> That's what they said when Mac stopped using floppy disks.
No, it's not what ANYONE said then. What they said then was something along the lines of "that's too soon". And they were CORRECT- plenty of iMac purchasers bought an external floppy drive to transfer data to and from, and used it for the life of that computer. No one seriously believed that the 1.44 Megabyte floppy, a reasonable and useful amount of storage in 1987, with hard drives under one hundred megabytes, was "the future" or "would never go away" ten years later, with hard drives in the gigabytes.
Summary: "People who need floppies will buy USB floppies, networked machines won't care so much, and that's a big part of their target market" http://articles.latimes.com/19...
Nobody ways saying "Great, but the floppy is so perfect that everyone will use it forever". But you can absolutely make that case for the headphone jack, which doesn't appear to be going away at all. It's just something you can't get on a new iPhone, which is a shame, but it's not new for Apple to ignore a standard for profit.
There's no law that says you have to supply them with a fingerprint, either, but the moment that went before a judge it became "sure, if it is physically possible to force someone to do it, great, go ahead!"
> So does almost everybody in the world own a BT device?
Owning a single blutooth device means you aren't a BT user. Everyone who wants to use BT needs TWO of them, bare minimum, to get any utility from it. So you have "every single phone" accounting for whatever small percent of people own a SINGLE device, and then you have it placed on a variety of other things- mice, keyboards, headphones, peripherals- to actually interface with their computer/phone/console/car.
> Obama had a decent (not perfect) track record of not crossing the line of Constitutionally but he did have to walk it, because of a congress who would refuse to do anything.
If Trump does the same thing of "not crossing the line of Constitutionality, but having to walk it, because of a congress who refuses to do anything", will you interpret it like that, or will you spin it totally differently?
Many games are multithreaded, but there's still a wide difference in how they work. Some games have two threads, and one usually ends up doing a bunch of work- and of course, most processors handle two threads just fine. Few games are meaningfully split into like thirty threads or whatever and will scale evenly with processor speed or processor core count, and some games have an absolutely trivial amount of CPU work anyway. It's pretty variable. Certainly you wouldn't chase core count if gaming was your primary driver for chip purchase, you would chase single threaded performance as long as you weren't dropping all the way down to two cores or something.
If there's just one species running around in some quasi-ghost form, yea, sure, they'd ignore us for being meat or however the story goes. But why aren't there a million quasi-ghost things, one of which likes to talk to meat dudes? Why wouldn't there be *just one* thing building the Wal*Mart? Given that life on earth has a variety of ways to solve the same problem, one would assume that there would be a variety of philosophies that could be valid at the level of something as big as the universe, and to assume that "why would they bother with us" would be a *literally universal* truism seems... silly.
The point is that the vast timespans should be utterly undone by the vast amount of space. There shouldn't just be another life form across the Fornax void, there should be ludicrous numbers of intelligent species, meeting with a variety of fates, and at least ONE of them should have stood up a nice hamburger shack somewhere- probably a whole bunch of them. Instead we see absolutely nothing except a curiously empty infinity in every direction. It just doesn't jive without some kind of great filter or some edge case.
Further, even if Earth is in the first wave, it would have to be the VERY first. Maybe we wouldn't expect a crowded universe, but we'd expect someone saying "eat at joes" with a superstructure, even if far away.
Like, I've always liked drive-ins, but I never found myself going to them routinely. It's nice to chill in your car and watch a movie. I get why they aren't as big as in the past though.
This particular thing has not. Nor even really this class of things.
> Google has already used this power, for instance, to take down botnet C&C domains.
I doubt anyone feels the need to move to uncensored DNS to be able to enable botnets. But they may well feel that need when political speech starts getting silenced. As always, the most ludicrous and hateful people are the trial balloons in these cases: no one is going to set up an alternative DNS just for hatemongers. But make no mistake, it will expand far beyond that, and it will be applied unevenly across the political spectrum, so some people will be aggrieved well beyond the haters or whatever.
Also, there's plenty of defamation online. If we started stripping name resolution of every domain that hosts defamation, slashdot would be one of many victims.
Hosting is one thing, this is another. You simply can't push politics that low on the network stack man.
Basically, go browse any far left site and replace the groups they complain about, such as "men" or "whites", with any other thing. Then post that post somewhere normal on the internet, if you can even stand to read it, and get banned instantly.
It's perfectly reasonable to slam hate groups on the left and right equally.
Domain registration is not the same thing as hosting. Once the DNS is politicized, people will need to have uncensored DNS as an alternative to censored DNS. The people who own the censored DNS will do what they can, technically and politically, to ban the uncensored DNS.
Bitcoin would disappear tomorrow if there was an actually anonymous (Bitcoin isn't even really anonymous) way of sending literally anything of value. This need is most fervently expressed by privacy advocates, but lets be real: a huge amount of bitcoin's actual transactions are sketchy, and at least a decent number are outright criminal.
So many things about Bitcoin should ring alarm bells. The fact that there's huge amounts of the blocks that have been mined and never moved. The fact that it's set up to be almost mined completely out not merely in our lifetimes, but reasonably soon (unlike, for instance, a precious metal- 70% of all possible bitcoins have already been mined). The fact that there's numerous vulnerabilities if enough of the network is under control of a bad actor. The fact that it markets so heavily to principle-driven libertarian types with an anarchist or minarchist mindset. The fact that the bulk of the mining is taking place in China, specifically where electricity is cheap, and is controlled by a few shadowy men. It's a a goddamned parade of red flags.
And yet, there's still a desire to subscribe to suicidegirls without your wife finding out, and there's still a desire to get weed mailed to you or whatever. So it still has value, because it is providing a market need, even though everyone knows in their hearts it is just like, so fake. Just so super doubleduper fake.
> calling them out as huge hypocrites when they sell plenty of other privacy invasive products
I don't think it is hypocrisy. The really invasive companies such as Google and Amazon have written in a lot of stuff, and spent a lot of money on lawyers, to handle data in aggregate, in ways that aren't supposed to invade our privacy, but still let them do targeted ads. This nuance is lost on you and I, sure (I, and probably you, want nothing to do with their endless parade of data hoarding), but it's still a real cost that they pay and it represents real restrictions on what they do with their data. Without even this basic assurance, it's a non-hypocritical position for a data conglomerate like Amazon to have issues with a company that does any of this secretly, and with open ended data usage (again, from a perspective like Google's, their data usage is not open ended, it is very constrained).
I spend half an hour or more driving to the airport, five to fifty minutes waiting to check a stupid bag (you can eliminate this time by flying pretty much naked), and then anywhere from fifteen to forty five minutes waiting for security. Then I have to wait for a train to get to a gate (smaller airports don't have this problem, and even some bigger ones let you walk, but not the ones I am usually at), and take said train, then get to the gate, another minimum twenty minutes and usually closer to thirty.
At that point, you could teleport me to my destination, and as long as I still have to wait for a dumb machine to spit my bag out, then wait for a van to go to rental, and then wait in line at Avis Preferred booth to figure out why their system of directing me directly to my car failed yet again and they have to punch shit into my computer- and it would still be a pain in the ass.
If I take a four hour flight, I have at least two, and sometimes four hours of drama pre-flight, and around one afterwords. The actual time flying is the most pleasant part of the trip, because I can pass the fuck out. I just need a seat that is not scientifically designed to be totally bullshit, and to not have a bunch of security theater, which represents real risk when they decide to rifle through my belongings for a prolonged period of time.
If you catch it as a joke and submit a "revise and resubmit" request, that may be a formal politeness, rather than a willingness to publish a joke. Maybe. At least it doesn't explicitly smell of nonsense, as did the blind acceptance ones.
> That would be more acceptable if Niantic didn't place rare rewards in dangerous places
They really don't. Not in Pokemon Go at least, I don't know about Ingress.
In Pokemon Go, the world is filled with pokemon spawn points, the majority of which are totally reachable from a road or by walking through a park. Rare pokemon come up rarely.
A decent number of players do use a third party map (like on a website) that is built by using thousands of fake accounts which exist only to report the positions of monsters. The players can then get in their car and drive to the rare pokemon. These are hardly ever in a dangerous location.
Niantic does what they can to stop the maps, but that's not even the big problem with what you posted.
> most players just GPS spoof to get them anyway
VERY few players GPS spoof to get monsters. It's extremely rare, because your account can absolutely be banned for any type of spoofing. Many, many, accounts have been permanently shut down just for this. I'm sure you can find a spoofer one ownedcore who hasn't had any problems, but they are the exception, not the rule- and being a spoofer at all is very rare in this game anyway.
No to both. A LAN party may have a bunch of gamers who have cell phones, but the focus is on the LAN. If the LAN is only part of the action- if teams are playing online- then you can be sure the planner will at least have a high speed connection available. Even a hackathon will focus more on local data transfer.
This was truly unprecedented.
And also completely, 100% percent, predictable.
Again, in Pokemon Go, literally all you do is play on their server, through a cell network or a wifi.
You can supply a fucking wifi. You can supply enough wifi. If this is your goal, you NEED to.
Slashdot Mirror
> That's what they said when Mac stopped using floppy disks.
No, it's not what ANYONE said then. What they said then was something along the lines of "that's too soon". And they were CORRECT- plenty of iMac purchasers bought an external floppy drive to transfer data to and from, and used it for the life of that computer. No one seriously believed that the 1.44 Megabyte floppy, a reasonable and useful amount of storage in 1987, with hard drives under one hundred megabytes, was "the future" or "would never go away" ten years later, with hard drives in the gigabytes.
Here's the types of things they were saying:
Summary: "It's a publicity stunt to sell more expensive media solutions"
http://www.osnews.com/story/18...
Summary: "People who need floppies will buy USB floppies, networked machines won't care so much, and that's a big part of their target market"
http://articles.latimes.com/19...
Nobody ways saying "Great, but the floppy is so perfect that everyone will use it forever". But you can absolutely make that case for the headphone jack, which doesn't appear to be going away at all. It's just something you can't get on a new iPhone, which is a shame, but it's not new for Apple to ignore a standard for profit.
> Your 1960s jack socket is never coming back.
Meanwhile in the rest of the universe, it never even left.
Also it made a return on the new Macbook Pro.
There's no law that says you have to supply them with a fingerprint, either, but the moment that went before a judge it became "sure, if it is physically possible to force someone to do it, great, go ahead!"
You don't need laws with compliant judges.
> So does almost everybody in the world own a BT device?
Owning a single blutooth device means you aren't a BT user. Everyone who wants to use BT needs TWO of them, bare minimum, to get any utility from it. So you have "every single phone" accounting for whatever small percent of people own a SINGLE device, and then you have it placed on a variety of other things- mice, keyboards, headphones, peripherals- to actually interface with their computer/phone/console/car.
> Obama had a decent (not perfect) track record of not crossing the line of Constitutionally but he did have to walk it, because of a congress who would refuse to do anything.
If Trump does the same thing of "not crossing the line of Constitutionality, but having to walk it, because of a congress who refuses to do anything", will you interpret it like that, or will you spin it totally differently?
Many games are multithreaded, but there's still a wide difference in how they work. Some games have two threads, and one usually ends up doing a bunch of work- and of course, most processors handle two threads just fine. Few games are meaningfully split into like thirty threads or whatever and will scale evenly with processor speed or processor core count, and some games have an absolutely trivial amount of CPU work anyway. It's pretty variable. Certainly you wouldn't chase core count if gaming was your primary driver for chip purchase, you would chase single threaded performance as long as you weren't dropping all the way down to two cores or something.
> if I give you two factors p and q, whether they multiply to a number n
Bear in mind that factoring is not known to be either P or NP.
> Do you answer every 5 year old you see?
No, but *someone* would, eventually.
If there's just one species running around in some quasi-ghost form, yea, sure, they'd ignore us for being meat or however the story goes. But why aren't there a million quasi-ghost things, one of which likes to talk to meat dudes? Why wouldn't there be *just one* thing building the Wal*Mart? Given that life on earth has a variety of ways to solve the same problem, one would assume that there would be a variety of philosophies that could be valid at the level of something as big as the universe, and to assume that "why would they bother with us" would be a *literally universal* truism seems... silly.
The point is that the vast timespans should be utterly undone by the vast amount of space. There shouldn't just be another life form across the Fornax void, there should be ludicrous numbers of intelligent species, meeting with a variety of fates, and at least ONE of them should have stood up a nice hamburger shack somewhere- probably a whole bunch of them. Instead we see absolutely nothing except a curiously empty infinity in every direction. It just doesn't jive without some kind of great filter or some edge case.
Further, even if Earth is in the first wave, it would have to be the VERY first. Maybe we wouldn't expect a crowded universe, but we'd expect someone saying "eat at joes" with a superstructure, even if far away.
Like, I've always liked drive-ins, but I never found myself going to them routinely. It's nice to chill in your car and watch a movie. I get why they aren't as big as in the past though.
> Again, it doesn't matter what you think.
Lol
> This has been ruled on by the courts.
This particular thing has not. Nor even really this class of things.
> Google has already used this power, for instance, to take down botnet C&C domains.
I doubt anyone feels the need to move to uncensored DNS to be able to enable botnets. But they may well feel that need when political speech starts getting silenced. As always, the most ludicrous and hateful people are the trial balloons in these cases: no one is going to set up an alternative DNS just for hatemongers. But make no mistake, it will expand far beyond that, and it will be applied unevenly across the political spectrum, so some people will be aggrieved well beyond the haters or whatever.
Also, there's plenty of defamation online. If we started stripping name resolution of every domain that hosts defamation, slashdot would be one of many victims.
Hosting is one thing, this is another. You simply can't push politics that low on the network stack man.
Basically, go browse any far left site and replace the groups they complain about, such as "men" or "whites", with any other thing. Then post that post somewhere normal on the internet, if you can even stand to read it, and get banned instantly.
It's perfectly reasonable to slam hate groups on the left and right equally.
Domain registration is not the same thing as hosting. Once the DNS is politicized, people will need to have uncensored DNS as an alternative to censored DNS. The people who own the censored DNS will do what they can, technically and politically, to ban the uncensored DNS.
I, for one, have made my time.
It's a hat pin, it just flipped over on the pin axis at some point.
> Telegames
I would get gamevision, but telegames? What's remote about the games? Ludicrous!
Bitcoin would disappear tomorrow if there was an actually anonymous (Bitcoin isn't even really anonymous) way of sending literally anything of value. This need is most fervently expressed by privacy advocates, but lets be real: a huge amount of bitcoin's actual transactions are sketchy, and at least a decent number are outright criminal.
So many things about Bitcoin should ring alarm bells. The fact that there's huge amounts of the blocks that have been mined and never moved. The fact that it's set up to be almost mined completely out not merely in our lifetimes, but reasonably soon (unlike, for instance, a precious metal- 70% of all possible bitcoins have already been mined). The fact that there's numerous vulnerabilities if enough of the network is under control of a bad actor. The fact that it markets so heavily to principle-driven libertarian types with an anarchist or minarchist mindset. The fact that the bulk of the mining is taking place in China, specifically where electricity is cheap, and is controlled by a few shadowy men. It's a a goddamned parade of red flags.
And yet, there's still a desire to subscribe to suicidegirls without your wife finding out, and there's still a desire to get weed mailed to you or whatever. So it still has value, because it is providing a market need, even though everyone knows in their hearts it is just like, so fake. Just so super doubleduper fake.
> calling them out as huge hypocrites when they sell plenty of other privacy invasive products
I don't think it is hypocrisy. The really invasive companies such as Google and Amazon have written in a lot of stuff, and spent a lot of money on lawyers, to handle data in aggregate, in ways that aren't supposed to invade our privacy, but still let them do targeted ads. This nuance is lost on you and I, sure (I, and probably you, want nothing to do with their endless parade of data hoarding), but it's still a real cost that they pay and it represents real restrictions on what they do with their data. Without even this basic assurance, it's a non-hypocritical position for a data conglomerate like Amazon to have issues with a company that does any of this secretly, and with open ended data usage (again, from a perspective like Google's, their data usage is not open ended, it is very constrained).
I spend half an hour or more driving to the airport, five to fifty minutes waiting to check a stupid bag (you can eliminate this time by flying pretty much naked), and then anywhere from fifteen to forty five minutes waiting for security. Then I have to wait for a train to get to a gate (smaller airports don't have this problem, and even some bigger ones let you walk, but not the ones I am usually at), and take said train, then get to the gate, another minimum twenty minutes and usually closer to thirty.
At that point, you could teleport me to my destination, and as long as I still have to wait for a dumb machine to spit my bag out, then wait for a van to go to rental, and then wait in line at Avis Preferred booth to figure out why their system of directing me directly to my car failed yet again and they have to punch shit into my computer- and it would still be a pain in the ass.
If I take a four hour flight, I have at least two, and sometimes four hours of drama pre-flight, and around one afterwords. The actual time flying is the most pleasant part of the trip, because I can pass the fuck out. I just need a seat that is not scientifically designed to be totally bullshit, and to not have a bunch of security theater, which represents real risk when they decide to rifle through my belongings for a prolonged period of time.
If you catch it as a joke and submit a "revise and resubmit" request, that may be a formal politeness, rather than a willingness to publish a joke. Maybe. At least it doesn't explicitly smell of nonsense, as did the blind acceptance ones.
> That would be more acceptable if Niantic didn't place rare rewards in dangerous places
They really don't. Not in Pokemon Go at least, I don't know about Ingress.
In Pokemon Go, the world is filled with pokemon spawn points, the majority of which are totally reachable from a road or by walking through a park. Rare pokemon come up rarely.
A decent number of players do use a third party map (like on a website) that is built by using thousands of fake accounts which exist only to report the positions of monsters. The players can then get in their car and drive to the rare pokemon. These are hardly ever in a dangerous location.
Niantic does what they can to stop the maps, but that's not even the big problem with what you posted.
> most players just GPS spoof to get them anyway
VERY few players GPS spoof to get monsters. It's extremely rare, because your account can absolutely be banned for any type of spoofing. Many, many, accounts have been permanently shut down just for this. I'm sure you can find a spoofer one ownedcore who hasn't had any problems, but they are the exception, not the rule- and being a spoofer at all is very rare in this game anyway.
No to both. A LAN party may have a bunch of gamers who have cell phones, but the focus is on the LAN. If the LAN is only part of the action- if teams are playing online- then you can be sure the planner will at least have a high speed connection available. Even a hackathon will focus more on local data transfer.
This was truly unprecedented.
And also completely, 100% percent, predictable.
Again, in Pokemon Go, literally all you do is play on their server, through a cell network or a wifi.
You can supply a fucking wifi. You can supply enough wifi. If this is your goal, you NEED to.
> "It operates in an invisible part of the electromagnetic spectrum so you don't see the beam, it doesn't make any sound...
Hopefully, future versions will come in a variety of badass colors, and will make a BWEEM noise.
> Most successful enterprises start out with debt
So do almost all unsuccessful ones.