"It's similar to saying that the people who do have children will spend their days doing nothing but waiting until the kids come and visit." Have you never visited your grand parents?
I believe you wouldn't object to characterizing people as social creatures with a desire to find meaning in their lives. In most instances, blood ties more strongly than friendship, even if the tie is perceived as being negative. There are always exceptions to the rule but they are relatively few. As a result, adults without children have a higher chance of finding themselves alone. They also seek meaning in the world they've created for themselves and so they find meaning either in their pets, their hobbies, their churches, etc. and they take it very seriously - as seriously as a parent tending a child. This is not to say all christians with pets are childless. The difference is in the intensity - the intensity an adult would typically direct at its child is redirected in the childless adult to something else - whatever is available.
"I'm an only child. I'm trying to find a way to move out so that my parents don't know where I am; they have nothing left I want and the only reason I'm here is because I can't support myself."
Your first sentence sums it all up. You are a self centered, selfish person obssessed with the electric bill, breakfast (and money in general, it appears) as measures of affection/need/onus. Amazingly, you completely fail to recognize in your hinited haze of loathing that your parents do indeed let you stay. Your parents do want you around. If their attitude was equally summed up in "they have nothing left I want...", what would have been easier for them than to kick your egotistical bum out?
Here's a hint. Being an adult ain't all it's worked up to be. Enjoy your worry free dependent life while it lasts.
"The reason most childfree people are childfree is because they were smarter earlier and able to comprehend the needs and difficulties of child-rearing, weighed it against the benefits and decided voluntarily to have nothing to do with it."
Yup, smarter until they turn old, lonely and empty - seeking solace in finding the perfect toy for their cats, the best clothes for their dogs or some other trivial pursuit with utmost seriousness.
1. You jumped to the conclusion they need to be vision based. Beyond that, navigation is a large part of this problem, not just image analysis. 3. Image classification is not necessarily the same thing as vision for getting around. Image classification means, in the context of a desktop app like iPhoto, to automatically assign keywords to your photos based on image content.
If you feel you still need more examples: 1. OCR (yes, it's vision based but a completely different problem) 2. Voice recognition 3. Language 4. Language translation 5. Bipedal walking 6. Flying planes (being able to handle the emergencies that are the reason pilots are still in the cockpit)
There is no lack of hard AI problems that could benefit immensely from a decent AI solution. Examples abound: 1. Self driving vehicles as in the DARPA driving challenge 2. Computer vision for autonomous robots 3. Image classification systems (even for desktop apps) 4. Voice recognition systems
Numenta claims HTMs are very powerful and yet instead of attacking one of these problems either as a demo (so they can be swept up by Google in the bat of an eye) or for profit, Numenta is giving away a dev. platform with some source (with some of their secret sauce) and a stick figure recognition demo. There is also a distinct lack of HTM based projects out there on the web. There are 2 possible explanations I can think of for this: 1. Numenta (or anyone else) hasn't figured out how to do anything useful with what it created, implying it's not as powerful as claimed. 2. Numenta is trying to profit from selling shovels to the gold miners.
At present, given the abundance of gold on the floor, I'm inclined to believe #1 is the case.
Interestingly, it's possible that getting rid of DRM makes it possible for EMI (and the rest of the music industry) to break Apple's lock on the online music industry. It's a method for the music industry to force competition between online music vendors, thus increasing EMI's profits.
Don't give your employer a chance. Before the audit, put the monitor in the trunk of your car. When the audit is done, return the monitor to your desk. It's a lost monitor that nobody is looking for anyway.
Actually, if I'm reading the paper correctly, the results aren't that spectacular. The hit rate appears to hover in the 30-35% range. It's apparently an improvement over other techniques but still nothing to form a company around. Hence the press release instead of another startup.
Woa there cowboy! The law (federal or state) stipulates this as a minimum. The law doesn't say you can't pay your workers on their breaks , give them more breaks or be lenient with OT. Google is applying the absolute minimum necessary according to the law - pretty much what your average mall shop stooge gets.
Mr. Jacobsen's failure to document anything (lack of Kazaa, lack of music files, registry cleanlines) that contradicts the assertion that the defendant shared files with the excuse of "There wasn't anything to make a record of" is damning of this "forensic" process and its practitioner. Of course, there is something "to make a record of" - no evidence of file sharing was found on the machine in question. It's akin to investigating a stabbing and concluding the murder suspect must have done it even though he doesn't have hands. When the fingerprints were collected to try and match the prints on the knife still sitting in the victims back "there wasn't anything to make a record of".
The author claims that an iPod cannot sync up with multiple iTunes' because of DRM. This doesn't follow from his explanation of the keys being downloaded from iTunes. Since it is up to iTunes to manage tracks and their respective keys, it's trivial for iTunes to always upload all keys without erasing existing ones. Furthermore, if I have no DRM files in my library, why am I still limited like this. This has nothing to do with the mechanics of the DRM. It's an arbitrary design decision on Apple's part. Furthermore, the iPod doesn't orchestrate the sync, iTunes does.
The explanation about Apple being somehow unable to deal with both DRMd and non-DRMd files is ridiculous. The argument in the article is that Apple can't deal with non-DRMd files because it is too complex given the current infrastructure. At the same time there is a lengthy discussion about how Apple doesn't want DRM in the first place. To me this implies Apple needs the infrastructure to provide non DRMd files. So which is it? It is arguable that mixing in non-DRM files would play in Apple's favor in the public relations/good will front. What would the European prosecutors say if Apple started distributing non-DRM files for indy labels that were ok with it? That would more firmly remove the blame from Apple and put it squarely on the music labels'.
A competent sysadmin wouldn't assume that MAC white-listing provides any sort of security. It's just as secure as NFS's uid "security" - it isn't. NFS is relatively very efficient, especially compared to SMB - a single linux client can easily saturate a GigE link with a single process. Windows on the other hand, has a hard time surpassing roughly 30MB/s per client (roughly a 1/4 of the link). This is very possibly an implementation limitation on Windows and not an inherent protocol problem with SMB. However, since Windows is SMB is Windows, it's a moot point. NFS is way more reliable than SMB because it is stateless. If either the client, server or link goes down, the protocol can continue exactly were it left off once all the components are back up. SMB on the other hand will lose its state and send an error to the application which typically shows the user an error dialog. NFS v4 changes this a bit by adding some state - I'm not sure yet how this affects reliability however. Because of this same lack of state, it is much easier to failover NFS than it is to failover SMB.
"NFS was designed for use in an environment where both client and server boxes were secure, multi-user systems. One logical connection per share would serve for multiple users. Of course, if you allow insecure clients into the equation then all your security is blown out of the water."
And in a world where network jacks are in every wall, it is trivially easy to bring in an "insecure client" and even easier to bring in a LiveCD with you favorite flavor of Linux, NFS is secure how? NFS's default "security" and "authentication" is trivial to circumvent in a practical sense in most corporate environments. SMB has many drawbacks. However, it's out-of-the-box authentication + ACL mechanism is vastly superior to what NFS (v2 & v3) has to offer. That is why NFSv4 ACLs look alot like Windows ACLs and why RPCSEC_GSS (aka Secure NFS) went from being an option to a MUST in RFC 3010.
Mr Lethem's first novel, "Gun, with Occasional Music" will have been published for 14 years in 2008. Will Mr. Lethem release the novel into the public domain in the spirit of the original Copyright term set by Congress? In other words, will he practice what he preaches?
A small back of the envelope calculation seems to indicate that $25M is not enough to produce a billion tons of CO2, let alone remove it. The science of producing CO2 is pretty well understood - take a barrel of oil and burn it. At current rates of $60/barrel, for $25M, you get 416,666.7 barrels, which translates into 52,734 tons of oil. Oil contributes the Carbon to CO2 and Oxygen comes form the atmosphere. Assuming the oil's weight is all Carbon, for 52,734 tons of oil, the max CO2 is somewhere around 3.6 * 52,734, or 193,358 tons. That's smaller than the target billion by 4 orders of magnitude. On the other hand, the science of trapping CO2 is not nearly well understood. Another way to think about this is that if the CO2 emissions resulting from powering a CO2 trapping effort (e.g. the oil you burn to power the trucks for moving trees around) were the magnitude of the above calculation, the effort would be considered very efficient - and you've still burnt through $25M worth of oil. The prize appears to be woefully small.
You have evidently never used iTunes. All these restrictions, and more, apply to _all_ files in you collection - it's a form of implicit DRM on all your files. Explicit DRM files have even more restrictions associated with them.
Add one more point that iTunes allows you to script pretty much all its functionality except for burning a disc. These all point to Apple actively dissuading you, the customer, from doing what you wish with _your_ files. The point that I think you, and many others, are missing is that this is an implicit form of DRM. Just because it doesn't say DRM on the packaging and doesn't involve encryption and explicit access controls doesn't mean it is not DRM. In effect, all your files in an iPod+iTunes environment are subject to a form of implicit DRM. It's been so effective that you don't even notice it.
Apple went out of its way bolster DRM and lock-in to iPod+iTunes for its own reasons, not just the music industry's. In this piece Jobs only addresses the explicit DRM controls that restrict which machine can play a DRM file. However, Jobs completely fails to address the true iPod lock-in features that are in Apple's best interests: 1. Why can't your iPod talk to multiple iTunes installations? 2. Why can't you access your iPod music files easily, like you would a disk? It's either a disk or an mp3 player for a particular file. Not both. 3. Why has Apple made it difficult to move files between iPods and iTunes installations in general? 4. Why can iTunes only stream files but not copy them? Why has Apple restricted all this functionality for non-DRM files? This piece is an attempt by Jobs to deflect blame from Apple onto the music industry. Judging from the Slashdot comments, it seems to be successful.
Another approach with the same underlying concept is to shine your laser at a distant object with a reflector, the moon for example. Light that comes back from the reflector is repeated. The amount of information you can then store depends on you switching speed and distance of the object while access time is dictated by the distance of the object. For the moon, worst case access time would be 2.4 seconds. It's not very dense or fast but it is a neat idea.
Mod iCal post up. This is the most convenient date display I've ever seen on any OS (Windows, X, CDE, etc.), It's large, legible and very easy to access. This problem is licked on OS X.
I've done some searching for this kind of information and have never been able to find a comparison or any kind of comparable quantitive measurements. Of the little bits of information I did find (and probably can't point to at the moment) I remember getting the impression that human emissions were miniscule compared to volcanic emissions.
Slashdot Mirror
"It's similar to saying that the people who do have children will spend their days doing nothing but waiting until the kids come and visit."
Have you never visited your grand parents?
I believe you wouldn't object to characterizing people as social creatures with a desire to find meaning in their lives. In most instances, blood ties more strongly than friendship, even if the tie is perceived as being negative. There are always exceptions to the rule but they are relatively few. As a result, adults without children have a higher chance of finding themselves alone. They also seek meaning in the world they've created for themselves and so they find meaning either in their pets, their hobbies, their churches, etc. and they take it very seriously - as seriously as a parent tending a child.
This is not to say all christians with pets are childless. The difference is in the intensity - the intensity an adult would typically direct at its child is redirected in the childless adult to something else - whatever is available.
"I'm an only child. I'm trying to find a way to move out so that my parents don't know where I am; they have nothing left I want and the only reason I'm here is because I can't support myself."
Your first sentence sums it all up. You are a self centered, selfish person obssessed with the electric bill, breakfast (and money in general, it appears) as measures of affection/need/onus. Amazingly, you completely fail to recognize in your hinited haze of loathing that your parents do indeed let you stay. Your parents do want you around. If their attitude was equally summed up in "they have nothing left I want...", what would have been easier for them than to kick your egotistical bum out?
Here's a hint. Being an adult ain't all it's worked up to be. Enjoy your worry free dependent life while it lasts.
"The reason most childfree people are childfree is because they were smarter earlier and able to comprehend the needs and difficulties of child-rearing, weighed it against the benefits and decided voluntarily to have nothing to do with it."
Yup, smarter until they turn old, lonely and empty - seeking solace in finding the perfect toy for their cats, the best clothes for their dogs or some other trivial pursuit with utmost seriousness.
You'll reach that age one day too.
1. You jumped to the conclusion they need to be vision based. Beyond that, navigation is a large part of this problem, not just image analysis.
3. Image classification is not necessarily the same thing as vision for getting around. Image classification means, in the context of a desktop app like iPhoto, to automatically assign keywords to your photos based on image content.
If you feel you still need more examples:
1. OCR (yes, it's vision based but a completely different problem)
2. Voice recognition
3. Language
4. Language translation
5. Bipedal walking
6. Flying planes (being able to handle the emergencies that are the reason pilots are still in the cockpit)
There is no lack of hard AI problems that could benefit immensely from a decent AI solution. Examples abound:
1. Self driving vehicles as in the DARPA driving challenge
2. Computer vision for autonomous robots
3. Image classification systems (even for desktop apps)
4. Voice recognition systems
Numenta claims HTMs are very powerful and yet instead of attacking one of these problems either as a demo (so they can be swept up by Google in the bat of an eye) or for profit, Numenta is giving away a dev. platform with some source (with some of their secret sauce) and a stick figure recognition demo. There is also a distinct lack of HTM based projects out there on the web.
There are 2 possible explanations I can think of for this:
1. Numenta (or anyone else) hasn't figured out how to do anything useful with what it created, implying it's not as powerful as claimed.
2. Numenta is trying to profit from selling shovels to the gold miners.
At present, given the abundance of gold on the floor, I'm inclined to believe #1 is the case.
Interestingly, it's possible that getting rid of DRM makes it possible for EMI (and the rest of the music industry) to break Apple's lock on the online music industry.
It's a method for the music industry to force competition between online music vendors, thus increasing EMI's profits.
Don't give your employer a chance.
Before the audit, put the monitor in the trunk of your car. When the audit is done, return the monitor to your desk. It's a lost monitor that nobody is looking for anyway.
Actually, if I'm reading the paper correctly, the results aren't that spectacular. The hit rate appears to hover in the 30-35% range. It's apparently an improvement over other techniques but still nothing to form a company around. Hence the press release instead of another startup.
Woa there cowboy! The law (federal or state) stipulates this as a minimum. The law doesn't say you can't pay your workers on their breaks , give them more breaks or be lenient with OT. Google is applying the absolute minimum necessary according to the law - pretty much what your average mall shop stooge gets.
Mr. Jacobsen's failure to document anything (lack of Kazaa, lack of music files, registry cleanlines) that contradicts the assertion that the defendant shared files with the excuse of "There wasn't anything to make a record of" is damning of this "forensic" process and its practitioner. Of course, there is something "to make a record of" - no evidence of file sharing was found on the machine in question.
It's akin to investigating a stabbing and concluding the murder suspect must have done it even though he doesn't have hands. When the fingerprints were collected to try and match the prints on the knife still sitting in the victims back "there wasn't anything to make a record of".
They guy is an RIAA hack posing as a professor.
The author claims that an iPod cannot sync up with multiple iTunes' because of DRM. This doesn't follow from his explanation of the keys being downloaded from iTunes. Since it is up to iTunes to manage tracks and their respective keys, it's trivial for iTunes to always upload all keys without erasing existing ones. Furthermore, if I have no DRM files in my library, why am I still limited like this. This has nothing to do with the mechanics of the DRM. It's an arbitrary design decision on Apple's part.
Furthermore, the iPod doesn't orchestrate the sync, iTunes does.
The explanation about Apple being somehow unable to deal with both DRMd and non-DRMd files is ridiculous. The argument in the article is that Apple can't deal with non-DRMd files because it is too complex given the current infrastructure. At the same time there is a lengthy discussion about how Apple doesn't want DRM in the first place. To me this implies Apple needs the infrastructure to provide non DRMd files. So which is it?
It is arguable that mixing in non-DRM files would play in Apple's favor in the public relations/good will front. What would the European prosecutors say if Apple started distributing non-DRM files for indy labels that were ok with it? That would more firmly remove the blame from Apple and put it squarely on the music labels'.
A competent sysadmin wouldn't assume that MAC white-listing provides any sort of security. It's just as secure as NFS's uid "security" - it isn't.
NFS is relatively very efficient, especially compared to SMB - a single linux client can easily saturate a GigE link with a single process. Windows on the other hand, has a hard time surpassing roughly 30MB/s per client (roughly a 1/4 of the link). This is very possibly an implementation limitation on Windows and not an inherent protocol problem with SMB. However, since Windows is SMB is Windows, it's a moot point.
NFS is way more reliable than SMB because it is stateless. If either the client, server or link goes down, the protocol can continue exactly were it left off once all the components are back up. SMB on the other hand will lose its state and send an error to the application which typically shows the user an error dialog. NFS v4 changes this a bit by adding some state - I'm not sure yet how this affects reliability however.
Because of this same lack of state, it is much easier to failover NFS than it is to failover SMB.
"NFS was designed for use in an environment where both client and server boxes were secure, multi-user systems. One logical connection per share would serve for multiple users. Of course, if you allow insecure clients into the equation then all your security is blown out of the water."
And in a world where network jacks are in every wall, it is trivially easy to bring in an "insecure client" and even easier to bring in a LiveCD with you favorite flavor of Linux, NFS is secure how? NFS's default "security" and "authentication" is trivial to circumvent in a practical sense in most corporate environments.
SMB has many drawbacks. However, it's out-of-the-box authentication + ACL mechanism is vastly superior to what NFS (v2 & v3) has to offer. That is why NFSv4 ACLs look alot like Windows ACLs and why RPCSEC_GSS (aka Secure NFS) went from being an option to a MUST in RFC 3010.
Mr Lethem's first novel, "Gun, with Occasional Music" will have been published for 14 years in 2008. Will Mr. Lethem release the novel into the public domain in the spirit of the original Copyright term set by Congress? In other words, will he practice what he preaches?
A small back of the envelope calculation seems to indicate that $25M is not enough to produce a billion tons of CO2, let alone remove it.
The science of producing CO2 is pretty well understood - take a barrel of oil and burn it.
At current rates of $60/barrel, for $25M, you get 416,666.7 barrels, which translates into 52,734 tons of oil. Oil contributes the Carbon to CO2 and Oxygen comes form the atmosphere. Assuming the oil's weight is all Carbon, for 52,734 tons of oil, the max CO2 is somewhere around 3.6 * 52,734, or 193,358 tons. That's smaller than the target billion by 4 orders of magnitude.
On the other hand, the science of trapping CO2 is not nearly well understood.
Another way to think about this is that if the CO2 emissions resulting from powering a CO2 trapping effort (e.g. the oil you burn to power the trucks for moving trees around) were the magnitude of the above calculation, the effort would be considered very efficient - and you've still burnt through $25M worth of oil.
The prize appears to be woefully small.
You have evidently never used iTunes. All these restrictions, and more, apply to _all_ files in you collection - it's a form of implicit DRM on all your files. Explicit DRM files have even more restrictions associated with them.
Add one more point that iTunes allows you to script pretty much all its functionality except for burning a disc. These all point to Apple actively dissuading you, the customer, from doing what you wish with _your_ files.
The point that I think you, and many others, are missing is that this is an implicit form of DRM. Just because it doesn't say DRM on the packaging and doesn't involve encryption and explicit access controls doesn't mean it is not DRM.
In effect, all your files in an iPod+iTunes environment are subject to a form of implicit DRM. It's been so effective that you don't even notice it.
Apple went out of its way bolster DRM and lock-in to iPod+iTunes for its own reasons, not just the music industry's. In this piece Jobs only addresses the explicit DRM controls that restrict which machine can play a DRM file. However, Jobs completely fails to address the true iPod lock-in features that are in Apple's best interests:
1. Why can't your iPod talk to multiple iTunes installations?
2. Why can't you access your iPod music files easily, like you would a disk? It's either a disk or an mp3 player for a particular file. Not both.
3. Why has Apple made it difficult to move files between iPods and iTunes installations in general?
4. Why can iTunes only stream files but not copy them?
Why has Apple restricted all this functionality for non-DRM files?
This piece is an attempt by Jobs to deflect blame from Apple onto the music industry. Judging from the Slashdot comments, it seems to be successful.
Another approach with the same underlying concept is to shine your laser at a distant object with a reflector, the moon for example. Light that comes back from the reflector is repeated. The amount of information you can then store depends on you switching speed and distance of the object while access time is dictated by the distance of the object. For the moon, worst case access time would be 2.4 seconds.
It's not very dense or fast but it is a neat idea.
Mod iCal post up. This is the most convenient date display I've ever seen on any OS (Windows, X, CDE, etc.), It's large, legible and very easy to access. This problem is licked on OS X.
A similar question was asked in June here: http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/01/23 182544 54668
My answer was this: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=187274&cid=15
Nothing has changed in the last 4 months...
Better link here directly comparing emissions and no wikipedia queasiness: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volg as.html
I've done some searching for this kind of information and have never been able to find a comparison or any kind of comparable quantitive measurements. Of the little bits of information I did find (and probably can't point to at the moment) I remember getting the impression that human emissions were miniscule compared to volcanic emissions.
"Every year we put out (as a species, on average) something like 20 times as much CO2 as active surface volcanoes..."
Do you have the numbers/studies to back that claim up?
A local elementary school I know of has had anti-tag rules for a while already in the SF Bay Area. I imagine it is not the only one.