The solution is simple. For some reason the people responsible don't take action. Maybe we are waiting for the big one? Like an explosion in a nuclear electricity facility?
GET. ALL. CRITICAL. INFRASTRUCTURE. SYSTEMS. OFF. THE. INTERNET.
To play the devils advocate.. what is the alternative? Leased lines and private networks?
Do you think Telco you pick one of those up from isn't going to provision it using same (mostly virtualized) infrastructure and management systems they use for Internet traffic? Do you really think their systems are any more secure?
I strongly believe any and all attempts at securing the network is both dangerous and counterproductive. It is dangerous because it sucks resources from the only thing that matters... securing *systems* and counterproductive because it essentially amounts to "castle defense" in the age of super sonic jet fighters.
If people connect their shit to the Internet with the understanding that it is both a hostile and unreliable environment and take precautions to guard against it (obviously these jokers did no such thing) such systems end up being better engineered and more secure over time vs. dolts with leased lines or private cables who never see an unsolicited byte or dropped packet and become complacent and less investment is subsequently made in engineering systems for reliability and security.
The alternative is when someone does hack a leased line or cut into dark fiber in anger all bets are off. This shouldn't be. Control systems don't have to be the joke that lies just behind most corporate firewalls. It takes investment to get there. Every dollar spent on private lines and DIY networks are dollars not spent on R&D into control systems that are more survivable in hostile environments.
If only it were limited to that. But it's not. The denial, the bigotry, leads to realization, to action, to results. Bullies don't bully just because it gives them an emotional thrill, though that is part of it. They do it because of the results it gets.
But thinking it is that simple is censorship in itself. At best, maybe you will grudgingly tolerate those with another opinion or perspective, but ultimately, you are refusing to recognize them which means if nothing else thay you must be censoring them in your own mind.
However, you think about that though, the real story is that if the people who would abuse truth and freedom are given free reign, they risk harming us all. At some point, there has to be a line.
I couldn't have summed it up any better myself. Exactly this kind of fear drives many feckless idiots such as yourself to believe censorship is cool.
They think if they don't "shut up" their opponents by means of leveraging their states monopoly on violence they will be doomed, Hitler will rise from his grave or consensus for a certain ideology you are diametrically opposed to will be forever lost to evil.
Freedom isn't free, you have a voice just like everyone else. If you give a shit you can work to bolster consensus for a different position than those you "hate" (e.g. think should to be silenced by means of violence).
People like you just want to be lazy and suck off the teet of your countries legitimacy rather than put up and fight for the ideas you believe in. Your pathetic.
The Holocaust obviously never happened. If it really did happen then why would IBM name computers after the guy who sold counting machines to Hitler? And why would Sony let said computer compete on Jeopardy?
The Armenian genocide never happened because Turkey a US Ally and fellow NATO member said so.
Darfur never happened because the UN itself said the government of Sudan didn't have an official policy of Genocide.
Stalin was a US Allie. Good ole Uncle Joe as FDR affectionately called him fighting the good fight against Hitler... do you really think he.... NO... of course not..
Any country who worships censorship and thinks silencing people who spew "hate speech" or buy into related crackpottery by force (e.g. violence) is a great idea are most welcome to disconnect themselves from the Internet.
By the way Germany Facebook's ASN is 32934. You can block it any time you damn well please. If you believe Zuckerberg's facebook is an evil hater factory you have all the power in the world to do something about it immediately.
And just how long will that last? At some point programs won't work well if at all for Win7. How many people you see still running Win2k (or Win98) and say they have no problems?
Given Windows 7 has twice the market share of Windows 10 after a concerted year long nagware campaign to get users to switch for FREE it will easily be well past 2020.
Software companies are in the business of making money. You don't do that by alienating 2/3rds of your market..
DVDs were also supposed to be dead a decade ago but markets are not controlled by suppliers they are controlled by demand from paying customers.
I'm sure one day Microsoft's malware operating system will be able to override the user with ransomware popups in which failure to capitulate to new terms will cause your system and all data to be converted into a petrified brick as per terms you *agreed* to in an earlier EULA but that day isn't here yet or is it?
Microsoft has shown that the Windows 10 customer base is willing to put up with these types of pop-ups. Does anyone really think that Microsoft had no plans to show ads in order to monetize the Windows 10 users?
Nobody here, but what percentage of the overall user base knew that when the clicked that big annoying update button staring them in the face? How many knew their privacy and ad settings for the superficial good they actually do would be randomly reset constantly and most deliberately by Microsoft?
Why in the world did Microsoft go through such great lengths to get its customers to upgrade to Windows 10, if they were not planning to gather customer data and monetize it.
I guess I'm the outlier in that I don't deem it acceptable for businesses to intentionally leverage their own customers ignorance to their advantage.
Some may feel otherwise but remember the golden rule we can't all know everything. If everyone you rely on to get shit done is out to trick you or otherwise screw you over in the name of profit it is hard to see how society does not end up in the sewer. I would assume most would not deem it acceptable for their own mechanics, doctors and lawyers to engage in similar behavior.
It's amazing that a change to an interface somehow makes customer data flow out somewhere. I'm going to assume you can't follow a conversation and just froth at the mouth at the opportunity to mention telemetry every chance you get.
Amazing isn't the word I would chose to describe it. Quite mundane and easy to understand is more appropriate.
Step 1.
Develop single search UI that blends everything and does not provide any obvious indication or option to limit searches and obviously resulting data leakages. The point of this is maximizing intentional leakage of data by intentional malicious UX design.
Step 2.
Lawyer working a case types "Rob's rap sheet" into the search box on their computer intending to bring up file for case they are working. This data is sent to a public search engine with no expectation of privacy.
Doctor types "Gloria's Gonorrhea" into the search box on their computer intending to bring up file for patient they are working. This data is also sent to a search engine.
Windows 10 is intentionally ENGINEERED to leak information and invade privacy and confidentiality of information at every opportunity.
Also worth remembering Windows 10 is distributed with a fully functional RAT (Remote Access Trojan) installed and ENABLED by DEFAULT granting Microsoft the ability to exfiltrate data without either your explicit consent or knowledge.
I'm far from a MS apologist (typing this on a Mac; doing my development on Linux) but I think a simpler explanation is that they don't want to support a 7 year old OS. You can only keep backporting features and fixes that are developed on a new platform for so long. Once the platforms diverge sufficient, it becomes prohibitively expensive to maintain that compatibility.
Should have thought about that before they turned W10 into buggy malware people would actively seek to avoid rather than feel excited to adopt.
More generally the essence of programming is managing complexity. Maintainability especially when new features are off the table are just another aspect of it. Sources of change are only as expensive as what you architect them to cost during product lifecycle. While it is true you can't predict the future you sure as heck can lower overall costs by hedging against it.
Think of it this way: would you want to port Chrome to Windows 95? Of course not: it doesn't have half the APIs you'd want to use. You could port compatibility stubs, but eventually you'd end up rewriting half of the new OS onto the old until it became a Frankenstein's monster of a beast to maintain.
I don't know about Win 95. I do know NT 4 is of the same vintage and versions of chrome from a couple years ago still ran on that operating system.
At the end of the day ROI is all the bean counters give two shits about. Technical blabbering about difficulty is a lame *excuse* that nobody but the people working problems care about.
You may do disruptive change and succeed in the market but you sure as hell better be able to deliver on new value commensurate with the change or you should expect to fail.
If you are only delivering incremental change you better make damn sure you don't break anything or you should expect to fail.
Where Microsoft really failed long-term is that they established the expectation that software written on the platform will run forever and ever, as a binary, unchanged. That's a terrible idea!
Completely disagree. Backwards compatibility provides customers with quantifiable value regardless of context free personal opinions to the contrary.
It isn't vendors setting expectations it is customers signaling their expectations via their interaction with the market.
On Mac and Linux, the expectation is that vendors will occasionally have to at least recompile their software to run on newer platforms.
Try telling Linus that and see what his response is. Linux backwards ABI compatibility has not changed. It is possible to run Linux binaries compiled 20 years ago on modern Linux distros.
Simply having that expectation is enough for vendors to be used to it, and for end users to be used to their vendors doing it. Even just recompiling a project with a newer Xcode is often a big feature and performance win so there's not much resistance to doing so.
Recompiling is only possible when you as a customer have access to source code. For the vast majority of commercially purchased software this option is unavailable thus "value" to users in backwards compatibility to run software even where original vendor may have long ago become extinct.
You don't install an app for most major OSes and expect it to run as-is for the next 20 years. And yet that's exactly what Microsoft has trained everyone to expect, and it's increasingly coming to bite them in the ass.
I actually do and believe this will increasingly become the norm going forward as general purpose operating system mature we can expect nothing but small hard won incremental changes and increasingly lower cost in maintaining compatibility.
When I scope out which stacks to use for new projects one of the primary factors I look at is history of the stack and its likelihood of still being around in the next 10-20 years.
Sorry this is all a bridge too far. I neither seek nor have a place in any "future" that disrespects people to such an extent.
Tech industry used to be cool. It used to be companies cared at least somewhat about competing on merit providing useful new capabilities and better tools to get the job done. Now seems all anyone wants to do is fall over themselves to manipulate and stalk their customers with business models previously exclusive province of malware vendors.
Incremental improvements to W10 are NOT worth tolerating or wasting time bypassing intentional baked in evil nor am I willing to reward Microsoft by supporting what I believe to be unacceptable and unethical behavior.
Every intentional UX trick designed to covertly leak information, provide false assurances with clever language or cow people into submission reflects poorly not only on Microsoft but the industry as a whole.
It is NOT ok to profit from ignorance of YOUR customers anymore than you would deem it acceptable for a doctor or mechanic to profit from YOUR ignorance.
The cesspool of "me too" followers who use what everyone else is doing as cover for their increasingly valueless schemes does not speak to anything I would recognize as the "future" rather just another lame example of "market failure".
As sort of a curiosity, I want to ask you all, what do you need with more than 16GB? Entertain me and others, cite examples of things you do that need more than 16GB memory.
In case there is any confusion the whole point of advertising companies building profiles of people is so they can JUDGE them based on statistical datasets and use the resulting judgment to maximize their own profits. Their activities are inherently prejudicial.
Inventing what amounts to public signage which can only be read by certain people isn't illegal. You after all are not expressing a preference within content of the sign.
The same way stealing your shit (civil forfeiture) doesn't violate the 14th amendment.
Or stalking cell phone users, reading emails and collecting everyone's phone records without warrant does not violate the fourth amendment. Neither is the 7th amendment violated by undecipherable nonnegotiable omnipresent EULAs requiring submission to arbitration.
No they aren't, as I've explained at length in other posts.
Yes they are.
The only thing asymmetric buys you, in terms of hassle for the end user, is the ability to not to have to worry about a transferring around a (fairly small) master keyfile or passphrase.
It allows anyone to encipher messages without any possession of secret information.
It allows anyone to verify source and integrity of information without any possession of secret information.
It allows this to occur in a completely untethered, unlimited and untraceable manner.
Nothing you offer does that when you remove the shell game of punting of responsibility and convenient ignoring of underlying reality.
We know a quantum RSA break is simply a matter of time.
We know nothing of the sort. There is ZERO evidence in existence to support this assumption. NONE.
We don't know what tech advances will suddenly appear in the future, but we do know that if any country had a breakthrough there would be a very strong incentive to invest billions into it, even if they just got a few years' work out of it
The problem with this logic is that it doesn't say anything. It doesn't mean anything. It isn't falsifiable. I can say "we don't know" to justify any course of action I damn well please. Support your position with actual objective evidence. Saying "we don't know" is the same as saying nothing at all.
And even it never happens, for whatever reason, asymmetric computing has always had many more question marks hanging over it. We can't be sure there won't be a new class of weak RSA keys discovered tomorrow, but we can be fairly confident that a powerful (i.e. much faster than brute force) zero-known plaintext attack for AES is not going to pop up tomorrow.
Your opinions are your opinions. Do what you want. I'm not abandoning the devil that has been around longer than I have been alive out of unspecified unsubstantiated non-quantified fears for a provably inferior solution. You are perfectly free to make a different calculation.
Could we please get to work on getting everything on the web compatible with a stateful encryption scheme (out of band preshared keys and signing schemes that aren't entirely reliant on any form[1] of asymmetric cryptography) now ?
Asymmetric schemes are as a practical matter absolutely necessary.
Instead of waiting 10-20 years and then suddenly finding out, oh crap, some government has finally has built a quantum computer powerful enough to crack RSA/ECC?
Are you sure it isn't 3-4 years or 15-73 years or perhaps 153 to 739 years? If your going to ask others you have no control over to "get to work" on something you kind of have to provide compelling evidence to support your position if you expect anyone to pay attention to you or spend their time on it.
DNA testing is inherently racist, as genetic traits are heritable and are associated with your ethnic/genetic background.
Genetic variability between any two individuals of the very same tribe dwarfs ethnicity. This is why judging individuals on a genetic basis by their tribe/race is illogical and also why your argument doesn't hold up.
I would agree for different reasons allowing this is a bad idea. Chance of these schemes ever being deemed socially acceptable in my estimation is 0... Probably also quite useless given people in many ways that matter are more or less products of their environments rather than genetics.
People have been spouting this prophecy for more than 300 years, and its never come true.
I've always hated these arguments because they hide behind default historically safe assumptions are not merit based. The history of this and mechanisms are very much useful and worth understanding. Yet there was never a time in those 300 years when dead labor was able to close the loop by taking over the work of living labor and do it better than humans. This most certainly will cease to be the case well into the next 300 years.
Currently NONE of the above is in play nor will it be anytime soon. First world job loss is currently a function of increasingly friction free capital movement enabled by technology, trade deals and telepresence coupled with corporations chasing cheap labor to the ends of the earth. It isn't about machines "taking over"... but this isn't forever.
Despite incredible technological advancement, more people are employed now than in any point in history.
Imagine that... more people are also alive now than in any point in history.
Some people mightl lose out in the short term, but in the long term, the number of jobs only grows.
No. Availability of reserve labor has always been market driven.
Bottom line.. eventually when dead labor is smarter/cheaper/faster/better than humans the reserve labor force is ultimately screwed.
While all of us believe in the ideas of free speech
Everyone says this... few actually mean it.
and open platforms, we draw a line here. We agree that people shouldnâ(TM)t be fired for their political views, but this isnâ(TM)t a disagreement on tax policy, this is advocating hatred and violence
Giving more power to someone whose ascension and behavior strike fear into so many people is unacceptable
Roughly half the voting country will be advocating hatred, violence and giving power to Trump when they go to the polls and vote Trump in the next few weeks including roughly 3 million who gave him money.
Doesn't that blow your mind? How do you sleep at night knowing close to half the country is a basket of ***ist ***phobe advocates of hatred and violence?
How can you not be constantly "triggered" knowing half the country actively supports Trump by voting for and advocating for him? You must be "terrified" beyond words. It must make you physically ill. How can you "feel safe"?
Insightful from Carmack. There's been a history of failed attempts in technology to "game change" focusing on the single human sense of vision. More recently it was 3D TV's and movie theatres which, in hindsight, enjoyed what Carmack describes as "coasting on novelty".
There have been a number of attempts at 3D shopping, 3D meeting spaces, 3D websites over the years and they all failed in my opinion because like video calling they were just gimmicks that were unable to offer any usable value. VR Facebook I assume will meet a similar fate. If people wanted to interact with each other in a space that (is)looks real they have the option of doing that already.
I think VR itself is different. It isn't 3DTV.. I see the sentiment everywhere by what I assume are people who mostly have never tried VR or only used some cardboard contraption with plastic lens and word VR scribbled on side in magic marker.
The difference between VR and 3DTV is fundamentally with VR you are transported to another place and sort of believe you are there. With 3DTV you are just looking at a screen - a 3D screen with things that pop out and have depth yet still just a screen.
Software currently sucks, displays have a long way to go yet in terms of at least experiences and games VR isn't just another gimmick with no or marginal value. It isn't an incremental improvement like Color TV, HDTV or 3D TV... In my opinion it is a "game changer" tons of fun and frankly amazing. Until you try VR (smartphones don't count) you won't understand.
Nobody watches 3DTV and says "holy shit" the effect is marginally neat and then you forget about it... everyone who has tried our VR gear is like OMFG and wants one for themselves.
Mobile games fit the VR model much better than traditional PC or Console based games.
The only thing that makes a mobile game a mobile game is touch screen rather than controller interface.
Mobile games are short, gimmicky and disposable. The UI is already stripped down to a minimum, they're meant to be played for short periods, good for a giggle, and then you move on.
Not interested in wasting time with low quality.
As much fun as it is to physically stand up and crouch down in a VR cover-based-shooter, it's significantly less responsive than just pressing a button. Did I stand up high enough? Too high? I'm tall, and now it won't register me crouching. Same with reloading, walking, talking, or anything else you might do in a game. Pressing a button is much easier and more reliable than trying to hump my PS/Vive/Wii-motes on something to simulate an action.
Head and controllers are tracked in 6DOF. Not vomit inducing 3DOF currently dominating smartphones. The system knows exactly what your position is in space. If your taking cover you would be able to see for yourself whether your crouched down enough. If you sit on the floor in RL your sitting on the floor in VR. You input physical height for calibration when setting up the VR display and center when starting software to set references.
Vive/Touch controllers are tracked in the same way as HMD. Controller movement is tracked in 3 space with physical buttons.
"Traditional" games are also meant to be played for longer periods, which can be anything from nausea inducing to downright painful in VR, as you must strap 2+ pounds of plastic, glass, and wires to your face.
Everyone is different. Find it easy to forget it on. PC VR is lighter, higher quality, less vomit inducing and more comfortable than mobile. Most nausea comes from 3DOF limitations of smartphones.
Smartphone GPUs are not powerful enough and not power efficient enough to drive a VR display at acceptable quality for mass appeal period. All low level "tricks" and hardware hacking in the world are not going to do much to change this basic equation.
Nor do I see where there is sufficient R&D budgets to push technology hard enough to make it happen in the near term just for the sake of VR.
Slashdot Mirror
To find out Canadian immigration website runs IIS.
The solution is simple. For some reason the people responsible don't take action. Maybe we are waiting for the big one? Like an explosion in a nuclear electricity facility?
GET. ALL. CRITICAL. INFRASTRUCTURE. SYSTEMS. OFF. THE. INTERNET.
To play the devils advocate.. what is the alternative? Leased lines and private networks?
Do you think Telco you pick one of those up from isn't going to provision it using same (mostly virtualized) infrastructure and management systems they use for Internet traffic? Do you really think their systems are any more secure?
I strongly believe any and all attempts at securing the network is both dangerous and counterproductive. It is dangerous because it sucks resources from the only thing that matters... securing *systems* and counterproductive because it essentially amounts to "castle defense" in the age of super sonic jet fighters.
If people connect their shit to the Internet with the understanding that it is both a hostile and unreliable environment and take precautions to guard against it (obviously these jokers did no such thing) such systems end up being better engineered and more secure over time vs. dolts with leased lines or private cables who never see an unsolicited byte or dropped packet and become complacent and less investment is subsequently made in engineering systems for reliability and security.
The alternative is when someone does hack a leased line or cut into dark fiber in anger all bets are off. This shouldn't be. Control systems don't have to be the joke that lies just behind most corporate firewalls. It takes investment to get there. Every dollar spent on private lines and DIY networks are dollars not spent on R&D into control systems that are more survivable in hostile environments.
If only it were limited to that. But it's not. The denial, the bigotry, leads to realization, to action, to results. Bullies don't bully just because it gives them an emotional thrill, though that is part of it. They do it because of the results it gets.
But thinking it is that simple is censorship in itself. At best, maybe you will grudgingly tolerate those with another opinion or perspective, but ultimately, you are refusing to recognize them which means if nothing else thay you must be censoring them in your own mind.
However, you think about that though, the real story is that if the people who would abuse truth and freedom are given free reign, they risk harming us all. At some point, there has to be a line.
I couldn't have summed it up any better myself. Exactly this kind of fear drives many feckless idiots such as yourself to believe censorship is cool.
They think if they don't "shut up" their opponents by means of leveraging their states monopoly on violence they will be doomed, Hitler will rise from his grave or consensus for a certain ideology you are diametrically opposed to will be forever lost to evil.
Freedom isn't free, you have a voice just like everyone else. If you give a shit you can work to bolster consensus for a different position than those you "hate" (e.g. think should to be silenced by means of violence).
People like you just want to be lazy and suck off the teet of your countries legitimacy rather than put up and fight for the ideas you believe in. Your pathetic.
The Holocaust obviously never happened. If it really did happen then why would IBM name computers after the guy who sold counting machines to Hitler? And why would Sony let said computer compete on Jeopardy?
The Armenian genocide never happened because Turkey a US Ally and fellow NATO member said so.
Darfur never happened because the UN itself said the government of Sudan didn't have an official policy of Genocide.
Stalin was a US Allie. Good ole Uncle Joe as FDR affectionately called him fighting the good fight against Hitler... do you really think he.... NO... of course not..
Any country who worships censorship and thinks silencing people who spew "hate speech" or buy into related crackpottery by force (e.g. violence) is a great idea are most welcome to disconnect themselves from the Internet.
By the way Germany Facebook's ASN is 32934. You can block it any time you damn well please. If you believe Zuckerberg's facebook is an evil hater factory you have all the power in the world to do something about it immediately.
Facebook certainly incites my hatred of Facebook.
Perpetually offended and afraid.
And just how long will that last? At some point programs won't work well if at all for Win7. How many people you see still running Win2k (or Win98) and say they have no problems?
Given Windows 7 has twice the market share of Windows 10 after a concerted year long nagware campaign to get users to switch for FREE it will easily be well past 2020.
Software companies are in the business of making money. You don't do that by alienating 2/3rds of your market..
DVDs were also supposed to be dead a decade ago but markets are not controlled by suppliers they are controlled by demand from paying customers.
I'm sure one day Microsoft's malware operating system will be able to override the user with ransomware popups in which failure to capitulate to new terms will cause your system and all data to be converted into a petrified brick as per terms you *agreed* to in an earlier EULA but that day isn't here yet or is it?
Microsoft has shown that the Windows 10 customer base is willing to put up with these types of pop-ups. Does anyone really think that Microsoft had no plans to show ads in order to monetize the Windows 10 users?
Nobody here, but what percentage of the overall user base knew that when the clicked that big annoying update button staring them in the face? How many knew their privacy and ad settings for the superficial good they actually do would be randomly reset constantly and most deliberately by Microsoft?
Why in the world did Microsoft go through such great lengths to get its customers to upgrade to Windows 10, if they were not planning to gather customer data and monetize it.
I guess I'm the outlier in that I don't deem it acceptable for businesses to intentionally leverage their own customers ignorance to their advantage.
Some may feel otherwise but remember the golden rule we can't all know everything. If everyone you rely on to get shit done is out to trick you or otherwise screw you over in the name of profit it is hard to see how society does not end up in the sewer. I would assume most would not deem it acceptable for their own mechanics, doctors and lawyers to engage in similar behavior.
1. It will be a really nice display technology.
2. It will be ruined by plays to create a new "platform" owned by magic leap.
3. It will be filled to the hilt with malware/spyware.
4. It won't work with GPUs powerful enough to take advantage of the new display.
It's amazing that a change to an interface somehow makes customer data flow out somewhere. I'm going to assume you can't follow a conversation and just froth at the mouth at the opportunity to mention telemetry every chance you get.
Amazing isn't the word I would chose to describe it. Quite mundane and easy to understand is more appropriate.
Step 1.
Develop single search UI that blends everything and does not provide any obvious indication or option to limit searches and obviously resulting data leakages. The point of this is maximizing intentional leakage of data by intentional malicious UX design.
Step 2.
Lawyer working a case types "Rob's rap sheet" into the search box on their computer intending to bring up file for case they are working. This data is sent to a public search engine with no expectation of privacy.
Doctor types "Gloria's Gonorrhea" into the search box on their computer intending to bring up file for patient they are working. This data is also sent to a search engine.
Windows 10 is intentionally ENGINEERED to leak information and invade privacy and confidentiality of information at every opportunity.
Also worth remembering Windows 10 is distributed with a fully functional RAT (Remote Access Trojan) installed and ENABLED by DEFAULT granting Microsoft the ability to exfiltrate data without either your explicit consent or knowledge.
https://web.archive.org/web/20...
https://web.archive.org/web/20...
I'm far from a MS apologist (typing this on a Mac; doing my development on Linux) but I think a simpler explanation is that they don't want to support a 7 year old OS. You can only keep backporting features and fixes that are developed on a new platform for so long. Once the platforms diverge sufficient, it becomes prohibitively expensive to maintain that compatibility.
Should have thought about that before they turned W10 into buggy malware people would actively seek to avoid rather than feel excited to adopt.
More generally the essence of programming is managing complexity. Maintainability especially when new features are off the table are just another aspect of it. Sources of change are only as expensive as what you architect them to cost during product lifecycle. While it is true you can't predict the future you sure as heck can lower overall costs by hedging against it.
Think of it this way: would you want to port Chrome to Windows 95? Of course not: it doesn't have half the APIs you'd want to use. You could port compatibility stubs, but eventually you'd end up rewriting half of the new OS onto the old until it became a Frankenstein's monster of a beast to maintain.
I don't know about Win 95. I do know NT 4 is of the same vintage and versions of chrome from a couple years ago still ran on that operating system.
At the end of the day ROI is all the bean counters give two shits about. Technical blabbering about difficulty is a lame *excuse* that nobody but the people working problems care about.
You may do disruptive change and succeed in the market but you sure as hell better be able to deliver on new value commensurate with the change or you should expect to fail.
If you are only delivering incremental change you better make damn sure you don't break anything or you should expect to fail.
Where Microsoft really failed long-term is that they established the expectation that software written on the platform will run forever and ever, as a binary, unchanged. That's a terrible idea!
Completely disagree. Backwards compatibility provides customers with quantifiable value regardless of context free personal opinions to the contrary.
It isn't vendors setting expectations it is customers signaling their expectations via their interaction with the market.
On Mac and Linux, the expectation is that vendors will occasionally have to at least recompile their software to run on newer platforms.
Try telling Linus that and see what his response is. Linux backwards ABI compatibility has not changed. It is possible to run Linux binaries compiled 20 years ago on modern Linux distros.
Simply having that expectation is enough for vendors to be used to it, and for end users to be used to their vendors doing it. Even just recompiling a project with a newer Xcode is often a big feature and performance win so there's not much resistance to doing so.
Recompiling is only possible when you as a customer have access to source code. For the vast majority of commercially purchased software this option is unavailable thus "value" to users in backwards compatibility to run software even where original vendor may have long ago become extinct.
You don't install an app for most major OSes and expect it to run as-is for the next 20 years. And yet that's exactly what Microsoft has trained everyone to expect, and it's increasingly coming to bite them in the ass.
I actually do and believe this will increasingly become the norm going forward as general purpose operating system mature we can expect nothing but small hard won incremental changes and increasingly lower cost in maintaining compatibility.
When I scope out which stacks to use for new projects one of the primary factors I look at is history of the stack and its likelihood of still being around in the next 10-20 years.
Sorry this is all a bridge too far. I neither seek nor have a place in any "future" that disrespects people to such an extent.
Tech industry used to be cool. It used to be companies cared at least somewhat about competing on merit providing useful new capabilities and better tools to get the job done. Now seems all anyone wants to do is fall over themselves to manipulate and stalk their customers with business models previously exclusive province of malware vendors.
Incremental improvements to W10 are NOT worth tolerating or wasting time bypassing intentional baked in evil nor am I willing to reward Microsoft by supporting what I believe to be unacceptable and unethical behavior.
Every intentional UX trick designed to covertly leak information, provide false assurances with clever language or cow people into submission reflects poorly not only on Microsoft but the industry as a whole.
It is NOT ok to profit from ignorance of YOUR customers anymore than you would deem it acceptable for a doctor or mechanic to profit from YOUR ignorance.
The cesspool of "me too" followers who use what everyone else is doing as cover for their increasingly valueless schemes does not speak to anything I would recognize as the "future" rather just another lame example of "market failure".
Who wants to purchase DRMd spyware shit from EA in the first place? Give them your money only to be treated like shit? This makes no sense.
If it isn't on GOG or available directly without DRM strings it might as well not exist.
As sort of a curiosity, I want to ask you all, what do you need with more than 16GB? Entertain me and others, cite examples of things you do that need more than 16GB memory.
Firefox.
In case there is any confusion the whole point of advertising companies building profiles of people is so they can JUDGE them based on statistical datasets and use the resulting judgment to maximize their own profits. Their activities are inherently prejudicial.
Inventing what amounts to public signage which can only be read by certain people isn't illegal. You after all are not expressing a preference within content of the sign.
The same way stealing your shit (civil forfeiture) doesn't violate the 14th amendment.
Or stalking cell phone users, reading emails and collecting everyone's phone records without warrant does not violate the fourth amendment. Neither is the 7th amendment violated by undecipherable nonnegotiable omnipresent EULAs requiring submission to arbitration.
Up is down, left is right there is no spoon.
Since it can't comply with BCP38 without ISP intervention, which most ISPs seem intent on ignoring, I suggest a complete UDP ban.
You first. Ban it on your network and let us know how it goes.
No they aren't, as I've explained at length in other posts.
Yes they are.
The only thing asymmetric buys you, in terms of hassle for the end user, is the ability to not to have to worry about a transferring around a (fairly small) master keyfile or passphrase.
It allows anyone to encipher messages without any possession of secret information.
It allows anyone to verify source and integrity of information without any possession of secret information.
It allows this to occur in a completely untethered, unlimited and untraceable manner.
Nothing you offer does that when you remove the shell game of punting of responsibility and convenient ignoring of underlying reality.
We know a quantum RSA break is simply a matter of time.
We know nothing of the sort. There is ZERO evidence in existence to support this assumption. NONE.
We don't know what tech advances will suddenly appear in the future, but we do know that if any country had a breakthrough there would be a very strong incentive to invest billions into it, even if they just got a few years' work out of it
The problem with this logic is that it doesn't say anything. It doesn't mean anything. It isn't falsifiable. I can say "we don't know" to justify any course of action I damn well please. Support your position with actual objective evidence. Saying "we don't know" is the same as saying nothing at all.
And even it never happens, for whatever reason, asymmetric computing has always had many more question marks hanging over it. We can't be sure there won't be a new class of weak RSA keys discovered tomorrow, but we can be fairly confident that a powerful (i.e. much faster than brute force) zero-known plaintext attack for AES is not going to pop up tomorrow.
Your opinions are your opinions. Do what you want. I'm not abandoning the devil that has been around longer than I have been alive out of unspecified unsubstantiated non-quantified fears for a provably inferior solution. You are perfectly free to make a different calculation.
Could we please get to work on getting everything on the web compatible with a stateful encryption scheme (out of band preshared keys and signing schemes that aren't entirely reliant on any form[1] of asymmetric cryptography) now ?
Asymmetric schemes are as a practical matter absolutely necessary.
Instead of waiting 10-20 years and then suddenly finding out, oh crap, some government has finally has built a quantum computer powerful enough to crack RSA/ECC?
Are you sure it isn't 3-4 years or 15-73 years or perhaps 153 to 739 years? If your going to ask others you have no control over to "get to work" on something you kind of have to provide compelling evidence to support your position if you expect anyone to pay attention to you or spend their time on it.
Citation? Just because it would be nice to have, doesn't mean that nature and genetics work this way.
No, I'm not going to give you a citation. You can Google it yourself. It takes seconds. This is a well known fact that has been widely studied.
DNA testing is inherently racist, as genetic traits are heritable and are associated with your ethnic/genetic background.
Genetic variability between any two individuals of the very same tribe dwarfs ethnicity. This is why judging individuals on a genetic basis by their tribe/race is illogical and also why your argument doesn't hold up.
I would agree for different reasons allowing this is a bad idea. Chance of these schemes ever being deemed socially acceptable in my estimation is 0... Probably also quite useless given people in many ways that matter are more or less products of their environments rather than genetics.
People have been spouting this prophecy for more than 300 years, and its never come true.
I've always hated these arguments because they hide behind default historically safe assumptions are not merit based. The history of this and mechanisms are very much useful and worth understanding. Yet there was never a time in those 300 years when dead labor was able to close the loop by taking over the work of living labor and do it better than humans. This most certainly will cease to be the case well into the next 300 years.
Currently NONE of the above is in play nor will it be anytime soon. First world job loss is currently a function of increasingly friction free capital movement enabled by technology, trade deals and telepresence coupled with corporations chasing cheap labor to the ends of the earth. It isn't about machines "taking over"... but this isn't forever.
Despite incredible technological advancement, more people are employed now than in any point in history.
Imagine that... more people are also alive now than in any point in history.
Some people mightl lose out in the short term, but in the long term, the number of jobs only grows.
No. Availability of reserve labor has always been market driven.
Bottom line .. eventually when dead labor is smarter/cheaper/faster/better than humans the reserve labor force is ultimately screwed.
While all of us believe in the ideas of free speech
Everyone says this... few actually mean it.
and open platforms, we draw a line here. We agree that people shouldnâ(TM)t be fired for their political views, but
this isnâ(TM)t a disagreement on tax policy, this is advocating hatred and violence
Giving more power to someone whose ascension and behavior strike fear into so many people is unacceptable
Roughly half the voting country will be advocating hatred, violence and giving power to Trump when they go to the polls and vote Trump in the next few weeks including roughly 3 million who gave him money.
Doesn't that blow your mind? How do you sleep at night knowing close to half the country is a basket of ***ist ***phobe advocates of hatred and violence?
How can you not be constantly "triggered" knowing half the country actively supports Trump by voting for and advocating for him? You must be "terrified" beyond words. It must make you physically ill. How can you "feel safe"?
What benefits are people getting out of their technology addictions?
Insightful from Carmack. There's been a history of failed attempts in technology to "game change" focusing on the single human sense of vision.
More recently it was 3D TV's and movie theatres which, in hindsight, enjoyed what Carmack describes as "coasting on novelty".
There have been a number of attempts at 3D shopping, 3D meeting spaces, 3D websites over the years and they all failed in my opinion because like video calling they were just gimmicks that were unable to offer any usable value. VR Facebook I assume will meet a similar fate. If people wanted to interact with each other in a space that (is)looks real they have the option of doing that already.
I think VR itself is different. It isn't 3DTV .. I see the sentiment everywhere by what I assume are people who mostly have never tried VR or only used some cardboard contraption with plastic lens and word VR scribbled on side in magic marker.
The difference between VR and 3DTV is fundamentally with VR you are transported to another place and sort of believe you are there. With 3DTV you are just looking at a screen - a 3D screen with things that pop out and have depth yet still just a screen.
Software currently sucks, displays have a long way to go yet in terms of at least experiences and games VR isn't just another gimmick with no or marginal value. It isn't an incremental improvement like Color TV, HDTV or 3D TV... In my opinion it is a "game changer" tons of fun and frankly amazing. Until you try VR (smartphones don't count) you won't understand.
Nobody watches 3DTV and says "holy shit" the effect is marginally neat and then you forget about it... everyone who has tried our VR gear is like OMFG and wants one for themselves.
Mobile games fit the VR model much better than traditional PC or Console based games.
The only thing that makes a mobile game a mobile game is touch screen rather than controller interface.
Mobile games are short, gimmicky and disposable. The UI is already stripped down to a minimum, they're meant to be played for short periods, good for a giggle, and then you move on.
Not interested in wasting time with low quality.
As much fun as it is to physically stand up and crouch down in a VR cover-based-shooter, it's significantly less responsive than just pressing a button. Did I stand up high enough? Too high? I'm tall, and now it won't register me crouching. Same with reloading, walking, talking, or anything else you might do in a game. Pressing a button is much easier and more reliable than trying to hump my PS/Vive/Wii-motes on something to simulate an action.
Head and controllers are tracked in 6DOF. Not vomit inducing 3DOF currently dominating smartphones. The system knows exactly what your position is in space. If your taking cover you would be able to see for yourself whether your crouched down enough. If you sit on the floor in RL your sitting on the floor in VR. You input physical height for calibration when setting up the VR display and center when starting software to set references.
Vive/Touch controllers are tracked in the same way as HMD. Controller movement is tracked in 3 space with physical buttons.
"Traditional" games are also meant to be played for longer periods, which can be anything from nausea inducing to downright painful in VR, as you must strap 2+ pounds of plastic, glass, and wires to your face.
Everyone is different. Find it easy to forget it on. PC VR is lighter, higher quality, less vomit inducing and more comfortable than mobile. Most nausea comes from 3DOF limitations of smartphones.
Smartphone GPUs are not powerful enough and not power efficient enough to drive a VR display at acceptable quality for mass appeal period. All low level "tricks" and hardware hacking in the world are not going to do much to change this basic equation.
Nor do I see where there is sufficient R&D budgets to push technology hard enough to make it happen in the near term just for the sake of VR.