One of the things that really pisses me off whenever anyone comes up with something utopian is that they don't fully address the second order effects, as if that's a rounding error or some shit. Pretend that every human hears and agrees with Stephen Hawking, and actually acts to reduce their own aggressiveness. What about the standing rewards for aggressiveness? They'll just be enhanced! The job that rewards aggression now has an opening if you are one of the few who were unable to reduce your aggression as much as your peers. The woman who wants an aggressive man is now more available to you (and the mirrored sex case is also true, but much less important- and remember here, we're talking about reducing aggression as a first order, being attracted to aggressive people is a second order and NOT related). The conflicts are easier to win with aggression still.
Hawking isn't giving some utopian order, of course- the headline is based on one statement where he discusses a human failing. He's not being a fool here, but any plan to act on it as a first order would.
What you need is to increase the reward for NOT being aggressive. At EVERY level. Women in the workplace already face this problem, but so do guys who aren't pushy in the mating game. Aggression is stacked full of rewards. If you hand those rewards- NOT just financial, but security based, sexual based, and status based- to rational behaving actors, that's your solution.
In the meantime, empathy is a weakness in many cases, and aggression is the correct play in many cases. Until you change that (and not just with punishments that are selectively enforced), you won't see a bit of difference- and you'd be a fool to play along in many cases.
Processors seem unlikely, BIOS seems like a target you can hit later (anything that can be flashed and has proprietary reasons why it's secure, is utterly insecure) so probably clean out of the factory, Windows seems likely the others seem less likely, drivers are very plausible because there's a million of them and not much oversight...
I mean, it's hard to guess. We might get more info later, but so far everything hardware has played by some set of rules- aka, nothing leaked implies that your machines ship in a state to spy on you, merely that with targeted malware you could be monitored if you were some kind of target. Doing that is pretty literally their job.
I think the backdoor accusations make them a sketchy company. It's just accusations (well, until this one, lewl!), but I wouldn't trust them personally.
It's worse than other bugs for anyone who has an infected laptop... but to get an infected laptop, you'd have to buy it from Lenovo and then not purge the disk promptly. It's not an issue because most people aren't ever going to have a Lenovo laptop, nor a bank who uses one, nor a common website that relies on it. Amazon isn't going to lose your credit card number because they run Lenovo laptops or whatever. Unlike the actual real bugs that cause problems, this one is just something that blights consumers who buy from sketchy companies in the brief window of "that company decides to abuse the fuck out of their customers" and "consumer backlash shits on their cash grab". That's guaranteed to be small.
It's only news because, unlike the other bugs, this one had actual bad actors.
Well, there's the fact that Dell, HP, Acer, etc are NOT doing this. That, I feel, is a pretty good indicator.
It's clear that many companies feel obligated to bundle shitware, but that doesn't make it inevitable nor ok. I think it's a good indication that Lenovo is alone on this branch.
I mean, it's important and all, but there's different levels of issues. Heartbleed and shellshock are one thing- this is a sketchy manufacturer doing something sketchy. Certainly, it should put them on the level of Sony as Never Ever Buy A PC From Them- they are willing to actively subvert your rights to your own hardware, in ways that the rest of the industry would (presumably) not dream of.
IMO if you bought Lenovo, you didn't give a shit anyway. That doesn't mean you deserve it, but it does mean that most folks wouldn't have stepped in this.
It's so satisfying to see research like this. Every goto is this miniature jihad of people who are scared of it getting out their pikes, every piece of code that should use it making you wonder "am I gonna get raked over the coals? is this battle worth it?".
Hopefully the appropriate use of unconditional jump in mid and high level code will be appraised based on whether it's correct and good, not based on snap judgments and zealots.
No, what will cost them the lost profits will be the managers all hopped up on some shitty fucking trend that tells them to recode your tightly-coded routines with something that is super slow and awful (but trendy) and they believe it's no big deal because they think hardware is still advancing like it's the 80s.
There's a little more than is being reported. Here's some other RMS lines in the same thread:
First we have:
"More precisely, Apple intends LLVM and Clang to make GCC cease to be a signal success and a reason for all sorts of companies to work on a compiler that always gives users freedom. That would be a victory for Apple and a defeat for freedom.
I don't know what LLDB is, or what it might do. I am going to find out."
That's a little bit paranoid, but it is still a cautious statement.
Then:
"This question is a small part of a big issue which is more or less bad. I want to find out what it is, and think about it. Please do not ask me to rush to a conclusion without finding out what is happening."
Again, in all of his posts he mentions wanting to discuss it a bit more. RMS is pretty incendiary, eccentric, and often does or says crazy shit but... in this case it sounds like he said something alarmist to get attention and try to get some discussion, without stamping his foot down or flipping his shit. That he's being selectively quoted to make news is bad juju.
If something is super fast, the overhead from all the subroutine calls (specifically, the stack manipulation) will make it shit compared to a loop. I think the idea that everything is magical happenings (like idealized math) until late in CS is a definite issue.
Still, for a simple recursive demonstration, that's fine. It would be better to then show which should be looped and which should be recursive. But the fact that you can loop billions of times but I doubt you could recursively call a billion deep should be kept in mind- this is a fundamental limit of function calls.
Sounds like an awful way to design. You get design by minimalism, and of course where software "stops working" is divined by some high priests or whatever. That's how you get shit like, one button mouse, inability to block ads, no close button on your window, inability to customize UI, loss of familiar UI elements. All it takes is redefining "works" to exclude some set of users or potential users. "Our users shouldn't be X" -> GNOME happens. That sort of thing.
Lol, my ex STILL mocks me for the "Nokia email" following their ludicrous assertion that they would be around post capitalism and post nuclear war (by virtue of showing up as the in-dash system of a young Captain Kirk in the JJ Abrams Star Trek).
That stuff can really twist me.
But tear my hair out? I went bald way before it was cool!
That's a fully reasonable way to do things. But understand you are taking a much greater role of data ownership than is typical these days- mostly because email volume has increased, but also because the topics in emails have become a lot more varied since back in the day. In the 80s and early 90s a romantic email would be the punchline to a joke, as would an email making plans with all your friends. Email is the workhorse- if you think sending out a planning email is ludicrous, it's because you do all that on a bookface or a tweetspace or an imgster- even more tech to solve a problem in a way that would have been Nerd Level Max back then.
It's fashionable to shit on politicians no matter what they do, but I very much tire of "HarUMPH this does not go far ENOUGH!!!".
But here's my question- is this bill just like, a great thing that we should have, or is there some hidden aspect to it (ex: if it had language that allowed for warrants to be issued automatically)?
Because if it doesn't, super party and yay. If it does, presumably we'll hear about it soon enough.
I don't watch cable TV currently, and when I did, I would simple fast forward over the commercials. Movie theaters I either come in after the ads play or go grab whatever needs to be grabbed if I'm there with others- either way I don't see the ads.
Cable TV is shit for precisely this reason, and requires a work around. Movies are not interrupted by ads anyway.
I'm a fucking SHILL? For pointing out that it's perfectly reasonably to point out that the NSA does plenty of good? Sounds like you had your uninformed fucking mind up way before you stopped into this thread. The Boston Marathon Bombing happening is hardly the purview of the NSA in the first place- it was a couple of kids with some low fucking tech. The amount of monitoring necessary to catch that would be totalitarian, and ESPECIALLY if you expected them to do it with HUMINT. That's LUDICROUS. Is anything bad that happens an argument against the NSA? Not only is that the FBI's job, it's also a pretty low flying target for any three letter agency in the first place.
Expunged? Fuck that. Just because there's been some serious oversteps when it comes to preemptive monitoring of citizens doesn't mean that the agency needs to go away. That's ludicrous.
We don't have to endorse the privacy-violating things the NSA is up to in order to actually have a good opinion of THE WHOLE AGENCY. The NSA isn't just "a few oversteps that Snowden reveals piecemeal". The bulk of what they do is absolutely invaluable. A world with no NSA would be a worse one.
The G600 stores the values in the mouse. The older Razer products only did it in a driver (unsure about the new ones), but almost all Logitech gaming mice I've ever dealt with store the values internally.
1)- Map your left button (button 1) to left button. 2)- Map the button to the right of that (button 2) to middle button [normally this is right button] 3)- Map the far right button (the "g-shift" button normally, but it can do ANYTHING AT ALL including typing letters) to right button.
Problem solved. With nothing but the mouse and the software that comes with it. Which you can run yourself, go to a friends house and run it there, get a VM and run it there, run it on a laptop, or hack it up somehow, because the G600 has internal memory. But it's super easy and user friendly. And then you just ignore the mouse wheel or wheel it with your "button 2" finger.
I am a HUGE believer in the G600. You see all those 12 buttons on the side? You see the two buttons at the top? You can configure them however you want, and you'll never need to do the clicky-wheel.
So, what's the problem? I really don't see it. Oh, there's a button on the far right that your pinky or ring finger can get to.
You DO realize you can map the G600 buttons... right?
This study looked at actual humans, using actual tobacco products ("smokeless tobacco"), and found no correlation.
Meanwhile, the study YOU are talking about involved a guy (Chi Ming Hai) who claims that "atherosclerosis" is "...a kind of cancer of the blood vessel..." in order to get press. What he did was take heart cells out of the body, dose them in nicotine and PKC, and show that in encourages the formation of "podosome rosettes", which would imply that hardening of the arteries could result.
But, no arteries were actually hardened in this study. It's interesting then, that you've heard all the fuck about it, but you didn't hear about how none of the studies in actual people show any heart problems at all.
Interesting indeed.
Is nicotine harmful to the heart? Probably? Not detectable, however. And it could have cardioprotective effects as well as harmful ones, and that could be why they can't be detected in actual humans.
So again, cram it with your fear mongering. And don't just pick the one goddamned study that correlates with your preexisting view that smokers or drug users or whomever should suffer and that there's no such thing as a free lunch. Don't just say shit like "nicotine still hardens your arteries" and not even bother to look up if that fact is true at all. I mean, Zeus's beard bro, you are on the internet. Just type this crap into google!
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think the devs were helping anyway. They remain anonymous to this moment, at least to all of us.
One of the things that really pisses me off whenever anyone comes up with something utopian is that they don't fully address the second order effects, as if that's a rounding error or some shit. Pretend that every human hears and agrees with Stephen Hawking, and actually acts to reduce their own aggressiveness. What about the standing rewards for aggressiveness? They'll just be enhanced! The job that rewards aggression now has an opening if you are one of the few who were unable to reduce your aggression as much as your peers. The woman who wants an aggressive man is now more available to you (and the mirrored sex case is also true, but much less important- and remember here, we're talking about reducing aggression as a first order, being attracted to aggressive people is a second order and NOT related). The conflicts are easier to win with aggression still.
Hawking isn't giving some utopian order, of course- the headline is based on one statement where he discusses a human failing. He's not being a fool here, but any plan to act on it as a first order would.
What you need is to increase the reward for NOT being aggressive. At EVERY level. Women in the workplace already face this problem, but so do guys who aren't pushy in the mating game. Aggression is stacked full of rewards. If you hand those rewards- NOT just financial, but security based, sexual based, and status based- to rational behaving actors, that's your solution.
In the meantime, empathy is a weakness in many cases, and aggression is the correct play in many cases. Until you change that (and not just with punishments that are selectively enforced), you won't see a bit of difference- and you'd be a fool to play along in many cases.
Processors seem unlikely, BIOS seems like a target you can hit later (anything that can be flashed and has proprietary reasons why it's secure, is utterly insecure) so probably clean out of the factory, Windows seems likely the others seem less likely, drivers are very plausible because there's a million of them and not much oversight...
I mean, it's hard to guess. We might get more info later, but so far everything hardware has played by some set of rules- aka, nothing leaked implies that your machines ship in a state to spy on you, merely that with targeted malware you could be monitored if you were some kind of target. Doing that is pretty literally their job.
I think the backdoor accusations make them a sketchy company. It's just accusations (well, until this one, lewl!), but I wouldn't trust them personally.
It's worse than other bugs for anyone who has an infected laptop... but to get an infected laptop, you'd have to buy it from Lenovo and then not purge the disk promptly. It's not an issue because most people aren't ever going to have a Lenovo laptop, nor a bank who uses one, nor a common website that relies on it. Amazon isn't going to lose your credit card number because they run Lenovo laptops or whatever. Unlike the actual real bugs that cause problems, this one is just something that blights consumers who buy from sketchy companies in the brief window of "that company decides to abuse the fuck out of their customers" and "consumer backlash shits on their cash grab". That's guaranteed to be small.
It's only news because, unlike the other bugs, this one had actual bad actors.
Well, there's the fact that Dell, HP, Acer, etc are NOT doing this. That, I feel, is a pretty good indicator.
It's clear that many companies feel obligated to bundle shitware, but that doesn't make it inevitable nor ok. I think it's a good indication that Lenovo is alone on this branch.
Like, who cares?
I mean, it's important and all, but there's different levels of issues. Heartbleed and shellshock are one thing- this is a sketchy manufacturer doing something sketchy. Certainly, it should put them on the level of Sony as Never Ever Buy A PC From Them- they are willing to actively subvert your rights to your own hardware, in ways that the rest of the industry would (presumably) not dream of.
IMO if you bought Lenovo, you didn't give a shit anyway. That doesn't mean you deserve it, but it does mean that most folks wouldn't have stepped in this.
Research like this is very satisfying. Every correct use of goto is like "will I face jihad over this? Is it worth fighting this battle?".
Maybe in the future we'll see less anti-goto zealotry crapping on the correct uses of goto.
Christmas in February IMO.
It's so satisfying to see research like this. Every goto is this miniature jihad of people who are scared of it getting out their pikes, every piece of code that should use it making you wonder "am I gonna get raked over the coals? is this battle worth it?".
Hopefully the appropriate use of unconditional jump in mid and high level code will be appraised based on whether it's correct and good, not based on snap judgments and zealots.
Christmas in February IMO.
No, what will cost them the lost profits will be the managers all hopped up on some shitty fucking trend that tells them to recode your tightly-coded routines with something that is super slow and awful (but trendy) and they believe it's no big deal because they think hardware is still advancing like it's the 80s.
"Quick, redo it all in a fad language!"
There's a little more than is being reported. Here's some other RMS lines in the same thread:
First we have:
"More precisely, Apple intends LLVM and Clang to make GCC cease to be a
signal success and a reason for all sorts of companies to work on a
compiler that always gives users freedom. That would be a victory for
Apple and a defeat for freedom.
I don't know what LLDB is, or what it might do. I am going to find
out."
That's a little bit paranoid, but it is still a cautious statement.
Then:
"This question is a small part of a big issue which is more or less bad.
I want to find out what it is, and think about it. Please do not ask
me to rush to a conclusion without finding out what is happening."
Again, in all of his posts he mentions wanting to discuss it a bit more. RMS is pretty incendiary, eccentric, and often does or says crazy shit but... in this case it sounds like he said something alarmist to get attention and try to get some discussion, without stamping his foot down or flipping his shit. That he's being selectively quoted to make news is bad juju.
If something is super fast, the overhead from all the subroutine calls (specifically, the stack manipulation) will make it shit compared to a loop. I think the idea that everything is magical happenings (like idealized math) until late in CS is a definite issue.
Still, for a simple recursive demonstration, that's fine. It would be better to then show which should be looped and which should be recursive. But the fact that you can loop billions of times but I doubt you could recursively call a billion deep should be kept in mind- this is a fundamental limit of function calls.
...and engage in all manner of hoop jumping to get HD content.
It's reasonable to not care about that (I generally do not), but some do.
Sounds like an awful way to design. You get design by minimalism, and of course where software "stops working" is divined by some high priests or whatever. That's how you get shit like, one button mouse, inability to block ads, no close button on your window, inability to customize UI, loss of familiar UI elements. All it takes is redefining "works" to exclude some set of users or potential users. "Our users shouldn't be X" -> GNOME happens. That sort of thing.
Lol, my ex STILL mocks me for the "Nokia email" following their ludicrous assertion that they would be around post capitalism and post nuclear war (by virtue of showing up as the in-dash system of a young Captain Kirk in the JJ Abrams Star Trek).
That stuff can really twist me.
But tear my hair out? I went bald way before it was cool!
That's a fully reasonable way to do things. But understand you are taking a much greater role of data ownership than is typical these days- mostly because email volume has increased, but also because the topics in emails have become a lot more varied since back in the day. In the 80s and early 90s a romantic email would be the punchline to a joke, as would an email making plans with all your friends. Email is the workhorse- if you think sending out a planning email is ludicrous, it's because you do all that on a bookface or a tweetspace or an imgster- even more tech to solve a problem in a way that would have been Nerd Level Max back then.
It's fashionable to shit on politicians no matter what they do, but I very much tire of "HarUMPH this does not go far ENOUGH!!!".
But here's my question- is this bill just like, a great thing that we should have, or is there some hidden aspect to it (ex: if it had language that allowed for warrants to be issued automatically)?
Because if it doesn't, super party and yay. If it does, presumably we'll hear about it soon enough.
I don't watch cable TV currently, and when I did, I would simple fast forward over the commercials. Movie theaters I either come in after the ads play or go grab whatever needs to be grabbed if I'm there with others- either way I don't see the ads.
Cable TV is shit for precisely this reason, and requires a work around. Movies are not interrupted by ads anyway.
Yes, it is that horrible. I never want to see advertisements, and I simply won't pay if there's ads involved.
I'm a fucking SHILL? For pointing out that it's perfectly reasonably to point out that the NSA does plenty of good? Sounds like you had your uninformed fucking mind up way before you stopped into this thread. The Boston Marathon Bombing happening is hardly the purview of the NSA in the first place- it was a couple of kids with some low fucking tech. The amount of monitoring necessary to catch that would be totalitarian, and ESPECIALLY if you expected them to do it with HUMINT. That's LUDICROUS. Is anything bad that happens an argument against the NSA? Not only is that the FBI's job, it's also a pretty low flying target for any three letter agency in the first place.
Lets see what some basic googling can find.
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/...
Expunged? Fuck that. Just because there's been some serious oversteps when it comes to preemptive monitoring of citizens doesn't mean that the agency needs to go away. That's ludicrous.
We don't have to endorse the privacy-violating things the NSA is up to in order to actually have a good opinion of THE WHOLE AGENCY. The NSA isn't just "a few oversteps that Snowden reveals piecemeal". The bulk of what they do is absolutely invaluable. A world with no NSA would be a worse one.
The G600 stores the values in the mouse. The older Razer products only did it in a driver (unsure about the new ones), but almost all Logitech gaming mice I've ever dealt with store the values internally.
I guess I didn't emphasize this.
1)- Map your left button (button 1) to left button.
2)- Map the button to the right of that (button 2) to middle button [normally this is right button]
3)- Map the far right button (the "g-shift" button normally, but it can do ANYTHING AT ALL including typing letters) to right button.
Problem solved. With nothing but the mouse and the software that comes with it. Which you can run yourself, go to a friends house and run it there, get a VM and run it there, run it on a laptop, or hack it up somehow, because the G600 has internal memory. But it's super easy and user friendly. And then you just ignore the mouse wheel or wheel it with your "button 2" finger.
I am a HUGE believer in the G600. You see all those 12 buttons on the side? You see the two buttons at the top? You can configure them however you want, and you'll never need to do the clicky-wheel.
So, what's the problem? I really don't see it. Oh, there's a button on the far right that your pinky or ring finger can get to.
You DO realize you can map the G600 buttons... right?
Here's a study saying it doesn't.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
This study looked at actual humans, using actual tobacco products ("smokeless tobacco"), and found no correlation.
Meanwhile, the study YOU are talking about involved a guy (Chi Ming Hai) who claims that "atherosclerosis" is "...a kind of cancer of the blood vessel..." in order to get press. What he did was take heart cells out of the body, dose them in nicotine and PKC, and show that in encourages the formation of "podosome rosettes", which would imply that hardening of the arteries could result.
But, no arteries were actually hardened in this study. It's interesting then, that you've heard all the fuck about it, but you didn't hear about how none of the studies in actual people show any heart problems at all.
Interesting indeed.
Is nicotine harmful to the heart? Probably? Not detectable, however. And it could have cardioprotective effects as well as harmful ones, and that could be why they can't be detected in actual humans.
So again, cram it with your fear mongering. And don't just pick the one goddamned study that correlates with your preexisting view that smokers or drug users or whomever should suffer and that there's no such thing as a free lunch. Don't just say shit like "nicotine still hardens your arteries" and not even bother to look up if that fact is true at all. I mean, Zeus's beard bro, you are on the internet. Just type this crap into google!