Ironically, the primary site for which I really need a faster Javascript engine is Slashdot.
What's so demanding on slashdot? All I can think of is that you're running a browser on a sam coupe, or that your machine must be swapping so much that all javascript is horribly slow.
The thing with social hacks, and a lot of things that script kiddies/hackers/maladjusted people do is... well, the "hackers" think of themselves as great for accomplishing this great feat of breaking into someone's property or outwitting them. It's like a kid jumping over a picket fence into someone's garden, and making a big deal because they broke through the guy's defenses. What they don't realise is that the guy with the picket fence has better things to do than mess up his front yard building impenetrable defenses, just to protect against the slight chance that you might mess up their grass. The average person just doesn't care about security, the way IT pros do. And in most cases, that's a fairly sane way to prioritise. This is only a problem in two ways:
* banks, e-commerce, and a few other kinds of site with sensitive data have a responsibility to protect confidential information. In this case, the site operators need to step up their game, but they usually know that.
* insignificant servers can be used to launch attacks on sites/systems that matter. But that's more of a problem for it pros, not the insignificant sites.
Burglary is a crime against property, UNLESS someone is specifically threatened or attacked. You may be thinking of robbery, which is not the same thing (robbery is specifically stealing in someone's presence, by force or threat)
Until the bacterium reroute the main power conduits through the deflector beam to create an inverse tachyon pulse. Then what?
I think you meant deflector array. Otherwise there's no way such a silly thing could happen.:p
Hear me out, commander. If we modulate the signal, we can use the deflector beam as a carrier wave, and get a signal to , who can then relay the signal to Starbase 352.
They do so primarily because the code those games rely on is either missing
Nope. Usually if the code (ROM, OS, or game code) was missing, it wouldn't be available in an emulator either.
or no longer works the same way in today's version of OS
This is an argument for emulators OR old machines, so it's irrelevant in distinguishing between them.
not because it's the 'better way to play them'.
Not so. I've always found emulators a better way to run games. Consider having to restart a level on a real console, vs. regularly pressing one key to snapshot your progress, and restoring with another key any time you make a mistake. Suddenly the gameplay of your favourite game becomes a LOT less tedious, and you can relive an old experience or catchup on a classic experience you missed very quickly. Same for applying cheat codes, boosting the graphics with interpolation from low to high res, etc. Emulators are generally MUCH better than the real thing, at least once the emulating machine can out-perform the original.
Its like complaining someone was murdered because they broke into a house.
In any country with sane laws, that's considered to be criminal, because it uses more than reasonable force to counter the offense. If someone tries to punch you in the face, you cannot kill them for it. Same with breaking into your house to steal your TV -- it's not a crime punishable by death.
NONE of which is to say that I think private copyright infringement is theft, or should even exist as a crime.
Fair enough, but personally, between discovering something is missing in a search engine and blowing my own brains out to get away from said search engine, I'd rather not risk it;)
Seriously... who made the decision to go with this? I suspect it's the same person that decided to ajaxify google images. Both are horrible, unusable things that just get in the way.
It just fills in up to 6 typed characters. you can type 6 periods (.) and still get it all filled it.
What it is leading to after that is anyones guess.
Google used to limit you to 10 keywords per search. Since they've taken over youtube though, they're short on bandwidth. So, they're trimming that to maximum search length to six characters, as of friday.
If Google stops innovating and rests on their laurels, they risk another company overtaking them.
That applies equally if they just mess up their innovation. For instance, their new image search javascript popup monstrosity is annoying the crap out of me. I might well abandon their image search for another.
It's well worth watching, considering that this is the future and the summary is comprehensive and all. However, the basic upshot is:
* some myths have built up around quantum computing, such as that classical crypto will be made obsolete. [ I'm not sure what her point was here; she seems to dismiss most these, but then never really goes back to it. Her other details seem to support these "myths" more than debunk them ] * quantum computers fit reality better than classical computers, therefore we need them to understand and model our physical universe, almost regardless of how much "better" they are than classical computers in other ways [ Though this seems largely a performance thing to me ] * building quantum computers is progressing; the company she works for (DWave) is producing 128-qubit chips now [ though they're specialised ] * building stuff for quantum computers (such as refrigeration units to supercool them) is progressing in parallel [ supercoolers are available as desktop devices, will probably fit in a PC case like a PSU soon ] * the chips they're building at DWave are specialised for pattern recognition and other energy reduction (simulated/quantum annealing) problems * she expects quantum computing to be based around specialised co-processors (like GPUs, physics cards etc.) rather than general purpose CPUs * there are lots of different ways to build quantum computers, each with their own pros and cons. We're nowhere near a standardised architecture (like Von Neumann) yet, for quantum computing. * google have worked with DWave on an image recog project using their chip, and it's now performing better on their quantum chip(s?) than on google's previous hardware * they used boink to generate known-good test results to compare with their quantum chip * boink took ~1000 hours on ~1000 computers to do what their quantum chip does in something between a few seconds and a few minutes * QC is still facing some major hurdles, not only of engineering and science, but of funding too. * funding is the main obstacle * one of the big funding problems is building a quantum computer in small labs/foundries that rivals the established, trillion-dollar industry of classical computing. Since foundries work better in large scale, it's hard to compete and prove the worth of QC * she doesn't believe that academia has the necessary funding/project-time structure to allow non-commercial research/development at a higher level than the fundamental concepts
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting. How much would I have to pay for one of these "marketing fearmongerings"?
What's so demanding on slashdot? All I can think of is that you're running a browser on a sam coupe, or that your machine must be swapping so much that all javascript is horribly slow.
I think you must have read that wrong. Sharapova was found in a haystack, going supernova as she gave birth to a solar system.
The thing with social hacks, and a lot of things that script kiddies/hackers/maladjusted people do is... well, the "hackers" think of themselves as great for accomplishing this great feat of breaking into someone's property or outwitting them. It's like a kid jumping over a picket fence into someone's garden, and making a big deal because they broke through the guy's defenses. What they don't realise is that the guy with the picket fence has better things to do than mess up his front yard building impenetrable defenses, just to protect against the slight chance that you might mess up their grass. The average person just doesn't care about security, the way IT pros do. And in most cases, that's a fairly sane way to prioritise. This is only a problem in two ways:
* banks, e-commerce, and a few other kinds of site with sensitive data have a responsibility to protect confidential information. In this case, the site operators need to step up their game, but they usually know that.
* insignificant servers can be used to launch attacks on sites/systems that matter. But that's more of a problem for it pros, not the insignificant sites.
Slow down everyone. No one would argue that ASP.net sites aren't bad, but calling them criminal is a bit much.
Burglary is a crime against property, UNLESS someone is specifically threatened or attacked. You may be thinking of robbery, which is not the same thing (robbery is specifically stealing in someone's presence, by force or threat)
Here's one they made up earlier:
http://www.venganza.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/hq-graphcopy2_800.jpg
Hear me out, commander. If we modulate the signal, we can use the deflector beam as a carrier wave, and get a signal to , who can then relay the signal to Starbase 352.
Nope. Usually if the code (ROM, OS, or game code) was missing, it wouldn't be available in an emulator either.
This is an argument for emulators OR old machines, so it's irrelevant in distinguishing between them.
Not so. I've always found emulators a better way to run games. Consider having to restart a level on a real console, vs. regularly pressing one key to snapshot your progress, and restoring with another key any time you make a mistake. Suddenly the gameplay of your favourite game becomes a LOT less tedious, and you can relive an old experience or catchup on a classic experience you missed very quickly. Same for applying cheat codes, boosting the graphics with interpolation from low to high res, etc. Emulators are generally MUCH better than the real thing, at least once the emulating machine can out-perform the original.
Get tied up by catwoman? ;)
In any country with sane laws, that's considered to be criminal, because it uses more than reasonable force to counter the offense. If someone tries to punch you in the face, you cannot kill them for it. Same with breaking into your house to steal your TV -- it's not a crime punishable by death.
NONE of which is to say that I think private copyright infringement is theft, or should even exist as a crime.
Come on. If they can't even be honest about not having a tractor beam, how are they going to resist lying about oil?
Fair enough, but personally, between discovering something is missing in a search engine and blowing my own brains out to get away from said search engine, I'd rather not risk it ;)
No, we'd be using something else.
Listen, no one's left to care about bacteria. By the time the tractor beam has come to life, even the captain has already abandoned ship.
I mean, seriously... even in the wildest sci-fi show, did you EVER hear of a tractor beam COMING TO LIFE?!
Of course not. I'll have blown a hole in my skull by then ;)
That may be the worst attempt at logic I've ever read ;)
Not if they have any sense ;)
30 seconds in, I found it MUCH better to just get rid of the whole thing:
http://www.google.com/preferences
Seriously... who made the decision to go with this? I suspect it's the same person that decided to ajaxify google images. Both are horrible, unusable things that just get in the way.
Google used to limit you to 10 keywords per search. Since they've taken over youtube though, they're short on bandwidth. So, they're trimming that to maximum search length to six characters, as of friday.
That applies equally if they just mess up their innovation. For instance, their new image search javascript popup monstrosity is annoying the crap out of me. I might well abandon their image search for another.
Hold on, one of these is an infinite fuel source? Which is it: canvas, or heretics?
We're thinking, we're thinking! FFS give us a break, we're only little.
It's well worth watching, considering that this is the future and the summary is comprehensive and all. However, the basic upshot is:
* some myths have built up around quantum computing, such as that classical crypto will be made obsolete. [ I'm not sure what her point was here; she seems to dismiss most these, but then never really goes back to it. Her other details seem to support these "myths" more than debunk them ]
* quantum computers fit reality better than classical computers, therefore we need them to understand and model our physical universe, almost regardless of how much "better" they are than classical computers in other ways [ Though this seems largely a performance thing to me ]
* building quantum computers is progressing; the company she works for (DWave) is producing 128-qubit chips now [ though they're specialised ]
* building stuff for quantum computers (such as refrigeration units to supercool them) is progressing in parallel [ supercoolers are available as desktop devices, will probably fit in a PC case like a PSU soon ]
* the chips they're building at DWave are specialised for pattern recognition and other energy reduction (simulated/quantum annealing) problems
* she expects quantum computing to be based around specialised co-processors (like GPUs, physics cards etc.) rather than general purpose CPUs
* there are lots of different ways to build quantum computers, each with their own pros and cons. We're nowhere near a standardised architecture (like Von Neumann) yet, for quantum computing.
* google have worked with DWave on an image recog project using their chip, and it's now performing better on their quantum chip(s?) than on google's previous hardware
* they used boink to generate known-good test results to compare with their quantum chip
* boink took ~1000 hours on ~1000 computers to do what their quantum chip does in something between a few seconds and a few minutes
* QC is still facing some major hurdles, not only of engineering and science, but of funding too.
* funding is the main obstacle
* one of the big funding problems is building a quantum computer in small labs/foundries that rivals the established, trillion-dollar industry of classical computing. Since foundries work better in large scale, it's hard to compete and prove the worth of QC
* she doesn't believe that academia has the necessary funding/project-time structure to allow non-commercial research/development at a higher level than the fundamental concepts
I know windows 2.0 was a while back, but the good news is that they're finally going to get this bug fixed for Windows 8.