Solaris runs on mission critical systems, the kind that will (absent horrible, business-destroying failure) be running until their tape drives rust solid. It isn't going anywhere, and even if Sun's interest in it evaporates, there will probably still be thousands of systems out there chugging along merrily for years to come.
Ok, let's think about this for a minute. If you replace the lowest test score with the average of the others, or drop the lowest as the other poster suggested, unless your average score is lower than fifty, the proposed system will actually produce a *lower* grade for the student than yours, and if that isn't the case, the student is pretty much doomed to fail in any event. As an example, if a student gets 0, 75, 75, 100 as their marks, under the 50% system, they get an even 75%, while under yours they get an 83%- a full letter grade higher. So, like I said before, I see (and disagree with) the wholesale no-second-chances logic, but I don't see these middle of the road plans paving the way for higher academic standards, or that the proposed system is really so different from what a million other schools have in effect that it deserves the special kind of vitriol being directed at it.
Four things:
1) To add blank lines in your comments, use HTML. The br element inserts exactly one blank line.
2) Using proper grammar in a discussion on education lends credence to your arguments. It suggests that at the least your school was not so lax as those you criticise, and at most that you somehow made up for their failures on your time.
3) Insulting people in an argument is generally poor form. It gives the impression of a desperate attempt to move the discussion away from the merits of your case, which is sometimes seen by a perceptive audience as an indicator of the fact that you have no sound arguments in the first place.
4) All of your succinct summaries are correct- as is mine. These are all alternate mechanisms for ensuring that a student who earns one bad mark but eventually masters the subject is allowed to move on to other classes. Your way has the advantage of being tailored to each instructor and class; this method has the advantage of consistency between classes and teachers. Assuming that they are properly applied, neither will inherently reduce the difficulty of coursework or lower the expected standard of students' work. Assuming they are not properly applied, however, I hope you understand that each of the methods you list provides for a mechanism by which a lower standard of work could be passed off as equivalent to that of a better student. I could understand- although I disagree with- the position that no such allowances should be made, but your in-between idea, and the vitriol with which you expound it, just makes no sense at all to me.
So, you're predicating this on the idea that a student who massively fails the beginning of term tests (usually unit tests) should fail the class, even if their end of term tests (usually comprehensive) indicate subject mastery?
I'm of a similar mind. To submitter: If you want, shoot me an email containing your NDA and I'll do a feasibility assessment for free. To yxyband: if you get contacted and feel like you'd want someone else in on the project, drop me a line.
Hope to hear from either of you- CTO@OpenMigration.net
I went to a Catholic school for 7 years and learned about biology, paleontology, and evolution. I'm well aware that many (probably most) Christians don't believe in Creationism, and that there are creationists that believe that there were dinosaurs. The original post said that Creationists didn't believe that God put the dinosaur bones there to test our faith; I have met people who claimed to be Creationists that did.
I hear that all the time. And that the scientists who dig up dinosaur bones are agents of the Adversary, and that they know better but refuse to acknowledge God out of pride. This is out there. A quick anecdote:
When I was 7 or 8, there was a kid up the road who was about my same age from a Pentecostal family. Being a kid and fascinated by anything that seemed bitey, I loved dinosaurs, and at some point during a neighborhood get-together I told him so. He promptly told me that I was going to hell for believing Satan over God. I, growing up in a family that could be charitably described as occasionally Catholic, asked him (in slightly different terms) what the fuck he was talking about, and how he could refuse to believe that dinosaurs walked the earth when there were so many fossils and such a well-constructed fossil record. The conversation ended when he, within hearing range of both his parents and mine, shouted "Shut up, Satan! I'm going home to get my Bible!", and left.
Now, don't get me wrong, kids can make up some damned creative things- but I would wager my bottom dollar that there isn't a kid alive that would come up with the idea that dinosaur bones were planted by the Devil all on his own. My guess is that we don't have to look too far from the ol' homestead to figure out where he found that particular line.
This runs headlong into the most fundamental rule of information security: that anybody can write a cipher that they're too stupid to break. Depending on a special format and hardware to protect your data only works until somebody cares enough to give your format a good poking, or scrapes together the cash to clone your hardware. In the case of voting machines, that'll happen almost immediately.
I'm sure you're making a point about the glass and diffraction, I'm just not sure what it is. An unkeyed one-way function is just a hash- a useful primitive to be certain, but it isn't going to provide you with the kind of security that this is claiming, especially since your example has no primary entropy, and is thus vulnerable to known plaintext attacks, which are particularly dangerous against this type of system.
I'd also just like to point out that adding complexity to a cryptosystem is nearly always the worst way to secure it, and if you ever find yourself tempted to do so, I urge you to remember that anybody can make a cryptosystem that they're too stupid to break.
What they are claiming is not that the key can't be extracted from transmissions- a relatively humdrum requirement- but rather that unlimited physical access to the device cannot reveal the key, which I find dubious in the extreme. Add to that that there have been numerous devices that have claimed this in the past, only to fail miserably, and it seems pretty reasonable to assume that this will fail as well.
The very idea of a one time pad is that they don't cycle over time. If they do, it becomes an XOR cipher with a known period- trivially easy to break.
Also, a one time pad cannot securely gain pad length over the untrusted channel, since doing so would violate the 1:1 rule. Each character of new pad would have to be encrypted against- and thus consume- one character from the old pad.
Sins of omission are not sins of commission. No hand but his bears the same stains, and to argue otherwise is to echo the refrain of all good tyrants- the logic that if you are not with us, you are against us. Do we need more Bushes to teach us that people come in shades of gray, that simple definitions of race, gender, and nationality too often miss the point?
Huh. I would've thought the last couple of world wars would have beaten all the prejudice and nationalism out of y'all. Guess it's time for another one.
Well said. I'm doing a little series of talks on crypto later this year and one of the hardest things to do in it is to convince people that good ciphers do not make secure cryptosystems. It becomes doubly hard when somebody slaps Google's name all over a new codebase and proclaims that you, too, can have security with nary a troublesome thought.
Slashdot Mirror
Solaris runs on mission critical systems, the kind that will (absent horrible, business-destroying failure) be running until their tape drives rust solid. It isn't going anywhere, and even if Sun's interest in it evaporates, there will probably still be thousands of systems out there chugging along merrily for years to come.
Either one of us is missing the point or we're both talking at cross purposes.
Its just a bug. I fixed it by removing a letter from the theory. Voila! Now it's a simple spelling problem, rather than a glaring logical fallacy.
Ok, let's think about this for a minute. If you replace the lowest test score with the average of the others, or drop the lowest as the other poster suggested, unless your average score is lower than fifty, the proposed system will actually produce a *lower* grade for the student than yours, and if that isn't the case, the student is pretty much doomed to fail in any event. As an example, if a student gets 0, 75, 75, 100 as their marks, under the 50% system, they get an even 75%, while under yours they get an 83%- a full letter grade higher. So, like I said before, I see (and disagree with) the wholesale no-second-chances logic, but I don't see these middle of the road plans paving the way for higher academic standards, or that the proposed system is really so different from what a million other schools have in effect that it deserves the special kind of vitriol being directed at it.
Four things:
1) To add blank lines in your comments, use HTML. The br element inserts exactly one blank line.
2) Using proper grammar in a discussion on education lends credence to your arguments. It suggests that at the least your school was not so lax as those you criticise, and at most that you somehow made up for their failures on your time.
3) Insulting people in an argument is generally poor form. It gives the impression of a desperate attempt to move the discussion away from the merits of your case, which is sometimes seen by a perceptive audience as an indicator of the fact that you have no sound arguments in the first place.
4) All of your succinct summaries are correct- as is mine. These are all alternate mechanisms for ensuring that a student who earns one bad mark but eventually masters the subject is allowed to move on to other classes. Your way has the advantage of being tailored to each instructor and class; this method has the advantage of consistency between classes and teachers. Assuming that they are properly applied, neither will inherently reduce the difficulty of coursework or lower the expected standard of students' work. Assuming they are not properly applied, however, I hope you understand that each of the methods you list provides for a mechanism by which a lower standard of work could be passed off as equivalent to that of a better student. I could understand- although I disagree with- the position that no such allowances should be made, but your in-between idea, and the vitriol with which you expound it, just makes no sense at all to me.
So, you're predicating this on the idea that a student who massively fails the beginning of term tests (usually unit tests) should fail the class, even if their end of term tests (usually comprehensive) indicate subject mastery?
I look forward to hearing from you then. I believe you already have my email- let me know if you need anything else.
I'm of a similar mind. To submitter: If you want, shoot me an email containing your NDA and I'll do a feasibility assessment for free. To yxyband: if you get contacted and feel like you'd want someone else in on the project, drop me a line. Hope to hear from either of you- CTO@OpenMigration.net
top of the /n.
I went to a Catholic school for 7 years and learned about biology, paleontology, and evolution. I'm well aware that many (probably most) Christians don't believe in Creationism, and that there are creationists that believe that there were dinosaurs. The original post said that Creationists didn't believe that God put the dinosaur bones there to test our faith; I have met people who claimed to be Creationists that did.
I hear that all the time. And that the scientists who dig up dinosaur bones are agents of the Adversary, and that they know better but refuse to acknowledge God out of pride. This is out there. A quick anecdote:
When I was 7 or 8, there was a kid up the road who was about my same age from a Pentecostal family. Being a kid and fascinated by anything that seemed bitey, I loved dinosaurs, and at some point during a neighborhood get-together I told him so. He promptly told me that I was going to hell for believing Satan over God. I, growing up in a family that could be charitably described as occasionally Catholic, asked him (in slightly different terms) what the fuck he was talking about, and how he could refuse to believe that dinosaurs walked the earth when there were so many fossils and such a well-constructed fossil record. The conversation ended when he, within hearing range of both his parents and mine, shouted "Shut up, Satan! I'm going home to get my Bible!", and left.
Now, don't get me wrong, kids can make up some damned creative things- but I would wager my bottom dollar that there isn't a kid alive that would come up with the idea that dinosaur bones were planted by the Devil all on his own. My guess is that we don't have to look too far from the ol' homestead to figure out where he found that particular line.
This runs headlong into the most fundamental rule of information security: that anybody can write a cipher that they're too stupid to break. Depending on a special format and hardware to protect your data only works until somebody cares enough to give your format a good poking, or scrapes together the cash to clone your hardware. In the case of voting machines, that'll happen almost immediately.
I'm sure you're making a point about the glass and diffraction, I'm just not sure what it is. An unkeyed one-way function is just a hash- a useful primitive to be certain, but it isn't going to provide you with the kind of security that this is claiming, especially since your example has no primary entropy, and is thus vulnerable to known plaintext attacks, which are particularly dangerous against this type of system.
I'd also just like to point out that adding complexity to a cryptosystem is nearly always the worst way to secure it, and if you ever find yourself tempted to do so, I urge you to remember that anybody can make a cryptosystem that they're too stupid to break.
Is it ironic to mod this redundant?
What they are claiming is not that the key can't be extracted from transmissions- a relatively humdrum requirement- but rather that unlimited physical access to the device cannot reveal the key, which I find dubious in the extreme. Add to that that there have been numerous devices that have claimed this in the past, only to fail miserably, and it seems pretty reasonable to assume that this will fail as well.
The very idea of a one time pad is that they don't cycle over time. If they do, it becomes an XOR cipher with a known period- trivially easy to break.
Also, a one time pad cannot securely gain pad length over the untrusted channel, since doing so would violate the 1:1 rule. Each character of new pad would have to be encrypted against- and thus consume- one character from the old pad.
should I try the veal?
I love your sig.
Sooo... where are they available? A quick google search yields nothing on either the currently available models or this one.
Sins of omission are not sins of commission. No hand but his bears the same stains, and to argue otherwise is to echo the refrain of all good tyrants- the logic that if you are not with us, you are against us. Do we need more Bushes to teach us that people come in shades of gray, that simple definitions of race, gender, and nationality too often miss the point?
To dislike what a government does is one thing. To dislike an entire country's worth of people because of it is another.
Huh. I would've thought the last couple of world wars would have beaten all the prejudice and nationalism out of y'all. Guess it's time for another one.
They don't, it's unofficial.
Well said. I'm doing a little series of talks on crypto later this year and one of the hardest things to do in it is to convince people that good ciphers do not make secure cryptosystems. It becomes doubly hard when somebody slaps Google's name all over a new codebase and proclaims that you, too, can have security with nary a troublesome thought.
The fact that you've got an idea doesn't prove it any more than the fact that I've got a picture of Santa Claus makes him real.