It's okay, because "nobody died in this nuclear accident".
It's okay, because "nobody died in this nuclear accident".
I think the hold up is that ARM needs to be comparable in terms of computing power to Intel. Right now ARM's great as a low power platform (though Intel is seriously catching up) but Chromebooks are a very conspicuous case where ARMs are used in an environment they're almost never seen in.
I don't think the problem is the ABI. Apple has solved that three times before, 68K to PowerPC, and PowerPC to ix86 and ix86-64. The solutions weren't beautiful, but they worked. And the PowerPC to two different Intel APIs transition occurred with the current generation of operating system.
If ARM makes sense, they'll switch to it. I just don't see why they would - yet.
I'm not sure there's ever been that much interest. It's more of a theoretical standard, useful for people packaging binaries with hard coded paths, but even that isn't particularly useful right now. The LSB lost credibility from the Debian side from the start by picking the rival RPM as the packaging manager, and while I gather that different was papered over in time, the other fundamental issues - differing library versions, different standards for inclusion, etc - that prevent the concept of a "universal" package never got resolved.
It's probably a good thing it's going, a bad mostly ignored "standard" is probably worse than no standard at all, as it leads developers to make assumptions about what's available that they probably shouldn't.
If you'd like to avoid the ad-infested miasma that is TFA over at BetaNews, you can go straight to the proposal here:
Well, it's funny how something with "the underpinnings of how X11 does it are actually decrepit and inefficient and compare poorly to other strategies that leverage different entry points that Wayland actually preserves" still manages to solve the problem, and Wayland doesn't.
X11 isn't perfect. Nobody's ever argued that. It's just nobody's really asking for a replacement, and if they were, they wouldn't be asking for Wayland. X11 is an extraordinary piece of technology, it takes some gal to claim everyone should just throw it out and replace it with a ground up rewrite that adds no new features and doesn't support the major features X11 is famous and loved for.
It's not like init/SystemD, where init really was a bug ridden piece of garbage that's needed replacing now since before Linux itself came on the scene, and SystemD implements everything init did but does it right.
Pulses of prime numbers. Not natural phenomenon, same in all number systems. Simple beat with silence:
2. Binary, you speak it
We repeat this in binary, which should be fairly easy to recognize as the previous information aligned to 8 bit = byte values.
00000010 00000011 00000101 00000111
00001011 00001101 00010001 00010011
3. Length of payload in bytes + payload
00000000 00000000 00000001 10110000 = 432
432 x ????????
4. Goto 1, rotate payload.
As for the actual payload.... You could for example send atom configuration from the periodic table.
1 - 1
2 - 2
3 - 2,1
10 - 2,8
11 - 2,8,1
18 - 2,8,8
19 - 2,8,8,1
20 - 2,8,8,2
21 - 2,8,9,2
22 - 2,8,10,2
23 - 2,8,11,2
24 - 2,8,13,1
It will be pretty obvious to any physicist this is the list of elements. Using that and a bit more you can explain the units of mass, time, distance and so on.
For math you can send a list of (input A, operator code, input B, result) and it will be obvious that this operator means addition, subtraction, multiplication, division and so on. Once you have subtraction, explain 0-1 and two's complement and you'll have negative numbers.
Then you can start making advanced concepts like C+O+O = CO2 and describe properties of that gas. I really don't think it's going to become a problem bootstrapping communication, if we could just find someone to communicate with.
Anyhow, if we were to reinstate some sort of poll test, it may not be used to disenfranchise according to racial lines, but you can be sure that whoever is in power will find a way to stop others from voting or to make their vote count less. It's probably impossible to design a system that couldn't be manipulated once you start disenfranchising people. Who gets to define the relevant "knowledge"? How do we measure " intelligence"?
And you must realize that political parties immediately get incentive to do this if the voters most likely to be excluded lean a particular way politically. Say party A is strong with the low income families and party B is more of a middle class party and that statistically if you make the test harder more low income families will drop out because they're already working their ass off making ends meet. Now one party has obvious incentive to set the bar higher, the other to set the bar lower. Here in Norway there's a campaign to lower the voting age from 18 to 16, you can compare the youth vote scores with the parties supporting it and it's obvious why. Voters who've mostly never had a real job, never paid taxes and never had to balance a budget because they live at home with mom and dad with an allowance tend to vote quite differently than people who've had to support themselves.
ummmm... you might actually try reading what he wrote. Mighty big of you to say that he agrees with what you are saying.
Thank you for so astutely reading that thread; I thought maybe I was losing my mind
What is right wing about filing a lawsuit to unmask a doe, suing that person, then settling for a much smaller amount. It seems this is used by many different trolls, and likely doesn't have any political ideology behind it. It is sleazy though. Filing a lawsuit with the intention of settling just to get a payout is wrong. It is short circuiting the justice system for personal profit.
Yeah that's neither right nor left, it's the universal language of greedy bloodsuckers.
Hayden said that losing the first Crypto War on the Clipper Chip did not stop the US government from obtaining the information it needed.
âoeIn retrospect, we mastered the problem we created by the lack of the Clipper Chip,â he said. âoeWe were able to do a whole bunch of other things. Some of the other things were metadata, and bulk collection and so on.â
So... "don't ban encryption, we don't need to!"
What is right wing about that process? The Democrats support the movie industry, not the Republicans.
The fact that Democrats support something doesn't negate the possibility of something being right wing. The Democrats are not ideologically pure, or ideologically homogenous, and very few of them can be considered "left".
To me, pretending that copyright is only about property rights, and ignoring the fact that copyright was also supposed to be about free speech and about making material available for free to the public after a limited time, is definitely "right wing".