Moore's law is not about AI, and because it can not be outpaced by AI development. It's also not like AI's are getting more effective at using raw computing power.
173 posts • joined 9 Oct 2013
And, yet, 10 years later, after the tablet fad is mostly gone, iPad is nothing more than the ultimate technological failure. A solution still looking for a problem, even more so than it did when it was first introduced. There's nothing a tablet is good at that other kinds of devices would be better at. Then again, isn't this the very definition of virtually every Apple device ever?
This post has been deleted by a moderator
It makes no sense for Microsoft to prolong the support of the Exchange server, but not that of the Windows Server it runs on. So, I'm pretty sure that they will announce shortly that they have also extended the free support end for Windows Server 2008. They just don't want to make the announcement too early, because that would stop a lot of people from migrating to a newer version of Windows Server already now.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
I bet most developers don't even realize they're actually using Microsoft's cloud platform on a daily basis, because, well, GitHub is owned by Microsoft, and is hosted obviously on Azure. So, in reality most likely the majority of developers are actually using Microsoft's cloud platform, and more than they realize. But even if they wouldn't, it's mostly irrelevant what cloud platform developers are using, because they're an irrelevant minority amongst cloud users. And JetBrains' survey is not representative of the developer community anyway.
"If this law goes through, you won't have another search engine to go to. Did you think this will only apply to Google?"
Do you really think Google will actually abandon the whole EU? It will not. Google's just using empty threats here to avoid having to pay. But if they will not be able to avoid it, they will very well pay up. And rightly so.
"In what world is anyone forced to supply something to someone because they demand it and want to charge them for it?"
Exactly. What you don't get is, however, that in this case the publishers are the ones who are expected and even forced (by strongarming them and by abuse of market power) by Google to supply content into its services, just so Google can slap and ads on them and sell that as a product, while not paying anything back to the original producers.
"If the EU is saying what Google are doing is wrong "
No, the EU absolutely does not say that. All it says is that you must pay the original creators of content, not just take their stuff for free and use it to generate money without paying anything back.
"So are the EU/Media companies saying you mustn't link to us or that you must link to us. "
No. Articles 11 is not about linking, and not about any kind of prohibition to link to anywhere. It's just Google trying to mislead the public about what this is really about so they will sympathize with their agenda. Just another reason not to give in to Google, if for nothing else, then because of this shameless lying and manipulation of public opinion.
"Hating Google does not make everything they say wrong."
Saying that hating Google does not make everything they say wrong doesn't make anything they say right.
"The claim that link taxes hurt the businesses they were supposed to help has been tested and found to be true - twice."
No, it wasn't. What was proven was that if you leave this an option and not compulsory then a large entity like Google can strongarm smaller businesses into whatever it wants them to do, and can play them against each other.
"News sites in Spain "
No, it wasn't "news sites in Spain". It was "_some_ news sites in Spain". You can't do justice for everyone. Also shilling.
"Google can promptly stop linking to any site demanding money."
No, they can't. I mean theoretically they could, but in reality they will not as long as the fee they have pay is compulsory, and they can't play publishers against each other. Google simply can not afford to exclude the whole EU from its index, because competitors willing jump in no time in its place.
"Think of the smaller sites, having to check every hour to see if the target of any link has started asking for money."
Yeah, that's not how Article 11 works. You don't actually have to pay for links - and it's not a tax either. It's just Google trying to reframe Article 11 as a "link tax" to scare ignorant people and to build on the general hatred against taxes.
"Please take a two minute break from your hatred each day to think of something that will actually do some good."
Please take two minutes to read up on what actually Article 11 is about before spreading misinformation as a consequence of your ignorance. Thanks.
" and the link you provide describes a technique that would not have helped in that case"
So, yeah, that technique would not have helped in the case... because that problem OP complained about doesn't even exist as such in node.js
Then you must have looked a very, very long time ago, possibly in a galaxy far, far away: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Security/Subresource_Integrity
Author has obviously zero understanding of how cookies work:
"Or, in other words, tracking code would be controlled by a browser through a secure HTTP header (a unique 256-bit value) passed along when someone visits a given website, rather than held on the server."
Cookies are already passed in HTTP headers, and cookies are already not stored on the server-side. That's essentially the definition of cookies (ie. information not stored on the server side passed back and forth in HTTP headers), so, this new "secure tokens" thing definitely can't work like this.
"The flaw itself is found in the JavaVM component of Oracle Database Server and is not considered a remote code exploit flaw, as it requires the attacker have a connection to the server via Oracle Net, the protocol Oracle servers use to connect with client applications"
It's not a remote exploit, because it requires a connection to the server? That's the very definition of a remote exploit, ie. that it can be execute over a network connection, and does not require local access to the target.
People don't buy WD drives anymore because of how they handle warranty. When their drives fail - in larger numbers than drives from other manufacturers - and you send them back in to WD for warranty replacement, they will send you out refurb replacement drives, that will die in a short time again. And when you send also that in, they send you sub-par refurb drives again.
Then you just give up and will never ever buy again a WD drive. Even if its an SSD, because... well... it's still the same company with the same - virtually non-existent - warranty service.
Problem is: some attitudes or phenomena associated more closely or intensely with a race or a gender per se is not a proof of neither racism nor that of sexism - just like Paris being more closely associated with France than with England isn't the result of some form of nationalism either. It's just a pure fact and a valid observation. Which could very well be the case with any or all race or gender "stereotypes".
Only if they could prove that those associations were or are unsubstantiated, and are only the result of prejudice or discrimination - now, that could prove racism or sexism. But until they do that, the results do not actually mean and prove what they are trying to (falsely) conclude from them.
And do not even get me started about how the AI they were using (or any current "AI" for that matter) could possibly not have actually understood the true meaning of the textual resources it were fed to, and how it would have most likely classified even anti-racism and anti-sexism materials (which we, as humanity, have generated in large amounts in the last 50-60 years or so) as sexist or racist - at least in this analysis -, because simply and obviously these texts also carry heavy proximities in between of word (and generally an abundance of words), which are associated with sexism or racism, while the texts themselves being the antithesises of these ideas, and their pure existence in a large number the counterproof is these ideas being widespread and/or accepted in society.
Nobody wants you to visit their site, you dummy. They want to make money off you (so they can cover their expenses and get their paycheck at the end of the week/month, like you do). You visiting the site is not their goal and not what they ultimately want, but only a means to an end. So, if they can't make money off your visit, because you're blocking their ads/miners/etc, then they DO NOT want you to visit their sites. Get it?
Not that it wouldn't be dumb to say that it's THEY who would owe you, when in fact it's YOU who is using their services and consuming their content - so, it's you who should pay up. Just saying...
It just always amazes me how all these stupid ad blockers think that they can somehow "outsmart" the system and reap/rape it, for their own benefit. Like, you know, how they think they'll somehow "win" or gain something when they successfully block ads; when they put cryptominers into VMs with limited resources; or somehow bypass any new mechanisms and ways publishers might come up with and employ to generate some revenue.
Here's a news flash for all your morons: you can't outsmart the system. And that not only because you're too stupid to outsmart it in the first place, but also because you can't change the fact, that from nothing comes nothing. Whenever you somehow successfully thwart (usually by some solution developed by people far smart than you, and only taking advantage and using you, as their pawns) the publishers' attempt to generate revenue to sustain their publications (ie. to pay for their serves, their bills, their employees, etc), you're not actually winning anything, and you're not actually making anything better - not even for yourself.
Rather, what you do is force the publishers' hands to find new ways to make somehow money off you (because you know, servers just won't magically sell for free, paychecks won't write and pay themselves, etc. just because you are blocking ads, cryptominers, etc). Which in turns will not only give you now something new you will - not really have to, but want to - combat the same way you did with the previous thing (and thus arrive at the very same point you started off, to begin with), but because development, deployment and operation of more elaborate schemes to generate income will generally cost more, they will now have to make even more money off you, which in another turn will mean, that it will get even more costly and cumbersome for you to somehow try to thwart that new way of money generation. If you will be able to do that, at all.
So, with all that pointless and futile blocking, all you can achieve is even more problems for yourself in the medium and long term, even more wasted resources, without actually getting anywhere. And if somehow you could really stop any and all means the publishers might come up with for generating revenue to cover their costs, then the only thing you could ultimately achieve is, that you drive any and all honest publications out of business. So, you will have nowhere to go for the content and services you're otherwise obviously very much not only enjoying, but also depending on, on a daily basis.
How stupid you have to be to not be able to realize that? Obviously, very, very stupid.
An don't even get me started about how a lot of other major problems these days, like the proliferation of fake news, state-sponsored manipulation, etc. are all related to and the direct results of ad blocking, that's depriving independent and honest working journalists and other people of their well-earned and legal income, and only letting shady, state-sponsored publications to proliferate and spread propaganda!
PS: I'm keenly awaiting your downvotes, which I know will come in large numbers, as most of you simply can't face these facts - which, however, won't make them any less of a fact.
"That brought in more money than the supposedly individually targeted ads we get today."
That was because the ratio of demand and offer were different back then. Starting a publication required a lot of capital and up front investment, so there were only a few publications - and they all had limited spaces (pages) for the ads. However, nowadays anyone can start their publication (website, blog, facebook page, youtube channel) etc for practically free, and they can generate and add any number of pages, videos, etc. - which means that there's an almost unlimited increase in offers (for ad spaces), which in turns lowers prices dramatically.
So, it's not like targeted ads wouldn't work better, than untargeted ones - because they obviously do work a lot better. It's just that the rate they increase efficiency is just nowhere close to be able to compensate for the enormous drop in the prices of ads, that happened for reasons unrelated to them.
A clueless one has spoken again. Hosting ad servicing - or any web service for that matter - on their own is about the worst thing a publisher can do. Why? Because they won't have dedicated and properly educated staff for doing that - and that will leave them (and through them their readers) more prone to attacks by hackers, than if they'd just have let a far larger company, specializing in that stuff, do that for them.
The argument that every site should host their ads, because that would be somehow safer or better by any means is as stupid, as arguing that everybody should raise their own cattle or grow their own food, make their own equipment and tools, sew their own cloths, etc. It just makes no sense, not only in the economic sense, but also in regards of security. Because a single person or a few persons doing everything can't possibly reach the level sophistication at anything (including security) that a group of highly specialized experts can reach.
So, no, ads should be NOT be served locally, by every and each website, but by large ad networks - both because of economic, and also because of security reasons. Obviously nothing is and can be 100% secure, but a large company specializing in a niche field (like ad serving) can secure their servers magnitudes better and make them work more effective, than can Average Blogger Joe or even a medium-size media company could.
But then again, we all know, all this "ads are a security risk" is just a stupid excuse, made up by weak minded sociopaths, in an attempt to justify robbing honest working bloggers/journalists/publishers or their well-deserved income, so they (ie. the blockers) can deluded themselves in being control of and over something in their pitiful lives, otherwise hopelessly controlled by people a lot smarter than them.
1. doesn't count unique users - let alone installations -, but page views
2. their statistics are not representative.
Because of that, their numbers are practically irrelevant and non-indicative, when it comes to market share of operating systems, browsers, etc. The fact they don't even know that, makes just it obvious how amateurish they are and operate.
"Firefox is corporation, even if it doesn't have investors. Has to pay the bills somehow, and with sponsorship deals with Google and Yahoo fading away (in different ways)"
In reality Mozilla made more money from these sponsorship agreements last year, than ever before (>half a billion dollars), and more money it could ever possibly spend on actual and useful development.
This latest attempt of their is really just about greed, and is anti-competitive anyway. Obviously a browser manufacturer should not be allowed to show ads of their own when at the same time they partially or fully blocking their competitors from doing the same.
So, your argument is, that if he admits to have done something he's accused of, he's guilty; and if he denies an allegation, he's guilty - because you know he did it anyway, right?
And don't even get me started how a proposition can't be a harassment per se, and if it ever will be, the human race will just die out.
Can we compile Kaspersky AV binaries from that source code, and run that on our computers? Can we do the same with any and all updates to the software? If not, this "offer" is worthless.
Also, I rather doubt that Kaspersky's update process wouldn't have the ability to run any arbitrary code (either directly or by loading a freshly downloaded executable library in memory), at which point they're proven to have built a possible backdoor into their software.
... and Shaun Nichols still doesn't get it, that it's virtually impossible to create flawless software, and that because of that there will be always new vulnerabilities discovered in them, especially if they're as widespread, as large and their development is as fast-paced, as is Windows'.
"That's where you are absolutely wrong. Evidence on an encrypted drive is the same as evidence in a safe - you have no right at all to keep that evidence unknown to the police if they have a search warrant, and no right to keep it secret from the court."
Wrong. You do have the right to remain silent or claim you can't open the safe. The police then has the right to bring in a locksmith for the safe, but if he fails to open the safe or its contents get destroyed in the process, they can't assume you had child porn in there and convict you based on that.
The same goes with the drive. You (as the owner of the drive) can remain silent or even claim you forgot the password. And even though the police has the right to bring in a security expert for the drive, if he fails to decrypt the drive, they can't just go ahead with the assumption you had child porn on it, and convict you based on that.
"You would only incriminate yourself if the fact that you know the password is incriminating."
You, too, are applying circular reasoning here, basing your conclusion on things you'd have to prove first to be considered facts. Like that there's actually child porn on the drive - which we have no proof for. For all we know the drive could be full of random bytes. Or it could be full of illegal material despite being completely devoid of any child porn, in which case Doe would incriminate himself by revealing the password. Which he can not be forced to do.
That said Doe didn't invoke the right against self-incrimination, but simply claimed he can't remember the password. And unless they can prove that this is a lie, they've no proof for contempt of court either.
"So unless she's making it up and the other evidence doesn't amount to damning"
So how do we know she's not making it up? There's no evidence to prove that what she's saying is true. Can't she lie? For what we know, the drive could belong to her, have been planted by her, and Doe might possibly really not know the password to it.
Again, I'm not trying to take sides in the actual case, just trying to show, that there's no actual evidence against the man, just assumptions based obviously on prejudice (because they can't be based on proven facts in the absence of these).
"So unless she's making it up and the other evidence doesn't amount to damning, it seems reasonable to assume that Doe knows it's not in his best interests to unlock that drive. That's a motive."
That's again, circular reasoning. It's only a motive if you can actually prove that there's something incriminating on the drive. But until you can decrypt the drive, you can't prove even that Doe would have reason not to want to unlock it.
This is just ridiculous. How could the judge have "found that Doe remembered the passwords needed to decrypt the hard drives but chose not to reveal them"? Obviously, he couldn't. He just assumed it, because of.... thought police?
Also, somehow wanting to force the accused person to reveal his password goes against all established principles of due process, like the accused not having to incriminate himself, or the right to remain silent.
"The appeals court found that forcing the defendant to reveal passwords was not testimonial in this instance because the government already had a sense of what it would find."
^ This is circular reasoning. As long as they don't know the password and can't decrypt the drive, they just can't know what's on it - let alone prove it.
That's obviously not a kitchen counter, but a bathroom sink. And the kid most likely dropped the phone into the water or spilled some onto it, which either caused short circuit or simply leaked into the battery (causing short circuit there, in the cells) - and that was what actually caused the burn.
Just my two cents.
"In August 2014, gamers targeted game developer Zoë Quinn, along with Wu and Sarkeesian, with threats and harassment through chat and social media channels."
Indeed. They've "threatened" themselves with fake tweets: http://www.returnofkings.com/42602/did-anita-sarkeesian-fake-death-threats-against-herself
" Which is a fine way to match compression to a machine's capabilities, but a lousy way to make data portable because if a system only has access to algorithm Y, data created on an algorithm-X-using machine won't be readable. Which could make it impossible to move drives between machines."
Right. Because you couldn't have possibly included (de)compression code for both algorithms in all versions of the OS, and you couldn't have possibly used an extra bit or byte in the volume descriptor or in the directory entries of files to signal which particular method was used to compress them.
"Straight away you assume that Bluetooth is being used for applications"
I did nothing alike. Not that assuming it would have been wrong. Just sayin'.
"Ok...so with all the current insecurities doing the rounds, opening up an attack vector that crosses strewn with malware web"
Over your head. My whole point was that with some or most Bluetooth access potentially moved to the browser the overall attack surface will be reduced, because now you won't need to download and install native apps permanently anymore for a lot of Bluetooth-related stuff, but can simply run them on-demand from the much safer browser environment.
"Ahh yes. And those security prompts will always be there? Because of, you know, no exploited bugs, malware being present. "
There might be bugs and exploits, but they will be definitely less available from a browser environment, than they were from the native environment. So, all in all - as already explained - the attack surface and the risks will be reduced, even then when there will be some new exploits and bugs introduced.
"I think the author was pretty clear what his problem was."
You're obviously confusing two things here. Being clear about something doesn't mean being right about it. I've questioned the latter, and you're talking about the former.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020