We need to start doing IT with professionals. You know, with people that actually have a clue what they are doing. Sure, they will cost more individually, but overall the whole thing will get a lot cheaper as such major pathetic fuckups will become very rare.
They failed in all new tech, except in cloud-computing, but where they had to actually offer Linux. As such, MS is not just an ordinary computing company, no better than its competition. Past experience shows however that MS has consistent sub-standard quality and could only survive on a monopoly. That monopoly gone, MS is dead. As any giant, it will take quite a while to die though.
Oh, the law is not stupid. It comes from people that want significant less freedom for everyone ans significant more power for the "authorities". Fascists and other authoritarians are not necessarily stupid. The ones approving this law are the ones I called stupid.
And once again, a part of the world is going into darkness...
I hope this will happen never. There is not need for it and changing things without need is just incredibly bad engineering because it always causes problems.
And that is just the thing: Mass-hype and mass-panic that completely ignore practical aspects. Here is news for these people: Practical aspects are what makes or breaks a technology.
Incidentally, general AI has even less substance than QCs have, because there is not even a credible theory how they could work. In the few fields where we actually have theories (like automated deduction), the effort is so great that smart human beings can do things a universe-size computer could not. QCs seem to at least work for a few bits. Although, just as you say, there is very strong evidence for inverse-exponential scaling and that has the little problem that you run into a pretty hard limit at some (in this case very low) limit. Currently, it looks very much like QCs that are actually faster than practical computers will not ever materialize.
I agree. The whole thing is both useful idiots and "scientists" without ethics that want to profit from the hype a bit longer. The best supporting evidence for your citation is that QCs have almost not scaled at all in now something like 40 years of research.
There are no QCs of sufficient size to even break amateur-crypto. Scaling is proving difficult enough that it is unclear whether it works at all. There is no threat here. No, really not.
That is nonsense. Take any old Unix code and you can compile and run it on Linux. You probably are thinking about binary compatibility though. That is a problem on your side.
Well, the may decide on an xBSD kernel instead, due to the licencing. And they may make the GUI simply a window-manager on top of X.org. But essentially, you are right. They spend an extreme amount of money to maintain their island of incompatibility and all the reasons for doing that are vanishing. I also agree that it is a good thing.
You know, that would be the last step for the UNIX kernel API to take over the world.
Slashdot Mirror
We need to start doing IT with professionals. You know, with people that actually have a clue what they are doing. Sure, they will cost more individually, but overall the whole thing will get a lot cheaper as such major pathetic fuckups will become very rare.
I do not need to prove things already proven elsewhere. Look it up you lazy slob.
They failed in all new tech, except in cloud-computing, but where they had to actually offer Linux. As such, MS is not just an ordinary computing company, no better than its competition. Past experience shows however that MS has consistent sub-standard quality and could only survive on a monopoly. That monopoly gone, MS is dead. As any giant, it will take quite a while to die though.
Thanks!
You know, socialism and fascism are not actually mutually exclusive in practice.
Oh, the law is not stupid. It comes from people that want significant less freedom for everyone ans significant more power for the "authorities". Fascists and other authoritarians are not necessarily stupid. The ones approving this law are the ones I called stupid.
And once again, a part of the world is going into darkness...
There is no need to change reality. ECC is very easy to backdoor, by the very mathematics it uses. Have you done even minimal research?
You seem to be completely unaware how a large part of the scientific establishment and the funding it gets works. The idiot here is you.
You also seem to be ignorant as well to whether copy-protection works. It does not.
Simple: Own Monero? Go to prison for as long as they like to lock you up! Proto-Fascist nations have no trouble ignoring mathematical reality.
I mean how can you ignore experts on a question that only experts can understand? It does not get much more stupid than this.
More likely the NSA has buried a lot of backdoors in ECC curves and is now running scared they could leak...
Funny story: All these systems have been broken so far. Turns out that the perfect theory does not translate to a perfect implementation.
I hope this will happen never. There is not need for it and changing things without need is just incredibly bad engineering because it always causes problems.
Indeed. Some people just cannot let go of a bad idea, possibly because they have no other skills...
And that is just the thing: Mass-hype and mass-panic that completely ignore practical aspects. Here is news for these people: Practical aspects are what makes or breaks a technology.
Incidentally, general AI has even less substance than QCs have, because there is not even a credible theory how they could work. In the few fields where we actually have theories (like automated deduction), the effort is so great that smart human beings can do things a universe-size computer could not. QCs seem to at least work for a few bits. Although, just as you say, there is very strong evidence for inverse-exponential scaling and that has the little problem that you run into a pretty hard limit at some (in this case very low) limit. Currently, it looks very much like QCs that are actually faster than practical computers will not ever materialize.
I agree. The whole thing is both useful idiots and "scientists" without ethics that want to profit from the hype a bit longer.
The best supporting evidence for your citation is that QCs have almost not scaled at all in now something like 40 years of research.
There are no QCs of sufficient size to even break amateur-crypto. Scaling is proving difficult enough that it is unclear whether it works at all. There is no threat here. No, really not.
You seem to have no clue about the Unix history. Lots and lots of commercial software in there.
You think things with Windows are getting _better_? You must be the only one that thinks this.
Indeed. DirectX was a bad idea right from the start, fueled by a lot of money and not a lot of understanding.
Binary-only software has not place in the UNIX world. If you want compatibility on binary level, you are doing it wrong.
That is nonsense. Take any old Unix code and you can compile and run it on Linux. You probably are thinking about binary compatibility though. That is a problem on your side.
Well, the may decide on an xBSD kernel instead, due to the licencing. And they may make the GUI simply a window-manager on top of X.org. But essentially, you are right. They spend an extreme amount of money to maintain their island of incompatibility and all the reasons for doing that are vanishing. I also agree that it is a good thing.
You know, that would be the last step for the UNIX kernel API to take over the world.
But unlike the Blockchain, there is no technological replacement for AI. People can do it (well, some can), but machines cannot.