Re: "their freedom to wear whatever they want"
Well they shouldn't give it a name that sounds like it was lifted from the pages of Jane Austen, then. Bloody fashionistas...
8168 publicly visible posts • joined 14 Jun 2007
"The world needs a cutdown version of Windows that has all the fripperies removed, also all the legacy 8, 16 and 32 bit code it is what Windows 10 should have been."
Not clear whether you are sugggesting that the legacy code should or should not be removed, but it is the only reason why most people run Windows. I can't think of a single Win10 feature that nearly all users could not live without.
What the world needs is an easy way to run Win7 (for the apps) in a VM on top of Linux (for the modern hardware support, email client, browsing, and increasingly large numbers of general purpose apps). The technology exists, we need an easy way for non-IT types to get it up and running, bearing in mind that most home users and small businesses have no IT support at all.
"it is 2019 and an awful lot of software still depends on drive letters."
The side-swipe about drive letters looks like an irrelevance. Nearly all software will complain if files are moved to a different path while the software isn't looking, even on Linux or Macs.
"No, the people who flooded the Internet and TV with content win."
That'll be the Indians then. If not already, then soon. It should also be noted that the English-as-a-Second-Language crowd in Europe speak yet another dialect that isn't quite anybody's. There are a lot of them, too, and they have more money than you do. Get used to it Americans, your time at the top is limited and then you're following us down. Try to be more graceful about it than we were.
"after three years of non-stop negotiations"
Really? Have they started? Last I looked, Mrs May was still making up shit as she goes along, completely oblivious to what the other side has said about what they were prepared to entertain.
But to your main point, yes, since the UK has clearly gone completely round the bend, all businesses that *can* get out probably have a duty to shareholders to actually do so.
"Oh well, there goes the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita and just about everybody's scriptural texts. Because any ideas can be and are twisted by evil men."
Well yes, which is why *all* philosophies need to be scrutinised with a critical eye, even the one that is (or was in the past) the mainstream view in your society.
No, read it again. You also need to click through the message that says this file cannot be trusted because it came from the internet AND THEN you need to click through the message that says this /document/ wants to run some code AND THEN you need to click through the UAC prompt that says this document wants to "make changes to your computer".
To be honest, if you are that stupid, then you are probably protected by the rootkit that is already on your machine.
Users already have to "install" apps, for some definition of "install", and some installers already take a very long time for no obvious reason, so users are already used to running an installer and going to make a cup of tea. (Well, this one is, at any rate. YMMV.)
An x86 VM running on anything with QEMU probably fits the bill and there's loads of existing software out there, even complete operating systems.
The *real* problem is that "run anywhere" simply isn't possible as long as "anywhere" is taken to include all possible hardware from phones to supercomputers, 4-inch screens to multi-monitor or headless setups, and available storage varying from MB to TB. And that's before we consider the presence or absence of all the third-party software services that might define your "stack".
So ... you narrow down your platform definition to something that exists on all phone-like devices or all desktop-like devices, and you find that there is nearly always something missing that stops you writing interesting apps, so the only apps that can use your new universal platform are toys.
"as its a time saver & gives the same consistent results every time."
I think the second property is often the more important one, but "lazy" doesn't really capture the motivation. How about "lazy perfectionist"? Stick that on your CV and see how many calls you get.
"It's not really made much of a difference other than the decriminalization of a large section of the population."
If de-regulation has been accompanied by no discernable downside, then that in itself *ought* to be welcomed by the hard right, since they are always banging on about red tape and interference by government in people's private lives.
I am inclined to agree, but I think that AR goggles could be considerably easier and more useful. For a trivial example, we all remember the Pokemon Go craze of a few years back. That was just AR on s 2D device and it clearly captured the imagination of ordinary punters. I'm sure there are loads of useful applications of AR outside gaming, too.
VirtualBox gives its guests not much more 3D than is necessary to run the Windows shell. (I don't think any shaders from the guest machines get to run on the GPU.) I doubt you could run any games on it. I think VMWare's workstation offering (that you pay for) does slightly better. Neither gives you access to stuff like Intel's QuickSync offering (hardware H264 + H265).
On the other hand, if you don't need to run games, you can certainly get by. Software decoding is enough on a modern machine to let you watch all the videos on the internet and Windows (any version) is more stable in a VM, perhaps because the virtualised hardware platform is more stable. I've been running Windows in a VM full-time for several years. It works for me.
"If in a few years the majority of office workers use cloudy documents instead of those on the C-drive, the smart phone just needs to be able to run a web browser fast enough."
No. It also needs to run a mobile signal fast enough. The path to my local drive is about 3 orders of magnitude wider than my internet connection and we have all put SSDs into our machines in recent years precisely because that width is important.
"To get a clean from start you would have to wire up the processor from transistors, design and build your chip fabricators, code your compilers and bootstrap yourself into the modern age."
Not true, if you use multiple sources for the entities at each level and compare their results.
At least, assuming that the same enemy hasn't nobbled *every* supplier at a given level. Choose your suppliers carefully, though, and the probability of that must surely sink to a level that anyone can live with.
"They threw the relevant data away. How does a new system deal with that?"
Easy. Anyone who can (on the basis of age) plausibly claim to have arrived at that time and who has (on the basis that they are still here) managed to avoid deportation for the umpteen decades during which the government *had* the records, must be presumed to be legally in the UK.
Really? I'll give you "vocal" and "repeatedly showing up the government and civil service to be totally unfit for purpose" but I'm struggling with "influential". They appear to name and shame just about every part of government on a rolling cycle of just a few years and yet nothing actually seems to change.
Based on what's in the article, yes that would slow down all timing attacks by orders of magnitude. However, based on what's in the article it isn't actually clear how you'd execute this from any language that doesn't expose raw addresses. The attack requires you to fabricate a pointer with the same intra-page offset as one you want to attack. JS doesn't have such things. I suppose that an object identity might, in some implementations, be based in a predictable fashion on the actual (unseen) address, but that would also be fairly easy to fix.
"This means on a computer with USB 3 only you can't install vanilla Windows 7, you have to preload the drivers."
Of course you can. You just have to set the VM settings to *say* that the virtual hardware is only USB2.
Oh wait ... you're not installing Windows on the bare metal, are you?
"So you want to give the social media companies an official mandate for universal censorship of anything they want to declare suspect?"
"the big social media websites" != "universal". For some of us, it's not even close.
Also, government *already has* this power (by passing laws) and we seem to manage. The problem, in fact, is that social media companies appear to have found a way around that and are busy monetising something that society as a whole has decided is unacceptable.