Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:"Not eradicated" isn't needed (Score 1) 173

by TheRaven64 (#47727069) Attached to: New Research Suggests Cancer May Be an Intrinsic Property of Cells
The point that the grandparent is trying to make is that you don't need to prevent cancer, you need to prevent cancerous cells from having a serious adverse effect on the organism. There are a number of benign growths that have cancer-like properties that people can live with and that don't spread over the body. Being able to differentiate the benign versions from the malignant and kill off the malignant cells would not require eradicating the cancer mechanism, but would (from the perspective of humans outside of the medical profession) count as curing cancer.

Comment: Re:it's not the ads it's the surveillance. (Score 1) 537

by TheRaven64 (#47727059) Attached to: Study: Ad-Free Internet Would Cost Everyone $230-a-Year
I wonder if this will change, given all of the reports about web advertising being a bubble. Advertisers are starting to notice that, for most of them, the ROI is tiny and that's eventually going to trickle up the supply chain. If Microsoft were smart, they'd sell off their ad business while it's still at an overinflated price and then work to kill the market.

Comment: Re:it's not the ads it's the surveillance. (Score 1) 537

by TheRaven64 (#47722349) Attached to: Study: Ad-Free Internet Would Cost Everyone $230-a-Year

The self-destructing cookies plugin for Firefox has the cookie management policy that I want. Sites can leave whatever cookies they want, but they are silently removed when I navigate away from the page (there's also an undo feature, so if I realise after navigating away that I actually wanted the site to store something persistent, I can retrieve it). It also does the same for HTML5 local storage and will aggressively delete tracking cookies from ad networks. It needed basically no configuration other than to whitelist a few sites as I go.

I'd love to see Microsoft and Apple integrate this kind of functionality into IE and Safari. I doubt Google would do the same for Chrome, as they rely too heavily on aggressive tracking for making money. I don't really understand why Apple and Microsoft don't aggressively push privacy features in their browsers: they'd get good PR and hurt one of their competitors at the same time...

Comment: Re:$230 (Score 1) 537

by TheRaven64 (#47722275) Attached to: Study: Ad-Free Internet Would Cost Everyone $230-a-Year

Don't get me wrong, DuckDuckGo sounds good. Sounds like they certainly don't actively track you. But I don't see them bragging that they "keep no data to hand over in the first place"

They don't use tracking cookies (their preferences cookies are not identifying, they're just a string of your options, if you've set them), so the most data that they can have for identifying you is the IP address. They've been SSL by default (redirecting from http to https and defaulting to https in search results where available, for example on Wikipedia) for a long time, so you don't suddenly jump into an unencrypted connection as soon as you leave.

Comment: Re:Living in the country is an anachronism (Score 2) 274

by TheRaven64 (#47718515) Attached to: Helsinki Aims To Obviate Private Cars
One word: Zoning. If you've played SimCity, you have a good idea of the structure of a lot of US cities. For some reason, they decided that places where people live, places where people shop, and places where people work should all be separate and so you need to drive to get between them. In most of the rest of the world, cities formed where villages grew until they were overlapping, so contain a mixture of homes, shops, offices, and so on. In the UK, it's hard to live in a city (or town) and be more than 5 minutes walk from a grocery store and usually a load of other small shops. A big supermarket may be a bit further away, but most deliver so you don't usually need to physically visit them.

Comment: Re:Oh god so what? (Score 1) 191

by TheRaven64 (#47710949) Attached to: C++14 Is Set In Stone
Clang has some builtins that allow you to get the carry bit, so you can cheaply write code that branches on carry. We (mostly CERT, I helped a bit) had a proposal for inclusion in C11 that would have added qualifiers on integers explicitly defining their overflow behaviour as trapping or wrapping, along with a model that let this be implemented cheaply (e.g. allowing a set of side-effect-free code to propagate temporary results and only trap if one of them along the way overflowed). Sadly, it didn't make it into the standard.

Comment: Re:Still... (Score 1) 191

by TheRaven64 (#47705015) Attached to: C++14 Is Set In Stone
If you can't call native code, you probably don't have a working JVM. The Oracle JDK and OpenJDK each include around a million lines of C in their standard libraries. That doesn't mean that you won't find it easier to write secure code in Java, it just means that you probably don't have much less C code in your TCB for a Java program than you do for a C one.

Comment: Re:serious confusion by the author (Score 2) 235

by TheRaven64 (#47688753) Attached to: Email Is Not Going Anywhere

Walled gardens like AOL and CompuServe failed because they had to compete with everyone else. In the early '90s, there was a lot of content that was exclusive to AOL or CompuServe. There were a load of small BBS that had their own unique content. And then there was the Internet. Anyone could put something on the Internet and when web browsers started to be easy to install anyone could put up a web page. Individuals would put things up on their ISPs' web space or somewhere like Geocities, big companies would buy their own servers. Small individual ISPs started to spring up, because the cost of entry was low: a rack of modems, a leased line, and a load of phone lines and you could be an ISP. Local ISPs competed by differentiating themselves in various ways (free email, free web space, static IPs, whatever).

Meanwhile, AOL and CompuServe (OSPs - Online Service Providers) were trying to sell access but also be responsible for all of the content. The parallel with Facebook isn't quite there, because they're only selling the content. The problem is that, while there is some content on Facebook, anyone who can access Facebook can also access the whole of the web. They need to somehow justify putting content on Facebook (where only Facebook users can see it) rather than just putting it on a web site. Their argument for this is that they can collect lots of data about potential customers if you do, but it's not clear that this is a good long-term alternative.

Comment: Re: serious confusion by the author (Score 3, Insightful) 235

by TheRaven64 (#47688713) Attached to: Email Is Not Going Anywhere
That was more true a year ago than it is now. Modern smartphones and data plans mean that email is becoming as easy as SMS for a lot of people who would previously only check it when they actively went to their computer. This is also true of the older generation, who previously might have turned on the computer once every day or two for email, but now increasingly have tablets that can do email, thanks to companies like Amazon selling appliances that are mainly there for videos and ebooks..

Comment: Re:im a music mixer in hollywood... (Score 2) 197

by TheRaven64 (#47688677) Attached to: Is Dolby Atmos a Flop For Home Theater Like 3DTV Was?
The useful gadget to sell would be something cheap (under $50) that has a small array of microphones and listens to a predefined set of tones, then produces calibration data telling your audio source what it needs to do to compensate for the poor acoustics and speaker placement in the owner's living room.

"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid" -- the artificial person, from _Aliens_