Agreed. Ten years ago I was programming mostly in C++ and C#. Ten years from now I'll be programming mostly in C++ and C#. While our shop has lots of different user interface platforms for the same product, ranging from PowerScript to XAML to HTML5, I don't see the core code changing in ten years. It just gets to wear different clothes, according to the style at the time.
The most important details: The energy density performance (90Wh/kg) are above the expectations especially considering the excellent cycle life (at least 2.000 charge/discharge cycles). It would also be nice to see voltage drop-off as the battery discharges and expected price, but now I'm getting greedy...
I figured that if I poked around long enough I'd find something. Mostly I searched for "Linux won't boot after Windows 10 boot", and just found descriptions of how you need to install Windows first. But once I got the idea of ditching Windows in my head, I really liked it. It just seems so much more... peaceful. No more fighting for privacy, no more updates I can't roll back, no more of Windows casually deleting my boot loader... And no annual fee either.
Plus, I think it's the right time. It just feels like Microsoft is slowly wrestling control of the machine away from me, a little bit at a time. And while it's just starting to get a little stifling now, I can only imagine it getting worse. UEFI is currently only a hair away from not letting you install other OS's anyways. You can't tell me Microsoft isn't thinking about it. Because they've got to be thinking about it.
It seems that Windows is slowly turning into a console. I mean, why would they want you to install software not in the Windows store? They could act as gatekeepers to your computer, like they tried with RT. In RT it was too soon... but when the whole world uses Windows 10, and modern software won't even run on Windows 8 anymore, what are you going to do? If you want your precious software, you'll do it on Microsoft's terms. You'd have no choice but to use the Windows store. And Microsoft will take a cut on every sale, and gets the final say on which software you can and cannot run.
Depending on where you stand, this might seem to have a small chance of happening, instead of the big chance that I see. But with Linux there's no chance. Heh, that could be their new slogan: "Linux: Not a Chance".
It used to be that dual-booting Windows and Linux wasn't much hassle, so I kept Windows around for the odd time I wanted to play a game. But when I upgraded to Windows 10 it wiped out the Linux bootloader. So I grumbled a bit and figured that's par for the course, formatted the hard drive, installed Windows 10 first and Linux second. And that was fine for about a week until I decided I wanted to play a Windows game... after shutting Windows down, my boot loader is toast. Again. I can't even get to the little GRUB repair prompt this time.
It's just not worth it for me anymore, especially now that Steam is on Linux. Plus, I figure it will be good to get out before Microsoft's "subscription-based" model kicks in for Windows 10.
Farewell Windows. You were an awesome gaming platform for 15 years.
I'd hoped that you'd gotten it through your skull
About what's figurative and what's literal
But just now
You stated
You literally couldn't do anything computer related
That really makes me want to literally
Uh... Go back in time so your parents never dated?...That seems kind of harsh.
One app for graphics, gimp. . One app for a gui, gnome. One app for an ide Eclipse, etc
I'm a Linux user and I've never felt pressure to use any of those things. It's Kolourpaint, KDE or XFCE, and Kate or CodeBlocks for me. Though I'm going to try Qt's IDE, I hear it's a good one.
So, why does a robot need legs in zero g? I sincerely doubt the humanoid design was chosen on technical merits. Also, didn't Valkyrie get last place with 0 points at the DARPA robotics competition?
Nice. There's also Mini-Itx.com with many different boards and cases. They're like larger, beefier Raspberri Pi's and should be able to power 2-3 monitors each I think.
If anything, the spammer now knows this is a valid and active e-mail account.
That's why we all have to turn on our auto-responses together, and at the same time. Plus, bonus points if Google detects a spam message directed to an invalid gmail address, and crafts a response automatically.
Someone else said: Unfortunately, I know of no spam emails that don't forge the from address. If you actually got a working address, very likely you would be emailing someone who had nothing to do with the message.
Disturbing! I've never tried responding, but I've seen addresses like GrrlsHotForYou@atotalscam.com. I suppose they want you to click on a link these days? I imagine your email client could auto-click on the link, but then the spammers could just add a captcha... Which is ironic in its own way.
Next up, scripted responses will be responding to each other while we stay back and watch;)
I've fantasized about this. Imagine a world where every email you flag as spam has an auto-generated reply returned to the sender. The spammers could have a whole conversation with your chat bot. I wonder how many messages back-and-forth it would take for them to realize there's no one on the other end. The value of spam would plummet, because you'd have no easy way to sift through the millions of fake responses to find the real ones.
I was once looking for a method of calculating 1-way latency between two computers. The standard method is to take a packet's round trip time, and divide by two. But that only gives you the average latency. It might take 100 ms to send the packet, and 20 ms to receive the response, but RTT/2 gives you 60 ms for each. So I found this paper where a grad student claimed to have found a more accurate method, and had this huge formula to represent it. I spent a whole day reading that paper, and at the end I found that his formula actually just simplified down to RTT/2. The whole paper was time-wasting garbage that had somehow gotten published.
Here's the meat of the "questionable and somewhat irate" response:
The following are factual and editorial errors in the document:
1. Abstract – States that for AS 5185-2010 "we show that the privacy properties of PLAID are
significantly weaker than claimed" but in fact the report shows that the privacy properties of
PLAID are unbroken by the attack and in fact unbreakable by the attack. The report
actually shows that the "ID Leakage" properties of the protocol (as defined in AS 5185-2010)
could be better implemented in the 2010 version of the reference implementation by
implementing the fake "ShillKey" better - see further discussion in section 6.2.
2. Abstract – states that it will be...." reporting a number of undesirable cryptographic features
of the protocol" This is however unargued and not actualised. The reference appears to
logically means section 5.3 of the Unpicking PLAID paper however, as shown in section 7 of
this discussion these are either not claims of the protocol or are not shown to be weaknesses
by any argument presented by the Researchers - see further discussion in section 7.
3. History in Introduction is not 100% correct – the Public Consultation process included
additional workshops and stages – see section 4 "History" above
4. P3, Last paragraph, the words "added for privacy reasons" is incorrect, the ShillKey was
added to delay and distract an atacker, privacy was never an issue and is not stated as a
design requirement.
5. P4, last paragraph, P5 first paragraph – Not clear what point is being made – OPACITY is a
completely different protocol based on Eliptic Curve technology. Last sentence seems to mix
this Paper on PLAID up with a completely seperate report on OPACITY.
6. P3 2nd last paragraph the Researchers state "Even though the encryption key in RSA is
usually public, in PLAID it is kept secret to enhance privacy". This is an incorrect
representation of PLAID, the reason for both keys being kept secret is in fact to prevent any
leakage to an attacker of the AES diversification seed in order to enhance security. Note that
PLAID is not a PKI, and the use of public and private key concepts is not relevant, ALL keys
are secured in (preferably) hardware crypto devices.
I'm no crypto expert - can anyone explain to me why these points aren't valid? Especially points 1 and 4.
According to this talking llama, the UN already has a plan to defeat climate change, and everyone has already agreed to it. So I'm not sure why people think climate change is still an issue...
Not that we know of. If you measure your particle, you know the fellow on the other end will read the opposite measurement. It's like having random number generators at each end that are perfectly synchronized, but always produce inverse results.
You can use it for unbreakable encryption though, by treating your random numbers as a symmetric key with unlimited length. The person at the other end can deduce your key from his own measurements, without ever having to send the key over the channel.
In short, I suggest that the programmer should continue to understand what he is doing, that his growing product remains firmly within his intellectual grip. It is my sad experience that this suggestion is repulsive to the average experienced programmer, who clearly derives a major part of his professional excitement from not quite understanding what he is doing. In this streamlined age, one of our most undernourished psychological needs is the craving for Black Magic and apparently the automatic computer can satisfy this need for the professional software engineer, who is secretly enthralled by the gigantic risks he takes in his daring irresponsibility. For his frustrations I have no remedy......
Thomas Crapper, said an article in Plumbing and Mechanical Magazine, "should best be remembered as a merchant of plumbing products, a terrific salesman and advertising genius."
So he's the Steve Jobs of toilets, and Alexander Cummings is the Wozniak? Then what's Bill Gates? I just need to put this into some kind of computer analogy...
Re:Why do you like KDE?
on
KDE Turns 19
·
· Score: 1
I'm a KDE fan because I believe that the desktop should let me run programs and switch between them. That means I want a real start menu, a task bar, and windowed programs that can be resized or closed. I should also be able to fully configure the computer, including networking, sound, wireless, screen brightness, add users, etc. Also it shouldn't crash and corrupt its own configuration files.
I can get all of that with KDE, so I use it. Most other desktops, including Windows and Unity, make the basic tasks of a desktop more tedious. There's more visual search, more mouse movements, more clicking, and no benefit that I can see. They're less 'discoverable', which means that when they make their next pointless change it will be harder to puzzle out.
XFCE is reasonable, but it lacks some basic configuration and crashes on a monthly basis on the machines I've tried it on. Sometimes you have to delete a bunch of.hidden files in your home folder before it will start up again.
In the future, you'll just need to get an ad blocker for your operating system. Since secure boot will be mandatory and you won't have permission to alter the start menu, it will be a piece of black tape.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. Ten years ago I was programming mostly in C++ and C#. Ten years from now I'll be programming mostly in C++ and C#. While our shop has lots of different user interface platforms for the same product, ranging from PowerScript to XAML to HTML5, I don't see the core code changing in ten years. It just gets to wear different clothes, according to the style at the time.
The most important details: The energy density performance (90Wh/kg) are above the expectations especially considering the excellent cycle life (at least 2.000 charge/discharge cycles). It would also be nice to see voltage drop-off as the battery discharges and expected price, but now I'm getting greedy...
Uranus didn't pass the emissions test because there were too many noxious fumes in the vicinity of Uranus?
Uranus has lost its pristine reputation.
Uranus had a back door, uh, for cheating with...
That's all I got.
I figured that if I poked around long enough I'd find something. Mostly I searched for "Linux won't boot after Windows 10 boot", and just found descriptions of how you need to install Windows first. But once I got the idea of ditching Windows in my head, I really liked it. It just seems so much more... peaceful. No more fighting for privacy, no more updates I can't roll back, no more of Windows casually deleting my boot loader... And no annual fee either.
Plus, I think it's the right time. It just feels like Microsoft is slowly wrestling control of the machine away from me, a little bit at a time. And while it's just starting to get a little stifling now, I can only imagine it getting worse. UEFI is currently only a hair away from not letting you install other OS's anyways. You can't tell me Microsoft isn't thinking about it. Because they've got to be thinking about it.
It seems that Windows is slowly turning into a console. I mean, why would they want you to install software not in the Windows store? They could act as gatekeepers to your computer, like they tried with RT. In RT it was too soon... but when the whole world uses Windows 10, and modern software won't even run on Windows 8 anymore, what are you going to do? If you want your precious software, you'll do it on Microsoft's terms. You'd have no choice but to use the Windows store. And Microsoft will take a cut on every sale, and gets the final say on which software you can and cannot run.
Depending on where you stand, this might seem to have a small chance of happening, instead of the big chance that I see. But with Linux there's no chance. Heh, that could be their new slogan: "Linux: Not a Chance".
It used to be that dual-booting Windows and Linux wasn't much hassle, so I kept Windows around for the odd time I wanted to play a game. But when I upgraded to Windows 10 it wiped out the Linux bootloader. So I grumbled a bit and figured that's par for the course, formatted the hard drive, installed Windows 10 first and Linux second. And that was fine for about a week until I decided I wanted to play a Windows game... after shutting Windows down, my boot loader is toast. Again. I can't even get to the little GRUB repair prompt this time.
It's just not worth it for me anymore, especially now that Steam is on Linux. Plus, I figure it will be good to get out before Microsoft's "subscription-based" model kicks in for Windows 10.
Farewell Windows. You were an awesome gaming platform for 15 years.
It's a Weird Al reference.
They're still detecting small amounts of thrust, but haven't yet been able to rule out measurement error.
I'd hoped that you'd gotten it through your skull
About what's figurative and what's literal
But just now
You stated
You literally couldn't do anything computer related
That really makes me want to literally
Uh... Go back in time so your parents never dated? ...That seems kind of harsh.
*Looks up PCoIP*. Ah, shit.
One app for graphics, gimp. . One app for a gui, gnome. One app for an ide Eclipse, etc
I'm a Linux user and I've never felt pressure to use any of those things. It's Kolourpaint, KDE or XFCE, and Kate or CodeBlocks for me. Though I'm going to try Qt's IDE, I hear it's a good one.
Exactly. I never had any faith in Tor until the FBI told a professor to stop telling his students about it.
So, why does a robot need legs in zero g? I sincerely doubt the humanoid design was chosen on technical merits. Also, didn't Valkyrie get last place with 0 points at the DARPA robotics competition?
Also cool are the planes that flew a few feet above the water to take advantage of the ground effect. Caspian Sea Monster
I understand they were discontinued because standard jet planes encounter less air resistance at 30,000 feet and actually end up using less fuel.
Nice. There's also Mini-Itx.com with many different boards and cases. They're like larger, beefier Raspberri Pi's and should be able to power 2-3 monitors each I think.
If anything, the spammer now knows this is a valid and active e-mail account.
That's why we all have to turn on our auto-responses together, and at the same time. Plus, bonus points if Google detects a spam message directed to an invalid gmail address, and crafts a response automatically.
Someone else said: Unfortunately, I know of no spam emails that don't forge the from address. If you actually got a working address, very likely you would be emailing someone who had nothing to do with the message.
Disturbing! I've never tried responding, but I've seen addresses like GrrlsHotForYou@atotalscam.com. I suppose they want you to click on a link these days? I imagine your email client could auto-click on the link, but then the spammers could just add a captcha... Which is ironic in its own way.
Next up, scripted responses will be responding to each other while we stay back and watch ;)
I've fantasized about this. Imagine a world where every email you flag as spam has an auto-generated reply returned to the sender. The spammers could have a whole conversation with your chat bot. I wonder how many messages back-and-forth it would take for them to realize there's no one on the other end. The value of spam would plummet, because you'd have no easy way to sift through the millions of fake responses to find the real ones.
Mmmm...
I was once looking for a method of calculating 1-way latency between two computers. The standard method is to take a packet's round trip time, and divide by two. But that only gives you the average latency. It might take 100 ms to send the packet, and 20 ms to receive the response, but RTT/2 gives you 60 ms for each. So I found this paper where a grad student claimed to have found a more accurate method, and had this huge formula to represent it. I spent a whole day reading that paper, and at the end I found that his formula actually just simplified down to RTT/2. The whole paper was time-wasting garbage that had somehow gotten published.
Science articles: a guide. It's sad how many papers are in the bottom-right corner of this graph.
Here's the meat of the "questionable and somewhat irate" response:
The following are factual and editorial errors in the document:
1. Abstract – States that for AS 5185-2010 "we show that the privacy properties of PLAID are significantly weaker than claimed" but in fact the report shows that the privacy properties of PLAID are unbroken by the attack and in fact unbreakable by the attack. The report actually shows that the "ID Leakage" properties of the protocol (as defined in AS 5185-2010) could be better implemented in the 2010 version of the reference implementation by implementing the fake "ShillKey" better - see further discussion in section 6.2.
2. Abstract – states that it will be ...." reporting a number of undesirable cryptographic features
of the protocol" This is however unargued and not actualised. The reference appears to
logically means section 5.3 of the Unpicking PLAID paper however, as shown in section 7 of
this discussion these are either not claims of the protocol or are not shown to be weaknesses
by any argument presented by the Researchers - see further discussion in section 7.
3. History in Introduction is not 100% correct – the Public Consultation process included additional workshops and stages – see section 4 "History" above
4. P3, Last paragraph, the words "added for privacy reasons" is incorrect, the ShillKey was added to delay and distract an atacker, privacy was never an issue and is not stated as a design requirement.
5. P4, last paragraph, P5 first paragraph – Not clear what point is being made – OPACITY is a completely different protocol based on Eliptic Curve technology. Last sentence seems to mix this Paper on PLAID up with a completely seperate report on OPACITY.
6. P3 2nd last paragraph the Researchers state "Even though the encryption key in RSA is usually public, in PLAID it is kept secret to enhance privacy". This is an incorrect representation of PLAID, the reason for both keys being kept secret is in fact to prevent any leakage to an attacker of the AES diversification seed in order to enhance security. Note that PLAID is not a PKI, and the use of public and private key concepts is not relevant, ALL keys are secured in (preferably) hardware crypto devices.
I'm no crypto expert - can anyone explain to me why these points aren't valid? Especially points 1 and 4.
Hah. I was wondering where they got 24.
According to this talking llama, the UN already has a plan to defeat climate change, and everyone has already agreed to it. So I'm not sure why people think climate change is still an issue...
We Have A Plan
If I understand correctly, poverty is also going to be eliminated.
Not that we know of. If you measure your particle, you know the fellow on the other end will read the opposite measurement. It's like having random number generators at each end that are perfectly synchronized, but always produce inverse results.
You can use it for unbreakable encryption though, by treating your random numbers as a symmetric key with unlimited length. The person at the other end can deduce your key from his own measurements, without ever having to send the key over the channel.
In short, I suggest that the programmer should continue to understand what he is doing, that his growing product remains firmly within his intellectual grip. It is my sad experience that this suggestion is repulsive to the average experienced programmer, who clearly derives a major part of his professional excitement from not quite understanding what he is doing. In this streamlined age, one of our most undernourished psychological needs is the craving for Black Magic and apparently the automatic computer can satisfy this need for the professional software engineer, who is secretly enthralled by the gigantic risks he takes in his daring irresponsibility. For his frustrations I have no remedy......
--Edsger W. Dijkstra
Thomas Crapper, said an article in Plumbing and Mechanical Magazine, "should best be remembered as a merchant of plumbing products, a terrific salesman and advertising genius."
So he's the Steve Jobs of toilets, and Alexander Cummings is the Wozniak? Then what's Bill Gates? I just need to put this into some kind of computer analogy...
I'm a KDE fan because I believe that the desktop should let me run programs and switch between them. That means I want a real start menu, a task bar, and windowed programs that can be resized or closed. I should also be able to fully configure the computer, including networking, sound, wireless, screen brightness, add users, etc. Also it shouldn't crash and corrupt its own configuration files.
I can get all of that with KDE, so I use it. Most other desktops, including Windows and Unity, make the basic tasks of a desktop more tedious. There's more visual search, more mouse movements, more clicking, and no benefit that I can see. They're less 'discoverable', which means that when they make their next pointless change it will be harder to puzzle out.
XFCE is reasonable, but it lacks some basic configuration and crashes on a monthly basis on the machines I've tried it on. Sometimes you have to delete a bunch of .hidden files in your home folder before it will start up again.
In the future, you'll just need to get an ad blocker for your operating system. Since secure boot will be mandatory and you won't have permission to alter the start menu, it will be a piece of black tape.
Most things need some sunlight to survive. So why would you block out all of the sun's light?
The idea is that you live inside of the sphere, and can convert all of the sun's rays into useful energy.