential of URLs", the original didn't use the word URL in the entire article. What they said was, "What the Google founders recognized about search on the Web was that information about LINKS could be added to the algorithms." See, that makes much more sense, and it's actually what google did! Link to your page from other pages significantly increased your page rank, even more so if those other pages were on topic. The URL of those other pages didn't matter, and they weren't extracting any additional information from the URL.
FTFS:
A handful of people have asked why not go wireless instead? I know my reasons (speed, privacy, and we have an existing fiber loop) but are any wireless technologies good enough that cities should consider them?
So yeah, I think there are plenty of justifications that allow wireless to make as much or more sense.
For example, a backhoe could quickly destroy a large area of fibre coverage, where as, depending on how its implemented, a wireless outage would be more like a brown out in a small location.
Wireless (if it's not highly directional at the last hop) would also have a VERY different level of coverage. Slower than fiber, sure... but fiber would only be fast at that single point of termination, and most folks walk around with phones, tablets, watches, laptops, etc. Few people even run cable to their PC's, and just use wifi from wherever their access point got installed.
Also, if all neighborhoods were blanketed with free wifi, then there'd be FAR less reasons to have personal access points in the home. This could significantly reduce the congestion, especially in densely populated areas. This could end up significantly improving the usable wifi speeds.
Personally, I'd rather have the fiber, and I'd really rather have both the fiber and wireless (for both redundancy and coverage reasons).
I know it's still being used; I have to deal with it every day. I was kind of hoping to stimulate a discussion where I could complain about it, but it seems there aren't enough people still using PL/B.
It's certainly complaint worthy. I haven't had to use it in a long time (about a decade, and it was old school even then), and though I did make fun of it at the time, it really wasn't that awful to work with. Maybe I was lucky to be working with a relatively well designed system, but, once I got used to some of the particulars (which didn't really take very long.. they just required a slightly different line of thought), it was easy to debug, modify, update, improve, etc. That said, I wouldn't choose to use it again unless I absolutely had to.
I was going to say "databus", which is the original PL/B.
FWIW, it's still being actively used by some big/important places (http://www.dbcsoftware.com/dbcov.html).
My favorite fun fact about it: developed in the early 1970's as an alternative to COBOL because Datapoint's 8-bit computers could not fit COBOL into their limited memory. Yeah... designed for those times when COBOL is just WAY too big.
Why should they do something that complicated if ...
(emphasis mine)
I'm not sure what world you come from, but one line is not "that complicated" here. The GP also referred to it as, "Even thinking of it requires significant criminal energy". That's simply not true... it's dead easy; it's an insignificant change.
I do think all those external fetches should be clearly documented and relatively easy to block or redirect, but I could care less if they bypass the hosts file, and it's certainly not some huge bit of dark magic.
It's just a WebView component embedded inside a web page.
One thing I wasn't able to deduce from the article is whether or not "x-ms-webview" components can exist in publicly served webpages. Are the only for use in Universal Windows Platform (UWP) applications?
If they are available elsewhere (ex. open up a local html file with one, or from an intranet site, or from the public internet), it would seem that this *could* be a step backwards in some ways. To quote one of those articles:
The crux of the functionality stems around the powerful WebView control. Offering a comprehensive set of APIs, it overcomes several of the limitations which encumber iframes, such as framebusting sites and document loading events. Additionally, the x-ms-webview, how one declares a WebView in HTML, provides new functionality that is not possible with an iframe, such as better access to local content and the ability to take screenshots.
... so the page loading the component could, or example, be a really clean phishing attempt (ex. loading your bank and screenshotting the webview).
Actually... IGNORE EVERYTHING I JUST WROTE. I should have looked at actual tech pages: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-...
It's only for windows runtime apps, and when a windows store app uses it, it ends up being turned into an iframe. Nothing new to see here.
H.264 and JPEG are supposed to output random-looking bytes, by definitions.
If you can compress those, something is very wrong.
Where'd you get that idea?
$ bzip2 test.jpg ... I also tried it on a max-compressed file. Opened that test.jpg up in gimp, then saved with quality at 0 (lowest), and re-did the compressing on both:
$ gzip -9 test.jpg
$ ls -la
-rw-r--r-- 1 me me 1519279 Feb 7 2012 test.jpg
-rw-r--r-- 1 me me 1430059 Aug 28 16:42 test.jpg.bz2
-rw-r--r-- 1 me me 1427872 Aug 28 16:44 test.jpg.gz
-rw-rw-r-- 1 me me 189230 Aug 28 16:50 test2.jpg
-rw-rw-r-- 1 me me 111623 Aug 28 16:50 test2.jpg.bz2
-rw-rw-r-- 1 me me 117971 Aug 28 16:51 test2.jpg.gz
Feel free to try the same experiment yourself on random jpg's you find online, or your own.
The goal of H.264 and JPEG isn't minimum file size at all costs. It's also not encryption. Your premise is wrong, and even old tech can compress this stuff further than it may already be.
sed -i 's/^\(hosts:[[:space:]]\+\)files[[:space:]]/\1/' /etc/nsswitch.conf
Yeah. Lots of work on other platforms too.
(and yes, I know this is almost completely unrelated to the topic at hand; they probably just use DnsQuery with DNS_QUERY_NO_HOSTS_FILE; it's not hard though, and shouldn't be)
... I can't believe they went to all the trouble to design and implement this and aren't going to push back against people trying to disable it.
Really? What percentage of people are actually going to disable (and/or block) all of it? What percentage will disable *any* of it? ANYONE that wants cortana to work, which seems to be a large part of their marketing, will have to keep most of it enabled. Will the percentage that's left from those be enough to justify what was done? (the answer is "Hell yes it will, unless some lawsuit somehow gets in the way").
Now, you may be thinking something along the lines of, "while alienating all their true supporters and die hard fans", or something like that (eg. those who are going through the disabling steps are annoyed, and that annoyance may cost MS). Why would MS give a fuck? Anyone going through the trouble to disable all those settings has bought into Windows so completely that they're even willing to go through all that trouble just to use Windows 10... Microsoft doesn't have to worry at all about losing those customers.
Why would they push back any further within Windows 10? They can just wait 'til the next round of shitty-ui-new-version then slightly-better-new-version-that-adds-more-privacy-issues (or any other combo of two evils).
I know this 32 bit epoch is a running gag, but time_t is 64 bits on 64 bit systems and I doubt there'll be many 32 bit systems left (even embedded) by 2039!
There are still a large number of 32bit cpu's being made (like almost every android device CPU there is, and most Apple iPhone/iPad things, and many of the chromebooks out there):
All ARMv7 based CPU's, such as:
* Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 (nexus 7)
* ARM Cortex-A9 (ex. Exynos 4210 in Galaxy Tab 3)
* ARM Cortex-A15 (ex. nvidia tegra K1 in NVIDIA SHIELD; Galaxy Tab 4 and S, ASUA Chromebook C201 with Rockchip 3288)
Apple mobile products:
* Apple A4 (ARM Cortex-A8): iPhone 4, iPod Touch (4th gen), Apple TV (2nd gen)
* Apple A5 (ARM Cortex-A9): iPad 2, iPhone 4S, iPod Touch (5th gen), iPad mini
* Apple A6 (ARM Cortex-A15): iPhone 5
Some notable 64bit exceptions: ... I don't know if this is in anything yet.
* Apple A7 (ARMv8-A): iPhone 5S
* Apple A8 (ARMv8-A): iPhone 6 and 6 Plus
* Apple A8X (ARMv8-A): iPad Air 2
* Exynos 5433: Galaxy Note 4 (but it only runs in 32bit mode)
* Exynos 7420: Galaxy S6 and S6 Edge
* NVIDIA Tegra X1:
The work that OpenBSD did needs done everywhere. 32bit systems need to have a 64bit time_t.
http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...
Also, like y2k, there will be LOADS of data storage issues - databases that need tables altered, etc. Unlike the printed date, it will be far more difficult to make assumptions about the values based on proximity to the current date (ie. 9/11/01 was considered to be 2001, but 7/4/48 was considered 1948). time_t was a signed 32bit int, so it will wrap around to negative which has a poorly defined behavior.
It'll only be a "gag" if everyone ends up fixing their systems, rather than crossing their fingers and assuming all cpu's and OS's will be running full 64bit. 2038 isn't even the deadline... the deadline is whenever usage of that date as a timestamp is needed:
64bit-sys$ TZ=GMT date -d "2038-01-19 03:14:07" +%s
2147483647
64bit-sys$ TZ=GMT date -d "2038-01-19 03:14:08" +%s
2147483648
32bit-sys$ TZ=GMT date -d "2038-01-19 03:14:07" +%s
2147483647
32bit-sys$ TZ=GMT date -d "2038-01-19 03:14:08" +%s
date: invalid date `2038-01-19 03:14:08'