AI, separate from bullshit passing as AI to today, is nothing more than what it says: intelligence that happens to be artificial.
What I meant by this is mistaking the "classification rut" for useful intelligence.
There is even less of a reason to fear it than there is to fear anything else man made
I currently fear "AI" is in fact being used against my interests to maximize corporate profits at my expense and increasingly leveraged to systematically suppress "undesirable" speech on global scale.
the thing to fear is not the thing itself, but the person who might use that thing with nefarious intent.
I don't subscribe to the notion technology is neutral and all problems are political. I think this is way too simplistic a view.
The very existence of some technologies can bring about conditions which change the calculus by which people make decisions affecting political realities. The existence of technology that enables mass surveillance for example can have substantial impacts on the (de)volution of society.
A mythical robotic police force operated by a few may allow governments to rule by violence more than would otherwise be feasible.
AI, however, should think for itself... and so could not be used by anybody for any purpose that it did not itself think was appropriate.
LOL right, people can't even create general purpose operating systems without loading them up with malware, exerting control over software environment and surreptitiously collecting data from billions... You think AI is going to think for itself.... LOL LOLOLOL...
20 years ago the buzz was "intelligent agents" that would do electronic grunt work for you like a real life human assistant. Today we have Siri/Cortana/Alexa completely centralized. Completely designed to rape your privacy and monetize you to the maximal extent possible.
What on earth would ever possess corporations to create autonomous systems they couldn't monitor and control for their own purposes?
Can someone please explain to me why artificial intelligence is supposedly somehow any more terrifying than natural intelligence already is when the latter is applied to nefarious ends
Uneven availability of technology is a key enabler of oppression. The more lopsided application the more it's able to be wielded as a means for having your way with those who don't have it.
Underlying equation doesn't change. "AI" (separate from bullshit passing as AI today) acts as an accelerant making uneven availability worse than would otherwise be the case.
and why it should ever be assumed that any general purpose AI would be somehow likely to have an agenda that we would actually consider to be corrupt or wrong?
People are already accusing algorithms with non-racist objective functions of being racist.
For those that support this guy, you do realize he completely validated every single post anyone ever made about the Deep State, right?
What is the relevance?
What's the point of attempting to placate conspiracy whacknuts even if you could?
I mean this is as Deep State as Deep State gets.
Deep state is conspiracy involving government "professionals" whose jobs do not change when administrations do. Applying it to members of your own administration you hire yourself is utter nonsense.
What it actually is with totality of insiders speaking out is an indicator of profound lack of leadership and associated failure of president to secure necessary legitimacy to effectively do his job.
Blame and responsibility for such failure rests squarely on the presidents shoulders.
Remember having an old TiVo with only dialup interface. There were hacks to add Ethernet. There were hacks for a lot of things. This was the nice thing about TiVo.
Thing about TiVo model is the subscriptions. Many people didn't get lifetime deal and pay a monthly fee so there is always financial incentive to take seriously keeping old systems going as long as possible. They even retroactively added H264 to the now ancient HD series when Comcast switched.
My opinion of TiVo soured after waking up one day and noticing all video podcasts I had configured to record to my play list were gone. Not only unilaterally pulled the plug on video podcast feature they left a ransom note telling me to buy a new TiVo if I wanted my podcasts back. All they were doing is providing a shell with URLs to other peoples servers.
Eventually moved on to TVH which is more useful than TiVo and best of all TVH doesn't record everything you do and upload it to other peoples servers.
Clearly, the door access/lock system has or had design problems and needs these properly addressed. It's presence was made worse by poor network security. It should have been on a dedicated network and certainly not on the general LAN/VLAN. This guy had access to the network and shouldn't have unless the poking around was blessed.
Physically securing wires is a fools errand. You can't protect wires that go everywhere.
Every dime spent on a fools errand is a dime not spent securing what is attached to those wires.
This is a ridiculous and terrible argument. The rest of the world advances both the tools and the education to make better systems that are more fault tolerant. The infrastructure in this world is built using better tools with what we learned from doing it the old way. You're asking for airplanes to be built only using hammers and screwdrivers instead of power tools and robots
The problem I have with this line of thought is lack of apparent outcomes commensurate with claims.
Obviously airplanes are built with modern technology using complex tooling. Some of the major assembly plants offer public tours where you can witness a small portion of it in action with your own eyes.
If "C" is just hammers and screwdrivers where is the equivalent of the modern plant maximally leveraging technology to churn out airplanes that couldn't possibly be done with hammers and screwdrivers? It seems in 2018 every major operating system and associated technology stack that people actually use every day are written in some form of C. Why? How many decades have to pass before the typical inertia excuses exceed their sell by dates?
If alternatives are so great... where are the outcomes? Where can I buy a useful general purpose operating system that is inherently safe because it is written in (insert language here)? Where can I buy a usable web browser that isn't full of security holes? AAA games? Video and audio codecs? Network stacks? GPU stacks? RDBMS?
Like aliens there is always an excuse for why these things never seem to materialize.
Resolution is the number of pixels expressed as a horizontal and vertical size. So 8K would be twice the resolution, equalling 4 times as many pixels in total.
No TV vendor publically agrees with this definition. EVERYONE selling 4k sets are saying it's 4x resolution.
Resolution is NOT by definition pixels; the context must be understood to infer what is meant by "resolution". Traditionally, resolution is measured in lines per millimeter, or more properly "line pairs" (cycles) per millimeter. If you speak to an optical engineer about resolution, he will be thinking in these terms or similar, a linear measure.
Step 1 - Ignore obvious context of remarks. Step 2 - Assert remarks must be understood in context.
Pixel count is related to the square of what is normally thought of as resolution.
The crazy thing about language is everyone gets a vote. Marketing departments *ALL OF THEM* count pixels.
When someone says a display has twice resolution majority of people in the real world understand it to say display can display twice the number of pixels.
You are free to develop specialized terms or understanding that only apply to specific group or industry yet in terms of the public you are squarely on the losing side.
There WILL be bugs that don't occur across every OS. That's how software development works.
The hardware varieties are largely (but not entirely) abstracted out by the OS, that's rather the point of the operating system in the first place.
Explaining the likely cost benefits doesn't mean I can be 100% certain about it as I'm not an Adobe employee, but I don't need to be to answer the question you posed.
You never explained what the costs were. You simply state they exist. Does it cost a million dollars or one dollar? You don't say.
As a parting note, there's no need to be aggressive about it at all, as, with respect
LOL nice. I'm asking a question and holding people to actually answer it objectively. Meanwhile people here on Slashdot are actually down modding me for no valid reason and calling me names including moron.
you clearly haven't touched commercial software development at any point.
I've spent most of my life designing cross platform commercial software. Over the years I've had to do low level grunt work to get Linux APIs up to par/w their windows counterparts, create a few shims and screw with compilers. In all that work #1 design goal was bug for bug compatibility so that everything behaved the same and the chance of cross platform OS specific behavior differences are minimized. Cross platform work in my experience is many orders of magnitude more involved than dealing with trivial differences between versions of the same platform.
Windows has been relatively such a stable and mature platform costs to maintain version compatibility have been so trivial as to not be worth mentioning. We do full testing only with the lowest supported version of Windows and piecemeal otherwise. There has never once been a bug caused by behavioral difference at the OS level between versions of the same platform ever.
Outside of having to manually load DLLs that may not be present in some editions and versions of Windows rather than blindly referencing libs and disabling some minor functionality if a windows feature was removed or not available I've had no issues.
My guess GPU API situation is more fluid and a bigger cost center in an application like this. My understanding they are relying heavily on OpenGL which is provided by GPU vendors. OS vendors never took OpenGL seriously. Going forward there is DX12 which is W10 only or OpenGL (Vulkan) which is also provided by GPU vendors.
The hardware varieties are largely (but not entirely) abstracted out by the OS, that's rather the point of the operating system in the first place.
I'm providing my professional opinion on the matter, based on my experiences.
I'm looking for objective evidence not unqualified unweighted enumeration of possibilities.
If I refused to go to work because I may be killed in a car accident. In my defense I cite a long list of all of the things that could happen to me. Is this sufficient? Is that at all useful either to myself who needs to decide whether to go to work or my employer who is weighing my continued employment? If I said if I go to work today I have a 20% chance of being killed because there is a hurricane/blizzard/aliens in my path and 1 in 5 other people who tried going to work in the past in the same situation were never heard from again that's quite different than saying a meteorite might fall out of the sky or a telephone poll or bridge collapse might crush my vehicle. Simply enumerating possibilities doesn't tell me what the cost is.
The hardware varieties are largely (but not entirely) abstracted out by the OS, that's rather the point of the operating system in the first place.
The same concepts of layering and abstraction applies to APIs and services provided by operating systems.
My company has literally had to do the same thing as Adobe with regards sunsetting OS support. I cannot speak for Adobe, but I can provide a very solid set of reasons that most will most definitely apply to Adobe.
Having developed cross platform APIs, that is not necessarily a good idea. Not only does it fail to solve the problem since you still have to maintain the API, but you've added an additional layer of complexity that has to be constantly changed and tested. As you say, it is a 'cross platform developer tutorial #1', but stops being a simple solution by #10.
All of programming ignoring problem domain is about managing complexity. You never "solve the problem" you manage it.
Yes. Anyone who works in software or product development or has half a brain can characterize the costs.
I'll wait patiently for someone to provide data that's specific to the issue at hand.
It costs money to train support agents, develop patches/bug fixes, do QA testing, and to do so in an environment that supports Enterprise class customers.
It costs money to hire janitors and keep water flowing to the toilets. It costs money to transport turds back to waste treatment plant.
Your post is really fucking stupid and people are voting it for being "Insightful"?
What's "insightful" about not having a bloody clue about what you're talking about and acting like you do? Some of you \.ers are retarded and are simply seething at faux rage over the article because it's anti-Adobe. Check your own biases...morons
The question was "How hard? Can you characterize cost benefit in this specific case or are you just stating a baseless opinion?" Asked cuz I don't pretend to have a bloody clue.
Then by all means please do so. What are Adobe's costs for supporting Windows 7 vs Windows 10 alone?
For software, it needs to be tested on (at the bare minimum) every OS it needs to run on. For rapid development like agile that means multiple tests running per day as builds occur. Each of these platforms could have bugs that occur only on that platform, and need to be patched without breaking all the other versions - which means more testing.
Factor in that individual patch versions within an OS can cause problems, as well as other installed software packages, drivers and the like, and supporting OSs that are no longer considered current becomes more and more of a task.
How is this not an arbitrarily weighted excuse invoked to support pre-ordained opinion? There "could be" anything. What "could be" is meaningless without specific characterization of risk. Without it you are simply making unfalsifiable statements.
Can you say anything objective at all about Adobe's costs in this regard?
With all localizations, editions, versions there must be at least hundreds of possible versions of Windows. Between AMD and Intel there are hundreds of hardware revisions of processors that "could" interact differently with each and every build of Windows on each and every chipset. Each GPU vendor could interact differently with any version of windows, processor, chipset. The space of possible configurations that "could be" and will never be tested by anyone or anything far exceeds total user count.
For a sold product like Photoshop, part of what you're paying for is absolute compatibility with your system.
LOL someone failed to read clickwrap.
If that's starting to prove a major resource drain on Adobe, and it will be fairly substantial, then it makes sense that they're trying to cut our operating systems that are past their sell by date.
"If that's starting to prove a major resource drain on Adobe"... ???
Well is it? You said you can characterize the cost benefit faced by Adobe. "Software engineer / developer here. I can. "...
Clearly you need to have your eyes checked, because me and most or my friends can easily tell the difference on a 55Ã screen 3 meters away.
You may well see a noticeable difference but it isn't because of display resolution. For video it's video codec and bitrate that make the difference. For computer graphics DSR.
No curly braces? Asymmetric 'end' doesn't work for me.
No switch control statements? Seriously?
Garbage collected = ick.
Socket interface was written by mickey mouse. No protocol family? Apparently only works with IP (TCP/UDP only) and domain sockets. To say that Sockets.setopt is lacking is the understatement of the year.
Included function library way too weak to take seriously.
Julia is actually a lot better than I thought it would be. Was expecting typical academic snobbery. Yet it fails to bring anything compelling (to me) to the table. Currently if I wanted to use a garbage collected language would much rather use C#.
It's just integration. Integrating the complex wifi function means less power use, smaller footprint, fewer components and less revenue for Broadcom et al. Never bet against integration.
If Google were responsible it would provide instructions and make it easy to install Windows or Linux instead of telling it's users to fuck off. Nothing even remotely obsolete about an i5 laptop. Expecting people to just throw away perfectly fine hardware is sleazy.
Years ago I could almost buy argument why chefs were needed to bake roms for specific devices due to severe resource constraints. Today there are no credible excuses. It's absurd this nonsense is allowed to continue. Worse the problem appears to be growing into PC space where "security" is wielded as an excuse to fuck over / scare end users.
But the market potential of VR has been blown WAY out of proportion to the reality of it. AR is a huge market. VR not so much, particularly the bits requiring an immersive headset.... AR != VR so I'm not really sure what he's on about. If investors are confusing the two then they are morons.
This AR != VR thing is all hogwash. Not substantially different than saying a tablet is different from a laptop because it doesn't have a keyboard.
Take a VR display add cameras and algorithms and you have AR.
Take an AR display and project an image to the entire field of view and you have VR.
The only thing that matters going forward is form factor and capabilities. The idea VR and AR are separate things is a temporary situation reflecting current day technology constraints. By the time HMD technology matures the issue of proper mixture of reality and fantasy will be entirely application controlled.
Where VR is useful it's incredibly helpful but literally every application of it is the very definition of a niche market.
Watching movies on your phone in what looks like a theatre or IMAX is not a niche market. Game industry is not a niche market. Heck the Google earth application all by itself is not a niche market.
The AT+CPIN and AT+CPIN2 commands is used to enter the PIN codes used to unlock the SIM card and modem equipment. Once you have access to the SIM Card, you get caller lists. Proactive SIM cards now have their own menu systems and UI built in. AT+CKPD emulates the keypad. AT+CPBS and AT+CPBR allow access to the phonebook lists of callers and called numbers.
If you were to use these commands on most smart phones they would come up blank. While there are provisions for SIM storage of messages, phone book, history it's seldom used.
Slashdot Mirror
AI, separate from bullshit passing as AI to today, is nothing more than what it says: intelligence that happens to be artificial.
What I meant by this is mistaking the "classification rut" for useful intelligence.
There is even less of a reason to fear it than there is to fear anything else man made
I currently fear "AI" is in fact being used against my interests to maximize corporate profits at my expense and increasingly leveraged to systematically suppress "undesirable" speech on global scale.
the thing to fear is not the thing itself, but the person who might use that thing with nefarious intent.
I don't subscribe to the notion technology is neutral and all problems are political. I think this is way too simplistic a view.
The very existence of some technologies can bring about conditions which change the calculus by which people make decisions affecting political realities. The existence of technology that enables mass surveillance for example can have substantial impacts on the (de)volution of society.
A mythical robotic police force operated by a few may allow governments to rule by violence more than would otherwise be feasible.
AI, however, should think for itself... and so could not be used by anybody for any purpose that it did not itself think was appropriate.
LOL right, people can't even create general purpose operating systems without loading them up with malware, exerting control over software environment and surreptitiously collecting data from billions... You think AI is going to think for itself.... LOL LOLOLOL...
20 years ago the buzz was "intelligent agents" that would do electronic grunt work for you like a real life human assistant. Today we have Siri/Cortana/Alexa completely centralized. Completely designed to rape your privacy and monetize you to the maximal extent possible.
What on earth would ever possess corporations to create autonomous systems they couldn't monitor and control for their own purposes?
Can someone please explain to me why artificial intelligence is supposedly somehow any more terrifying than natural intelligence already is when the latter is applied to nefarious ends
Uneven availability of technology is a key enabler of oppression. The more lopsided application the more it's able to be wielded as a means for having your way with those who don't have it.
Underlying equation doesn't change. "AI" (separate from bullshit passing as AI today) acts as an accelerant making uneven availability worse than would otherwise be the case.
and why it should ever be assumed that any general purpose AI would be somehow likely to have an agenda that we would actually consider to be corrupt or wrong?
People are already accusing algorithms with non-racist objective functions of being racist.
For those that support this guy, you do realize he completely validated every single post anyone ever made about the Deep State, right?
What is the relevance?
What's the point of attempting to placate conspiracy whacknuts even if you could?
I mean this is as Deep State as Deep State gets.
Deep state is conspiracy involving government "professionals" whose jobs do not change when administrations do. Applying it to members of your own administration you hire yourself is utter nonsense.
What it actually is with totality of insiders speaking out is an indicator of profound lack of leadership and associated failure of president to secure necessary legitimacy to effectively do his job.
Blame and responsibility for such failure rests squarely on the presidents shoulders.
Remember having an old TiVo with only dialup interface. There were hacks to add Ethernet. There were hacks for a lot of things. This was the nice thing about TiVo.
Thing about TiVo model is the subscriptions. Many people didn't get lifetime deal and pay a monthly fee so there is always financial incentive to take seriously keeping old systems going as long as possible. They even retroactively added H264 to the now ancient HD series when Comcast switched.
My opinion of TiVo soured after waking up one day and noticing all video podcasts I had configured to record to my play list were gone. Not only unilaterally pulled the plug on video podcast feature they left a ransom note telling me to buy a new TiVo if I wanted my podcasts back. All they were doing is providing a shell with URLs to other peoples servers.
Eventually moved on to TVH which is more useful than TiVo and best of all TVH doesn't record everything you do and upload it to other peoples servers.
Clearly, the door access/lock system has or had design problems and needs these properly addressed. It's presence was made worse by poor network security. It should have been on a dedicated network and certainly not on the general LAN/VLAN. This guy had access to the network and shouldn't have unless the poking around was blessed.
Physically securing wires is a fools errand. You can't protect wires that go everywhere.
Every dime spent on a fools errand is a dime not spent securing what is attached to those wires.
This is a ridiculous and terrible argument. The rest of the world advances both the tools and the education to make better systems that are more fault tolerant. The infrastructure in this world is built using better tools with what we learned from doing it the old way. You're asking for airplanes to be built only using hammers and screwdrivers instead of power tools and robots
The problem I have with this line of thought is lack of apparent outcomes commensurate with claims.
Obviously airplanes are built with modern technology using complex tooling. Some of the major assembly plants offer public tours where you can witness a small portion of it in action with your own eyes.
If "C" is just hammers and screwdrivers where is the equivalent of the modern plant maximally leveraging technology to churn out airplanes that couldn't possibly be done with hammers and screwdrivers? It seems in 2018 every major operating system and associated technology stack that people actually use every day are written in some form of C. Why? How many decades have to pass before the typical inertia excuses exceed their sell by dates?
If alternatives are so great ... where are the outcomes? Where can I buy a useful general purpose operating system that is inherently safe because it is written in (insert language here)? Where can I buy a usable web browser that isn't full of security holes? AAA games? Video and audio codecs? Network stacks? GPU stacks? RDBMS?
Like aliens there is always an excuse for why these things never seem to materialize.
Rather than trying to make C "less dangerous", why not use a language like Rust? Wasn't it designed to essentially be a less dangerous C?
All these "safe" languages do is impose constraints limiting what you can do.
Resolution is the number of pixels expressed as a horizontal and vertical size. So 8K would be twice the resolution, equalling 4 times as many pixels in total.
No TV vendor publically agrees with this definition. EVERYONE selling 4k sets are saying it's 4x resolution.
Resolution is NOT by definition pixels; the context must be understood to infer what is meant by "resolution". Traditionally, resolution is measured in lines per millimeter, or more properly "line pairs" (cycles) per millimeter. If you speak to an optical engineer about resolution, he will be thinking in these terms or similar, a linear measure.
Step 1 - Ignore obvious context of remarks.
Step 2 - Assert remarks must be understood in context.
Pixel count is related to the square of what is normally thought of as resolution.
The crazy thing about language is everyone gets a vote. Marketing departments *ALL OF THEM* count pixels.
https://www.sony.com/electroni...
https://www.usa.philips.com/c-...
https://www.samsung.com/levant...
https://www.lg.com/us/uhd-4k-t...
https://www.vizio.com/picture-...
https://hisense.com.au/uhd/
When someone says a display has twice resolution majority of people in the real world understand it to say display can display twice the number of pixels.
You are free to develop specialized terms or understanding that only apply to specific group or industry yet in terms of the public you are squarely on the losing side.
There WILL be bugs that don't occur across every OS. That's how software development works.
The hardware varieties are largely (but not entirely) abstracted out by the OS, that's rather the point of the operating system in the first place.
Explaining the likely cost benefits doesn't mean I can be 100% certain about it as I'm not an Adobe employee, but I don't need to be to answer the question you posed.
You never explained what the costs were. You simply state they exist. Does it cost a million dollars or one dollar? You don't say.
As a parting note, there's no need to be aggressive about it at all, as, with respect
LOL nice. I'm asking a question and holding people to actually answer it objectively. Meanwhile people here on Slashdot are actually down modding me for no valid reason and calling me names including moron.
you clearly haven't touched commercial software development at any point.
I've spent most of my life designing cross platform commercial software. Over the years I've had to do low level grunt work to get Linux APIs up to par /w their windows counterparts, create a few shims and screw with compilers. In all that work #1 design goal was bug for bug compatibility so that everything behaved the same and the chance of cross platform OS specific behavior differences are minimized. Cross platform work in my experience is many orders of magnitude more involved than dealing with trivial differences between versions of the same platform.
Windows has been relatively such a stable and mature platform costs to maintain version compatibility have been so trivial as to not be worth mentioning. We do full testing only with the lowest supported version of Windows and piecemeal otherwise. There has never once been a bug caused by behavioral difference at the OS level between versions of the same platform ever.
Outside of having to manually load DLLs that may not be present in some editions and versions of Windows rather than blindly referencing libs and disabling some minor functionality if a windows feature was removed or not available I've had no issues.
My guess GPU API situation is more fluid and a bigger cost center in an application like this. My understanding they are relying heavily on OpenGL which is provided by GPU vendors. OS vendors never took OpenGL seriously. Going forward there is DX12 which is W10 only or
OpenGL (Vulkan) which is also provided by GPU vendors.
The hardware varieties are largely (but not entirely) abstracted out by the OS, that's rather the point of the operating system in the first place.
I'm providing my professional opinion on the matter, based on my experiences.
I'm looking for objective evidence not unqualified unweighted enumeration of possibilities.
If I refused to go to work because I may be killed in a car accident. In my defense I cite a long list of all of the things that could happen to me. Is this sufficient? Is that at all useful either to myself who needs to decide whether to go to work or my employer who is weighing my continued employment? If I said if I go to work today I have a 20% chance of being killed because there is a hurricane/blizzard/aliens in my path and 1 in 5 other people who tried going to work in the past in the same situation were never heard from again that's quite different than saying a meteorite might fall out of the sky or a telephone poll or bridge collapse might crush my vehicle. Simply enumerating possibilities doesn't tell me what the cost is.
The hardware varieties are largely (but not entirely) abstracted out by the OS, that's rather the point of the operating system in the first place.
The same concepts of layering and abstraction applies to APIs and services provided by operating systems.
My company has literally had to do the same thing as Adobe with regards sunsetting OS support. I cannot speak for Adobe, but I can provide a very solid set of reasons that most will most definitely apply to Adobe.
I'll continue to wait patiently for it.
Having developed cross platform APIs, that is not necessarily a good idea. Not only does it fail to solve the problem since you still have to maintain the API, but you've added an additional layer of complexity that has to be constantly changed and tested. As you say, it is a 'cross platform developer tutorial #1', but stops being a simple solution by #10.
All of programming ignoring problem domain is about managing complexity. You never "solve the problem" you manage it.
Yes. Anyone who works in software or product development or has half a brain can characterize the costs.
I'll wait patiently for someone to provide data that's specific to the issue at hand.
It costs money to train support agents, develop patches/bug fixes, do QA testing, and to do so in an environment that supports Enterprise class customers.
It costs money to hire janitors and keep water flowing to the toilets. It costs money to transport turds back to waste treatment plant.
Your post is really fucking stupid and people are voting it for being "Insightful"?
What's "insightful" about not having a bloody clue about what you're talking about and acting like you do? Some of you \.ers are retarded and are simply seething at faux rage over the article because it's anti-Adobe. Check your own biases...morons
The question was "How hard? Can you characterize cost benefit in this specific case or are you just stating a baseless opinion?" Asked cuz I don't pretend to have a bloody clue.
Software engineer / developer here. I can.
Then by all means please do so. What are Adobe's costs for supporting Windows 7 vs Windows 10 alone?
For software, it needs to be tested on (at the bare minimum) every OS it needs to run on. For rapid development like agile that means multiple tests running per day as builds occur. Each of these platforms could have bugs that occur only on that platform, and need to be patched without breaking all the other versions - which means more testing.
Factor in that individual patch versions within an OS can cause problems, as well as other installed software packages, drivers and the like, and supporting OSs that are no longer considered current becomes more and more of a task.
How is this not an arbitrarily weighted excuse invoked to support pre-ordained opinion? There "could be" anything. What "could be" is meaningless without specific characterization of risk. Without it you are simply making unfalsifiable statements.
Can you say anything objective at all about Adobe's costs in this regard?
With all localizations, editions, versions there must be at least hundreds of possible versions of Windows. Between AMD and Intel there are hundreds of hardware revisions of processors that "could" interact differently with each and every build of Windows on each and every chipset. Each GPU vendor could interact differently with any version of windows, processor, chipset. The space of possible configurations that "could be" and will never be tested by anyone or anything far exceeds total user count.
For a sold product like Photoshop, part of what you're paying for is absolute compatibility with your system.
LOL someone failed to read clickwrap.
If that's starting to prove a major resource drain on Adobe, and it will be fairly substantial, then it makes sense that they're trying to cut our operating systems that are past their sell by date.
"If that's starting to prove a major resource drain on Adobe" ... ???
Well is it? You said you can characterize the cost benefit faced by Adobe. ...
"Software engineer / developer here. I can. "
I don't think most people realize how hard it is to move a piece of software forward while supporting dozens of antiquated platforms.
How hard? Can you characterize cost benefit in this specific case or are you just stating a baseless opinion?
At some point, a professional should upgrade themselves
Hopefully by picking a different vendor.
The Human Eye Is 576 Megapixels
The human eye is 1 megapixel and total bandwidth of optic nerve is on order of 10mbit/s.
Four times the resolution" in the summary is a bit awkward -- it's four times the pixels.
Resolution by definition is pixels.
Clearly you need to have your eyes checked, because me and most or my friends can easily tell the difference on a 55Ã screen 3 meters away.
You may well see a noticeable difference but it isn't because of display resolution. For video it's video codec and bitrate that make the difference. For computer graphics DSR.
No curly braces? Asymmetric 'end' doesn't work for me.
No switch control statements? Seriously?
Garbage collected = ick.
Socket interface was written by mickey mouse. No protocol family? Apparently only works with IP (TCP/UDP only) and domain sockets. To say that Sockets.setopt is lacking is the understatement of the year.
Included function library way too weak to take seriously.
Julia is actually a lot better than I thought it would be. Was expecting typical academic snobbery. Yet it fails to bring anything compelling (to me) to the table. Currently if I wanted to use a garbage collected language would much rather use C#.
Stopped reading at "I have not used desktop software for probably a decade now. "
Windows, no, why would you want to install Windows on a 32GB SSD?
Linux, yes.
It's not about me. Wouldn't go anywhere near a chromebook in the first place.
It's just integration. Integrating the complex wifi function means less power use, smaller footprint, fewer components and less revenue for Broadcom et al. Never bet against integration.
I always bet against integration.
If Google were responsible it would provide instructions and make it easy to install Windows or Linux instead of telling it's users to fuck off. Nothing even remotely obsolete about an i5 laptop. Expecting people to just throw away perfectly fine hardware is sleazy.
Years ago I could almost buy argument why chefs were needed to bake roms for specific devices due to severe resource constraints. Today there are no credible excuses. It's absurd this nonsense is allowed to continue. Worse the problem appears to be growing into PC space where "security" is wielded as an excuse to fuck over / scare end users.
But the market potential of VR has been blown WAY out of proportion to the reality of it. AR is a huge market. VR not so much, particularly the bits requiring an immersive headset. ...
AR != VR so I'm not really sure what he's on about. If investors are confusing the two then they are morons.
This AR != VR thing is all hogwash. Not substantially different than saying a tablet is different from a laptop because it doesn't have a keyboard.
Take a VR display add cameras and algorithms and you have AR.
Take an AR display and project an image to the entire field of view and you have VR.
The only thing that matters going forward is form factor and capabilities. The idea VR and AR are separate things is a temporary situation reflecting current day technology constraints. By the time HMD technology matures the issue of proper mixture of reality and fantasy will be entirely application controlled.
Where VR is useful it's incredibly helpful but literally every application of it is the very definition of a niche market.
Watching movies on your phone in what looks like a theatre or IMAX is not a niche market. Game industry is not a niche market. Heck the Google earth application all by itself is not a niche market.
The AT+CPIN and AT+CPIN2 commands is used to enter the PIN codes used to unlock the SIM card and modem equipment. Once you have access to the SIM Card, you get caller lists. Proactive SIM cards now have their own menu systems and UI built in. AT+CKPD emulates the keypad. AT+CPBS and AT+CPBR allow access to the phonebook lists of callers and called numbers.
If you were to use these commands on most smart phones they would come up blank. While there are provisions for SIM storage of messages, phone book, history it's seldom used.
The news is you can unlock a phone via the usb port
This is not news. Attack surface of USB is gargantuan. Completely indefensible.
https://nakedsecurity.sophos.c...