I'm looking to buy a laptop for general use. I know this board isn't really one for requesting shit but I know that if I post this anywhere else I'm just going to get meme responses. With that out of the way, can anyone rec me a laptop that
>isnt a meme like thinkpad >isnt centered around gayming >isnt made by apple >isnt going to cost me an arm and a leg That's really it. I'm probably just going to use to post here or on other imageboards and maybe watch some chinese cartoons. I am not going to use it for gaming. Any reccomendations?
apologies if this is kind of a low effort thread, but I can't really post this anywhere else and get any serious replies
Is X96 Mini and peripherals on a spice rack still purpose-efficient? Basically it's a problem how to power them portably, it should run just fine. If you buy two you can dedicate one to run video and look at the secondary one through screenshare.
>>12641 I've seen a hilarious attempt at diying laptop from NUC-sized pc. Found some time ago while cruisin' through reddit:
https://imgur.com/a/vwnaj Looks no worse than a Novena case, and you could probably strap your crap inside an old Thinkpad, the battery charging circuitry is the only issue, as it heavily relies on EC chip.
Do Amlogic boards run mainline GNU/Linux tho?
Watching the Zuckerberg testimony to the Senate Judiciary & Commerce Commitee on C-SPAN2.
This Zukerberg guy seems to think that we're dumb. He keeps saying that Facebook only knows about what you share in terms of likes, dislikes, and pictures.
Here's something that they do: They track who's pictures you click on, how many you look at, and how long you linger on a picture or on someone's page, they also track who you creep on from people not in your friends list. They can use this to harass you and blackmail you. They can use this to determine your sexual orientation, and determine who you find sexually appealing, without you sharing the information explicitly, among other things. They also build extensive profiles on your political viewpoints, and track and monitor all of your connections and affiliations.
None of it is private. Don't use this service. It's a PRISM service provider, and can be used to triangulate your position and activities in the real world, and preempt and stop you from doing activities. RUN. Don't use it.
If you have to use it for business, be careful, be aware that it is an intrusive surveillance platform. Nothing you do on it is private, it's all tracked and stored in a database. They track all of your clicks, and database all of it and use it to determine information about your preferences that you don't actually share. Using very sophisticated statistical data mining. They also share this data with many more 3rd parties than just the Government of the United Sates of America. Don't use it if you can avoid it.
Apple Inc. is planning to use its own chips in Mac computers beginning as early as 2020, replacing processors from Intel Corp., according to people familiar with the plans. The initiative, code named Kalamata, is still in the early developmental stages, but comes as part of a larger strategy to make all of Apple’s devices -- including Macs, iPhones, and iPads -- work more similarly and seamlessly together, said the people, who asked not to be identified discussing private information. The project, which executives have approved, will likely result in a multi-step transition. The shift would be a blow to Intel, whose partnership helped revive Apple’s Mac success and linked the chipmaker to one of the leading brands in electronics. Apple provides Intel with about 5 percent of its annual revenue, according to Bloomberg supply chain analysis. Intel shares dropped as much as 9.2 percent, the biggest intraday drop in more than two years, on the news. They were down 6.4 percent at $48.75 at 3:30 p.m. in New York. Apple could still theoretically abandon or delay the switch. The company declined to comment. Intel said, “We don’t comment on speculation about our customers.” For Apple, the change would be a defining moment. Intel chips remain some of the only major processor components designed by others inside Apple’s product portfolio. Currently, all iPhones, iPads, Apple Watches, and Apple TVs use main processors designed by Apple and based on technology from Arm Holdings Plc. Moving to its own chips inside Macs would let Apple release new models on its own timelines, instead of relying on Intel’s processor roadmap. “We think that Apple is looking at ways to further integrate their hardware and software platforms, and they’ve clearly made some moves in this space, trying to integrate iOS and macOS,” said Shannon Cross, an analyst at Cross Research. “It makes sense that they’re going in this direction. If you look at incremental R&D spend, it’s gone into ways to try to vertically integrate their components so they can add more functionality for competitive differentiation.” Stand Out The shift would also allow Cupertino, California-based Apple to more quickly bring new features to all of its products and stand out from the competition. Using its own main chips would make Apple the only major PC maker to use its own processors...
Linux Action News 48 http://www.jupiterbroadcasting.com/123937/linux-action-news-48/ Posted on: April 8, 2018 The Linux kernel gets a spring cleaning, things are going well for RISC-V, and Linux-Libre is clearly prioritizing freedom over security with their recent update. Steam Machines were pronounced dead and then alive this week, we’ll try and clear things up, and Mozilla has a new project. audio
The Stallman Directive | LUP 243 http://www.jupiterbroadcasting.com/123817/the-stallman-directive-lup-243/ Posted on: April 3, 2018 Richard Stallman has some practical steps society could take to roll back the rampant and expanding invasion of our privacy. But his suggestions leave us asking some larger questions. Plus the latest on the march to Juno, some fun app picks, a quick look at Qubes OS 4.0, community news, and more. audio
>>12659 Ok, I'll bait.
>some random guy who's not even a cryptographer Bruce Schneier invented the Twofish and Threefish crypto. Inform yourself better.
>His name is Jacob Appelbaum Yes, I just don't know how to properly write his name, so I just use ioerror.
>That's why we use TLS now You know what I mean by "SSL". I'm obviously implying TLS on this.
>I very seriously doubt Appelbaum said what you say he said. Here is the talk (I did not check again, I saw this live from CCC some years ago):
>>12660 Oh, I'm well aware of who Bruce Schneier is. I've even read--and understood--his book Applied Cryptography. But you didn't say that. You said Bruce Schenider.
You see, in life, as in crypto, details matter. "You know what I mean" isn't an acceptable alternative to attention to detail. Or correctness.
>You know what I mean by "SSL". I'm obviously implying TLS on this. See above re: "you know what I mean." Also, which version of TLS? All versions? You may be unaware, but there's more than one. See above re: "attention to detail."
>Here is the talk (I did not check again, I saw this live from CCC some years ago): Yeah, nah. I'm not going to do your legwork for you and track down a quote you've obviously misremembered from a video featuring a guy who, at the time, had no substantial credentials as a cryptographer.
>Inform yourself better. Given everything you've said in your last two posts, there is nothing that is not deeply ironic about this command coming from you. So, right back atcha, amigo. Just remember that from where you're standing, you're a man.
>>12661 I'm a pedantic myself sometimes, but you? Jizz. Your function here is to distract from the topic?
>Also, which version of TLS? From what Jacob said, up to 1.2.
>had no substantial credentials as a cryptographer True, but it doesn't matter. He said he was on the talk as a journalist, and that's exactly what he did: revealed the NSA papers that Snowden gave to Poitras.
BTW: do you know where is Jacob now? Last time I heard he was in Neatherlends studying crypto, and then the SJW got him with sexual offense accusations...
I think he's important to the community.
>From where I'm standing, you're an ape. Good point. See 'ya'.
Retarded programmers working on Gahnoo\Linux already implanted so much vulnerabilities into the system that NSA doesn't need to do shit like this anyway. systemdicks is the most prevalent example and more subtle ones could be named as KDE and GNOME. KDE has so many bugs that you can visualize the AIDS code running in the CPU and GNOME is just a subversion tactic aimed at killing the UX.
>inb4 implying linux was usable in the first place
Continuing from >>>/tech/597 https://archive.is/INR3l This is for non specific, general tips for anonymous web browsing and downloads, tips on browsers and browser configurations for the security concious that you don't want to make a new thread for.
I'm pretty sure Ghostery can be analyzed. I saw somewhere recently that they made it open source, so basically you can look through the source code if you want. Might be something worthwhile to do, but isn't necessarily something I would be able to do since I don't know shit about coding.
>Libre Tea Computer Card >still not FSF approved after 2 years of screeching >absolutely harmful hardware lifecycle model >le 3d printed laptop meme, 1366x768 15" screen >not knowing about Neo900 and Openmoko
RC2014 is a simple 8 bit Z80 based modular computer originally built to run Microsoft BASIC. It is inspired by the home built computers of the late 70s and computer revolution of the early 80s. It is not a clone of anything specific, but there are suggestions of the ZX81, UK101, S100, Superboard II and Apple I in here. It nominally has 8K ROM, 32K RAM, runs at 7.3728MHz and communicates over serial at 115,200 baud.
RC2014 is available in kit form for you to solder together. Through-hole components are used throughout, making soldering easy, even for those with limited soldering experience. Along with a selection of modules to extend functionality, such as serial terminals with HDMI output, digital input modules or, simple keyboard, the RC2014 is a very adaptable computer.
RC2014 http://rc2014.co.uk/ As soon as you turn RC2014 on you can start programming in Microsoft BASIC. This is very easy to get started with and some very complex programs can be written. To get right down to the metal, though, you can write your programs in Z80 machine code.
Development of the RC2014 has lead to a more powerful machine with pageable ROM, 64k RAM, compact flash storage and a whole range of expansion peripherals. With the right modules, it’s now possible to run CP/M, which opens the RC2014 up to a wide range of software.
Z80 Retrocomputing 18 - Z180 CPU board for RC2014 https://youtube.com/watch?v=D9u9hhNjcEY [Embed] Dr. Scott M. Baker In this video, I build and try out a Z180 CPU board to replace the Z80 CPU in my RC2014 retrocomputer. Aside from simply being faster than the Z80 that I'm currently using, the Z180 offers a lot of on-board peripherals (serial IO, timers, interrupt controller, mmu, dma, etc). I benchmark the 20 Mhz Z180 against my 7.3728 Mhz Z80. I'm saving exploration of the onboard peripherals for a future video. For more retrocomputing projects, see http://www.smbaker.com/
YM2149/ AY-3-8910 Sound Card for the RC2014 computer https://youtube.com/watch?v=-iLwi9FagFE [Embed]
I would like to hear what the community has to say regarding search engines, with a twist.
A long time coming, today I found all my requests to Ixquick redirected to Startpage. Ixquick was my engine of choice. At this point I expect someone to cite the primary importance of privacy, my previous choice of Ixquick, and thus an obvious suggestion: Startpage. Thanks, but no thanks.
What is my problem with Startpage?
Here is my perspective. With adequate provisioning, any search engine is fine to use from a privacy standpoint. By provisioning I mean choice of browser, addons, connection method, etc. My primary concern is not privacy because I handle that myself, ignoring the S.E.'s reputation for such. My concern is with the quality of search results.
History lesson. In olden days the choice was between Yahoo or Google. Yahoo went early with the commercial model, carefully managing your complete experience end-to-end, steering you toward their valuable partners, web portalization, etc. Google beat all that with strict adherence to academic methodology, and computer science. Sadly, all was merely short term tactics over strategy. Yahoo had the right idea, the right strategy, but it was Google who became Yahoo's dream.
Anyway, today, I find a note of bias in Google S.E. results, with commercial, regulatory, and ideological considerations given subtle (but noticeable) predominance. This is why I preferred Ixquick. While including results from Google, they cast a wide net and did not give any source special prominence. I found Ixquick returned more relevant results.
My understanding is Startpage goes straight to Google for everything. Given my perspective, you should understand why I find Startpage to be nothing more than Google re-branded. Such is my problem with Startpage.
Searx I know of. MetaGer is currently my favorite contender. What else is worth consideration?
>>12655 I'm surprised to see them do it. I have no idea why, but they've made a number of retarded moves with no explanation in the past: >removing the option to get 100 results per page >removing scroll image search >removing search query from tab title If it's a cost cutting measure, it'd have to be because more and more people are learning it exists and using it, but they don't make enough money (from selling email accounts) to keep up with the demand. Maybe people didn't use Ixquick enough. Maybe they think Searx is superior. I don't know.
You are right that Google's results are trash (articles from news websites typically get top priority second only to Wikipedia) but everything else is even worse in my experience
Searx is what you want if you like having control over what results you get,
It's a shame how inactive this board is. It seems only to be that way because there's about three other chans consolidating the userbase. In the interest of promoting activity, I'll try to make this thread a thread about technology related musings I have (not that I'm important or anything) that could hopefully be used as starting points for discussion.
LIGHT: How optical processing can solve some of the world’s most complex problems. https://www.labs.hpe.com/next-next/light >Beausoleil spent about a decade working on quantum computing. That’s when he experimented with chips made out of diamonds. His team found that it was too difficult to create enough diamond chips that had exactly the same qualities, making it impossible to manufacture them in a repeatable and predictable way. This particular approach to building a quantum computer wouldn’t scale. >Beausoleil concluded that photonic technology offered a faster and more practical route to success than building an actual quantum computer. “When somebody does manage to create a true quantum system with entanglement, that’s going to be awesome,” Beausoleil says. “Right now, we’re leaving that one on the table and just trying to take advantage of coherence.” >[...] >Optical computing is an emerging field with experimental components. The challenge is to raise the yield of working components to a commercially viable level. The Labs approach is to create a round of equipment, test it to identify flaws, then determine necessary changes in the chip design or manufacturing method. >[...] >Labs researchers are also exploring new applications for their optical circuits. For example, they’ve designed a system called an energy minimization computer that changes the state of an optical circuit to find the configuration that consumes the least amount of energy. This concept applies perfectly to solving NP-hard problems like the traveling salesman. >[...] >This technology won’t replace general-purpose electronic computers, because lots of problems aren’t NP-hard problems. But a photonic system-on-a-chip could be used as an accelerator running alongside a CPU in a conventional computer. Emerging computing platforms like The Machine, a next-generation system under development at Hewlett Packard Labs, offer even more intriguing possibilities. The Machine will hold huge amounts of data in memory and allow users to plug in different processors as needed, depending on the type of computation they want to perform. >This technology won’t replace general-purpose electronic computers... I still haven't learned why this would be the case.
>>12649 That sounds really cool. I've always liked the idea of having a completely modular computer, more so than what we currently have; the ability to have multiple processors for different tasks in a standard level computer would be incredible. It will never happen, because most users don't care for solving NP-Hard problems, though.
I spoke with a guy who had a PhD in photonics about 6 months ago. Although that conversation was mainly about carbon fibre, the bandwidth increases alone seem like they would be able to replace normal computers easily. Imagine being able to compute on a terabyte of data in seconds. We're hitting the limits of silicon, and quantum computers require massive amounts of energy to keep the conditions correct. Photonics looks like the only way forward.
>>12653 To add to my first paragraph (which is worded like shit), my main ideas would be having a modular CPU. So, the APU, cache etc. and the controller for all of the chips would be separate, rather on one die. There would be a much higher latency, especially for the cache, but that could potentially be negated by using a high-bandwidth connection and by using large packets. But it would be much easier to upgrade in response to exploits. Meltdown/Spectre? Just buy a new cache module that mitigates the exploit. Intel ME spying on you? Buy an open source controller that you know can't be hacked remotely. It would make cooling a bit of a nightmare, though.
While I'm at it, why can't we have open source CPU designs at all, like we do with 40xx and 74xx chips, where different manufacturers make functionally identical products? If the basic chips are simpler (as described in my first paragraph), it wouldn't be too difficult to accomplish. The truly paranoid people could even produce their own modules that would work in a standard motherboard then.
>>12654 >While I'm at it, why can't we have open source CPU designs at all, like we do with 40xx and 74xx chips, where different manufacturers make functionally identical products? I believe this is the goal of RISC-V, a silicon project which is just getting rolling this year. Qualcomm, Samsung, nVidia, Western Digital, have all invested in it, so it's possible that there'll be more competition for consumers in the area of CPUs; there's also Sifive and Lo-risc which I believe are companies more committed to actual open-sourcing.
Normal people however can't make their own CPU in their garage---it takes highly advanced equipment, controlled space, and enormous amounts of money.
>>12653 >We're hitting the limits of silicon, and quantum computers require massive amounts of energy to keep the conditions correct. >Photonics looks like the only way forward. An argument I don't find too bad from quantum enthusiasts is that 60 years ago, electric computers took up entire rooms, and now they fit into the palms of hands. Obviously there's limitations that restrict the potential mobility of quantum computers no matter what, but it's possible that a consumer could get a fridge-sized quantum computer in their own homes some decades from now.
But that is far off. If you want better personal computing now, I see nothing more promising than optical computers.
>the ability to have multiple processors for different tasks in a standard level computer would be incredible. It will never happen, because most users don't care for solving NP-Hard problems, though. It won't be available for "most consumers" in the first place. Windows is over and Macintosh will never get off silicon. These computers are going to run OS that won't be geared toward non-professionals; and so they won't be the target market initially.
Howdy friends, it is time for a thread by me, your favorite endchan poster. Hmm, basically this thread will be all about technology. And perhaps I will share some amusing anecdotes and or opinions in the subject, from my lifetime in the destruction of American tech sector. I call it "the destruction of tech" because that is what they did. Weaponizing it, and infiltrating a bunch of rupee caste to take over the tech positions. Now we see India going full on beast money to control their people. We in America allowed this horror to happen.
Essentially, this bespeaks how corporatized (non citizen controlled) tech is actually a device for intl level fuckwads, to ruin the USA power base through their infiltration of their dirtbag "engineer" types who are famous for being total fuckups and makers of shitty code. basically 25 years of kike enabled war on technology, with bitches like Jobs Zuckerberger and Billgatus who bought DOS from the guy across the street. Like also how Disney himself couldn't draw for shit, but he knew how to buy artists and market his stuff (and how to blackmail and make underworld mulholland drive style connections to the deepest of states see also Hugh Hefner grotto full of kompromat).
Here in paragraph three I will make the point that essentially conspiracy is the water the boat of the world floats upon. Our time is when people alternately struggle and ask questions about what rich fuckers might actually get up to, and is "Hostel" descriptive of a certain class of people who delight in murdering and eating others? Eli Roth, hmm, is he part of some Hollywood eviltech to make us all see and believe bullshit horror as fantasy rather than accepting bullshit horror as truth of our lives? If only we knew how little they value us as souls and how much they value themselves as the soulless?
Okay so here in paragraph four I will say that the ability to project sound upon one person and thereby make them hear a voice spoken to them, reminds me of when Valdemort 'speaks' to all the kids in their heads. I wonder that it wouldn't be difficult to hmm in some stadium let us say, project into people's heads, on a seat by seat basis. Imagine if you will, a stadium full of people being delightfully spoken to in their heads/ears by what may as well be a spirit or a ghost, encouraging them to visit concession stands. Would you call that technology? Imagine a lady saying "did you hear that too?" and you didn't hear that which she is referring to. Will you wonder what words were sent to her head and not to yours? In the past 25 years of technology, what has humanity gained and what have we lost?
Finally here we speak to the death of the IP network. I would say again, it's due to us allowing third world shitbags to ruin it. We should have kept it to ourselves, but again, the intl kike scheme is designed to Zucerberger everyone as if we were all cattle. Push the IP into the lousiest places and tech-nable the biggest assholes of the world. Just imagine if we had kept fidon et and the earliest nets private and only allowed higher level citizens to use them. In this way the intl shitbags would have been kept down in their mudpits, and never been given the gifts which we white folks invented. Not being racist, just saying that white people make awesome shit and others can't give us credit for that. Everything we make, they ruin. So in this way again, I ask, if "Hitler Guy" of the future, re invents the IP schema, but keeps it as a national thing, with zero connections to the outside world, would you consider that to be an advancement of tech or a disadvancement of tech? Well anyway thanks for listening and ask any questions you wish. Here we mourn or celebrate the full spectrum war happening to us all.
[cont] Europeans might have had a more subtle understanding of gold than did good honorable soldier and officer class as Sherman did. But was he a rube? An unsophisticated dummy? No because he knew iron and steel and alloys and metals. But gold was not an implement of war at that time. In California it wasn't legal tender or money. One then wonders, can some class of people, coin living blood, into gold itself? The blood inside you, animating and making you what you are, is it worth something precious to you? And if so, will we eventually be using blood as money as the last line of "the safety of markets"? Maybe you can see an horrific place in that line of questioning?
>>12630 >>12631 >>12632 So very much concentrated hatred and tension, the sign of one at war with themselves internally, sorrow instilled within them by their own perception of the world and an existence revolving around it. I agree that many events have occurred throughout history as a result of the malicious intentions of those who care not for others, but the very fact you are capable of broadcasting this message to us, the very fact that at the press of a button you can access seemingly endless troves of information that our ancestors would have killed to obtain, is this not evidence of the greatness that is the internet, a medium which contains the information gathered over centuries to be accessed by anyone anywhere in the planet? Humans are quite foolish creatures, greedy for naturally occurring metals and dominion over others, but never desiring to be dominated themselves. The society which many yearn for is a society which firstly fulfills the basic needs for human life, and only then can one explore themselves and the world to grow themselves and learn. This is all I shall write for now, I could write a book on such thoughts, but it does not suit me at the moment.
"This is all I shall write
I could write a book
on such thoughts,
but it does not suit me
at the moment."
Well said. I parsed it out like meaningful prose. But is the age of books going to last? Amazon has a great used book business going tho, I buy used books there all the time. However, some of my friends do use kindle device. I could write a book on having lady who uses kindle device but there is no need for such a book. Fact is: People had been preconditioned to expect a "Star Trek" world, i.e. tablets we swipe and so forth. AND YET Star Trek itself presumes total nuke war and destruction, for us, by 2100 AD I think. And if you take note of TNG they view people from our time as basically diseased crap. Yes I know it is just a TV show but it is also powerful somnambulist program that makes generations, expect certain things.
If they showed the kindle device, in ST as what it is: just some book reading gadget, enabling someone like Bezos (and his chums), we wouldn't like it. We wanted the Trek thing from 1968 to become a great thing. But the kindle is not well suited for battle, I would only deploy it to rear echelon units.
The installation above will use the ChromeOS 4.4 kernel. The mainline kernel can be used instead, though some hardware may not be working yet.
Install linux-aarch64 packages, replacing the linux-gru package:
pacman -S linux-aarch64 linux-aarch64-chromebook
Type y and hit enter when prompted to flash the kernel to the kernel partition.
>Britain would consider launching a cyber attack against Russia in retaliation if Russia targeted British national infrastructure >Cyber security has become a focal point of the strained relations. On Thursday, a British spy chief said that his GCHQ agency would "continue to expose Russia's unacceptable cyber behaviour", adding there would be increasing demand for its cyber expertise.
This would mean little to nothing if only Putin would arrange a faster transition away from Windows, Intel, Apple, and the like for its infrastructure. As it stands, he does not seem to take technology seriously enough; but this is a perpetual Russian leadership problem.
>>12636 A complete transition from x86 would take years to be done. Also, if some bunch of people from internet get to reverse engineer intel's microcode, don't you think military security agency wouldn't have this capability? They do. They probably don't run on x86 anyway, not the stuff that needs to be secure, anyway.
Wifi is a really bad idea for a large-scale mesh. High latencies, interference resulting in speed drops, power hog, jewish microwaves. On the other hand, all high-speed wired solutions have no libre firmware or drivers. Everything above 1Gbit or optical is fucking proprietary. But at least optical wires don't radiate shit in all directions so CIA niggers can't find them easily.
It's not a problem that can be solved just by introducing new web browsers. It'd be better to just support a fork that already exists.
>>11115 >You and I and everyone else in the world could burn to a crisp in a fucking inferno for all he cares as long as he has access to the code he wants. >There's nothing altruistic about the man. He has the self-centeredness common among the autistic. You're not a real person to him. Deal with it.
Ah fuck this is too close to home. Does this mean I'm an autist?
>>11081 I'm very sceptical that HURD is developed enough to be released by the end of this year. Does GuixSD even have a newbie-friendly installer yet, like the major distributions?
Anyway, let's assume that the world is perfect. HURD is completed by the end of the year. Then what? Now you have Linux and GNU as two distinct entities, distinct operating systems. Now third party developers might have to develop for one additional system; lots of developers don't even port their software to BSD, as far as I've seen. How would they deal with the threat of incompatibility with software originally designed to run with the Linux kernel? Maybe that so many developers use glibc will mean that this is not a big issue at all. I don't know.
Okay, what if it wasn't an issue? What incentive would people have to adopt the GNU operating system, instead of or in addition to Linux? The BSDs already operate according to a centralized development model that is its prime distinction from Linux. GNU would be either be moving toward that model or it could be like Linux and allow for distributions of the GNU operating system built upon HURD. But what would GNU have to offer? Obviously, completely, 100% free software. Ideologically, that's a big win, but this wouldn't translate necessarily to practical benefits for the user. The driver support would be worse, the software repository smaller. The only way it could grow would be to convince would be Linux users, and even would be BSD users, to develop for GNU; but aside from the free software philosophy, which is not exclusive to but only purer in the GNU OS, what would be the draw?
With that question in mind, I just don't see HURD ever taking off even if it finally makes it out of the hangar and unto the airstrip.
I have some hope that there could be a return to restart developing computing for vector graphics. It seems a bit counterintuitive how kids these days got 30 years of raster display tech development only to complain that VR doesn't work because they can still see the pixels in anything under a gorillion-k displays.
Perhaps in the future a mobile device could project laser-based optically scalable graphics on any wall, while a secondary monitor may simulate it in rasters when needed, but I'm more interested in how we can possibly get there from the current state of the industry where raster screens are so ubiquitous. Can anything as mildly dangerous as early CRTs even legally make it into the market this day and age? Can a dedicated vector graphics card survive the russian scalpers, if such a device is even possible without it's own OS?
Even if it's vector they would still see the pixels, because all the technology was build in this concept, a matrix of square dots. We would need to rebuild the display tech to fit the "meta-model" of vector graphics first and I have no idea how we could do that. Maybe holographic, as the other anon said, but that's too futuristic for our primitive society. Also, holographics would have density issues, as external light would not offer enough contrast for the human vision.
Maybe look into bioengeneering would be better, like a brain-computer interface that can send signals to human optics or something.
Again, too futuristic, and there's no research investiments enough for that. Maybe there's some guys on Cambridge, Berkeley or Stanford, for meh, not really.
>Going backwards in technology is not an option. >too futuristic I'm happy to see "too big to fail" ideology coming from the consumer rather than the government, it only shows that culture is being cohesive and bailouts have the blessing of the public. Going by the success of 3DS and Shovel Knight, some of those allegations are patently false, however. The amount of fun is clearly scalable to the reach of the production, while lowering prices are much more heavily influenced by increasing the reach to secondary and tertiary markets. To put it short, first people to buy Shovel Knight were happy to pay $100 in Kickstarter, the second people $20 in early adoption and now $30 on Nintendo Switch. Calling this "unaccepatble" is clearly ideological and false in real world terms.
A game as much fun as Shovel Knight is produceable in primitive technology that resembles the early Vectrex, with the addition of modern computing power. On the other hand, such a device is liable to crash and burn as well like the Virtual Boy. These are however mere indicators and not gospel. A viable new vector technology would need a few bottom lines fulfilled, one is to be able to mimic raster graphics in an inferior way the same way raster graphics are able to mimic vectors in an inferior way, where they get pixelated but are not unuseable. One other is to support an universal standard of vectorization so that any method of greating a vector algorithm is transferable directly into the device without going through the process of re-encoding the same collection of shapes in a different way to no further benefit.
I do not imagine to pointlessly throw out raster graphics just to accommodate vectors. What would need to happen is to introduce another element of interface next to raster visuals and audio, which are already succesfully merged into one experience, so we can enjoy an effective use of vectors, rasters and audio. This is not an unforeseen concept, as Apple did introduce a touch interface even though we already have a good touch interface in mouse and keyboard, and Wii was succesfully sold on motion controls despite being clearly inferior to the single-plane motion control found on the mouse.
While it's important to first discover a viabilty for pure vector displays, or else well never get to the point where the following is possible, I imagine there comes a point where a screen monitor can display both vector graphics and raster graphics. How I imagine this to work is that there should be a layer of screen that can produce rasters, and onto that a vectorized line can be projected, from a board that is flat but can mimic tubular monitors. Similar technology already exists where touch screens can receive input in analog shapes and digitize it in raster form. Also rasters in see-through materials already exist in a primitive form, that's another thing that is absolutely a step "backwards" yet plenty of hard money sees potential in it.
The way I imagine it it might be something that recognizes which colors are intended as lines and which are intended as solid colors, and the graphics controller chip within the monitor itself would know what lines to produce in scalable rasters while the rest of the colors would get as pixelated as the definition allows, but perhaps be written over by any vector lines drawn over the jagged edges. It's highly hypothetical until the early forms of flat vector displays exist to start indicating what direction the technology can possibly go to, depending on the exact workings.
What exists now is at least QR codes, which can mimic vector equations if being put up to task. I can hardly imagine a QR code reader doing 10 000 calculations every second, though, if they were to perform the task of a vector display controller chip.
>>12603 I don't quite get how your Shovel Knight example ties into the ideas of your first paragraph. Are you accusing us of preferring the status quo; are you suggesting that older technology actually does have a place in the contemporary world, and that it is not true that the only direction possible to go in is strictly forward? I'm having trouble understanding your post, but don't feel obliged to spell it out.
>>12604 I would have an easier time getting it if you had an illustration/diagram of what you're talking about.
>>12594 The more security you have, the more layers of obfuscation you have, the more points of failure, the more maintenance required. Some security is necessary for some privacy at a certain layer to deliver certain private information to other systems or people using the same protocols, but it's just to assure a certain level of communication that one trusts and feels that it is necessary to hide private information from those that look for it. Online privacy is information that's to be separated from the public that you don't want to be accessed by the public but only a secure connection between one or more people that nobody else knows about. If those that you privately contact chose to betray you, they can leak confidential private information to the public or to others privately. One can use a secure channel but say nothing of private confidential information. The front end of a website is what's publicly accessible which should never have private confidential information that shouldn't be publicly accessed. Security is a means for privacy but is not privacy in and of itself. Using a VPN for example hides what you do from your ISP but it doesn't hide what you from the ISP of what the VPN uses, so even securing the VPN connection doesn't mean privacy, just a layer of security. Let's say the FBI goes to your home and asks you to decrypt your hard drive or else they'll break your bones. You are the ultimate key to all of your data that's at least accessible by you. Multi signing is a higher level of security, but if some secret or public organization gets the private keys of all of the people responsible for its creation, it's compromised. Privacy deals with trust management which uses security but is not merely security. True anonymity probably doesn't truly exist online, only obfuscation of identity is real.
>>12595 Just because some websites have https doesn't mean it's properly implemented https and so doesn't redirect its users to its https site but instead its http site because that's what the people running the site wants you to use their site the way they want you to. If you refuse, go complain to the people running that website without accessing it's http website somehow. Poorly implemented https sites are all over the place, and if they really properly set up https, they will redirect all http requests to https because most people that set up https tend to also care about SEO scores.
I'm not saying never share or visit HTTP links. I'm saying that HTTPS is better than HTTP when available (and that means, taking into account also your countercase, you aren't just being redirected away from the HTTPS site). Your response doesn't say anything against that.
On using a VPN, you need to distinguish between using a home VPN and commercial VPN. Commercial VPN is better for privacy than a home VPN when you trust the provider, because they give you an IP Address that isn't your own. HTTPS is better than HTTP because the data is encrypted, can't be easily snooped on.
So, obviously, HTTPS with VPN would be best from a privacy and security standpoint, but this isn't what I was talking about.
>>12594 Alright, alright. Going off your conception of this then, let's look again at your setup. >>12587 >I use HTTPS everywhere, noscript (manually re-configured for my browsing habits), Random Agent Spoofer, Tin Foil (well some of the options, not in full mode), disabled most chromium vulnerabilities with about:config and also use a private VPN (w/ encryption), and I use a Linux OS... am I safe at this point? I'll need to break it down.
>>12605 There's some websites that improperly loads from a http site into the https front end, not truly secure, AKA: mixed content. Websites that are slower when using https instead of it's regular http site has more often than not mixed content not from same origin.
Your so called argument has to take into multiple variables, it was a loaded question and so there's no simple yes or no answer to it and so there's no definitive "yes" or "no", it must consider all of the variables, while your loaded question was used in response to my previous points like how the ISP (any ISP) will know what links you've clicked and the various concerns in using a third party between you, the web host, and the domain host (if they're not one and the same) that can at any moment revoke certificates willingly or unwillingly from the web browser side or the certificate issuers which sometimes try to mess with the certificates used by the web browser, making certain websites inaccessible that way.
Even assuming a website has some A+ score on observatory.mozilla.org (which mind you, my own personal website has an A+ score), absolutely any layer of security isn't guaranteed privacy. Your nit picking on about me not specifying specific types of VPNs is avoiding the core failure of you needing to trust protocols upon protocols yet my point is that any layer of security opens up more variable points of failure that you merely assume that you can circumvent before it is exploited when really that can't be done, nobody knows the future. Securing the most direct path from point A to B is better than securing point A-Z, while there's more trust in the information the less filters it has to go through. Have you ever played telephone or chinese whispers? The more people that have to pass the message verbally, the more distorted the original message becomes until it's totally indecipherable at the end of the chain.
All I'm saying is that no single protocol should ever gain 100% of your trust, neither one or the other, so everyone is wrong if they answer yes or no to the whole trusting https over http thing because that's not how it works in real life. I would trust a letter with a tamper evident seal on the envelope more than I trust any protocol that connects me to the internet.
Is app or even application a term that has a standardized definition, if so then what? Meaning that whatever platform I use to run "an app", I can trust that means the task being run has certain universal qualities that define it from other executables. My understanding of computing is a very poor outdated mix of dad logic and grandma logic and all this marketing shit doesn't do me any favors. When an "app" can be nothing more than a glorified interface to a program that's already always running, even on top of programs that are already only being run on an OS, I wouldn't want to be one to explain this shit straight to a next generation who have to unlearn all this training wheels garbage.
As i understand that term came with smartphones and popularization of mobile apps. An app on a smartphone is basically a webpage adjusted for mobile use (twitter, google docs, ebay). And since we started to call all of those services "apps" - because of smartphones - we now call everything an "app". So today you can't go wrong with saying something's an app, be it a webpage, executable, mobile app or something else.
And acording to wikipedia, that's not wrong: -Mobile app, software designed to run on smartphones and other mobile devices -Application, software that causes a computer to perform tasks for computer users -Web application or web app, software designed to run inside a web browser
The last piece of Google's web: Google Domains .app domains available for registration https://www.registry.google/ - Mar 29 - May 1: Trademark holders can register .app domains (known as the "Sunrise" period).
- May 1 - May 8: Anyone can register available .app domains for an extra fee (known as the "Early Access" period).
- May 8 and onwards: Anyone can register available .app domains (known as “General Availability").
Now you can use your Google browser run on a Google operating system on a Google device connected to a Google router and Google Fiber to access a website which is hosted on Google servers, reachable by Google domain using a Google DNS server, verified and authenticated by Google certificate authority.
Google is planning on being the registry for many new top level domains including these: .ZIP .MOV .MEME What do you think about this?
Charleston Road Registry Inc. d/b/a Google Registry
Why do you think this part of the company uses a pseudony which doesn't include "Google"?
>>12547 DNS was already a cesspool of cancer from the beginning. why do I care if big company #35236756235 gains some authority over it?
>Now you can use your Google browser run on a Google operating system on a Google device connected to a Google router and Google Fiber to access a website which is hosted on Google servers, reachable by Google domain using a Google DNS server, verified and authenticated by Google certificate authority. Good, I wouldn't want any untrustworthy other parties in the mix of my full G system :^)
"Microsoft have changed their terms of service so that they can monitor any of your personal content, including the files on your PC, while using their products or services and if they deem it offensive they can take that content and their products/services away from you and ban you! If you happen to have an Xbox or have bought PC games from the Microsoft Store and are logged into your Microsoft account on any device while committing your "crime" you can be banned from Xbox Live and have all your downloaded games and any credit that's still in your account taken away!
But it gets worse. This applies to all Microsoft products and services. So therefore Windows itself! I think I have already been a victim, probably due to posting here, as recently my Windows 10 key was revoked out of the blue. I contacted Microsoft and they told me my key was no longer valid but outright refused to tell me why. So I had to buy Windows 10 again. I didn't buy it direct from them of course. Please post if this has happened to you very recently too.
I'm pretty scared about what's coming. They want us off the internet and I think this is how they're going to get many people. They're going to just shutdown our Windows on the basis of us breaking their new terms of service. What if ISPs are next?"
First off, no one should be using Windows 10. If you like Windows get an older one like Windows 2000, Vista or XP and make sure you turn OFF all automatic updates in the settings. Make sure you do not leave it online 24/7 either (leaving the OS online when not in use makes it much more vulnerable). There are also programs out there you can install that will completely remove all auto-updates for Windows if you are too lazy to change the settings.
If you want to switch to Linux you can install "Wine" and run Windows executives right from your Linux OS. Depending on which OS you partition (such as Q4OS) this will mimick an older version of Windows. Q4OS is what I recommend because you can install Wine and the OS replicates Windows XP, looking almost exactly the same!
Second, which is VERY important, users should be using a private VPN service in this day and age. No reason not to. Get off your lazy ass, buy a cheap private VPN (these can cost as low as $30 PER YEAR), and shield yourself by encrypting your communications and spoofing your IPs. Its easy and even us boomers can learn how to do it, I did.
Third: always have physical offline backups of any of your important files (this includes ISOs of the OS you use, software you may use and any media or other files you deem valuable).
>>12581 Microsoft is a trojan, I ditched it a while ago, but there are still idiots who use things like Windows 8, (9?) & 10. I'm just trying to spread this info because if we do not stand up to this and take action to mitigate their tyranny there will be a whole lot of butthurt consumers who lose all their content. I refuse to be one of them and hopefully anons will rebel and take proper steps to counter this.
>>12582 This is a problem with proprietary software in this instance. I have set up ubuntu for relatives and they really just want a web browser and they think the web browser is the operating system so you download chromium they think its the same as windows and that is a good way to start.
I'm not surprised that things have gotten to this point. While I agree with you that using Windows 10 is stupid, and indeed it has never not been a poor decision from a standpoint of a daily driver, I disagree that Windows XP is the only niche operating system one should consider having installed. I suspect it might be more a matter of taste, as you are much older than I am; I prefer the look and feel of Windows 7 more than XP, and I'm sure many others feel the same way. While much more difficult and less worthwhile these days, it's still possible to get a Windows 7 installation without the botnet backports from 10 if you didn't have it installed already. Nevertheless, using it as a daily driver would be ill-advised, due to the lack of security updates that must be dealt with in order to avoid the spyware.
On the necessity of a VPN, I think it depends on what one is doing. If you're a heavy-/pol/ user, you should avoid visiting links to sensitive material non-anonymized, lest you put a target on your back. We aren't at that point yet, I don't think, where simply visiting Prism-Break will put you on a priority list. It depends on what "layer" you're active in, so to speak, whether measures like a paid VPN are worth the effort and the money. If you want to avoid getting snooped on while using public wifi, that's a different matter, and one where having a home VPN makes a lot of sense.
For offline backups of media, I have nothing really to say against. If you haven't heard of it, check out youtube-dl, which is a command line application for downloading video and audio from streaming websites. It seems like the old video downloaders have stopped working, so this is a final option, which will work for nobody knows how much longer.
Finally, on switching to GNU/Linux, there's concern that distros like Fedora or Ubuntu are botnet as well. Not to the extent of Windows, but still adware or spyware, or otherwise introduces insecurities into your computing. If there were any good novice systemd-free distributions, I'd recommend them, but I didn't see anything worth installing. Admittedly, I'm on Fedora right now myself, for the time being, while I learn enough about GNU/Linux to roll my own installation.
>>12566 No. If you want to transmit your cleartext queries over the internet, use the shortest path.
This means use your ISP's DNS server for DNS, and don't use proxies for HTTP/e-mail if for some reason you need to transmit sensitive data through it.
Us privacy aware folks are using:
- and/or Tor and remote DNS resolution
- and/or hosts file
- and/or increasing DNS cache time both inside the OS and in the browser
- and/or our own DNS server on LAN
So I finally installed and configured dnscrypt-proxy since I remember someone here recommended it to me.
The problem is it kinda slow.
Can someone take a look at my config file and tell me if I'm doing something wrong ?
>>12563 I don't really trust cloudflare and according to the documentation there should be no need to set up static servers as long as I point dnscrypt at a public list and set up filters like dnssec required or nologging.
LynxChan is an imageboard engine I started developing in 2015 with performance and flexibility in mind. It now powers several chans, with some having a good amount of traffic, like http://mewch.net and http://endchan.xyz
LynxChan 2.0 has entered it's beta with a stable release scheduled for 19/05. It brings easily the biggest changes ever made in the project's nearly 3 years of existence, having completely changed templating and caching. Now offering around 5 times better performance when serving pages and 50 times better performance when building pages it is trully deserving of a major version bump. Along with these optimizations it includes the following features:
Links to board staff on board moderation page. Page with details for media files, including a list of posts that use the file. Implemented "remember me" on logins. Thread's bump order is adjusted when replies are deleted. Setting to configure the cache expiration of static files. Optional headers and footers on pages. Setting to completely hide unindexed boards. E-mail confirmation. Terminal command to change account's password. E-mail notifications of reports made to content you can moderate.
The Endware EULA is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent license were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in the open source movement is now dumber for it having been written. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Also, btw, it's probably not meaningfully enforceable. A halfway competent lawyer would tear it to shreds in a court of law.
You should really consider changing it to one of the standard OSI or FSF approved licenses, most of which have been vetted by lawyers, some of which have actually been tested in court and (almost?) none of which are insane garbage like the Endware EULA.
> The enumerations presented were examples and are not meant to be exhaustive, however they were meant to be funny. > For your own sake, and the public's, don't quit your day job to pursue a career in comedy writing.
The part I get a chuckle out of every time I read it is the solar system and space transport vehicles part, I picture Elon Musk reading the license and saying "This is a great license for our project", and then I get a mental image of astronauts on the International Space Station flipping channels on endstream and endtv to pass the time. The rest was meant to be serious.
> What constitutes a "neighbor"? That's not a term with a defined legal meaning, and to the extent that it has one, it's not what you seem to think it means. I can't share the code with someone in another country? They're not my neighbor. Or do you mean it in a metaphorical sense? Legal documents are probably a bad place for metaphors.
This is a valid complaint. I'll change the word neighbor to recipient .
> You say modify AND improve, not modify OR improve. I can only modify it if I improve it? What if you think my changes make it worse? Who decides? You? I guess I'm in violation of the license, then.
This is a valid complaint. I'll remove the word improve. You can freely modify the code and run and distribute the modified code. Improvements are not required, and I won't be the judge. I'll only be the judge of what is released by Endware.
I'm going to make 2 licenses, the first will attempt to rectify some of the complaints by adding and deleting words, and the second will be a simplified license where I delete everything that is redundant and attempt complete generality on the first line of every category.
I included government, and legislators to specifically point out that they should protect themselves from unlawful surveillance by the military (NSA, FBI, CIA etc) and corporations (GOOGLE, AMAZON, FACEBOOK, etc) in order to avoid blackmail and coercion, and to focus on strengthening the core institutions of western democratic society (Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of government) from attacks by hackers, foreign and domestic military intelligence services, etc.
But to be realistic they probably have proper high end security software and don't need Endware, but maybe they don't, I don't know... I'm sure they have something better. But just in case...
>Any user of this program is granted the freedom to run this code on any computer of their choice. > I can run it on other people's computers without their permission!? Nice!
Can I run iOS on an Android Phone? or MacOS on regular arbitrary x86 gear?
You can run Endware on any computer architecture you want, and on any hardware device you want to. Including on other people's machines, but you might be breaking the computer misuse laws in doing so, not my copyright license grant.
>but if you ever have the chance to run it by a lawyer, you should. After he gets done laughing, explain that it's not a joke. At this point, you'll need to ignore the look of pity on his face and explain that you're not mentally retarded, either. Then you can let him explain why your license is such a piece of shit.
I'm going to bring an HD digital video camera to the meeting and zoom in slowly so that I can catch the moment that the facial expression changes from mirth to sadness then to pity. I'll upload it as a webm onto Endchan or perhaps as an animated gif.