Slashdot Mirror

defenestrate means to throw a person out of a window. As a resident of Simmons Hall, I hear that one a lot.

Other DNS software

Management tools

twa lets authorized browsers edit the tinydns data file.

ldap2dns converts an LDAP DNS database to a tinydns data file. tinyadmin is a graphical interface to the LDAP DNS database used by ldap2dns.

mkdns converts a MySQL DNS database to a tinydns data file. It lets authorized browsers edit the MySQL DNS database.

sql2tinydns is similar to mkdns.

dhcp_dns watches dhcpd for new DHCP address assignments, and publishes those addresses through tinydns.

tinydyndns publishes dynamic IP addresses authenticated through POP connections.

Servers

ldapdns publishes DNS information from an LDAP database.

MyDNS publishes DNS information from a MySQL database.

Posadis publishes DNS information from BIND-style zone files. Security history: Buffer overflow, allowing attackers around the Internet to take control of the server; fixed in m5pre2 (2002.03.30). Someone announced an exploitable buffer overflow in m5pre2 a few weeks later; the history here isn't clear from the Posadis web pages.

NSD publishes DNS information from BIND-style zone files. Security history: Unclear. The NSD documentation includes bugs like ``Very strange coredump in hash_destroy() that happens sometimes'' without any analysis of their security impact. Is that an exploitable buffer overflow?

PowerDNS publishes DNS information from MySQL databases, PostgreSQL databases, Oracle databases, IBM databases, LDAP databases, or BIND-style zone files. Security history: Unclear, like the NSD security history.

MaraDNS is a general-purpose DNS server.

lbnamed is a load-balancing DNS server.

lbdns is another load-balancing DNS server.

Oak DNS Server is a good example of why novices shouldn't try to write DNS software. The digitallumber.net domain, served by Oak DNS Server 1.0, is inaccessible to a huge number of clients that try AAAA lookups before A lookups: the server incorrectly returns NXDOMAIN for AAAA, effectively wiping out its own A record.

Caches

pdnsd is a DNS cache. Security history: Remotely exploitable buffer overflow; fixed in 1.1.7a (2002.01.18).

MaraDNS can act as a cache.

I don't know why anyone would want to use these caches in place of dnscache .

DNS clients

adns is a DNS client library.

ares is a DNS client library.

perldns is a DNS client library for Perl.

The Buggy Internet Name Daemon [how very professional... *sigh*]

BIND is a monolithic server/cache; it also includes a client library, libresolv. Security history: IQUERY buffer overflow in BIND before 8.1.2-T3B (1998); NXT buffer overflow in BIND before 8.2.2-P4 (1999); nslookupcompla

CAE Defense Fund

ACLU

Only by sending me money now to my Nigerian Bank Account will you move from the Ruby to Emerald Level of the "Earn Money From Home By Sowing Patriot Act FUD (EMFHBSPFUD)" ... learn what these individuals have not yet learned.

You must act now!!!!

You must act now!!!!

You must act now!!!!

[HUMOR OFF :-(:-(:-(]

... link for those who have never bothered to read the PATRIOT Act source documentation

Actually, some experimental results show major performance increases for applications under an exokernel architecture. Normal applications get up to a 4x boost, while tuned apps can reach up to 8x. Check out a few of these slides at MIT for slightly more information:

Normal applications benefit
Exo-flexibility is not costly
The Cheetah webserver
Conclusions so far

Actually, some experimental results show major performance increases for applications under an exokernel architecture. Normal applications get up to a 4x boost, while tuned apps can reach up to 8x. Check out a few of these slides at MIT for slightly more information:

Normal applications benefit
Exo-flexibility is not costly
The Cheetah webserver
Conclusions so far

Actually, some experimental results show major performance increases for applications under an exokernel architecture. Normal applications get up to a 4x boost, while tuned apps can reach up to 8x. Check out a few of these slides at MIT for slightly more information:

Normal applications benefit
Exo-flexibility is not costly
The Cheetah webserver
Conclusions so far

Actually, some experimental results show major performance increases for applications under an exokernel architecture. Normal applications get up to a 4x boost, while tuned apps can reach up to 8x. Check out a few of these slides at MIT for slightly more information:

Normal applications benefit
Exo-flexibility is not costly
The Cheetah webserver
Conclusions so far

How can you generalize over an entire standardized language what its licenses are?

I know it's a bit dubious. I tried to pick the initial open source implementation or the most popular implementation. Obviously, proprietary implementations don't count as they aren't open source. This is not about open source vs closed software.

MIT Scheme is GPL alone.

I found this when I searched for "scheme license" in google. After some searching, it seems they changed their license just after this version (in 2001) to the GPL. Obviously, this makes everything very unclear. It would be very interesting to know how their usage and contributions changed after they changed their license, though. Since you seem to be a big Scheme fan, do you know whether MIT Scheme became more or less popular after 2001?

And this list doesn't even include Bigloo, Chicken, Guache, Gambit, Guile, SCM, Pika, SCSH, and about a dozen others.

Obviously, I can't include every language, especially the ones that I don't even know. Also, comparisons with other languages of reasonable size is more prudent. What does it tell us if we discover that a little used language implementation is GPLed? Could it be little used because it is GPLed? The reverse is not true though. If we discover that an implementation for an often used language is GPLed, then we can conclude that those languages weren't held back by the GPL. However, my quick scan showed that BSD-like licenses are more popular. Not that I am claiming to have made a perfect comparison (but hey, this is slashdot ;) ).

No it doesn't -- they can add exceptions for code that can't be GPL'd to the license.

Modifying the license would make it incompatible with the GPL, which would be incredibly stupid, because then you couldn't link with GPLed code anymore. If you want to grant more rights than the GPL, you could dual license it, but not allowing users to 'Freely' use linked code is an extra limitation. In other words, such a license would be incompatible with the GPL. So there is no solution, except to choose another license or to rewrite the code.

Eh.. I'd argue differently.

IMHO, the next major revolution in OS design (and performance) will be from an exokernel architecture. For those who aren't familiar with them, it's a completely radical and different approach to kernel design, the main idea behind it is seperate protection from management. If you really think about it, who (I use that term loosely) would know better what resources, scheduling, etc an application will need - the kernel, or the application itself.

Traditional kernel design techniques give the (pretty much) the entire management of resources to the kernel itself and hide it behind a HAL (hardware abstraction layer), allowing the application little to zero say in the matter. Exokernels throw that idea out of the window, taking a completely opposite view on the issue. Once you give the power to the application, it opens a whole new world of OS design.

It's really quite interesting, for more information on different kernel designs you can check out the Microkernel entry at thefreedictionary.com

The MIT Stata Center page has a link to their time-lapse webcam which captured the whole thing being built... I watched it for a while but it really wasn't all that exciting. Maybe with some editing (like taking out the night-time parts) it would have been more interesting to watch, but then I guess it would lose some of the authenticity...

The MIT Stata Center page has a link to their time-lapse webcam which captured the whole thing being built... I watched it for a while but it really wasn't all that exciting. Maybe with some editing (like taking out the night-time parts) it would have been more interesting to watch, but then I guess it would lose some of the authenticity...

• Galen Hunt did a USENIX presentation in 1997, IIRC. paper here
• Another, similar idea from MIT

Xybernaut sell all sorts of wearable computer gubbins. The MIT Wearables Lab is a fantastic resource for wearable computing.

A common way is to use what's called "Cap Codes" which are those annoying red dots that show up in single frames. They put them in different frames for different distributions so that it can be tracked back to the source. Because they change the scene, they show up even after being filmed with a camera and being compressed. They're trivially easy to remove from a finished AVI, but most pirates are too lazy to do it.

For more info check google or this post

If an attached printer produces the critical audit trail, then one must establish trust in the software that produces that audit, and all of its inputs. A bug in the keyboard handler could produce an audit trail that agrees with the electronic tally, but does not represent the voter's choice.

For the all-time scary software story, read about Therac-25

The How to Think Like a Computer Scientist series is very good for both Python and Java. They also have versions for Logo and C++.

Scheme is not a bad choice for learning programming and the Sussman book which is the intro CS/Engineering text is avaialble for free also.

All of the above have open source or free environments and if she learns the material, will have a very good chance of learning a trade and having it outsourced to India!

Somebody writes a piece in support of nuclear power. Some blogger fisks it [...]

The reason it's of interest (news for nerds, even) is that Sterling is not merely some blogger (you're a geek, you've read The Hacker Crackdown). TFA is not even a blog entry -- it's a tongue-in-cheek mailout to people interested in pragmatic and / or humorous solutions to global warming.

As for no hard science etc., fair enough, point taken, but have a look at this chunk:

Okay == let's say your argument has convinced me. So get me a written quid pro quo that actually cuts carbon emissions way past Kyoto limits, and I'll risk the Chernobyls.

This to me, is the point of the article. The global warming debate is not presently a scientific dialogue about which form of power strikes the best balance between productivity and safety. Right now it's about getting fossil fuel producing countries to even acknowledge that something is wrong. When Australia and the US ratify the Kyoto treaty, then the scientific debate can begin.

Disclaimer: I have a couple of Sterling novels and think solar power is pretty neat. Hey, and fusion would be even better. See .sig for details.

but it also has an on-line version you can use for free at MIT press.

"Operator's console of the Differential Analyzer, a literally "graphical" user interface. The operator (at left, Samuel Caldwell) manipulates a pointer by hand to follow the curves on the paper, which are then integrated or otherwise processed by the machine, which drives a plotter to make another graph as output..." [emph. added]

Mechanical computers were built and used over 60 years ago to solve differential equations and other analytical type problems. I know MIT and UCLA had pretty good mechanical computers in the WWII era. Check out MIT's famous mechanical differential analyzer for and idea of what was and is and awesome piece of hardware.

If you're in such a small minority that no one provides a service catering to your special whims, then no, you shouldn't be able to choose what kind of service you want. If no email service to your liking exists, I would hope your first inclination would be to pull up your boot straps and start coding, not to head to Sacramento as a lobbyist.

Gmail regulation will probably be as good for consumers as California's regulation of African hair braiders, Tennessee's regulation of discount coffin sellers, New Orlean's regulation of curbside book vendors, or Louisiana's regulation of flower arrangers. Behind the scenes, so many times, regulation like this (to ostensibly protect consumers) is actually rent seeking: politically-connected private businesses using government to coerce a state-protected cartel for themselves.

The justification for the law sounds nice: we want to protect email users from this new, nasty, privacy-invading Gmail. But I haven't heard a peep of complaint about Gmail from users, only from Google's competition . If Open Government Information Awareness weren't down right now, I'd look up Senator Figueroa's contributors. I smell a rat.

The poster is arguing from the faulty logic that runs counter to both OSS and the facts of the Internet's history.

I can hardly find any logic behind your post, faulty or not. (Are you arguing from the Pollyanna theory, or what?)

That's a whole lot of text you gave; all of it wrong or irrelevant. I won't bother to quote each line and say which is which- I'll just point out the most blatantly bad parts.

The early internet was open and standards compliant.

Yes, and it was completely vulnerable. FTP and telnet passwords floating around in the clear. Then, when pranksters like RTM released worms which abused those vulnerabilities, people started to care about security. And what was my point again?

Nothing was private.

That sentence seems key to a lot of your later invocation of the word "privacy". But it's also the most irrelevant part of your post. Are you putting forth an alternative approach to computer security: remove the right to privacy from every human on earth? That's an interesting idea, and could work... but there obviously would be strong philosophical and practical objections. It turns out that quite a few people dislike the idea of global police states!

With or without 'virus writers' and their ilk, the proactive people will continue to survive and excel. The reactive people would die by natural selection without the need for the 'virus writers.'

This viewpoint contradicts facts on the ground. Are you claiming that Microsoft is already dead? Or do you instead claim that the Outlook fixes they made over the past 4 years were not in reaction to worms?

Hackers are good, proactive explorers that usually help the system. Crakers are the people we would like to see put behind bars. They neigther help nor seek to improve software. Crackers want your software to be buggy and develop more holes over time.

This irrelevant argument is about the definition of words. You are attempting to propagate definitions in conflict with original meaning- presumably because it makes you feel better, since you like to think of self-identified "hackers" in a positive light.

Fact: The first "Computer Hacker" was an MIT student who climbed through a window to feed punchcards without permission. "Hacker" has always implied using something you weren't supposed to.
Fact: The first "cracker" was a man who broke into wallsafes.
Fact: Today, computer-related "crackers" are people who either penetrate passwords, or edit copy-protection out of software. They are a small subset of all hackers. Someone who runs a DDOS or releases a virus is not a cracker, because he has not gotten access to any otherwise "secured" data. Mafiaboy was not a cracker.

You cannot plan and execute theft or damage in public (doesn't stop the stupid from trying, but hey.) You need a private place to ensure surprise.

Hey, if you want to eliminate the possibility of anybody having a "private place", then more power to you. (I actually support the idea of a zero-privacy society in the abstract, but recognize it as absurd eutopianism)

• Loop-back encryption is kinda clunky. dm-crypt looks to be a cleaner way to do encrypted devices. And pam_mount can mount encrypted home directories on login.
• As for doing encryption in the filsystem, several people are at working at it.
• Your notion that OpenSSH only creates a tunnel while the "console" is open, is little more than FUD. Oh no! The console!. That's the whole point. SSH is largely interactive by its very nature.
• It's quite easy to setup OpenSSL in inetd mode for SSL'd services.
• Encrypted executables? Are you joking? WTF would that achieve? If someone has physical access to your machine, you're screwed anyway. And if someone has broken into your machine remotely then your executables are probably the last thing to worry about. On Unix/Linux systems you need root access to write to system executables. If an intruder has root access, they can do anything and don't need to modify your executable to screw around. This is a straw-man argument.
• Linux is very good as a VPN router. Not only do we have IPsec/IPV6 from the KAME project, there's also the (abandoned) FreeS/WAN project and the spin-off Openswan. But don't forget OpenVPN (available for quite a few platforms, not just Unix/Linux). If you're really desperate, you can always combine SSH and PPP to make a VPN.
• Tokens? You have heard of Kerberos haven't you?
  BTW, here's a good LDAPv3+SASL+KerberosV HowTo

My god you are a troll. Oh, and as others have pointed out, encryption does not instantly make something secure.

It would be great, if instead, I could hook into the compiler and tell it exactly how it should handle vectors.

Well of course that's what templates are. Yes, their syntax is horrendous but that's what comes of trying to wedge the concept into the existing crannies of C syntax (or when, as Stroustrup remarked to me once, "the ecological niche was already polluted").

If you hanker for a language in which metasyntactic extension is natural, you need Lisp macros (or here and here for a more complex example), Scheme "hygenic" macros or the CLOS MOP.

But if you really want to consider "hooking into the compiler" as you say then you should look at the reflective programming work, the ground work for which was laid down almost 25 years ago by Brian Cantwell Smith and was even implemented, by me and others, back then. Although a lot of work continued in this area that vein pretty much got mined: unless you can think up a completely new control structure there's not a huge amount more you can do with such a system than you could with a normal metasyntactic extension mechanism.

HTH
-d

Sure, no problem. This is the display system I was talking about.

The "Freemasons" should sue Microsoft, since they have been putting windows in buildings for thousands of years.

No, it's not what we really want, as Carnival Booth clearly shows.

You might want to contact MIT and ask around, since they were/are doing a lot of what you need. Check out their MIT OpenCourseWare.

Maybe you can also convince your professors to use their notes - than it's just a simple wget job for you. :)

What happened to the Afghan eXplorer, a vehicle designed to work as in independent war reporter in insecure zones?

Ease up on the FUD, AAC isn't any more closed than the MP3 you're so eager to praise. They're both open MPEG standards.

They are both MPEG standards -- but implementing AAC encoders or decoders requires purchasing licenses.

Unfortunately, unlike W3C-approved standards, MPEG standards do *not* need to be either patent-unencumbered or have a blanket license granted for implementation purposes upon standardization.

Fraunhoffer has claimed that it has patent rights over MP3. You can look at an analysis here. Basically, they have patents that cover encoders (but have been ignoring free encoders thus far), and while they claim to have patents that cover decoders, some folks have taken issue with this point, and concluded that decoders can be freely produced.

Ogg Vorbis is not encumbered by patents.

The original DARPA grant that started the W3C also included a MIT project that proposed what is a very nice solution for distributing rich applications through a HTML-like content language.

Alas some company got involved and practically killed this technology, but before their bizzare licensing policies kill it completely you can check out some really cool demos this technology enables.

The original DARPA grant that started the W3C also included a MIT project that proposed what is a very nice solution for distributing rich applications through a HTML-like content language.

Alas some company got involved and practically killed this technology, but before their bizzare licensing policies kill it completely you can check out some really cool demos this technology enables.

1. The Good -> God's Will
2. God's Will -> The Good

1. The Good == God's Will

They get the additional fun of having to put up with Dr Megavolt. Last time I was out there (a few years back) I chatted with a few guys trying to do some long wire runs and RF comms. Appearantly everytime Dr. Volt's van drove by and fired the Tesla, they'd lose another piece of gear!

This sounds a bit like Alloy. Alloy is both a code modelling language (like UML), but structured in such a way that the model can be analysed automatically using SAT solvers (yeah, I didn't know what those were at first either. Here's a site with some good info on them).

Alloy's cool because you can use it to model code at a very abstract, high level (much like SPARK, it seems), although with Alloy you aren't tied to any specific language. The downside is that since the model isn't embedded in the code it's more useful as a design tool than something which will "guarantee" correctness every time you compile.

Even the US supreme court recognises the importance of anonymity in political speech. The Federalist Papers, precursor to the US Constitution, was written anonymously. If its authors were forced to "own" what they wrote the British would have jailed them in a split second and Americans would probably still be paying taxes to the queen of England.

The Context Aware Computing group at the MIT Media Lab produced Eye aRe years ago. These devices detect attention paid to another such unit (yes, everyone needs to be equipped with one, which is a difference from the canadian item), and not just staring in the general direction: There is a demo, for instance, wherein the wearer can look at a computer, which prompts it to unpause movie playback. Looking away--without turning of the head, eyes only--repauses the movie (this is insanely hard to demo without sound; you can't really tell if it has paused or not when you're looking away, so you look back at it. oops.). The Eye-Are units are certainly smaller, at the very least. To be fair, they're using different technologies, but the optical advanced-ness of the canadian unit seems wasted on a supid application. The usefulness of having inanimate objects--say, appliances--know where you're looking, when, and how (the Eye aRe detects blinking, an increase of which can signal any number of things) seems to dwarf that of some hyper-blogging solution. Both devices, of course, offer a sort of unconscious appliance-control possiblilties, but one is much smaller, and cheaper to manufacture (namely, the Eye aRe).

The ones I'm most familiar with are extensions of Common Lisp. There are 3 CL web servers, each with dynamic HTML generation capability (AllegroServe, Araneida, CL-HTTP). Then there's Lisp Server Pages, Active Lisp Pages, etc., and another whole load of CGI solutions. I use (and highly recommend) AllegroServe. There is a whole big list over at Cliki (which runs on Araneida).

There are many CGI bindings for various Scheme implementations, and the PLT web server is kind of popular. I'm not very familiar with Scheme web solutions though, so I probably left something out.

There is a lot of activity with Smalltalk-based web apps. Seaside is a continuation-based framework that gets a lot of attention. There's also AIDA/Web, and an unfinished mod.Smalltalk. I am not very familiar with Smalltalk web solutions either, so I probably missed a few.

Python is a very popular option, and Zope seems to be a very popular framework. I don't know anything about web programming in Python aside from that.

Take pretty much any of the recent lightweight (in the conference meaning of the term) languages, and you're bound to find good options, almost all of them better in terms of security and speed than PHP; I can't think of a single one that has a more annoying syntax or more convoluted and limited semantics than PHP, though. Another thing that you should consider is the website we're posting on is pretty interactive, and kind of popular, and it's written in Perl.

The ones I'm most familiar with are extensions of Common Lisp. There are 3 CL web servers, each with dynamic HTML generation capability (AllegroServe, Araneida, CL-HTTP). Then there's Lisp Server Pages, Active Lisp Pages, etc., and another whole load of CGI solutions. I use (and highly recommend) AllegroServe. There is a whole big list over at Cliki (which runs on Araneida).

There are many CGI bindings for various Scheme implementations, and the PLT web server is kind of popular. I'm not very familiar with Scheme web solutions though, so I probably left something out.

There is a lot of activity with Smalltalk-based web apps. Seaside is a continuation-based framework that gets a lot of attention. There's also AIDA/Web, and an unfinished mod.Smalltalk. I am not very familiar with Smalltalk web solutions either, so I probably missed a few.

Python is a very popular option, and Zope seems to be a very popular framework. I don't know anything about web programming in Python aside from that.

Take pretty much any of the recent lightweight (in the conference meaning of the term) languages, and you're bound to find good options, almost all of them better in terms of security and speed than PHP; I can't think of a single one that has a more annoying syntax or more convoluted and limited semantics than PHP, though. Another thing that you should consider is the website we're posting on is pretty interactive, and kind of popular, and it's written in Perl.

Not only that, but the CIA dumped lost of Cocaine into, you guess it, south central L.A. Of course, they themselves denied everything.

What about Richard Feynman ...

See the references to Feynman's work in Deutch's 1985 paper Quantum theory, the Church-Turing principle and the universal quantum computer :

Feynman (1982) went one step closer to a true quantum computer with his 'universal quantum simulator' [.... although] it is not a computing machine in the sense of this article.

jfern wrote:

... or Peter Shor?

...And no, I didn't get laid by a georgeous, well-muscled hippie chick the whole time I was in Earth First!. *sigh*

At least U.S. citizens have a right to due process. Oh, wait ...

It was never the object of patent laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of manufactures. Such an indiscriminate creation of exclusive privileges tends rather to obstruct than to stimulate invention. It creates a class of speculative schemers who make it their business to watch the advancing wave of improvement, and gather its foam in the form of patented monopolies, which enable them to lay a heavy tax on the industry of the country, without contributing anything to the real advancement of the arts. It embarrasses the honest pursuit of business with fears and apprehensions of unknown liability lawsuits and vexatious accounting for profits made in good faith. -- U.S. Supreme Court, Atlantic Works vs. Brady, 1882

Historically, the IETF has been neutral about using patents in the Standards process, and its position is summed up best in the charter of the IPR Working Group (http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ipr-charter.htm l):

The IETF and the Internet have greatly benefited from the free exchange of ideas and technology. For many years the IETF normal behavior was to standardize only unencumbered technology.

While the 'Tao' of the IETF is still strongly oriented toward unencumbered technology, we can and do make use of technology that has various encumbrances. One of the goals of RFC2026 'The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3' was to make it easier for the IETF to make use of encumbered technology when it made sense to do so.

Last year, there was an attempt to make the IETF change their policy, but it failed miserably (http://news.com.com/2100-1013-996351.html?tag=fd_ top).

So you can have more secure communications, but only if you pay Cisco.

Bastards.

gif doesn't have fricking transparency

I'm not sure about the "fricking" type of transparency. But GIF89s have had transparency for a while.

gif doesn't have fricking transparency

I'm not sure about the "fricking" type of transparency. But GIF89s have had transparency for a while.

Above in PDF

Sample of an AppleScript in English and Japanese

WikiPedia

Current Apple info

Some discussion on it circa 1994

Note, this should not be confused with OSA (Open Scripting Architecture) dialects, like JavascriptOSA, which are different.

Aside from this, the most linguistically extendable language would probably be Perl (especially Perl 6). Having been written by a linguist, I imagine the most awareness of the linguistic aspects of coding in a different lanugage would be.

I mean really, "coding in another language" doesn't mean replacing "for" loops with "pour" loops, it means taking advantage of concepts (like word genders and verb conjugation) that are specific to that language. Programming "in a French way" could lead to constructs, algorithms, and phrasing very different from "standard C".

• Monte Davidoff - co-author (along with Gates and Allen) of Microsoft/Altair BASIC
  
  
• Richard Stallman - Pioneer of open software movement/GNU
  
  
• Niklaus Wirth - PARC researcher responsible for Algol, Pascal, Modula-2, Laser Printers, and more
  
  
• Marvin Minsky - Built the first neural net AI in 1951
  
  
• Seymour Papert - Developer of LOGO and another AI pioneer
  
  
• Tommy Flowers - Built one of the earliest electronic computers, with the practical application of codebreaking during WWII
  
  
• Donald Knuth - Regarded by many as the "Father of Computer Science".
  
  
• Edsger Wybe Dijkstra - The guy leading the way to abolish the GOTO statement is surely a hall-of-famer!
  
  
• Konrad Zuse - Another early computer pioneer that due to politics and circumstances beyond his control was never able to be fully-recognized.
  
  
• Jeff Raskin - Creator of the Macintosh and pioneer in computer-human interfaces.
  

• Monte Davidoff - co-author (along with Gates and Allen) of Microsoft/Altair BASIC
  
  
• Richard Stallman - Pioneer of open software movement/GNU
  
  
• Niklaus Wirth - PARC researcher responsible for Algol, Pascal, Modula-2, Laser Printers, and more
  
  
• Marvin Minsky - Built the first neural net AI in 1951
  
  
• Seymour Papert - Developer of LOGO and another AI pioneer
  
  
• Tommy Flowers - Built one of the earliest electronic computers, with the practical application of codebreaking during WWII
  
  
• Donald Knuth - Regarded by many as the "Father of Computer Science".
  
  
• Edsger Wybe Dijkstra - The guy leading the way to abolish the GOTO statement is surely a hall-of-famer!
  
  
• Konrad Zuse - Another early computer pioneer that due to politics and circumstances beyond his control was never able to be fully-recognized.
  
  
• Jeff Raskin - Creator of the Macintosh and pioneer in computer-human interfaces.
  

The hard part is figuring out the little details that often get inexplicably omitted from journal papers. What are the particulars of the dataset? How are the training images preprocessed? What is the arbitration strategy for overlapping detections? These are the types of details that seperate the output quality of systems that use identical algorithms. In many cases, the researchers are happy to answer questions via email, unless they have plans to spin the research off into a private company.