Obviously you have never used Ada83. Ada has rendezvous, but not threads. The semantics of rendezvous differ significantly from the semantics of threads.
It's actually even worse than just getting things out of proportion since using germicidal wipes doesn't kill all the bacteria.
The bacteria that do survive are resistant to the germicide and have an ample food supply (all their competitors were killed off). If any of these newly evolved resistant bacteria are harmful to humans, we now have a problem.
Hospitals are increasingly fighting infections by bacteria that are resistant to all known drugs. The major cause seems to be antibacterial supplements in chicken and cattle feed.
So next time you wipe down that counter with Clorox-guaranteed-to-kill-99.9%-of-all-germs, think about how happy the remaining 0.1% of those buggers are going to be, and remember, they do know how to multiply.
If I remember correctly, the OS [sic] for the processor on the Smart Dust project was about 150 bytes. It really only implements co-routines, but co-routines form the basis for multitasking in Windows 3.1 and Mac OS less-than-X.
Movies are not necessarily expensive to produce. Hollywood movies
are hugely expensive to produce, but counterexamples of inexpensive
movies abound. I don't see why Hollywood's business model needs to be
supported by legislation.
Whenever a person or an industry asks for legislation, one should
always ask two questions:
How is this going to benefit the people
of XXXX in the long term?
What are the consequences of
applying the principle embodied in this legislation to other industries?
I understand very clearly how what Valenti wants is going to benefit
the movie industry, but I do not understand how this is going to
benefit the people of the United States of America in the long term.
Which is better for the people of the United States in the long term? A movie industry dominated by a few very large
oligopolistic Hollywood producers that make movies that cater to the
common denominator, or a movie industry with hundreds of small,
vibrant, innovative but independent movie producers that cater to a
wide variety of styles and tastes, in other words, that offer
consumers a choice?
Do we want to support with legislation all current business models? or should we let the MPAA adapt their business model to the times or go out of business?
The figure of $3.5 billion in losses to the movie industry due to
videocasstte "piracy" is pure fiction. These kinds of figures are
derived by estimating the number of "pirated" objects and then
multiplying by the average retail cost of the object, e.g. the movie,
DVD, CD-ROM, software package, etc.
Firstly, the real cost is only the sales foregone. Many, probably the
huge majority, of these "pirates" would simply not buy, and so their
"piracy" doesn't represent any real loss.
Secondly, the loss is hugely inflated by using the full retail value
instead of something more realistic like the either the wholesale
value or better yet, the lost profits.
What Valenti wants to legislate is a permanent revenue stream, a tax, if
you will, on visual entertainment, with the MPAA as the sole
beneficiary.
I, for one, object to Valenti's proposed tax on visual entertainment.
Accidentally, in my reply, I let the original poster know that I knew what he was talking about, but without actually giving the answer. It was a zero-knowledge proof.
Zero-knowledge proofs are quite interesting because they're so counter-intuitive. See here for an explanation of what a zero-knowledge proof is. Google around for more.
In general I agree with your comment, but there is one significant aspect where choosing a language is important:
People seem to be limited in what they can conceive by their choice of language.
Paul Graham discusses this in an article called Beating the Averages that was posted on/. a while back (here)
Look at it this way: All the common languages are Turing complete, so they are all fundamentally equivalent. Do you then conclude that your choice of language is irrelevant? I think most people would disagree. Some things are a lot easier in some languages than in others.
So, although you're certainly partially justified in your rant, there is a germ of rationality in the original query.
Are you suggesting that MS should guarantee the security of other companies apps or protocols?
No, of course not.
It is possible to have a reasonably secure system with hardware and software from different vendors. But this requires a degree of openess and a degree of adherence to standards that MS has yet to demonstrate.
And since past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, I expect MS will spread security FUD in order to lock users into their platform.
I haven't seen IBM, for instance, or Red Hat attempt this kind of security FUD.
The problem with this explanation is that it is, at best, incomplete. If the only things members of a flock do is avoid collisions, match velocities, and stay close to perceived group members, why is it that flocks actually go somewhere rather than merely fly around randomly?
I can't see that any terrorist with a quarter of a brain will use a crypto scheme with a backdoor. So, the only people who can be spied upon are those who are law-abiding, and the only people who can't are law-breakers.
John Daugman, in a recent article in American Scientist (v89 #4 July-August 2001, pp. 326-333) on using irises for identification ("...field tests have involved millions of iris comparisons, yet there has never been a single false match recorded.") mentions that "the best face recognition algorithms have error rates in the range of 43 to 50 percent, even when discounting the effects of changing pose, viewing angle and accourtrements." He refers to the work of Sandy Pentland (MIT) and Jonathon Phillips (NIST).
A 43 to 50 percent error rate seems to me to be an astonishly poor showing.
I don't think you know what you're talking about. My 1GB IBM Microdrive worked flawlessly in a Canon G1 camera during a recent 1 month (~500 picture) trip to Thailand.
Slashdot Mirror
An earlier ./ posting was on a related topic: Reclaiming the Commons by David Bollier.
In addition to the article, there are eight responses plus Bollier's reply.
Makes for interesting reading...
-- Vladimir
Why is this challenge interesting?
Obviously you have never used Ada83. Ada has rendezvous, but not threads. The semantics of rendezvous differ significantly from the semantics of threads.
Susan B. Anthony died in 1906. The FBI did not exist until 1908 at the earliest.
The Paperless Archive lists Susan B. Anthonny Historical Documents, not FBI files.
Making mistakes like this does not help your credibility or strenghthen your argument.
Dogs think, "You feed me. You must be god."
Cats think, "You feed me. I must be god."
The bacteria that do survive are resistant to the germicide and have an ample food supply (all their competitors were killed off). If any of these newly evolved resistant bacteria are harmful to humans, we now have a problem.
Hospitals are increasingly fighting infections by bacteria that are resistant to all known drugs. The major cause seems to be antibacterial supplements in chicken and cattle feed.
So next time you wipe down that counter with Clorox-guaranteed-to-kill-99.9%-of-all-germs, think about how happy the remaining 0.1% of those buggers are going to be, and remember, they do know how to multiply.
1. How would you, as an employer, want prospective employees to behave? 2. What would happen if everyone behaved that way?
If I remember correctly, the OS [sic] for the processor on the Smart Dust project was about 150 bytes. It really only implements co-routines, but co-routines form the basis for multitasking in Windows 3.1 and Mac OS less-than-X.
I mailed my comment to the DOJ on Wed, 23 Jan 2002 05:12:11 -0800. They have not acknowledged it, according to their alphabetical list of commenters.
Whenever a person or an industry asks for legislation, one should always ask two questions:
I understand very clearly how what Valenti wants is going to benefit the movie industry, but I do not understand how this is going to benefit the people of the United States of America in the long term.
Which is better for the people of the United States in the long term? A movie industry dominated by a few very large oligopolistic Hollywood producers that make movies that cater to the common denominator, or a movie industry with hundreds of small, vibrant, innovative but independent movie producers that cater to a wide variety of styles and tastes, in other words, that offer consumers a choice?
Do we want to support with legislation all current business models? or should we let the MPAA adapt their business model to the times or go out of business?
Firstly, the real cost is only the sales foregone. Many, probably the huge majority, of these "pirates" would simply not buy, and so their "piracy" doesn't represent any real loss.
Secondly, the loss is hugely inflated by using the full retail value instead of something more realistic like the either the wholesale value or better yet, the lost profits.
What Valenti wants to legislate is a permanent revenue stream, a tax, if you will, on visual entertainment, with the MPAA as the sole beneficiary.
I, for one, object to Valenti's proposed tax on visual entertainment.
Codecon has turned off access to the files. Is there a mirror somewhere?
Another zero-knowledge proof!
Zero-knowledge proofs are quite interesting because they're so counter-intuitive. See here for an explanation of what a zero-knowledge proof is. Google around for more.
Yes, of course I remember. They're famous, as are "Many hands make light work."
Paul Graham discusses this in an article called Beating the Averages that was posted on /. a while back (here)
Look at it this way: All the common languages are Turing complete, so they are all fundamentally equivalent. Do you then conclude that your choice of language is irrelevant? I think most people would disagree. Some things are a lot easier in some languages than in others.
So, although you're certainly partially justified in your rant, there is a germ of rationality in the original query.
No, of course not.
It is possible to have a reasonably secure system with hardware and software from different vendors. But this requires a degree of openess and a degree of adherence to standards that MS has yet to demonstrate. And since past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, I expect MS will spread security FUD in order to lock users into their platform. I haven't seen IBM, for instance, or Red Hat attempt this kind of security FUD.
What a snot. Perhaps the poster just didn't know about the Wayback machine.
Step 1: Embrace some technology.
Step 2: Extend it in proprietary ways, locking the users in to Microsoft.
How long before we hear,
How long before the security protocols used are known only to Microsoft (for security reasons, naturally)?Three months—at the most!
The author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb is Richard Rhodes, not David Rhodes. The book is within view on my bookshelf.
The problem with this explanation is that it is, at best, incomplete. If the only things members of a flock do is avoid collisions, match velocities, and stay close to perceived group members, why is it that flocks actually go somewhere rather than merely fly around randomly?
Wasn't it Google that got an insane amount of funding with no business plan?
I can't see that any terrorist with a quarter of a brain will use a crypto scheme with a backdoor. So, the only people who can be spied upon are those who are law-abiding, and the only people who can't are law-breakers.
A 43 to 50 percent error rate seems to me to be an astonishly poor showing.
I don't think you know what you're talking about. My 1GB IBM Microdrive worked flawlessly in a Canon G1 camera during a recent 1 month (~500 picture) trip to Thailand.