Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements


Blue Ink Blue Ink
  • C# 7.0 may bring some M# goodness

    , BitFlipper wrote


    Is it even possible to have a router that doesn't run on some form of OS, no matter how basic it is? If it has any IO I'm sure it will be classified as an OS. Even if you wrote it yourself from scratch, it is still an OS, right?

    It depends. Just because your program runs on the bare metal it doesn't mean it's an OS. As a bare minimum it would also have to define an API that other programs can use, right?

    , androidi wrote

    @Blue Ink: Well if OS is defined as something that runs programs that can be added and removed which provide features the end user of the OS uses, then I suppose having an OS in a router would be more of a feature that some might want.


    My point is that when the application domain is very well defined, one can use the extra knowledge to make assumptions that no general purpose OS would be allowed to make.

    That produces devices that run faster and/or burn less energy. And might even be more secure, if anything because there are fewer moving parts, but that's not always a given.

  • C# 7.0 may bring some M# goodness

    , androidi wrote

    Much nicerer-er would of course be to have a home router that runs OS that has minimal amount of unsafe language in it.


    Why use an OS at all in a router?

  • Google Surface

    If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, that's a whole lot of flattery.

  • Tom Warren (The Verge) and Ed Bott (zdnet) give up on WP. msft's karma??

    , fanbaby wrote

    Soon using patents will be all that's left

    Hmm... so, Microsoft wields its patents against Android OEMs. The laws of karma make two pundits ditch their WP and get themselves *drumroll* an iPhone 6.

  • Artificial intelligence could end mankind

    , JohnAskew wrote

    "Exactly how can you be immortal when I can simply unplug your power cord?"

        "I hope you like Harry Potter references, because I made seven backups."

    In the cloud, obviously.

    Seriously though, the point is we tend to imagine an AI as some sort of human replica made of silicon and bits, which is reflected in the Turing Test.

    The problem is that the single attribute of immortality (not in the strictest sense of the word, but close enough) would make any AI as inhuman as anything we can possibly imagine, except maybe for some obscure deity.

    We wouldn't share the same needs, goals, priorities, heck we wouldn't even be competing for the same resources, with the possible exception of energy. And even if we did, the AI wouldn't even need to compete: it can just slow down in a corner and wait patiently until we finally go extinct.

    Pretty much like a teenager.

  • Artificial intelligence could end mankind

    , JohnAskew wrote

    Intelligence includes the irrational, which computers are incapable of sensing whatsoever. Intelligence includes the arts, which computers are incapable of enjoying. Intelligence includes unconscious communication among humans, and what sensor can do that for a box?


    Every time I hear that argument, I picture something like this:

    "Hi, I'm a human being"
        "And I'm an AI"
    "I can be happy, and sad, and any way in between"
        "And I'm immortal"
    "I can write music, and poetry, and I have a sense of humor"
        "Still immortal here"
    "That's nice, but I can do romance, burn with passion, suffer the pangs of despised love and all that"
        "Right. Did I mention I'm immortal?"
    "Yes, you did, and it's getting boring."
        "Funny, because I never get bored. Which is a good thing because, you know, immortal"


  • Microsoft patent strategy backfires

    , fanbaby wrote

    MS threatened to sue B&N over patents. B&N says eff you and also paints in the media a picture of an ugly bully corporation. In the last minute a trial is averted and MS and B&N play buddies, Microsoft agree to invest a few hundred mills in some sort of a "joint venture". 

    Ah, yes, this has nothing at all to do with patents. Sure, Microsoft planed for years to get into a partnership with B&N, had nothing to do with the impending trial.

    Me and my conspiracy theories.

    Any developer who champions patents is a lower class developer.

    Almost correct. Except that, according to Ars, B&N just bought back its stocks from Microsoft, so that the money simply went back where it came from. Sorry for the bad news.

  • Censorship

    , TheJoe wrote

    @Blue Ink:I don't think hate speech is illegal. 

    I just meant "illegal" with respect to app store policies, but as a matter of fact yes, hate speech happens to be illegal in a lot of countries. Even in the US, hate speech is not always covered by the First Amendment; I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect that that game does not qualify for protection.

  • Censorship

    @TheJoe: That's not a matter of politically correctness, that's a prime example of hate speech.

    I don't know which set of rules you are proposing, but I do hope that this kind of stuff stays illegal.

  • Solar energy technology advancement

    , ScanIAm wrote

    @JohnAskew: I would think some kind of switch technology could be used to disrupt the flow of electrons to the grid...

    I am not sure I follow; how would your switch force people to buy energy from the grid?

    This kind of last-ditch-excuse bullsh*t is a sure sign that fossil fuel folks are scared.  No matter what your opinion is of fossil fuels usage might be, it is not an unlimited resource and we are squandering what we have simply because it's profitable for some.  Even if we weren't mucking with the climate, this stuff won't last forever.  I've heard predictions of 100 years of oil and 500 years of coal.  So what happens in 2515?

    Most humans are dum-dums.

    Maybe... but does it make sense for us to worry? At present speed, 100 years of technology is an abyss, 500 are just unthinkable. Try to imagine Cort├Ęs, Columbus, Da Vinci and Ivan the Terrible debating how to use their technology to save us people of the XXI century from some disaster they predicted. Aren't they cute?

    I'm not saying we shouldn't take good care of the environment; just that we should never forget that our children and grandchildren will know a lot more than we do.