Comment They are powerful (Score 1) 116
This "not-that-incredibly-powerful device" is a fucking monster compared to the Unix workstation you used 20 years ago.
This "not-that-incredibly-powerful device" is a fucking monster compared to the Unix workstation you used 20 years ago.
The whole "walled garden" experiment plaguing mobile computers, and DRM in media computers, etc, was to teach you that it's "normal and accepted" for a computer that you own to serve the interests of others, above and beyond, and at the expense of, your own interests.
Apparently you have not learned yet. Here, let me increase your "medication." Free ipad, free ipad, free ipad.. repeat
Asimov's laws were designed to create stories, not robots.
Again, what car company wouldn't take that into account when asking themselves if they want to be a pioneer in this field?
None, but I disagree with your conclusion that their response to the problem will be "tell the customers we don't want their money." This is the auto industry, not the movie industry. And Google is telling us, the people demand to get their eyes off the road and onto Google ads a couple hours a day, pronto.
The problem you're describing can be "fixed" by crying to the government to change liability laws. If you think this is unprecedented then take a look at what has already happened in the energy sector. There will be liability caps, new laws about who is left holding the bag, etc. Some people will notice it's unfair and say so, but most people won't say anything at all, or even know it happened.
Furthermore, individual people drive, collectively, even though it's (roughly) just as risky, in total. This is handled through insurance. A driverless car manufacturer can probably get insured more cheaply (per car) because they can communicate one-one-one with the insurer, prove they're following best practices (prove to the point of law, at least, so that the insurance company can convince a judge should they ever find themselves in court).
And I'm sad to say there are probably corporate tricks that can be played as well, where limited liability entities are used to compartmentalize. e.g. "FF201802, Inc" ends up taking the risks for all the Ford Focuses made in the second quarter of 2018 or something like that, and has few assets to lose.
While this would be somewhat bad news (and I won't immediately flame people for being unhappy about it), I cannot imagine how its consequences are anything close to "time to switch to ARM."
First of all, while it's true that I'm far too wimpy to solder today's thousand-pin CPUs, someone will sell motherboards with CPUs already mounted for you. Asus, Gigabyte, etc already own solder-bots and have proved that they are able to use them. This is just one more chip for them to include on the board. I tend to buy boards and CPUs at the same time anyway.
And now that I think of it, the last "ARM-like" (but not really ARM) motherboard I bought was made by Zotac, and it came with an Atom 330 soldered to the motherboard! *gasp* Intel was already doing what you fear, back in 2009! Oh noooo!
BTW, it took me a while to figure it out, but I think I've got it: TFA author's definition of an "enthusiast" is someone who overclocks. If you don't overclock, then you're not an enthusiast. If you disagree with this definition, then everything he says is going to sound very weird and flamebait to you. He's not so much wrong as just amazingly narrow-minded and specialized.
Dork. I mean that in the nicest way possible. I suppose being narrow-minded about what you're enthusiastic about, demonstrates your enthusiasm for that topic. e.g. "Overclocking is my whole world!! It's not just a thing you do to your machine, it's a way of life!"
We expected it to happen in our own, but during the stresses of war. I guess that means we at war now. With ourselves! Oooh, aaaahh!
due to laws of physics and much more
Remember we're talking about religious freedom. Ergo, your "laws of physics" are lies from the pit of hell.
It seems reasonable at first to predict that people won't tolerate their own glasses looking unusual. But I think the same way you predict that, can also be used to predict that nobody will ever walk about with bluetooth crap sticking out of their ears. Yet, there the gargoyles are.
This guy was the future but this guy wasn't? Are you sure you have the fashion expertise to really distinguish between the two? (I'll be the first to admit that I don't have that expertise either...)
Most people don't like that either. What's being discussed is something in between, where, say, performance measurements and some kind of chemical measurements, get correlated. That will likely solve the problem to most peoples' satisfaction, if it can be done. If it can't be done, then we have something new to think about.
Up to now, the federal government's interference with Marijuana has impaired states' ability to do the research and deal with the safety problem. But if Colorado and Washington can successfully fight them off, progress can be made.
And remember it's never too early to work on the 2014 elections.
When did pot become legal in the US?
When the 10th Amendment was ratified.
It was a nice machine
I kept the keyboard clean
It was the best damn computer that I ever seen
Five Twelve Kay
Blew my mind away
A lot of memory I must say
Parallel interface
Transfer data with grace
And dual disk drives with plenty disk space
We were playin' Donkey Kong
But before long
Somethin' went wrong, my computer's long gone
'Cause you
Poured Coke on my keyboard
Yeah you
Poured Coke on my keyboard
The screen went berserk
Thought it was just a quirk
But then the printhead started to jerk
The repairman spoke
Laughed like it was a joke
They were full of Coke, my chips were soaked
Any other verses have been lost. Sorry about the awful chorus meter.
The "parallel interface" stuff is a reference to my unhappiness with the 1541's serial bus. Nowdays, serial buses are preferred. Funny how things work out. The liquids on keyboards thing is sort of a reference to one of the alleged features of the upcoming(?) Apple IIc (not that I ever actually saw one of those), which was supposedly highly resistant to such disasters.
Oh yeah, and AC/DC has been in the "digital marketplace" for at least two decades (whenever they started allowing the CDs to be published). And I'd like to stick Brian Johnson's "you're going to kill [commercial] music" comment right back in his face, since the very best way to kill commercial music is to tell paying customers "fuck off, we don't want your money."
That said, even if you encrypt the postcard, there's nothing to say that the guy the other end isn't forced to give a decrypted version to his local law enforcement or face jail-time anyway. Which is, again, strangely true to the analogous email storage too.
Good luck forcing someone to do something, without them ever knowing about it. I might sometimes be a little
Once you remove force, then we move onto trickery (e.g. keyboard loggers) and their associated risks of detection. Raising the bar is good.
The problem here is NOT message security. The problem here is law enforcement being able to do these things with no tracking
No, the problem is that anyone, which may sometimes include law enforcement, can do it with no tracking, precisely because there is no message security. Fix the security, so that one of the people who knows the key is required to be coerced or tricked, and you'll get tracking and oversight as a necessary consequence. When you've got cops (or someone else!) threatening people with wrenches, or breaking and entering into peoples homes to install keyloggers, you've got a physical world situation that even people in 1789 could understand, and our current laws are quite well-equipped to handle it.
If encrypting gets common, then I think people will expect signing too.
Widespread signing would be death to spam. An email that isn't from someone, is from no one, and can be deleted without spamassassin ever needing to look at it. And an email that is signed by someone who has become known as a spammer...
I think you're talking about the end of spamassassin, yes, but in a good way.
People use shockingly bad email clients which still don't support it. The reasons for this vary from the mysterious, to the practical (e.g. 1. some people want webmail and it'll never be very practical to make webmail secure 2. some people want to read mail on mobiles, where the mere labor of entering a passphrase would take on the order of a minute or two).
Unverified (MitM-vulnerable) key exchange is very easy and there's no technical reason it couldn't be the baseline. Even just moving up to that would have earthshaking consequences, and once you're doing that, verifying the keys of people that you know, should be straight-forward for people who care, and a big global WoT could stitch together pretty quickly, IMHO.
BTW, this works for winning, too. Kodos is the 0% inflation candidate, over pro-inflation Kang. But if Kodos is elected and inflation doesn't fall, it's because of those Kangist obstructionists in the House. That doesn't mean I was wrong in my assertion that he was the anti-inflation presidential candidate; just that it's something I couldn't reliably bet on, due to concerns over external forces and events.
I can blame externalities for any failed prediction, and blame my lack of betting on fears of those potential externalities. If we were talking about a huge series of small bets, where over the long haul, my tendencies toward political enlightenment would be proven to my profit, sure. But you're talking about a bet on a presidential race. I'm a mere mortal gambler, not a casino; I can't take a long view or exploit a statistical edge using volume. A single $500 bet every four years (approximately dozen bets over the course of a typical adult life) is far too small a sample to demostrate anything. By the time my amazingly awesome perfect political views are confirmed, I have been dead for centuries.
It's time to boot, do your boot ROMs know where your disk controllers are?
