Well, compared to polygraph, anyway. IIRC polygraph has a 99+% chance of detecting a lie, but about a 40% chance of false positive (saying someone is lying when they aren't).
So, compared to that, a 1 in 10 chance of false positive doesn't seem so bad...
Whether it's a real japanese word or not, it's been floating around in gaming circles for a long time, from D&D to Daggerfall to the game in question, and undoubtably many stops in between. In every case it has meant, simply, "big sword", sort of a Claymore Katana, rather than some specific sword of legend as you seem to suggest it should.
The meanings of characters when slapped together, is largely dependent on context, though, so I'd say you've got a bit of hubris yourself declaring the word invalid, at least by the somewhat fractured arguements you present. I won't argue pronunciation since I don't speak Japanese, but my wife's boss is Japanese and she's frequently approached by people who want Kanji Tattoos. She says it's tricky business weighing all the possible alternate meanings against the intended one and picking the combination that is best overall.
What is the computational power for? If it's for mechanical systems control than even a Z80 is probably 10x the computer you need. "Fire attitude control jet 3 for 2 seconds" requires a miniscule amount of computational power.
In 2000 I was working for a company that made high-end digital video equipment, and I was shocked to discover that the system I was working on only had Pentium-2's (233MHz, IIRC), but then I realized that all the CPU was doing was presenting the UI and all the real work was being done with specialised hardware (like the realtime MPEG encoders that cost $13k each). If the UI wasn't writen to run on top of Windows NT they probably could have gotten away with a Pentium, or maybe even a 486.
Now I design automated manufacturing systems and even a 486 would be ludicrously powerful for our applications. A simple ladder-logic PLC works fine, and even a mechanical engineer can program and debug a system in under a week.
My point is, for systems control CPU power is largely irrelevant. In a well designed system the work is offloaded to specialised hardware that can do the job much more efficiently, and the CPU just sits there saying "hey you, do this". The only reason I can think of for Hubble to have a 486 is for address space to buffer images.
I think this opinion is based on ego. The hackers think they can hack anything...
I also think it is silly to beleive that an unhackable system cannot be designed.
The problem is, it's even more silly to believe that an unhackable system can be designed. History has proven that time and again. Either argument bears a heavy burden of hubris, but the hackers at least have the bulk of historical evidence on their side.
Practicality quickly becomes a straw-man arguement. New methods are invented daily; computational methods, mathematical analysis methods, etc., any of which could render a seemingly intractable problem trivial. Problems that would take an incredibly long time to solve using traditional computers take only a few days using a bucket of protiens.
To assume it will take 6000 years, or even 60 years, to break a 4096-bit key displays far greater hubris, based on historical evidence, than the hacker who claims there is no unhackable system.
IIRC, silver nitrate works pretty well. It's clear, but stains skin blue. The stained can't be washed off, you have to wait for the stained skin to come off naturally. Of course, you don't have the thrill of that moment of realisation, but you don't need a blacklight either.
Right, but that's an isolated case. What I'm suggesting is a central location where people could post bounties or add to existing ones, and programmers who want to get paid for hacking open-source code could come to find projects. The ability to add to an existing one is the key I think, that way the bounties stack up until the project is worth enough that someone takes it up. My hope would be that companies (such as winmodem makers) would be interested in taking up some of those projects, and frankly I'm surprised they haven't already. I suspect that it wouldn't take the US Robotics driver folks too long to bang out Linux drivers for their winmodems, and if I were them I'd be pretty happy is someone were willing to pay me $20k for it. Essentially, that's someone paying me to increase the value of my product. I realise that this specific $20k is for universal drivers, not just specific chipsets, and maybe that's why it hasn't been met.
I'm starting to ramble now.
The basic idea is to take something like that specific case and expand it into a general framework where open source hackers can get paid for providing functionality that users want, and users get exactly the functionality they want at the price they are willing to pay rather than paying inflated BSA prices for the closest thing to what they want.
Those are valid concerns, but the way I see it the requirements would be set by the bidder. If the bidder wants a quick fix, than a quick and dirty deliverable would get the cash. If the bidder wants high quality, maintainable code then obviously quick and dirty wouldn't cut it, but might be worth part of the reward if someone else took that quick and dirty code and cleaned it up. Or maybe someone bids for quick and dirty and then someone else bids for a cleanup or maintenance. Probably the bid form would have to include priorities (speed, documentation, maintainability, etc) which would be used to judge the merit of a submission.
There are those who want a quick fix and those who want high quality code, and the idea is that they will pay for what they want. I certainly hope that we wouldn't end up with a tangled mess of unmaintainable code, but it is a possibility. Really, it would be up to the bidders, and hopefully they would appreciate high quality code.
I certainly hope so. Their payment model seems to be the reverse of what I laid out, but if it achieves the same results I'm a happy guy. I'd much rather help build up something that already exists than compete against them.
Anyway, I haven't had time to do more than glance at their homepage. It seems that they could use some help with grammar and spelling, but other than that it looks good.
The picture on HDTV is incredible. I used to be a test tech at a company that makes high end professional digital video equipment (routers and switchers mostly) and we started testing our HD equipment while I was there. Most of the test bays used standard 17" monitors hooked up to a box that stepped the signal down to half res and the picture was still amazingly clear. The first time I saw it at full res (1920x1024, IIRC) I swear I felt my jaw hit the floor.
I can't speak for what's being broadcast, but the difference is definately noticeable with high quality digital source (for both HD and standard).
If you're in the US any public college (2 or 4 year) or university will allow you to challenge classes. There are generally requirements and limitations, though. IIRC, at my school you could only challenge one class per division per semester, so you could challenge, say, one CS class and one math class in the same semester, but not two CS classes. You also had to be taking at least 3 units of regular classes, although that shouldn't be a problem as I'm guessing that you haven't taken the Calculus series and those are generally 4 units each.
In short, I wouldn't expect to complete it in a year, even if you can devote the time to be a full-time student, however, you should be able to do it in 2 to 3 years taking only 1 or 2 classes a semester and challenging the rest. The main problem is that there's a lot more to a CS degree than CS. The vast majority of accredited schools are liberal arts schools, which means you have to fulfill other requirements in English, Foreign Language, Physical Science, Life Science, History, Social Science, Humanities, etc.
A guy I used to work with managed to get his school to accept C as his foreign language, though...
...provides a micropayment system that is so inexpensive and so easy to use that there's no particular benefit to be gained by pirating.
There is no piracy in Open Source. I know you know that, but it's an important point.
The idea I had was to set up a site where people who want features or functionality added to some piece of open source software could post their requests along with a "bid" which would be held in escrow (in interest-bearing accounts) for whoever fulfilled the requirements. Requestors could pool their bids to make it more worthwhile for whoever decided to take up the project. Ideally, the site would be able to cover costs using the interest earned on the bids.
Obviously, this idea could be expanded to include links to many OSS projects and (ideally) their dependencies in an easily searched/browsed format. Sort of a one-stop OSS deal.
Anyway, that's the skeleton of my idea. Unfortunately I don't have the time or resources to do it myself. If anyone's interested, the email address above is valid. According to SBC I can get 6M DSL at my residence, so I can provide a physical location (assuming they'd allow hosting, although I honestly can't think what else I would do with all that bandwidth).
most cases look VERY stupid next to a nice G4 tower
I'd say that's because the G4 tower looks stupid enough to spill over to anything near it. Functionally, the G4 tower kicks ass, but I don't see what everyone's so excited about as far as looks. The best I can say about it is that it looks different, but different isn't necessarily better. If I were going for looks I'd pick Alienware's mid-tower over the G4 tower any day.
Correct. However, let me take an analogy from carpentry. Circular saws don't build houses. Pneumatic nailers do not build houses. They make it much easier and faster to do so, though. Neither will make up for a stupid carpenter; in fact, they can make the final product worse.
I love this analogy, because I worked in construction for several years. I knew a few carpenters that kept small chainsaws in their trucks. Certainly, a chainsaw is useful and powerful tool if you happen to be cutting wood, but is it the right tool? If you're bucking firewood, it's certainly the tool of choice. If you're framing, it may be acceptable in certain circumstances. For finish work, you should be shot for merely looking at it.
Personally, I think that in many educational situations computers can do more harm than good, precisely because they're such powerful tools.
You really have to think about what's best for the child. To learn to spell, or to learn how to use a spellchecker? To learn to add, or to learn what buttons to push on a calculator? I am constantly seeing (through my 11 year old brother) schools making the wrong choice, falling victim to the public excitement for technology.
We need to take a step back and really think about the place of technology in our education system, think about how it's being deployed and why, and weigh the costs against the benefits. When I was a math tutor in college I saw far too many students, most claiming A's in math through high school, who couldn't do basic operations like multiplying by 10s without pulling out a calculator to believe that this isn't a problem; and my english tutor collegues had constant complaints about students who were totally dependant on spelling and grammar checkers.
This really is a huge problem. Think about a carpenter who doesn't know how to use a handsaw, that's the kind of students our schools love-affair with technology is turning out. All most of these kids know is how to use the tools of today, and they lack the basic understanding they'll need to create the tools of tomorrow.
Computers certainly have a place in education, but that place is not everywhere.
Just a hunch, but I think this is probably a related issue. If the Corps don't care about their servers being 0wn3d by 1337 h4x0rz, why should they care about them being owned by email virii and other worms? And if the victims of a crime don't care, why should law enforcement?
One thing about Corps, they're generally consistent. Of course, that's generally, not always.
...but now I have a daughter that's 1.5 years, which is just old enough to understand opening presents and getting stuff, and young enough that everything is new and wonderful and amazing.
This is the first time I've cared about christmas in probably 10 years. Of course, I'm also deleriously tired from being up till the wee hours assembling stuff christmas eve and being awakened at 7am, and having to stay up tonight assembling all the stuff she got from her grandparents. Oh well, every pleasure has it's price...
That statement isn't meant from the point of view of OSS zealotry (although I certainly have some feelings in that direction), but because the NSA has never rated an MS product as being secure in a networked environment. Part of the NSA's job is to issue information security recomendations, which other agencies are then supposed to use when putting together their systems.
IIRC, NT at some point was rated secure when not networked.
And of course these forms must be filed in triplicate, White, Marigold, and Pink. Failure to comply with proper security clearance precaution may result in termination.
Don't forget to fill out the New FizzWizz Taste Survey!:)
Of course you have to fill out the Making Lists Form. Of course, first you have to fill out the Form Request Form in order to request the Making Lists Form. Don't even bother to ask how you get a Form Request Form without first filling out a Form Request Form requesting a Form Request Form...
Have a nice day, Citizen. The Computer is your friend!:)
How many of those company names are trademarked? Most company names aren't you know, and I would bet that none of those are.
Of course, Windows is a product name, not a company name.
Besides, trademarks don't last forever. They're only enforcable to the point that they don't become common terms for the general concept that the origional product represents. Kleenex and Xerox are the classic examples of this.
Windows not being a common term in the industry at the time is certainly debatable. As I recall, there were several companies which opposed the granting of the trademark on those grounds.
In fact, they can quite legally make it technically challenging for you to do so.
Which, by way of the DMCA, conveniently removes your right to make fair use copies.
If I'm going to shell out $20-30 for a DVD, I'm going to God-damned well fight for my right to make backup copies so that my 19 month old daughter can't destroy my investment.
If the content industry wants to offer me every movie I want to see ON DEMAND and for a price I think is reasonable, then maybe we can talk. But I warn them, I pay $1 at the local video store for titles like "Zentropa" and "Temptation of a Monk" and "Leolo". In other words, compelling content that our beloved content industry is generally unwilling or unable to provide, at a price I think is reasonable. And did I mention On Demand? Not that bullshit pay-per-view-you'll-watch-it-when-we-tell-you crap. I want it to start when I want, stop when I want, pause, rewind, and fast-forward on my command. In other words, I want the rights I have right now, both theoretical and actual.
I do have one additional requirement, which is that my high quality open source code remain free from the bloat of mandated "content protection".
Those are my requirements, and probably the requirements of most of the people here, and, I would guess, the requirements of the general population if they actually knew what was going on. If the content industry can get what they want and still meet my requirements, great. Otherwise, they can enable me or somebody I'll support to take the DMCA and SSSCA all the way to the Supreme Court, again and again, until the rights of the people are restored.
Retention and comprehension is more important than speed. So what if you read 25% slower than everyone else if you only have to read it once and they have to read it 2 or 3 times? That's been my experience, anyway.
But, if you really want to read faster, try tracking under the words with your finger. It sounds stupid, but the increased focus allows you to read much faster with the same retention and comprehension.
Slashdot Mirror
So, compared to that, a 1 in 10 chance of false positive doesn't seem so bad...
The meanings of characters when slapped together, is largely dependent on context, though, so I'd say you've got a bit of hubris yourself declaring the word invalid, at least by the somewhat fractured arguements you present. I won't argue pronunciation since I don't speak Japanese, but my wife's boss is Japanese and she's frequently approached by people who want Kanji Tattoos. She says it's tricky business weighing all the possible alternate meanings against the intended one and picking the combination that is best overall.
In 2000 I was working for a company that made high-end digital video equipment, and I was shocked to discover that the system I was working on only had Pentium-2's (233MHz, IIRC), but then I realized that all the CPU was doing was presenting the UI and all the real work was being done with specialised hardware (like the realtime MPEG encoders that cost $13k each). If the UI wasn't writen to run on top of Windows NT they probably could have gotten away with a Pentium, or maybe even a 486.
Now I design automated manufacturing systems and even a 486 would be ludicrously powerful for our applications. A simple ladder-logic PLC works fine, and even a mechanical engineer can program and debug a system in under a week.
My point is, for systems control CPU power is largely irrelevant. In a well designed system the work is offloaded to specialised hardware that can do the job much more efficiently, and the CPU just sits there saying "hey you, do this". The only reason I can think of for Hubble to have a 486 is for address space to buffer images.
I also think it is silly to beleive that an unhackable system cannot be designed.
The problem is, it's even more silly to believe that an unhackable system can be designed. History has proven that time and again. Either argument bears a heavy burden of hubris, but the hackers at least have the bulk of historical evidence on their side.
Practicality quickly becomes a straw-man arguement. New methods are invented daily; computational methods, mathematical analysis methods, etc., any of which could render a seemingly intractable problem trivial. Problems that would take an incredibly long time to solve using traditional computers take only a few days using a bucket of protiens.
To assume it will take 6000 years, or even 60 years, to break a 4096-bit key displays far greater hubris, based on historical evidence, than the hacker who claims there is no unhackable system.
I'm starting to ramble now.
The basic idea is to take something like that specific case and expand it into a general framework where open source hackers can get paid for providing functionality that users want, and users get exactly the functionality they want at the price they are willing to pay rather than paying inflated BSA prices for the closest thing to what they want.
There are those who want a quick fix and those who want high quality code, and the idea is that they will pay for what they want. I certainly hope that we wouldn't end up with a tangled mess of unmaintainable code, but it is a possibility. Really, it would be up to the bidders, and hopefully they would appreciate high quality code.
Anyway, I haven't had time to do more than glance at their homepage. It seems that they could use some help with grammar and spelling, but other than that it looks good.
I can't speak for what's being broadcast, but the difference is definately noticeable with high quality digital source (for both HD and standard).
In short, I wouldn't expect to complete it in a year, even if you can devote the time to be a full-time student, however, you should be able to do it in 2 to 3 years taking only 1 or 2 classes a semester and challenging the rest. The main problem is that there's a lot more to a CS degree than CS. The vast majority of accredited schools are liberal arts schools, which means you have to fulfill other requirements in English, Foreign Language, Physical Science, Life Science, History, Social Science, Humanities, etc.
A guy I used to work with managed to get his school to accept C as his foreign language, though...
There is no piracy in Open Source. I know you know that, but it's an important point.
The idea I had was to set up a site where people who want features or functionality added to some piece of open source software could post their requests along with a "bid" which would be held in escrow (in interest-bearing accounts) for whoever fulfilled the requirements. Requestors could pool their bids to make it more worthwhile for whoever decided to take up the project. Ideally, the site would be able to cover costs using the interest earned on the bids.
Obviously, this idea could be expanded to include links to many OSS projects and (ideally) their dependencies in an easily searched/browsed format. Sort of a one-stop OSS deal.
Anyway, that's the skeleton of my idea. Unfortunately I don't have the time or resources to do it myself. If anyone's interested, the email address above is valid. According to SBC I can get 6M DSL at my residence, so I can provide a physical location (assuming they'd allow hosting, although I honestly can't think what else I would do with all that bandwidth).
I'd say that's because the G4 tower looks stupid enough to spill over to anything near it. Functionally, the G4 tower kicks ass, but I don't see what everyone's so excited about as far as looks. The best I can say about it is that it looks different, but different isn't necessarily better. If I were going for looks I'd pick Alienware's mid-tower over the G4 tower any day.
I love this analogy, because I worked in construction for several years. I knew a few carpenters that kept small chainsaws in their trucks. Certainly, a chainsaw is useful and powerful tool if you happen to be cutting wood, but is it the right tool? If you're bucking firewood, it's certainly the tool of choice. If you're framing, it may be acceptable in certain circumstances. For finish work, you should be shot for merely looking at it.
Personally, I think that in many educational situations computers can do more harm than good, precisely because they're such powerful tools.
You really have to think about what's best for the child. To learn to spell, or to learn how to use a spellchecker? To learn to add, or to learn what buttons to push on a calculator? I am constantly seeing (through my 11 year old brother) schools making the wrong choice, falling victim to the public excitement for technology.
We need to take a step back and really think about the place of technology in our education system, think about how it's being deployed and why, and weigh the costs against the benefits. When I was a math tutor in college I saw far too many students, most claiming A's in math through high school, who couldn't do basic operations like multiplying by 10s without pulling out a calculator to believe that this isn't a problem; and my english tutor collegues had constant complaints about students who were totally dependant on spelling and grammar checkers.
This really is a huge problem. Think about a carpenter who doesn't know how to use a handsaw, that's the kind of students our schools love-affair with technology is turning out. All most of these kids know is how to use the tools of today, and they lack the basic understanding they'll need to create the tools of tomorrow.
Computers certainly have a place in education, but that place is not everywhere.
One thing about Corps, they're generally consistent. Of course, that's generally, not always.
This is the first time I've cared about christmas in probably 10 years. Of course, I'm also deleriously tired from being up till the wee hours assembling stuff christmas eve and being awakened at 7am, and having to stay up tonight assembling all the stuff she got from her grandparents. Oh well, every pleasure has it's price...
IIRC, NT at some point was rated secure when not networked.
Don't forget to fill out the New FizzWizz Taste Survey! :)
Have a nice day, Citizen. The Computer is your friend! :)
Of course, Windows is a product name, not a company name.
Besides, trademarks don't last forever. They're only enforcable to the point that they don't become common terms for the general concept that the origional product represents. Kleenex and Xerox are the classic examples of this.
Windows not being a common term in the industry at the time is certainly debatable. As I recall, there were several companies which opposed the granting of the trademark on those grounds.
Which, by way of the DMCA, conveniently removes your right to make fair use copies.
If I'm going to shell out $20-30 for a DVD, I'm going to God-damned well fight for my right to make backup copies so that my 19 month old daughter can't destroy my investment.
If the content industry wants to offer me every movie I want to see ON DEMAND and for a price I think is reasonable, then maybe we can talk. But I warn them, I pay $1 at the local video store for titles like "Zentropa" and "Temptation of a Monk" and "Leolo". In other words, compelling content that our beloved content industry is generally unwilling or unable to provide, at a price I think is reasonable. And did I mention On Demand? Not that bullshit pay-per-view-you'll-watch-it-when-we-tell-you crap. I want it to start when I want, stop when I want, pause, rewind, and fast-forward on my command. In other words, I want the rights I have right now, both theoretical and actual.
I do have one additional requirement, which is that my high quality open source code remain free from the bloat of mandated "content protection".
Those are my requirements, and probably the requirements of most of the people here, and, I would guess, the requirements of the general population if they actually knew what was going on. If the content industry can get what they want and still meet my requirements, great. Otherwise, they can enable me or somebody I'll support to take the DMCA and SSSCA all the way to the Supreme Court, again and again, until the rights of the people are restored.
But, if you really want to read faster, try tracking under the words with your finger. It sounds stupid, but the increased focus allows you to read much faster with the same retention and comprehension.