He wanted to avoid being handed over to Sweden because, once in Sweden, he feared the US requesting extradition, and then treating him like they did Chelsea Manning. Now Trump is coming in, who the fuck is going to grant him any clemency?
They're not emulated. They are confined by hardware virtualisation (which is in many ways like another tier of process memory protection). Virtualised apps run on the bare metal processor, just as userland processes do. The only difference is that the kernel the userland processes on a virtualised host sees is also like a userland process, so far as the bare-metal processor is concerned.
Importantly, Bitcoin is vulnerable to one party gaining control of over 50% of all hashing. With banks trusting each other, and nobody else allowed to produce hashes, this problem is essentially no longer there. I'd quietly commented to friends it was only a matter of time before banks start doing something like this.
I want something as maintainable as a Thinkpad, Z1 or Z800, but that runs macOS. And I want a macOS that isn't an overblown iOS. The only route to those is to take some drugs, go to bed, and dream of them.
The 'make a request and be served for free' thing is what people need to understand doesn't happen. But if multiple people who have the same wish can know about each other, that can enable them to co-ordinate efforts where they could contribute something but not all of it. Connecting people's wishes and efforts is what matters not demanding stuff for free.
I have a number of refurb Thinkpad 410s, 420s, and X201s etc. Stick them in docks, and for many things, it is a nice, quiet desktop, with enough oomph for most things, runs both Windows and Linux well, all cost under £150 each, some had smashed screens, and were got off ebay for under £30. Give them new HDDs (or hybrids) or SSDs, and you're happy. To get something that runs Windows 10 well, you need to spend close to £1000. To get Windows 10 without all the rubbish MS has baked into it, you're stuffed. Market stupidity is why the PC is declining: in part due to MS, in part to Intel and others. There is just no compelling PC product on the market at the moment.
Everything except telemetry should require some kind of hardware level permission (analogous to write protect switch), not software. Telemetry should be end to end encrypted.
Like others lamenting here, between 2005 and 2010 I was essentially Apple only, having switched from Windows and Linux. In 2011 I tried Linux again, putting Ubuntu on a Sony Vaio laptop (dual booting with Windows), and then an Acer laptop. The improvements in Linux re-ignited my inner penguin, and it is what I use most often. My macs are a 2008 iMac, and a 2009 macbook. There is no point in upgrading the hardware, nothing more recent, first- or second-hand is a sensible option, and Snow Leopard is the most sensible OS for this hardware. The iMac's graphics chipset is going, so its only real role is ripping CDs in iTunes. The optical drive in the iMac has a CD stuck in which it cannot eject, and any kind of maintenance means a 1hr ordeal of taking the thing apart. If that happens, my plan is to build a new case for the parts (not pretty, but maintainable) so as to allow things like HD changes without having to do a task as fiddly as a 5x5 rubiks cube. Apple used to make hardware into an art form, now they make unmaintainability into an artform.
Jokingly, I refer to Apple as the US front of the FoxConnShinyElectricToyCompany.
They are a wonderful example of the longer-term problems of proprietary hardware/OS combinations: you cannot do anything about the fact that Apple only sells shiny toys to run OS X, and you can do nothing to prevent Apple turning macOS into an overgrown iOS. In an ideal world, companies like Apple would make high quality hardware and software that just worked.
The defense is simple: the unmodified original, warts and all, is the Star Wars I grew up with, the 'improved' versions are not. The 'improved' versions are not that good as movies in their own right, had they been originally released in, say, 2000, and with no previous history. But in 1977 (the year I was born) it was magical, and growing up with it, seeing it on SD analogue TVs, or VHS, was a magical experience. The 'improved' versions have the feel of taking away a child's favourite teddybear, and adding some improvements and giving it back. The child's usual response is that it isn't his (or her) favourite teddybear any more. So it is with the original Star Wars. The 'improved' versions may have technical improvements, but they don't excite those of us with memories of the original they way the original ones did. Many fans want an option to relive the originals, and are being denied it.
If you've ever seen the original Godzilla, you could make many 'how can you defend' arguments vs the CGI disasters of recent years. Many of us just want the best that can be possibly done with the original footage, not a FrankenMovie.
Why one of the other? Personally I tend to recommend Lisp, Smalltalk and Haskell as languages to train how you think about programming. A basic grasp of these three does wonders for how you think about programming, at least for high level stuff. Understanding how a forth works, and why Moore wrote it as he did tells you much about low level stuff, as does exploring basic demo coding on emulations of old 90s machines (where clever machine level stuff was necessary, and things were significantly less complex).
There is a big difference between languages which help train your brain, and languages which help you get stuff done. There is considerable overlap, of course, but by sticking only to languages which get stuff done you limit your capacity to think about your programming.
You can't get an egg shaped object with only two objects orbiting under gravity. With many bodies, however, things are far less clear. In addition, there is the effect of the atmosphere around the perigees. The orbits these things make won't be perfectly elliptical.
In North Korea, if Kim Jong Un says it is not a violation of copyright, it is not, at least not until the device arrives in a different country and jurisdiction.
I have suggested this many times. Core OS update stuff should be segregated from normal runtime at hardware level. The obvious approach is a switch which, in one position, boots the machine into an 'OS install mode' which permits copying files to a small flash boot device, and in the other position allows normal booting. Everything necessary for security, reset, and core libraries should be in there, everything else on the main storage device. In normal runtime, the switch hardware write-protects the device the core files are loaded from. That sort of idea.
It is not the best illustration of an idea that's been running around my head for ages.
In terms of what traditional textual C can represent, with the exception of C macros, one can construct a suitable data structure. Now consider how parsed C could then be programmatically manipulated, and produced from other source formats than the usual. And so on.
Thinking more in a pythonic syntax, I have wondered about replacing textual source with a scripting language, so that, with something like C++, we could write
While it doesn't look pretty at this point, one can write routines which do much of the code generation for you. Sometimes I look at the clever stuff done with template metaprogramming and think that they are doing this sort of thing but with a hobbled language. (cf. Greenspun's 10th law)
This has the capacity to do far more than C macros, and to allow a programmer to see in detail what things like macros and templates turn into. An IDE could interactively work with the resulting data structure, avoiding the round-trip to textual source and back, and the compilation stage for large projects could be accelerated in various ways.
Basically, in Lisp, code is structured data, as is essentially everything else, and essentially you are working with the language downstream from the parser (or at least, you could easily construct and editor which did this, and where a textual representation was only constructed by the tools allowing you to view and edit the programs. With other languages, code is a text file that needs parsing.
if you want to crack encryption with a powerful computer, you need a means to algorithmically verify your guesses. This is what you need to make hard. Essentially you need a way of encoding messages such that there are many many plausible decryptions. As such, if you took a dictionary of the most common 5000 English words, and forced all communications to use those, and only standard English grammar, you could algorithmically map strings of integers to English words and phrases. There are many ways to do this, and many ways to permute how it does it. More importantly, it is hard to know if you've got it right (and impossible for a simple algorithm).
It is not the i5 that is slow, it is the amount of work it is being asked to do. If you took a webpage, stripped out all javascript and media (besides small-medium images), it would load instantaneously. If you used only basic javascript, again it would be instantaneous. If, however, every tab as to manage the mass of css, javascript and DOM modifications that modern pages like to do, then suddenly you browser has a helluva lot of work to do. Too many developers just stack 10+ frameworks on top of each other to get their desired appearance, and then care little that the result is unusably slow. Some pages include various libraries supplied by advertisers in order to serve ads. Stuff like that.
If a webpage contained only the kind of stuff they did in the early 90s, before animated gifs and table layout started happening, they would be pretty much instantaneous on any modern browser. But instead each page is like a mini-OS having to boot up.
Pop 'legal sex work' into youtube and you'll see a number of accounts from women working as sex workers in countries where it is legal. The trouble is that legalisation is only one part of the problem. Destigmatisation is the other: societal attitudes towards sex create a defacto set of informal laws which are not subject to the democratic machinery in the normal way.
The truth the medical fraternity face is that many have had their lives ruined by the drugs they religiously believe in. The 'evidence' rests on a mire of untested and flawed assumptions (in particular the premises of the statistical methods used to relate data to conclusions: many of which cannot be justified unless the possibility of and influence of complex brain behaviour can be safely ignored). The clinical psychology fraternity, and a number of 'maverick' psychiatrists are, more and more, putting across why mainstream 'medical psychiatry' has much wrong. But this is all too easily swamped by billion dollar marketing machines, lobbying and selective sponsored trials which have a habit, like 'proven by science' infomercials, of showing the sponsoring company's products as better than others.
Slashdot Mirror
He wanted to avoid being handed over to Sweden because, once in Sweden, he feared the US requesting extradition, and then treating him like they did Chelsea Manning. Now Trump is coming in, who the fuck is going to grant him any clemency?
They're not emulated. They are confined by hardware virtualisation (which is in many ways like another tier of process memory protection). Virtualised apps run on the bare metal processor, just as userland processes do. The only difference is that the kernel the userland processes on a virtualised host sees is also like a userland process, so far as the bare-metal processor is concerned.
Importantly, Bitcoin is vulnerable to one party gaining control of over 50% of all hashing. With banks trusting each other, and nobody else allowed to produce hashes, this problem is essentially no longer there. I'd quietly commented to friends it was only a matter of time before banks start doing something like this.
Is that for audio? Most porn movie audio tracks sound the same.
I want something as maintainable as a Thinkpad, Z1 or Z800, but that runs macOS. And I want a macOS that isn't an overblown iOS. The only route to those is to take some drugs, go to bed, and dream of them.
The 'make a request and be served for free' thing is what people need to understand doesn't happen. But if multiple people who have the same wish can know about each other, that can enable them to co-ordinate efforts where they could contribute something but not all of it. Connecting people's wishes and efforts is what matters not demanding stuff for free.
I have a number of refurb Thinkpad 410s, 420s, and X201s etc. Stick them in docks, and for many things, it is a nice, quiet desktop, with enough oomph for most things, runs both Windows and Linux well, all cost under £150 each, some had smashed screens, and were got off ebay for under £30. Give them new HDDs (or hybrids) or SSDs, and you're happy. To get something that runs Windows 10 well, you need to spend close to £1000. To get Windows 10 without all the rubbish MS has baked into it, you're stuffed. Market stupidity is why the PC is declining: in part due to MS, in part to Intel and others. There is just no compelling PC product on the market at the moment.
Everything except telemetry should require some kind of hardware level permission (analogous to write protect switch), not software. Telemetry should be end to end encrypted.
Lisp gives you nightmares like that... ;-)
I imagine they plan to flog the Yahoo name too in the near future, hence the name change. Closing Down Sale! Everything (including the name) must go!
Like others lamenting here, between 2005 and 2010 I was essentially Apple only, having switched from Windows and Linux. In 2011 I tried Linux again, putting Ubuntu on a Sony Vaio laptop (dual booting with Windows), and then an Acer laptop. The improvements in Linux re-ignited my inner penguin, and it is what I use most often. My macs are a 2008 iMac, and a 2009 macbook. There is no point in upgrading the hardware, nothing more recent, first- or second-hand is a sensible option, and Snow Leopard is the most sensible OS for this hardware. The iMac's graphics chipset is going, so its only real role is ripping CDs in iTunes. The optical drive in the iMac has a CD stuck in which it cannot eject, and any kind of maintenance means a 1hr ordeal of taking the thing apart. If that happens, my plan is to build a new case for the parts (not pretty, but maintainable) so as to allow things like HD changes without having to do a task as fiddly as a 5x5 rubiks cube. Apple used to make hardware into an art form, now they make unmaintainability into an artform.
Jokingly, I refer to Apple as the US front of the FoxConnShinyElectricToyCompany.
They are a wonderful example of the longer-term problems of proprietary hardware/OS combinations: you cannot do anything about the fact that Apple only sells shiny toys to run OS X, and you can do nothing to prevent Apple turning macOS into an overgrown iOS. In an ideal world, companies like Apple would make high quality hardware and software that just worked.
Its patent status prevents others implementing it.
The defense is simple: the unmodified original, warts and all, is the Star Wars I grew up with, the 'improved' versions are not. The 'improved' versions are not that good as movies in their own right, had they been originally released in, say, 2000, and with no previous history. But in 1977 (the year I was born) it was magical, and growing up with it, seeing it on SD analogue TVs, or VHS, was a magical experience. The 'improved' versions have the feel of taking away a child's favourite teddybear, and adding some improvements and giving it back. The child's usual response is that it isn't his (or her) favourite teddybear any more. So it is with the original Star Wars. The 'improved' versions may have technical improvements, but they don't excite those of us with memories of the original they way the original ones did. Many fans want an option to relive the originals, and are being denied it.
If you've ever seen the original Godzilla, you could make many 'how can you defend' arguments vs the CGI disasters of recent years. Many of us just want the best that can be possibly done with the original footage, not a FrankenMovie.
Why one of the other? Personally I tend to recommend Lisp, Smalltalk and Haskell as languages to train how you think about programming. A basic grasp of these three does wonders for how you think about programming, at least for high level stuff. Understanding how a forth works, and why Moore wrote it as he did tells you much about low level stuff, as does exploring basic demo coding on emulations of old 90s machines (where clever machine level stuff was necessary, and things were significantly less complex).
There is a big difference between languages which help train your brain, and languages which help you get stuff done. There is considerable overlap, of course, but by sticking only to languages which get stuff done you limit your capacity to think about your programming.
You can't get an egg shaped object with only two objects orbiting under gravity. With many bodies, however, things are far less clear. In addition, there is the effect of the atmosphere around the perigees. The orbits these things make won't be perfectly elliptical.
In North Korea, if Kim Jong Un says it is not a violation of copyright, it is not, at least not until the device arrives in a different country and jurisdiction.
I have suggested this many times. Core OS update stuff should be segregated from normal runtime at hardware level. The obvious approach is a switch which, in one position, boots the machine into an 'OS install mode' which permits copying files to a small flash boot device, and in the other position allows normal booting. Everything necessary for security, reset, and core libraries should be in there, everything else on the main storage device. In normal runtime, the switch hardware write-protects the device the core files are loaded from. That sort of idea.
Apple are in the expensive shiny toy business these days, so no surprise they do well around Christmas.
Interestingly, Javascript's heritage is from Self, which descends from Smalltalk, and dispenses with classes.
It is not the best illustration of an idea that's been running around my head for ages.
In terms of what traditional textual C can represent, with the exception of C macros, one can construct a suitable data structure. Now consider how parsed C could then be programmatically manipulated, and produced from other source formats than the usual. And so on.
Thinking more in a pythonic syntax, I have wondered about replacing textual source with a scripting language, so that, with something like C++, we could write
newclass = cpp.Class()
meth = newclass.addMethod(name="dosomething")
meth.signature = cpp.Signature([cpp.int,cpp.float])
While it doesn't look pretty at this point, one can write routines which do much of the code generation for you. Sometimes I look at the clever stuff done with template metaprogramming and think that they are doing this sort of thing but with a hobbled language. (cf. Greenspun's 10th law)
This has the capacity to do far more than C macros, and to allow a programmer to see in detail what things like macros and templates turn into.
An IDE could interactively work with the resulting data structure, avoiding the round-trip to textual source and back,
and the compilation stage for large projects could be accelerated in various ways.
Basically, in Lisp, code is structured data, as is essentially everything else, and essentially you are working with the language downstream from the parser (or at least, you could easily construct and editor which did this, and where a textual representation was only constructed by the tools allowing you to view and edit the programs. With other languages, code is a text file that needs parsing.
if you want to crack encryption with a powerful computer, you need a means to algorithmically verify your guesses. This is what you need to make hard. Essentially you need a way of encoding messages such that there are many many plausible decryptions. As such, if you took a dictionary of the most common 5000 English words, and forced all communications to use those, and only standard English grammar, you could algorithmically map strings of integers to English words and phrases. There are many ways to do this, and many ways to permute how it does it. More importantly, it is hard to know if you've got it right (and impossible for a simple algorithm).
It is not the i5 that is slow, it is the amount of work it is being asked to do. If you took a webpage, stripped out all javascript and media (besides small-medium images), it would load instantaneously. If you used only basic javascript, again it would be instantaneous. If, however, every tab as to manage the mass of css, javascript and DOM modifications that modern pages like to do, then suddenly you browser has a helluva lot of work to do. Too many developers just stack 10+ frameworks on top of each other to get their desired appearance, and then care little that the result is unusably slow. Some pages include various libraries supplied by advertisers in order to serve ads. Stuff like that.
If a webpage contained only the kind of stuff they did in the early 90s, before animated gifs and table layout started happening, they would be pretty much instantaneous on any modern browser. But instead each page is like a mini-OS having to boot up.
Pop 'legal sex work' into youtube and you'll see a number of accounts from women working as sex workers in countries where it is legal. The trouble is that legalisation is only one part of the problem. Destigmatisation is the other: societal attitudes towards sex create a defacto set of informal laws which are not subject to the democratic machinery in the normal way.
The truth the medical fraternity face is that many have had their lives ruined by the drugs they religiously believe in. The 'evidence' rests on a mire of untested and flawed assumptions (in particular the premises of the statistical methods used to relate data to conclusions: many of which cannot be justified unless the possibility of and influence of complex brain behaviour can be safely ignored). The clinical psychology fraternity, and a number of 'maverick' psychiatrists are, more and more, putting across why mainstream 'medical psychiatry' has much wrong. But this is all too easily swamped by billion dollar marketing machines, lobbying and selective sponsored trials which have a habit, like 'proven by science' infomercials, of showing the sponsoring company's products as better than others.
This also affects paid users: as if your web host decided to change what urls you could use to serve files from.