"Please cite at least one peer-reviewed, scientific study that demonstrates CO2 greenhouse gas effect."
Please cite at least one that doesn't.
"Find one original experimental study which shows a direct, causative link between CO2 and temperature increase."
Right after you find me a couple hundred identical planets, to use as test and control groups to come up with a statistically valid experiment to your satisfaction; right after you give me the technology to control and vary climate composition levels directly.
"Ten years ago, I tried and I failed. Blown my mind at the time."
It blew your mind that climate science, the study of a global scale phenomena of which we have exactly one to study, and of which we have very little direct control isn't awash in studies which show direct causative links between A and B ? Really?
"I can now freely admit that I was a clueless fucking librtard."
I don't know about libtard, but 'fucking clueless' is apt.
"The sound of one hand clapping? I can clap with one hand."
The action you are likely performing is not generally recognized as 'clapping'. So the sound it makes is irrelevant.
"The standard definition of sound does not require a human listener."
What so-called "standard definition of sound" are you using? I just checked two separate dictionaries and both of them defined sound in terms of sensing vibrations on the auditory structures of an ear as their first definition of sound (noun).
"I'd argue the length of the coastline is exactly what the surveyors office says it is. It is a matter of definition, not measurement. "
Clearly there are wrong answers though. 1 mile is clearly wrong. Equally clearly there is no limit to the number of correct answers, but it depends on methodology -- so first you set a methodology, then you make your measurements according to that methodology. The stricter and more well defined the method, the stricter and more restricted the range of values that will satisfy it.
Furthest extent of land, at low tide, on the vernal equinox, 2020, to a resolution of 5 meters. With suitable definitions to decide when and where to leap over water to reach islands, cross stream and river mouths, whether to cross over the opening to a bay or inlet, or to follow it around based on the size of the opening, salinity of the enclosed body, depth at the opening, etc.
"So, when anyone tells you you're going to be rich, ask yourself what is so unusual about you that you're going to get rich. If it's nothing, then that anyone is lying to you"
It's never what is unusual about me that matters. Its what is special about *them* that matters.
Basically, its kind of like 'dragons den'. I'm going to speculate that very few on that show are "lying"; they all really think they have great ideas, and with some investment to realize them they'll be rich, and the investors... well... richer.
So those are all legit investments... but most of them would fail. Not because of fraud, they're just not good ideas. And then in the real world, yeah... in addition to legit investments that are bad ideas, you've also got actual fraudsters.
The point being you can't tell a fraud from a real investment that will succeed from a real investment that will fail by asking yourself what is special about you, nor by checking whether they are promising that it will succeed. Because in all 3 cases they are identical.
You have to assess them and their idea. And in the case of dragons den for example, they aren't throwing their money at the wall like a kickstarter -- if they invest they'll usually want management oversight and control etc so that bad management skills etc don't tank even the good ideas.
When someone promises you investing into something will make you a millionaire, what they're really trying to say is "Invest in me so I can be a millionaire." That's all there is to it.
Everyone pitching for money wants to get rich themselves, that's a given. There is nothing wrong that.
If its a legit opportunity, you both get rich. That's why people invest.
Yup. I had to read the headline 3 times, and then the summary to finally be clear that it was a strictly just a new graphics chipset, and that intel wasn't trying to do something with audio as part of the project.
" You need control of the email account in question"
Ideally, that's the service the secret questions are for. Since they can't rely on you to have access to your email, if you are trying to reset the password for it. Nowadays a lot of email is tied to phone so SMS is an option, but a lot of it is not.
" So what am I missing"
They can call support; and claim they no longer can receive email to the address on file or SMS to the phone number on file, for reasons.
If you have an ISP mail, maybe you changed ISPs, if its aol or hotmail you haven't the foggiest idea how to log in to that anymore either etc as you haven't used that in years. If its corporate you don't work there. This happens to lots of people, so its pretty believable.
"Objective - goal - win the war Strategy - how you will get there in broad terms - drive the enemy back to its borders Tactics - what you will do in specific terms - bomb the *^&$ out of them"
I'd say your your 'strategy' is just a sub-objective.
Strategy is more the overarching *reasoning* that informs your tactics. Why are you driving the enemy back to its borders? How will that win the war? For example, if the enemy border happens to align with a natural terrain feature - a river that is difficult to cross for example, where defending at that point is easier for you. Or maybe your enemy has excellent antimissile capabilities and air/ground so you can't penetrate their airspace.. but if you can drive them back to their border then your artillery will be able to hit key production facilities, airfields, and impact on fuel / ammunitions / supply lines etc; and will further your edge in conflicts; lead to their airforce being unable to engage. That *reasoning* is the strategy.
Back in 2005, well before Android was released, Rubin wrote, "If Sun doesn't want to work with us, we have two options: 1) Abandon our work and adopt MSFT CLR VM and C# language - or - 2) Do Java anyway and defend our decision, perhaps making enemies along the way."
Regarding that email, Mueller noted that the judge overseeing the case observed, "Google may have simply been brazen, preferring to roll the dice on possible litigation rather than to pay a fair price [to license Java]."
Rubin's email suggests that the Android group was fully aware that it had already invested a lot of work into its Java-related platform, too much so to shift to the adoption of Microsoft's alternative language and runtime.
"Oracle claims that Google didn't intend Android Java programs to run on existing Java implementations, or Dalvik etc. to run existing Java programs. That's more like the situation in the paragraph above."
That's absurd. Most existing java programs weren't intended to run on a smart phone, but that doesn't mean that a TON of existing java code wasn't intended to be run on android.
In the same way that Mono.NET isn't really intended to run "windows programs" and lacks tons of stuff that is in windows but the standard libraries are the same and lots of code is portable as a result, and some complete programs are compatible, even if most are not.
"You know all of that stuff is being logged and recorded by someone, right?"
But not the *same* someone in each case. That's important right there.
" The feds are literally capturing every SMS, every voice call"
Perhaps, perhaps not. The metadata for sure. But even if they are they can't really do anything too overt with it. They aren't selling it or advertising with it.
"There is no privacy."
There is no absolute privacy, but there are certainly degrees. Just because I can't have absolute privacy doesn't mean I'm willing to install a facebook camera and microphone on my lapel.
" I don't do what Fb tells me to do"
Because you and your circle are immune to advertising? It doesn't work right? And you are also immune from the gamification and endorphin hits built into the platform to generate stickyness and addiction and keep engagement high? To literally keep you wasting time, so that they can show you more ads and harvest more data.
"so exactly why would I stop using it?"
Because none of the above was enough? Because the sole reason it exists doesn't offend you?
For me, honestly, perhaps the biggest reason i don't use it is because I see it as cesspool of gossip and personal drama. narcissists trying to make themselves look popular / successful / interesting with selfies and photos and discussions of what they purchased or ate any given day; where shallow bullshit and clickbait rule, where people shout all day while nobody listens. I have no desire to be that type of person, or to engage in that kind of activity. Let alone engage in it on a platform designed for the sole purpose of violating my privacy while convincing me to buy crap i don't need or want. The fact that it has real name policies, engages in social graphing and facial recognition, and reaches far beyond the input I might give it directly... that's just beyond the pale.
You could try to call me a hypocrit for posting on/. but I see them as worlds apart. There are elements of/. that tend in the direction of the things i don't like about facebook, but as with privacy, it is a question of degree. If/. is a room with some moldy spots, facebook is a septic tank.
Yeah, I had some premium gamer friendly ASUS motherboard that had this as well a while ago. From the bios startup screen i could hit some key and be into a linux desktop hosted right off the mainboard. The marketing touted it as a feature to use to browse the web or something super quickly without waiting for windows to boot up and login, or to look something up online even while the hard drive was crashed or something.
I never used it. My desktop was practically always on anyway, and the utility of that didn't make a lot of sense to me. However that's pretty much what this person wants, and it actually does kind of make sense in a laptop in some cases like this.
t was kind of like running a live distro off a CD. Maybe there was some flash memory reserved for it to keep settings and stuff. Wouldn't have been much. It got updated with bios updates.So it would have been out of date all the time, like you said, but it also wasn't really 'writable' so a powercycle would have reset it even if it got pwned by a browser exploit.
But I can see the utility of what he's asking for, especially given that we've got the whole IntelME situation and so on so we really could easily have an alternate micro-pc inside our laptop if there was a market for it.
But there's probably not.
The disadvantage to a VM is that it requires booting your primary OS up, and exposing it to the network etc, even if you subsequently fire up a VM. Your exposure is a lot less than actively using your host OS, but your host OS is alive and reachable by the network, as well as being vulnerable to hypervisor bypassing exploits.
Sticking both OSes into a baremetal hypervisor works a bit better, but the same type of risks apply, and then you are giving up performance on your primary OS.
Dual booting is really probably the best bet. I'd probably just carry a bootable usb drive on my keychain with Tails on it; or accept the small risks of running a VM.
With several of my friends keeping in touch is just SMS, phone calls, voice chat, and hooking up for a round of something on steam or playing a remote game of chess, while chatting. You can stay in touch pretty darn cheaply.
While I don't have facebook, the people around me that do are usually doing far less, albeit with more people. And most of their time is consumed by drama queens and spam.
"When friends move away, you never bother to keep in touch with them."
To be fair, I don't consider facebook keeping in touch. Really keeping in touch is orthogonal to having a facebook account.
"You were so cliquish in high school that you never want to hear from anybody back there ever again. You were equally cliquish in college."
Randos who got their education at the same time as me in the same building as me but who were never my real friend at the time? Why would that make me want to be pretend friends with them now out of the blue for no reason?
"You still didn't learn to get along, and now hate everyone at every previous employer."
Kind of the same thing. If we are friends, then we keep in touch. If we were not then, I can't imagine why i'd pretend we were now.
"You only keep people around when those people help you, and as soon as you no longer need them, you throw them away."
Oh?? Is facebook where we stash people who might be useful to us as contacts for some reason in the future? I sort of thought that was linkedin.
"You tend to make broad, sweeping assumptions based on the assumption that everyone must think the way you do, or else they must be stupid."
I can respect a different but well reasoned opinion. I haven't really seen one for being on facebook.
"Deleting Facebook won't keep other people from saying things about you, though it will prevent you from correcting hurtful untruths. "
I don't have a facebook account. And that seems like a truly terrible reason to join. If people are really gossiping about me on facebook... its not going to go away if I step in the shit 'to set the record straight'. Arguably, having no presence there minimize the likelihood of being the center of attention. Streisand effect and all. The worst way to make something unwanted go away is to draw attention to it.
"Wait, people have to PAY Microsoft in order to play multiplayer games"
Yes. $50/year or something like that, I think. I *don't* have an xbox (and that's one of the reasons why).
You need to pay that annual subscription to be able to use free 2 play games (yeah, I know!!) as well as online multiplayer play, and voice chat support.
I'm under the impression that you also need to have multiple subscriptions for multiple players who use the same xbox in the same home, if they want to have their own profile (their own acheivement tracking, their own friends lists, their own whatever...)
Its just the paid subscription to Xbox live, which you need to play multiplayer games and so on. Unless you had an xbox or at least kept up with that part of the market, it's not something you'd be aware of.
The middle class / working class will become the impoverished class if the demand for their labor drops off a cliff. That is what they sell. If they become redundant by robots that are cheaper/more efficient, then they have no market value.
The people who own the resources will be fine. (At least as long as the resources last. If you own the land on which a renewable forest can be harvested you'll probably be ok. If you own a silver mine, your days are numbered, and hopefully you'll make enough money out of it to get into something else before it runs dry.
That's an API. For creating some sort of 'time' construct, initialized by using a method called SetTime, and passing it the hour, minute, second, and milliseconds.
class Object {
boolean equals(Object o) }
That's an API, you have an object, and it has an equals method, that compares itself to another object and returns a boolean based on their equivalence.
The minute you rule that an API is protected by copyright, someone gets to claim ownership of that API. And every other language, library, or tool that came afterwards is in violation.
" most languages these days are only powerful because of extensive libraries and API's"
If APIs are protected by copyright, then not only is an exact duplicate protected, then a 'derivative work' is also protected.
Most APIs for similar things are quite similar. Whether I'm using Java or Python or C# or C++ the various standard and even 3rd party APIs for for a List container, or for a Button widget are very similar, often identical. The lists all have an 'add' method, and a 'contains' method. The button has a position. size, label and property and a clicked event handler. Even when they aren't identical, surely they are clearly related -- and i could easily argue that your button api that came after mine is a derivative work... look how similar they are.
Why it's almost like they are similar on purpose! Someone owes me a billion dollars!
Further; identical APIs are particularly useful as drop in replacements to correct buggy or crufty or non-performant or legacy solutions. We have openGL wrappers for directX, directX wrappers for OpenGL, we have 3DFX glide wrappers that allow old 3dfx games to run hardware accelerated on modern hardware. All these 'wrappers' exist to allow software written to one API to be used without modification on a 'new backend'. If companies can own and assert copyright on the API, then API wrappers cannot exist.
If you write some software against some 3rd party library, and then years later want to change the backend out, you can rebuild the software to a new API, or you can write a wrapper class for the old code to call that translates it to the new backend. The new backend has its own API. But the wrapper class is effectively a re-implementation of the original API.
Aside from Adapters, lots of people have written initially against 'standard library' or 3rd party library functionality; and then later gone back and dropped in custom built optimized-for-their-needs solutions to those libraries. That's usually done by building against the original/standard/3rd party API and then re-implementing the API you need with your own custom stuff later on, as you need it, if you need it.
Then we have projects like WINE which implements Windows API, FreeDOS which implements the DOS API. We have all manner of 'plugin architectures' that function in like ways, but that constitutes an API. We have chip emulators that emulate the hardware API. We have hypervisors that emulate certain hardware API. We have virtual devices that emulate the physical device APIs. We have all kinds of software bits to run cpu instructions in software on chips that lack hardware support -- that's API.
The Browser DOM is an API, and the web would be very different if browser vendors could have simply asserted that other browser vendors couldn't include their DOM extensions.
Software engineering and software development has spent the last several decades under the assumption that this was all ok, because it WAS ok. It's ludicrous to change the game now. This doesn't just affect Google vs Oracle and the implementation on Android.
Changing the rules on what you can do with an API rewrites the software industry.
"to the point where people in poor countries can afford them better."
What will they pay for them with? If we don't need them to produce anything, then we don't pay them anything. If we don't pay them anything, they don't have anything to buy goods with.
The only thing the poor countries will be able to sell is raw resources. But the poor people don't own those, those are on or under the land, and the land owners are the wealthy class.
What you have to understand is that there is a good chance that an enemy is on your LAN. Not using strong protocols is a very real risk.
In your own example, what is coming out of a laser printer probably is information that you probably don't want being public.
In my home? It's my kids homework assignments mostly. But sure, you're right to the point that i do occasionally print tax information etc. But what? I'm going to toss a $600 color laser printer that works perfectly because it's web based admin panel isn't up to 2018 best practices? because there's a chance my LAN could be compromised ?
Your equipment that runs MSDOS internally has no business being connected to a network at all.
And how are multimegabyte job files going to be moved back and forth? zip'd onto split archives on a bundle of floppy 3.5" disks? Get real. The stuff is IPX/SPX; connected to a VM that acts as a bridge between the TCP/IP and IPX/SPX segment. (ie the job files are delivered to the bridge VM in a fileshare, and the VM in turns passed them over to the other equipment. If we were trying to enrich uranium and were worried the US/Israeli would try to sabotage us, then sure, but we're not. Sure the system might get knocked over incidental to a network breach, but it would still be cheaper to repair the breach, and rebuild the system than it would be to purchase new equipment.
Maybe you should think about retiring these old devices, especially if they are visible from the global Internet.
What if they are not visible?
The encryption that they support is no longer fit for purpose and is dangerous -- vulnerable to being cracked by $enemy.
God forbid an $enemy inside my lan sees what is about to come out of the laser printer, a few seconds before it literally gets printed out on paper in plain text.
At the lab we have equipment that still run MSDOS internally. Hundreds of thousands of dollars worth, and they work perfectly fine. I agree we shouldn't put them anywhere publicly facing on the internet. But they accept jobs over the LAN just fine.
Continuing to use them is like continuing to drive a car where it is known that the brakes have failed.
"None of these will keep a dedicated police search out of my phone."
Given that it unlocks itself at your home, I'd tend to agree.
" But they will keep someone from wandering by and just going through my phone."
Some of the people most likely to wander by and go through your phone are in your house (where its unlocked): family members, guests, roommates, your guests or THEIR guests.
I'm not saying you should have any reason not to trust your wife, but your 16 your old's best friends' boyfriend my be less reliable.
if you watch it frame by frame, she doesn't walk in front of the car. She's ALREADY in front of the car, the low beams pick up her shoes first, and then go up from there.
Basically I was expecting to see her somehow step out in front of the vehicle off the median or something. But no, she's already in the middle of the road, in the vehicles lane. The car was over-driving its headlight visibility.
That's simply dangerous on the part of the car. If you can't stop within what you can see with your headlights, you are driving dangerously.
The pedestrian is almost 100% wrong in every possible way. I don't see how this could be ANY human driver's fault, had a human been driving.
If she'd been a stationary mannequin setup in the middle of the road, instead of a human being, and you drove into it without seeing it or braking, whose fault would it be then? Sure the mannequin shouldn't have been in the middle of the road, but if you run into it, because you didn't see it, stationary, in the middle of the road in front of you, then that is 100% your fault.
From that video, she was walking, but she was ALREADY in the lane beyond the view of the headlights, and she didn't move appreciably in the time it took to hit. She may as well have been mannequin left standing in the middle of the road.
I'd also say that based on that video, if that was the real visibilitn, then if that was me driving then a) I'd be dangerously overdriving my visibility; and b) I'd still have had time to at least hit the brakes, although would not have stopped in time.
The only comment I could add to that is that I do NOT expect the camera represents actual visibility. Cameras usually suck, and this footage isn't particuarly good. So I fully expect normal human low light vision in the vehicle was much better than what the camera was picking up. So if anything she was probably more visible to the driver (who wasn't looking) than the footage would suggest. (And I'm guessing the sensors the vehicle was equipped with should also have been able to see further ahead than the camera.
All in all I'd say this is pretty damning for the self-driving vehicle.
Yeah... i had to look it up... Brian Krzanich is the current CEO.
Gordon Moore I should have mentioned myself; although i wasn't honestly sure if he was still alive. (although I guess i mentioned Jobs who is definitely not...)
"Ok, but how many *male* tech leaders can you name?
Well... several of the biggest tech companies mostly. I can name several of the founders / execs at Google. Brin / Schmidt, etc.
Nadalla at Microsoft now, Gates before. Jobs at Apple before, Cook now. Ives is a memorable person there as well.
Oracle i assume still has Ellison although i only know him for being an ass. Musk at Tesla / SpaceX Branson at Virgin if that even counts... but virgin galactic right?
Bezos at Amazon Zuckerberg at Facebook Kalanick at Uber before... not sure whose there now, and Kalanick only as an asshole.
Intel - I'd recognize the same for sure but its not coming to me right now (male) Nintendo -Miyamoto & Fils-Aime. I'd recognize the CEOs name too but can't recall it, definitely male
What does that even leave as big tech companies I probably should know about. Twitter? Snap? HP? AMD? Samsung? Sony? Looking it up... twitter is male, snap is male, samsung is male. HP is male... but I'd never heard of him. And looking at the recent list:
The only two i do recognize are Carly Fiorina, and Meg Whitman... both for their political adventures, and probably only *because* they are women who headed HP, rather than any actual tech accomplishments beyond being women who headed HP.
AMD is also led by a woman... Lisa Su... and I've never heard of her.
I mean you are right, maybe the reason I can't name many females is that as percentage there just aren't that many. And looking at the list of men, very few of them I'd really think of as tech leaders, even if I can name them.
Slashdot Mirror
"Please cite at least one peer-reviewed, scientific study that demonstrates CO2 greenhouse gas effect."
Please cite at least one that doesn't.
"Find one original experimental study which shows a direct, causative link between CO2 and temperature increase."
Right after you find me a couple hundred identical planets, to use as test and control groups to come up with a statistically valid experiment to your satisfaction; right after you give me the technology to control and vary climate composition levels directly.
"Ten years ago, I tried and I failed. Blown my mind at the time."
It blew your mind that climate science, the study of a global scale phenomena of which we have exactly one to study, and of which we have very little direct control isn't awash in studies which show direct causative links between A and B ? Really?
"I can now freely admit that I was a clueless fucking librtard."
I don't know about libtard, but 'fucking clueless' is apt.
"The sound of one hand clapping? I can clap with one hand."
The action you are likely performing is not generally recognized as 'clapping'. So the sound it makes is irrelevant.
"The standard definition of sound does not require a human listener."
What so-called "standard definition of sound" are you using? I just checked two separate dictionaries and both of them defined sound in terms of sensing vibrations on the auditory structures of an ear as their first definition of sound (noun).
"I'd argue the length of the coastline is exactly what the surveyors office says it is. It is a matter of definition, not measurement. "
Clearly there are wrong answers though. 1 mile is clearly wrong. Equally clearly there is no limit to the number of correct answers, but it depends on methodology -- so first you set a methodology, then you make your measurements according to that methodology. The stricter and more well defined the method, the stricter and more restricted the range of values that will satisfy it.
Furthest extent of land, at low tide, on the vernal equinox, 2020, to a resolution of 5 meters. With suitable definitions to decide when and where to leap over water to reach islands, cross stream and river mouths, whether to cross over the opening to a bay or inlet, or to follow it around based on the size of the opening, salinity of the enclosed body, depth at the opening, etc.
"So, when anyone tells you you're going to be rich, ask yourself what is so unusual about you that you're going to get rich. If it's nothing, then that anyone is lying to you"
It's never what is unusual about me that matters. Its what is special about *them* that matters.
Basically, its kind of like 'dragons den'. I'm going to speculate that very few on that show are "lying"; they all really think they have great ideas, and with some investment to realize them they'll be rich, and the investors ... well... richer.
So those are all legit investments... but most of them would fail. Not because of fraud, they're just not good ideas. And then in the real world, yeah... in addition to legit investments that are bad ideas, you've also got actual fraudsters.
The point being you can't tell a fraud from a real investment that will succeed from a real investment that will fail by asking yourself what is special about you, nor by checking whether they are promising that it will succeed. Because in all 3 cases they are identical.
You have to assess them and their idea. And in the case of dragons den for example, they aren't throwing their money at the wall like a kickstarter -- if they invest they'll usually want management oversight and control etc so that bad management skills etc don't tank even the good ideas.
That's not a useful discriminator.
When someone promises you investing into something will make you a millionaire, what they're really trying to say is "Invest in me so I can be a millionaire." That's all there is to it.
Everyone pitching for money wants to get rich themselves, that's a given. There is nothing wrong that.
If its a legit opportunity, you both get rich. That's why people invest.
Best one I've ever seen...
HideYourKidsHideYourWifi
Yup. I had to read the headline 3 times, and then the summary to finally be clear that it was a strictly just a new graphics chipset, and that intel wasn't trying to do something with audio as part of the project.
" You need control of the email account in question"
Ideally, that's the service the secret questions are for. Since they can't rely on you to have access to your email, if you are trying to reset the password for it. Nowadays a lot of email is tied to phone so SMS is an option, but a lot of it is not.
" So what am I missing"
They can call support; and claim they no longer can receive email to the address on file or SMS to the phone number on file, for reasons.
If you have an ISP mail, maybe you changed ISPs, if its aol or hotmail you haven't the foggiest idea how to log in to that anymore either etc as you haven't used that in years. If its corporate you don't work there. This happens to lots of people, so its pretty believable.
"Objective - goal - win the war
Strategy - how you will get there in broad terms - drive the enemy back to its borders
Tactics - what you will do in specific terms - bomb the *^&$ out of them"
I'd say your your 'strategy' is just a sub-objective.
Strategy is more the overarching *reasoning* that informs your tactics. Why are you driving the enemy back to its borders? How will that win the war? For example, if the enemy border happens to align with a natural terrain feature - a river that is difficult to cross for example, where defending at that point is easier for you. Or maybe your enemy has excellent antimissile capabilities and air/ground so you can't penetrate their airspace.. but if you can drive them back to their border then your artillery will be able to hit key production facilities, airfields, and impact on fuel / ammunitions / supply lines etc; and will further your edge in conflicts; lead to their airforce being unable to engage. That *reasoning* is the strategy.
Back in 2005, well before Android was released, Rubin wrote, "If Sun doesn't want to work with us, we have two options: 1) Abandon our work and adopt MSFT CLR VM and C# language - or - 2) Do Java anyway and defend our decision, perhaps making enemies along the way."
Regarding that email, Mueller noted that the judge overseeing the case observed, "Google may have simply been brazen, preferring to roll the dice on possible litigation rather than to pay a fair price [to license Java]."
Rubin's email suggests that the Android group was fully aware that it had already invested a lot of work into its Java-related platform, too much so to shift to the adoption of Microsoft's alternative language and runtime.
https://appleinsider.com/artic...
That pretty much says they did it, to use existing code they had already written.
"Oracle claims that Google didn't intend Android Java programs to run on existing Java implementations, or Dalvik etc. to run existing Java programs. That's more like the situation in the paragraph above."
That's absurd. Most existing java programs weren't intended to run on a smart phone, but that doesn't mean that a TON of existing java code wasn't intended to be run on android.
In the same way that Mono.NET isn't really intended to run "windows programs" and lacks tons of stuff that is in windows but the standard libraries are the same and lots of code is portable as a result, and some complete programs are compatible, even if most are not.
In mono's case,
"You know all of that stuff is being logged and recorded by someone, right?"
But not the *same* someone in each case. That's important right there.
" The feds are literally capturing every SMS, every voice call"
Perhaps, perhaps not. The metadata for sure. But even if they are they can't really do anything too overt with it. They aren't selling it or advertising with it.
"There is no privacy."
There is no absolute privacy, but there are certainly degrees. Just because I can't have absolute privacy doesn't mean I'm willing to install a facebook camera and microphone on my lapel.
" I don't do what Fb tells me to do"
Because you and your circle are immune to advertising? It doesn't work right? And you are also immune from the gamification and endorphin hits built into the platform to generate stickyness and addiction and keep engagement high? To literally keep you wasting time, so that they can show you more ads and harvest more data.
"so exactly why would I stop using it?"
Because none of the above was enough?
Because the sole reason it exists doesn't offend you?
For me, honestly, perhaps the biggest reason i don't use it is because I see it as cesspool of gossip and personal drama. narcissists trying to make themselves look popular / successful / interesting with selfies and photos and discussions of what they purchased or ate any given day; where shallow bullshit and clickbait rule, where people shout all day while nobody listens. I have no desire to be that type of person, or to engage in that kind of activity. Let alone engage in it on a platform designed for the sole purpose of violating my privacy while convincing me to buy crap i don't need or want. The fact that it has real name policies, engages in social graphing and facial recognition, and reaches far beyond the input I might give it directly... that's just beyond the pale.
You could try to call me a hypocrit for posting on /. but I see them as worlds apart. There are elements of /. that tend in the direction of the things i don't like about facebook, but as with privacy, it is a question of degree. If /. is a room with some moldy spots, facebook is a septic tank.
Yeah, I had some premium gamer friendly ASUS motherboard that had this as well a while ago. From the bios startup screen i could hit some key and be into a linux desktop hosted right off the mainboard. The marketing touted it as a feature to use to browse the web or something super quickly without waiting for windows to boot up and login, or to look something up online even while the hard drive was crashed or something.
I never used it. My desktop was practically always on anyway, and the utility of that didn't make a lot of sense to me. However that's pretty much what this person wants, and it actually does kind of make sense in a laptop in some cases like this.
t was kind of like running a live distro off a CD. Maybe there was some flash memory reserved for it to keep settings and stuff. Wouldn't have been much. It got updated with bios updates.So it would have been out of date all the time, like you said, but it also wasn't really 'writable' so a powercycle would have reset it even if it got pwned by a browser exploit.
But I can see the utility of what he's asking for, especially given that we've got the whole IntelME situation and so on so we really could easily have an alternate micro-pc inside our laptop if there was a market for it.
But there's probably not.
The disadvantage to a VM is that it requires booting your primary OS up, and exposing it to the network etc, even if you subsequently fire up a VM. Your exposure is a lot less than actively using your host OS, but your host OS is alive and reachable by the network, as well as being vulnerable to hypervisor bypassing exploits.
Sticking both OSes into a baremetal hypervisor works a bit better, but the same type of risks apply, and then you are giving up performance on your primary OS.
Dual booting is really probably the best bet. I'd probably just carry a bootable usb drive on my keychain with Tails on it; or accept the small risks of running a VM.
With several of my friends keeping in touch is just SMS, phone calls, voice chat, and hooking up for a round of something on steam or playing a remote game of chess, while chatting. You can stay in touch pretty darn cheaply.
While I don't have facebook, the people around me that do are usually doing far less, albeit with more people. And most of their time is consumed by drama queens and spam.
"When friends move away, you never bother to keep in touch with them."
To be fair, I don't consider facebook keeping in touch. Really keeping in touch is orthogonal to having a facebook account.
"You were so cliquish in high school that you never want to hear from anybody back there ever again. You were equally cliquish in college."
Randos who got their education at the same time as me in the same building as me but who were never my real friend at the time? Why would that make me want to be pretend friends with them now out of the blue for no reason?
"You still didn't learn to get along, and now hate everyone at every previous employer."
Kind of the same thing. If we are friends, then we keep in touch. If we were not then, I can't imagine why i'd pretend we were now.
"You only keep people around when those people help you, and as soon as you no longer need them, you throw them away."
Oh?? Is facebook where we stash people who might be useful to us as contacts for some reason in the future? I sort of thought that was linkedin.
"You tend to make broad, sweeping assumptions based on the assumption that everyone must think the way you do, or else they must be stupid."
I can respect a different but well reasoned opinion. I haven't really seen one for being on facebook.
"Deleting Facebook won't keep other people from saying things about you, though it will prevent you from correcting hurtful untruths. "
I don't have a facebook account. And that seems like a truly terrible reason to join. If people are really gossiping about me on facebook... its not going to go away if I step in the shit 'to set the record straight'. Arguably, having no presence there minimize the likelihood of being the center of attention. Streisand effect and all. The worst way to make something unwanted go away is to draw attention to it.
"Wait, people have to PAY Microsoft in order to play multiplayer games"
Yes. $50/year or something like that, I think. I *don't* have an xbox (and that's one of the reasons why).
You need to pay that annual subscription to be able to use free 2 play games (yeah, I know!!) as well as online multiplayer play, and voice chat support.
I'm under the impression that you also need to have multiple subscriptions for multiple players who use the same xbox in the same home, if they want to have their own profile (their own acheivement tracking, their own friends lists, their own whatever...)
Its just the paid subscription to Xbox live, which you need to play multiplayer games and so on. Unless you had an xbox or at least kept up with that part of the market, it's not something you'd be aware of.
"Poor countries rarely lack resources."
Wealthy countries aren't going to do any better.
The middle class / working class will become the impoverished class if the demand for their labor drops off a cliff. That is what they sell. If they become redundant by robots that are cheaper/more efficient, then they have no market value.
The people who own the resources will be fine. (At least as long as the resources last. If you own the land on which a renewable forest can be harvested you'll probably be ok. If you own a silver mine, your days are numbered, and hopefully you'll make enough money out of it to get into something else before it runs dry.
"Why is that the case?"
First of all, look at the can of worms it opens.
Time SetTime(hr, mm, ss, ms)
That's an API. For creating some sort of 'time' construct, initialized by using a method called SetTime, and passing it the hour, minute, second, and milliseconds.
class Object {
boolean equals(Object o)
}
That's an API, you have an object, and it has an equals method, that compares itself to another object and returns a boolean based on their equivalence.
The minute you rule that an API is protected by copyright, someone gets to claim ownership of that API. And every other language, library, or tool that came afterwards is in violation.
" most languages these days are only powerful because of extensive libraries and API's"
If APIs are protected by copyright, then not only is an exact duplicate protected, then a 'derivative work' is also protected.
Most APIs for similar things are quite similar. Whether I'm using Java or Python or C# or C++ the various standard and even 3rd party APIs for for a List container, or for a Button widget are very similar, often identical. The lists all have an 'add' method, and a 'contains' method. The button has a position. size, label and property and a clicked event handler. Even when they aren't identical, surely they are clearly related -- and i could easily argue that your button api that came after mine is a derivative work ... look how similar they are.
Why it's almost like they are similar on purpose! Someone owes me a billion dollars!
Further; identical APIs are particularly useful as drop in replacements to correct buggy or crufty or non-performant or legacy solutions. We have openGL wrappers for directX, directX wrappers for OpenGL, we have 3DFX glide wrappers that allow old 3dfx games to run hardware accelerated on modern hardware. All these 'wrappers' exist to allow software written to one API to be used without modification on a 'new backend'. If companies can own and assert copyright on the API, then API wrappers cannot exist.
If you write some software against some 3rd party library, and then years later want to change the backend out, you can rebuild the software to a new API, or you can write a wrapper class for the old code to call that translates it to the new backend. The new backend has its own API. But the wrapper class is effectively a re-implementation of the original API.
It's classic software design pattern: "the Adapter pattern"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Aside from Adapters, lots of people have written initially against 'standard library' or 3rd party library functionality; and then later gone back and dropped in custom built optimized-for-their-needs solutions to those libraries. That's usually done by building against the original/standard/3rd party API and then re-implementing the API you need with your own custom stuff later on, as you need it, if you need it.
Then we have projects like WINE which implements Windows API, FreeDOS which implements the DOS API. We have all manner of 'plugin architectures' that function in like ways, but that constitutes an API. We have chip emulators that emulate the hardware API. We have hypervisors that emulate certain hardware API. We have virtual devices that emulate the physical device APIs. We have all kinds of software bits to run cpu instructions in software on chips that lack hardware support -- that's API.
The Browser DOM is an API, and the web would be very different if browser vendors could have simply asserted that other browser vendors couldn't include their DOM extensions.
Software engineering and software development has spent the last several decades under the assumption that this was all ok, because it WAS ok. It's ludicrous to change the game now. This doesn't just affect Google vs Oracle and the implementation on Android.
Changing the rules on what you can do with an API rewrites the software industry.
"to the point where people in poor countries can afford them better."
What will they pay for them with? If we don't need them to produce anything, then we don't pay them anything. If we don't pay them anything, they don't have anything to buy goods with.
The only thing the poor countries will be able to sell is raw resources. But the poor people don't own those, those are on or under the land, and the land owners are the wealthy class.
What you have to understand is that there is a good chance that an enemy is on your LAN. Not using strong protocols is a very real risk.
In your own example, what is coming out of a laser printer probably is information that you probably don't want being public.
In my home? It's my kids homework assignments mostly. But sure, you're right to the point that i do occasionally print tax information etc. But what? I'm going to toss a $600 color laser printer that works perfectly because it's web based admin panel isn't up to 2018 best practices? because there's a chance my LAN could be compromised ?
Your equipment that runs MSDOS internally has no business being connected to a network at all.
And how are multimegabyte job files going to be moved back and forth? zip'd onto split archives on a bundle of floppy 3.5" disks? Get real. The stuff is IPX/SPX; connected to a VM that acts as a bridge between the TCP/IP and IPX/SPX segment. (ie the job files are delivered to the bridge VM in a fileshare, and the VM in turns passed them over to the other equipment. If we were trying to enrich uranium and were worried the US/Israeli would try to sabotage us, then sure, but we're not. Sure the system might get knocked over incidental to a network breach, but it would still be cheaper to repair the breach, and rebuild the system than it would be to purchase new equipment.
Maybe you should think about retiring these old devices, especially if they are visible from the global Internet.
What if they are not visible?
The encryption that they support is no longer fit for purpose and is dangerous -- vulnerable to being cracked by $enemy.
God forbid an $enemy inside my lan sees what is about to come out of the laser printer, a few seconds before it literally gets printed out on paper in plain text.
At the lab we have equipment that still run MSDOS internally. Hundreds of thousands of dollars worth, and they work perfectly fine. I agree we shouldn't put them anywhere publicly facing on the internet. But they accept jobs over the LAN just fine.
Continuing to use them is like continuing to drive a car where it is known that the brakes have failed.
It's really not though.
"None of these will keep a dedicated police search out of my phone."
Given that it unlocks itself at your home, I'd tend to agree.
" But they will keep someone from wandering by and just going through my phone."
Some of the people most likely to wander by and go through your phone are in your house (where its unlocked): family members, guests, roommates, your guests or THEIR guests.
I'm not saying you should have any reason not to trust your wife, but your 16 your old's best friends' boyfriend my be less reliable.
if you watch it frame by frame, she doesn't walk in front of the car. She's ALREADY in front of the car, the low beams pick up her shoes first, and then go up from there.
Basically I was expecting to see her somehow step out in front of the vehicle off the median or something. But no, she's already in the middle of the road, in the vehicles lane. The car was over-driving its headlight visibility.
That's simply dangerous on the part of the car. If you can't stop within what you can see with your headlights, you are driving dangerously.
The pedestrian is almost 100% wrong in every possible way. I don't see how this could be ANY human driver's fault, had a human been driving.
If she'd been a stationary mannequin setup in the middle of the road, instead of a human being, and you drove into it without seeing it or braking, whose fault would it be then? Sure the mannequin shouldn't have been in the middle of the road, but if you run into it, because you didn't see it, stationary, in the middle of the road in front of you, then that is 100% your fault.
From that video, she was walking, but she was ALREADY in the lane beyond the view of the headlights, and she didn't move appreciably in the time it took to hit. She may as well have been mannequin left standing in the middle of the road.
I'd also say that based on that video, if that was the real visibilitn, then if that was me driving then a) I'd be dangerously overdriving my visibility; and b) I'd still have had time to at least hit the brakes, although would not have stopped in time.
The only comment I could add to that is that I do NOT expect the camera represents actual visibility. Cameras usually suck, and this footage isn't particuarly good. So I fully expect normal human low light vision in the vehicle was much better than what the camera was picking up. So if anything she was probably more visible to the driver (who wasn't looking) than the footage would suggest. (And I'm guessing the sensors the vehicle was equipped with should also have been able to see further ahead than the camera.
All in all I'd say this is pretty damning for the self-driving vehicle.
Yeah... i had to look it up... Brian Krzanich is the current CEO.
Gordon Moore I should have mentioned myself; although i wasn't honestly sure if he was still alive. (although I guess i mentioned Jobs who is definitely not...)
"Ok, but how many *male* tech leaders can you name?
Well... several of the biggest tech companies mostly.
I can name several of the founders / execs at Google. Brin / Schmidt, etc.
Nadalla at Microsoft now, Gates before.
Jobs at Apple before, Cook now. Ives is a memorable person there as well.
Oracle i assume still has Ellison although i only know him for being an ass.
Musk at Tesla / SpaceX
Branson at Virgin if that even counts... but virgin galactic right?
Bezos at Amazon
Zuckerberg at Facebook
Kalanick at Uber before... not sure whose there now, and Kalanick only as an asshole.
Intel - I'd recognize the same for sure but its not coming to me right now (male)
Nintendo -Miyamoto & Fils-Aime. I'd recognize the CEOs name too but can't recall it, definitely male
What does that even leave as big tech companies I probably should know about. Twitter? Snap? HP? AMD? Samsung? Sony?
Looking it up... twitter is male, snap is male, samsung is male. HP is male... but I'd never heard of him. And looking at the recent list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The only two i do recognize are Carly Fiorina, and Meg Whitman ... both for their political adventures, and probably only *because* they are women who headed HP, rather than any actual tech accomplishments beyond being women who headed HP.
AMD is also led by a woman... Lisa Su... and I've never heard of her.
I mean you are right, maybe the reason I can't name many females is that as percentage there just aren't that many. And looking at the list of men, very few of them I'd really think of as tech leaders, even if I can name them.